# Cuccinelli vs Science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307 "2010-05-04T18:05:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/121 "2010-10-05T03:13:14Z")
The sad thing is that if it turns out that Republicans take the House, (not very likely that they will take the Senate) they will IMO launch even more tax wasting (and delay doing something about the issue for a couple of years more) investigations to “uncover the truth”. This is based on the fact that virtually all Republican candidates are openly saying that scientists are misleading or guilty… of something. What is that something? They do not know! but by golly, they will investigate like they investigated Clinton. As powerful interests are financing many of the current denier Republican candidates, it would be unlikely that they would not use their power in an attempt to discredit the scientists once again. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/122 "2010-10-09T14:41:05Z")
And I do hate being right on that last note… [http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/08/michael-mann-cuccinelli-sensenbrenner-issa-anti-science/](http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/08/michael-mann-cuccinelli-sensenbrenner-issa-anti-science/) > [@](#): > > Dr. Michael Mann makes that clear in a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post today, “Get the anti-science bent out of politics,” which opens: > > > [@](#): > > > > As a scientist, I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do. > > > > ``` > > Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security. > > > > ``` So it does not matter that investigations of the recent “scandals” turned nothing, because the Republican echo chamber continues to say that scientists are guilty “something” must be done. So what do Cuccinelli and others expect to find in the coming inquisition? > [@](#): > > ``` > What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published? > > The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none. > > Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton’s attacks. We need more political leaders like him today. > > We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change. > > The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries. Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. Even without my work, or that of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity. > > Burying our heads in the sand would leave future generations at the mercy of potentially dangerous changes in our climate. The only sure way to mitigate these threats is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the next few decades. But even if we don’t reduce emissions, the reality of adapting to climate change will require responses from government at all levels. > > Challenges to policy proposals for how to deal with this problem should be welcome — indeed, a good-faith debate is essential for wise public policymaking. > > But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science. > > How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing? > > America has led the world in science for decades. It has benefited our culture, our economy and our understanding of the world. > > My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public. They are hurting American science. And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/123 "2010-10-09T16:07:35Z")
There’s just something funny about someone called “the Cooch”. I’m seeing a pimply faced, greasy haired, leather jacket wearing, teenaged wannabe tough guy, just begging for an after school fight (and an ass whipping). The Cooch? He should be laughed out of town for being stupid, and for just being The Cooch. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/124 "2010-10-09T17:45:22Z")
Of course I hope that it does not take place, but I see comedy gold in the possible future spectacle of a witch-hunt of scientists being headed by a [witch](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016946-503544.html). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/125 "2010-10-09T19:58:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course I hope that it does not take place, but I see comedy gold in the possible future spectacle of a witch-hunt of scientists being headed by a [witch](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016946-503544.html). 🙂 Does she weigh less than a duck? Let’s find out 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/126 "2010-10-09T20:26:08Z")
I don’t know this **Bricker** guy, and this Cuccinelli person is a politically-motivated, dishonest abuser of his office, as far as I can tell. That said, seems like **Bricker** is getting a bit of a raw deal here. Seems to me that he’s simply saying that if we’re accusing someone, anyone, of something, some degree of precision and clarity is called for. We can’t simply say “hey, he’s a right-wing asshole, so he must be riding roughshod over the Constitution,” even if he is doing exactly that. A bit more in the way of evidence is called for. OK, **Bricker** is apparently a lawyer, and most of us here (including me) are not, so he’s going to be a bit more, well, legalistic about this kind of thing, but really, that’s not a terrible thing. It does matter. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/127 "2010-10-10T15:29:55Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > I don’t know this **Bricker** guy, and this Cuccinelli person is a politically-motivated, dishonest abuser of his office, as far as I can tell. > > That said, seems like **Bricker** is getting a bit of a raw deal here. Seems to me that he’s simply saying that if we’re accusing someone, anyone, of something, some degree of precision and clarity is called for. We can’t simply say “hey, he’s a right-wing asshole, so he must be riding roughshod over the Constitution,” even if he is doing exactly that. A bit more in the way of evidence is called for. > > OK, **Bricker** is apparently a lawyer, and most of us here (including me) are not, so he’s going to be a bit more, well, legalistic about this kind of thing, but really, that’s not a terrible thing. It does matter. This is a BBS, a forum. Since it isn’t a court of law and we can’t send anyone to jail, and we can’t actually put anyone on trial, we do not have to follow the same strict rules of evidence and ummmm court type stuff. So, yes, we could say some other guy is an asshole, and ugly too. Do we then have to narrowly and exactly define “ugly” and then provide unassailable proof of ugliness? We have a lot more leeway, simply because we DON’T have any authority over anyone and because we are NOT in the position of firing or arresting or trying anyone. The demands for absolute accuracy and unimpeachable evidence sometimes even go far far past the “reasonable person” or “reasonable doubt” level. It’s just an old trick to shut down the discussion (or roast). Most of us ignore it for what it is. So, yes I can simply say The Cooch is an asshole, rightwing or otherwise. I could as easily claim he hits puppies and eats kittens. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/128 "2010-10-10T16:01:06Z")
