Mr Novak was driving through the intersection of 18th and K street when he hit a pedestrian walking through the cross walk. The man was thrown up over Novak's hood and splayed onto the windshield of his black Corvette. Novak continued on, and drove a block away from the scene before a biker chased him down and forced the man to stop.

Novak told police he didn't feel the impact as he plowed into his victim, or see the man either "splayed across" his windshield (in the words of an eye witness) or driving before the incident, while he should have been alert. After a brief period in the back of the police car, Novak was given a $50 ticket for "failure to yield the right of way".

If you, dear reader, hit a pedestrian with your car and started to drive away from the scene of the accident, you'd be in jail right now, instead of reading this. Mr Novak graciously said he won't fight the ticket.

Anybody can be involved in an accident - and from either end. The disgrace here is that Mr Novak went on about his day. And that the law doesn't just apply, people like Robert Novak are simply not accountable to the law or to the American people. So much so that Novak actually blamed National Public Radio for the accident, for having been on when he hit that guy. (Liberals are always making conservatives commit crime, making you hit a pedestrian and run, or shoot a lawyer in the face, or pick up sex partner in the men's room.) So much for personal responsibility.

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

You left out the best part of the story. In 2001 Novak was witnessed yelling at a jaywalker.

"Learn to read the signs!" Novak snapped, according to Glass. Novak told Grove: "He was crossing on the red light. I really hate jay walkers. I despise them. Since I don't run the country, all I can do is yell at 'em. The other option is to run 'em over, but as a compassionate conservative, I would never do that."

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

After a brief period in the back of the police car, Novak was given a $50 ticket for "failure to yield the right of way".

If you, dear reader, hit a pedestrian with your car and started to drive away from the scene of the accident, you'd be in jail right now, instead of reading this.

Only if there was a witness, they catch me, the police officer doesn't buy my story, I don't have any friends in city hall, and the D.A. is better than my legal council. Some animals are more equal than others, but more along financial lines rather than party lines.

He had better fight that citation. Paying it is an acknowledgement of guilt, and will hurt his defense case in the civil suit which will unquestionably follow. Apparently his "victim" is now wearing some kind of back and neck cast. I once knew a guy who would goto restaurants with a friend, have his friend drop a drink on the floor which he would later slip on. Easy money, and ALWAYS settled out of court.

Originally Posted by cbwm

You left out the best part of the story. In 2001 Novak was witnessed yelling at a jaywalker.

No, that's an auxilary detail that doesn't make Novak look any better, and will likely turn up in court. But it's not the best part of the story - it's only tangentially related to the story at all. Nice try, tho, I can always count on you to appeal to the Straw Man Fallacy (your personal favorite) and put words in other people's mouths. Much easier than addressing what they actually said.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Only if there was a witness, they catch me

Novak's eye witness is a respected attorney, and he was caught, in fact he spent some time in the back of a police cruiser.

Originally Posted by cbwm

He had better fight that citation. Paying it is an acknowledgement of guilt, and will hurt his defense case in the civil suit which will unquestionably follow.

Yes, and the victim is also an attorney. Bob Novak chose the wrong pedestrian to run down, it would seem. Fortunately,

Originally Posted by cbwm

Apparently his "victim" is now wearing some kind of back and neck cast.

Why do you put the word victim in quotes?

Originally Posted by cbwm

I once knew a guy who would goto restaurants with a friend, have his friend drop a drink on the floor which he would later slip on.

I once knew a man who couldn't defend the opinions Sean Hannity fed him without dishonesty and logical fallacies. What in God's name does your restaurant fantasy have to do with Robert Novak running a man down in broad daylight in our nation's capitol, and

Originally Posted by cbwm

Easy money, and ALWAYS settled out of court.

Are you delusional? You're typing a lot of text that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I realize it's an uncomfortable subject for you, and I also realize that by casting it in as dishonest a light as possible, you hope to distract people and talk about things that didn't happen rather than the law, and accountability under law. But even for you, this is a stretch, as is "victim" and hoping to imply (but don't have the courage to say outright) that this man somehow deserved to be run down in the street.

Now, please, return to the subject at hand.

Man, you are touchy today. I was just making conversation. I find the whole thing at least as funny and interesting as Paris Hilton's time in jail or Britneys psychotic lapses. I'm not even sure the thing belongs on the Politics and religion forum, outside of the tangential fact that Mr. Novak is a conservative.

Since Mr. Novak had a witness, and was caught, I'm guessing he has friends in city hall, thus the ticket. I'm guessing his legal council is at least as good as the D.A., thus the likely dismissal of the ticket and the ensuing civil case. Why make it so tough to agree with you?

Novak's eye witness is a respected attorney

the victim is also an attorney

Q: How many attorneys are there in New York? A: Too many. Taking everything else away from this story, there is all the reason Mr. Novak needed to run the guy down.

Why do you put the word victim in quotes?

Because, until Mr. Novak is found guilty in a court of law, in this country we presume innocence. Was Mr. Novak's victim a personal injury attorney by chance? How about the witness? Did the two know each other? Do either one have previous history of "Slip and Fall" type settlements?

What really needs to happen is for Mr. Novak's attorneys to dig real deep into the "victim" and the "witness"'es past and find some dirt. I'm sure its there. We all have some. Leak some of it to the press, and save the rest for the court room. Question, smear, discredit. Rinse and repeat. There is no question there is going to be a settlement, the goal is to keep it as low as possible.

If Mr. Novaks attorneys can take apart the "witness" and "victim", and then outspend them on legal fees, there will come a point where the settlement amount competes with the cost for Mr. Novak to continue his fight, and right around that dollar amount, a check will be signed and made out to the "victim". He (the "victim") then may, or may not split said settlement with his "witness".

