Originally posted by Karnak
Maverick,
What it is implying is that he sold his house for way above market value. In other words that the contractor was slipping a back door bribe to him and then sold the house at it's market value, $700,000 less than they bought it for.
Is there anything too it? I'd have to see more before I'd feel comfortable saying we know enough to jump on Rep. Cunningham.
Karnak and Sandy,
Yep I fully understand the
implications and innuendo regarding the story. What I was commenting about is this. Given thatin the article all there IS is innuendo and an implication, it's a non event. Nope I'm not a "fanboi" of Cunningham, I'm just someone whose tired of character assassination based on innuendo and implications. If those folks actually have something of SUBSTANCE then publish it, get an indictment and move on. If all they have is a
feeling or they
think something just doesn't
look right then all they have is an opinion. That is not fact. If they have something to investigate then get to it and get the results of the investigation out in public.
To imply someone has a problem is neither an allegation nor factual proof of a problem. Get facts then publish them.
As far as property values in California are concerned there is more to consider than just the asking vs selling price. Was there a fire in the area? Was there a mudslide that wiped out half the houses there? Price can drop for any number of reasons including a lack of interest in that particular area due to neighborhood problems.
Still no factual reporting of actual wrongdoing and certainly no connection of granting of contracts by Cunningham to the contractor. There isn't even any information that Cunningham has anything to do with granting contracts for this area or activity. Again nothing but an
innuendo for character assassination.
That's my point on the article that I read. It's fluff and no substance or to use another cliche, smoke and mirrors.
