Oxendine v. Bowers

My binder has details on this and also tells me that while the Attorney General’s office says it has no documents on this, the AG actually has a ton of stuff derived from it that we’ll see in the general election.

What am I talking about is this article from the AJC over the weekend that Mike Bowers, when still serving as Attorney General, launched an investigation into John Oxendine and passed it over to federal authorities. The feds did nothing with it.

Ox may claim that means he is in the clear, but he had no knowledge of the investigation at the time and just because the feds did not pursue it does not mean they had nothing.

In fact, I have heard that there is information relating to Oxendine that is not exactly great, that the Georgia Attorney General maintains information related to Oxendine, and we will see all this stuff trot out in the general election regardless of the GOP’s nominee to be used as a “party of corruption” weapon against the GOP.

One way or the other, the Democrats intend to use Oxendine to hit the GOP. They’d of course love it if he were the nominee. But they don’t really care.

27 comments

  1. Provocateur says:

    Didn’t we have a Clinton appointee as US Attorney in the mid-1990s? One would think they would have been all over this had Bowers actually compiled a solid case against Ox.

    But…we all know what Bowers was doing at that time, don’t we? Boinking a paid state female worker who was not his wife, rather than following the laws on adultery at the time.

  2. Doug Grammer says:

    Erick,

    Skip the binder, ask a question, and tell us what your Magic 8-ball says. It’s just as vetted and reliable.

    The 20 standard answers on a Magic 8-Ball are:

    ● As I see it, yes
    ● It is certain
    ● It is decidedly so
    ● Most likely
    ● Outlook good
    ● Signs point to yes
    ● Without a doubt
    ● Yes
    ● Yes – definitely
    ● You may rely on it
    ● Reply hazy, try again
    ● Ask again later
    ● Better not tell you now
    ● Cannot predict now
    ● Concentrate and ask again
    ● Don’t count on it
    ● My reply is no
    ● My sources say no
    ● Outlook not so good
    ● Very doubtful

    • analogkid says:

      Is three business days not fast enough for you? Thurbert has nothing to do with it. It’s state law.

  3. ACCmoderate says:

    This is the same guy that claims that David Souter molests children and has relations with goats.

    I’ll take this with a grain of salt.

  4. Progressive Dem says:

    I smell double standard.

    “Saying someone is under a federal accusation, then being unable to back it up with more than a “gut feeling”, pretty much means you’re most likely someone’s shill.

    And even more likely means this is your last post here.”

    That’s a quote from Icarus from the “8 More Days” thread earlier today in response to an unsubstantiated allegation about a candidate for insurance commissioner.

    “My binder has details on this and also tells me that while the Attorney General’s office says it has no documents on this, the AG actually has a ton of stuff…” “…and just because the feds did not pursue it does not mean they had nothing.”

    The second quote is from Erick’s current post.

    A smear is a smear is a smear.

    Is there a standard here at Peach Pundit? Hard to see one, but easy to see two. Did Erick over step the a standard enforced on someone else? Somehow I doubt Erick is going to time out.

    Care to explain Icarus? Erick?… Bueler? What’s the difference in the two smears?

    • Icarus says:

      Erick cited his basis and source of his statement.

      The other commenter admitted he/she had no idea if there was an investigation, and appeared to be making up the charge based on a “bad feeling”.

      • Provocateur says:

        So, you’re saying there’s never been a statement made by any FPP on PP that alleges an investigation by the current US Attorney’s office into Ox? An investigation that, if it is going on, no one would know about it because they keep those things pretty tightly under wraps, but somehow PP bloggers know it and randomly put notices about an “indictment” coming down “any day?”

        Nah. Those statements have never been made. Nope. (shining my Jack-boots so I can fit in better here)

      • Progressive Dem says:

        His binder? You call that a “source”? Can he produce it for others to examine, verify or refute? Or does he does make it up as he needs to? Thank God, you fellas aren’t responsible for the rules of evidence in a court.

        I call it hypocrisy.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        binder? binder? binder?

        Sort of like….. bueller? bueller? bueller?

        Calling out a name (or an object) but there’s nothing there.

        • Ron Daniels says:

          I will forever envision all of your posts as now coming from Ed Rooney. You chose this fate, not me.

          And the binder does exist, as did Ferris, perhaps you can’t see it like Ben Stein could not see Ferris. The jury is out on whether or not everyone loves Erick because he’s a righteous dude.

  5. AlanR says:

    It sounds like there is a political enemies list, and the AG has been using its investigative powers for political purposes. Erick, you have done the impossible — made Oxendine sympathic.

    If you really have something that indicates the AG has maintained files on Oxendine for political purposes, you really ought to release the information now. If was wasn’t charged and is not part of an ongoing criminal investigation, the files should not exist after all these years.

    If they can do this to Oxendine, they will do it to you Erick.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Too bad neither of you have a vote, or even if you did, it’s not voting time yet. Even if I didn’t have a position in the GOP, do you think I’d stop being active?

        I don’t know what any of this has to do with Ox V Bowers. Thread jack much? Attack for no reason much?

        • analogkid says:

          While Doug and I agree on just about nothing, no one is a bigger advocate on PP for the Republican party, its platform, and its candidates than he. If your chosen candidate is nominated, I expect Doug to fight fiercely for his or her election. I could make the argument that he is too partisan, but that’s not what you all are alleging. In fact, for better or worse, his partisanship is what makes him qualified for his position.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            Thank you. I am not taking sides openly this election, because I do plan to back the nominee, whoever that may be. I’ve stood by my statement that I trust the will of the voters. Once the nominee has been chosen, I will go into my “why this person is better than the other parties nominees” rants. There are a very few people running for office in the GOP that I wouldn’t feel OK with doing that for. I don’t expect them to win or get in a run off. We will see how things turn out on Tuesday.

Comments are closed.