Edit: The only thing worse than an attorney is an attorney on a bicycle. (No offense to any attorneys out there, there is at least one in my family)

Originally Posted by cbwm

Because, until Mr. Novak is found guilty in a court of law, in this country we presume innocence.

HAHA. Oh man, you come up with some real big ones. After all the times you presume guilt for Democrats or tried and convicted them.

Originally Posted by joder

HAHA. Oh man, you come up with some real big ones. After all the times you presume guilt for Democrats or tried and convicted them.

Haha, sorry Joder. I wasn't presenting personal opinion, just speaking as if I were in Mr. Novak's shoes, or at least on his side. In MY opinion, knowing only what I know about the situation today, I'd say there is a good 75% chance the guy is guilty as hell. By the way, I love the "senility" defense. "I didn't even realize I hit someone". People make a lot of excuses for older folks, which is why there are so many dirty old men. I'm looking forward to it.

There are a large number of people, by the way, that when something that tramatic happens just shut down and go into auto pilot mode. Can't deal with the "horror". Probably thought he put the guy under his wheel. At least he didnt speed up.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Was Mr. Novak's victim a personal injury attorney by chance? How about the witness? Did the two know each other? Do either one have previous history of "Slip and Fall" type settlements?

My god, you're paranoid! And talk about delusional thinking! You really need to learn the difference between your overactive imagination and reality. This isn't the first time you've mistaken your ability to imagine something for that thing having already happened.

Originally Posted by cbwm

What really needs to happen is for Mr. Novak's attorneys to dig real deep into the "victim" and the "witness"'es past and find some dirt.

You've managed to sicken me with your abject lack of morality.

If you have the courage of your convictions, please, go throw yourself in front of a car, then, after you're released from the hospital, tell us how much you enjoyed the experience.

If not, stop lieing to yourself and everyone else who'll listen to you.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

My god, you're paranoid! And talk about delusional thinking!

The irony of you calling me a delusional paranoid just struck me as funny. My how the shoe is now on the other foot.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

You've managed to sicken me with your abject lack of morality.

I call it being realistic. This is how the world works, not how we would like it to be. I think the same can be said of our differences in viewpoint on foreign policy.

It may be convenient to believe there aren't scam artists out there who work with paid "witnesses" to commit insurance fraud, but reality is sometimes pretty sickening. Look at the quantity of people who sucked billions of dollars out of our federal government with bogus Katrina claims. Its not isolated and rare occurances, its common place. Likewise, the idea that those with money don't use that money to bully, smear, defame, discredit and eventually bury those who would demand legitimate justice from them is simply unrealistic. Look at Microsoft.

Originally Posted by cbwm

It may be convenient to believe there aren't scam artists

So you don't have the courage of your convictions, then. You're a coward and a liar.

(And Novak chose to hit somebody with his car - it's absurdly stupid of you to blame anybody but Novak.)

Back to the ignore list - I don't have time for trolls.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

So you don't have the courage of your convictions, then.

/Hugs Learning Newbie.
Of course I do. My convictions are just different than yours.

Basically, Chum, representing the republicans, is telling us

1. Fleeing the scene of the crime is a wonderful thing, and Robert Novak deserves praise for his cowardice
2. You can run over anybody who's job title you don't like
3. Chum is a coward and a hypocrite

We now have Chum's official position on crime, which is "Go for it!"

Oddly, Chum thinks drunk driving, hitting people you don't like, and fleeing the scene, are all great things that need to happen more often, and yet in the depths of his hypocrisy, he claims to have a problem with Ted Kennedy. This troll is a hypocrite and a coward.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

This troll is a hypocrite and a coward.

Now if that doesn't get you an infraction, I have no idea what will.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Basically, Chum, representing the republicans, is telling us

If only I could represent the Republicans. In addition to fiscal responsibility, national security, lower taxes, and smaller government, they would also be the party of a womans right to choose! (Please ignore the fact that Bush has created bigger government and has not been the most fiscally responsible president. It doesn't mean the party doesn't actually stand for those things)

You forgot "to hell with the underprivileged".

Originally Posted by cbwm

the party of a womans right to choose!

You wouldn't be elected because a large part of the republican base is fundamentalists who would rather vote for no one or a democrat before a right-to-choose republican.

"The party of a woman's right to choose?" Wow, what a great way to defend Novak's God given right to run people he doesn't like down and then flee the scene of his crime.

You heard Novak is in the hospital with brain cancer, right? Seems like he won't be released quite so soon as his victim. Instant karma. I wonder just how much of a hand God took in that, huh, chum?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

You heard Novak is in the hospital with brain cancer, right? Seems like he won't be released quite so soon as his victim. Instant karma. I wonder just how much of a hand God took in that, huh, chum?

I saddens me poor Mr. Novak has been diagnosed with brain cancer. I'm sure it saddens his recent "victim" as well, as Novak's death could only make his civil suit more difficult to prosecute, and probate could tie up any winnings for quite some time. I guess sometimes life just isn't fair. I wont speculate as to whether it was God's work as, like you, I am not aware of all the facts. Now when the marines retook Fallujah, that was definitely Gods work. God may also have had a hand in the granting of those no-bid oil contracts you love so much. As they say, history is written by the victorious

Originally Posted by cbwm

Apparently his "victim"

So now you're suggesting that Novak is faking his own death (in slow motion) to avoid his legal responsibilities, then?

Hahaha. Now that would be going to extremes to get out of a lawsuit, but funny nevertheless. No, I'm just pointing out that his newfound medical condition is probably causing his "victim" some angst.