King Holloway Lives
Long Live the King
Lee Holloway has, for the most part, prevailed in his campaign to beat the ethics board into submission.
JSOnline reports:
Milwaukee County Board Chairman Lee Holloway this afternoon resolved his long-running ethics case by admitting to six civil counts of failing to comply with the county ethics code.Well done.
Under the agreement with the county Ethics Board, Holloway will pay a $3,000 fine.
So, now that he's basically gotten off with accepting money for rent and sale transactions that never took place, and for failing to disclose ownership in the property, will he still claim the ethics board's findings are racially motivated?
And will the members of the County Board still retain this ethically challenged chairman?
And what of his tenants? Has he made the necessary repairs to his properties?
He has clearly dodged a bullet, but it will be up to the county board whether or not this saga is over.
15 Comments:
What's the matter Fraley, no respect for the law or the legal process? The vast majority of claims were dismissed - including the OIC counts. Damn right Holloeway won and you should be the first one to eat some crow.
No FRICKEN way Fraley should eat Crow. That lousy, good for nothing, worthless politician pulled one over on all of the people of this County.
He got away with theft. That SOB should be run out of town on a rail.
It sounds to me like Holloway's original complaints about being charged way more harshly than he should have been might have been right after all. Didn't see that coming.
How do you know he got away with theft. If you don't like the guy or don't think he does a good job, fine. But the Ethics case is over and one thing he did not do is theft.
Sorry.
Besides - who are you to say he "pulled one over" if the ethics people don't think so?
Did I say I didn't acknowledge or respect the law? As for the process, Holloway bastardized it from the begining.
I have no crow to eat. He was not found innocent of any charges. His actions throughout this ordeal have not been honorable.
He's admitted guilt on six ethics charges.
He can't undo the treatment of staff, his tenants or the taxpayers. I am sleeping just fine tonight and Holloway, well, he's still Lee Holloway. He still did what he did and treats people and his office in the same manner.
Then again, thanks to the gutless wonders on the County Board, he's still chairman, too.
But, since I'm not surprised, I can handle that, too.
He admitted being "sloppy" according to the paper with his forms. Big whoop.
The fact is that you don't like him for reasons unrelated to the ethics board thing and you just use it to smear him.
Treatment of staff or taxpayers? Criticize him on that instead of lying about this deal. Have some balls; you just don't like the guys politics. So argue the politics.
There are more than a dozen liberals on that County Board. The focus on Holloway is because of his personal and professional ethics, not his politics.
Whomever is elected chair of that board will share 80 percent of the same politics.
This moved beyond simple politics long ago.
The only thing I have seen in your rants has been reckless overblown allegations about this ethics case. Then Holloway wins the case and your tune stays the same.
I suppose that shouting the same opinion even when the facts change is a form of consistency. Its also completely dishonest.
The scary part is that your anonymous Holloway supporter actually believes this crap from Holloway.
He's a thief, a thug and should NOT be in office.
God knows, Fraley gets it wrong often enough, but I think he's right on here. Holloway has perverted the process to the point that any finding of guilt is magnified. This is not the man to lead any body.
Perverted the process? What's that mean; he engaged in the process and was shown to be largely right about things
Holloway has been proven right about things? Where.
He took a deal and plead to 6 civil counts of improprieties.
He played the race card, and it was a winning hand. It forced out members of the ethics board who wanted to see this thing through.
Why do Holloway haters find it so meaningful when he is accused by the prosecutor but not when the accusations are dismissed by the prosecutor? And, according to the paper, his big crime was being careless on some forms. Something that deserves some consequence but hardly a "crime."
Simple logic: If its a big deal when the charges were made; its a big deal when they are dismissed. Let's see some intellectual honesty about this.
You are in the wrong sphere if you are looking for intellectual honesty. Sounds like a loud bar room argument without the stools or the beer.
Post a Comment
<< Home