The Cooch is a **dangerous** asshole. He has a solid shot at becoming the next Governor of Virginia. If he avoids a “Macaca moment” the US Senate is in his future. Here’s a man who’s starting a jihad against a profession, abusing the powers of his office to do so. Prosecutorial judgment? Evidence based investigations? Prioritizing cases based on impact, or liklihood of victory? Those are all for other people, who are not True Believers[sup]TM[/sup] in the Church of the Holy Unchanging Climate. Who’s Cooch going to sue when Roanoke, VA is beachfront property? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/129 "2010-10-10T16:04:33Z")
I’m content on assuming that Cuccinelli is like Torquemada or the Italian inquisitors. [http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/07/washington-post-slams-va-ag-ken-cuccinelli/](http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/07/washington-post-slams-va-ag-ken-cuccinelli/) > [@](#): > > “And you! [to Galileo] I’ll be wanting to see your emails too!” > > “I will get to the center of this solar system!” The inquisition! What a show! (look for this smash hit coming soon to a hearing near your congress!) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/130 "2010-10-10T20:23:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’m content on assuming that Cuccinelli is like Torquemada or the Italian inquisitors. Only, in this climate, Cuccinelli is the sort of thing you can **expect.** :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/131 "2010-10-11T00:31:28Z")
No one expects … the Cooch! duh duh duuuuuuuhhhhhhhnnnn ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/132 "2010-10-11T23:03:04Z")
The Cooch expected that his points were supported by partisan reports like the Wegman report, unfortunately for the Cooch it is the Wegman report that was found out that used bad science and it is finally being investigated as the hatchet job and plagiarist piece of work that it was: [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/10/gmu\_investigating\_climate\_chan.html](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/10/gmu_investigating_climate_chan.html) > [@](#): > > Wegman headed up a 2006 congressional committee that reported problems with scientific research that showed the earth has experience rapid, recent warming, notably a 1999 paper by then-University of Virginia professor Michael Mann. > > The Wegman Report was cited repeatedly in the civil subpoena filed last week by Cuccinelli’s office to the University of Virginia seeking e-mails and documents related to Mann. The citations came in an attachment to the subpoena intended to show that there was reason to believe that Mann might have committed fraud as he sought state money for research. > > Cuccinelli says he wants to investigate a $214,000 grant Mann received from the state. Mann says the grant funded research unrelated to climate change, but the civil investigative demand alleges that he might have used his earlier research on the topic to help get the funding. > > In the subpoena, lawyers for Cuccinelli noted that the Wegman Report found the data in Mann’s articles “poorly documented and archived.” > > But now it turns out that Wegman and his report are the subject of scrutiny as well. Other scientists have been posting analyses of his work online, indicating that portions are plagiarized and that the report contains inaccurate citations. > > Dan Walsch, a spokesman for GMU, confirmed that the university was investigating charges that the report was plagiarized and that it contained inaccurate information. So would Cuccinelli do the right thing and investigate why he was had? I’m not holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/133 "2010-11-22T22:02:11Z")
Update: Now USA TODAY checked if the accusations against the Wegman report hold water and like this blogger reports, If Ken Cuccinelli was a man, he’d apologize. > **[Time For Ken Cuccinelli To Mann Up & Apologize](http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com/2010/11/time-for-ken-cuccinelli-to-mann-up.html)** > > Remember Edward Wegman, the George Mason University statistician whose climate denial was repeatedly cited by Virginia Attorney General Ken ... > [@](#): > > Remember Edward Wegman, the George Mason University statistician whose climate denial was repeatedly cited by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli? The one who was under investigation on charges of plagiarism & inaccuracy? > > The GMU investigation is still dragging on, but USA Today asked several scientists to review the allegations. Their analysis was damning: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY disagree after viewing the Wegman report: > > > > * "Actually fairly shocking," says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. "My own preliminary appraisal would be 'guilty as charged.'" > > > > ``` > [@](#): > > If Ken Cuccinelli was a man, he’d apologize. To Michael Mann, the respected climate scientist whose work Cuccinelli has quixotically targeted. To Virginia taxpayers, for wasting their money on a political witch hunt. And to his own supporters for feeding them a steady stream of complete horseshit. > > But Ken Cuccinelli doesn’t have a shred of honor or dignity in his body. I expect him to continue to ignore reality & continue flaunting the truth. [http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/134 "2010-11-22T23:56:52Z")
> [@](#): > > …continue flaunting the truth. I don’t think that “flaunting” means what that blogger thinks it means. He was confusing it with “flouting,” although even that wouldn’t be the best word to use in this case. And Cuccinelli is _still_ an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/135 "2010-11-23T01:01:09Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I don’t think that “flaunting” means what that blogger thinks it means. I think, in fact, it does: [_flaunt_](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flaunt) = “to ignore or treat with disdain” compare to: [_flout_](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flout) = “to treat with disdain, scorn, or contempt” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/136 "2010-11-23T01:13:57Z")
> [@zut](#): > > I think, in fact, it does: > > [_flaunt_](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flaunt) = “to ignore or treat with disdain” > > compare to: > > [_flout_](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flout) = “to treat with disdain, scorn, or contempt” Well, like the “many usage guides” referred to in the usage note of that entry, i object to that usage of flaunt, because it has come about largely because people confused it with “flout.” I’m not an ardent prescriptivist, but when a word changes its definition almost solely because people use it incorrectly and confuse it with another word, i think we’re better off correcting it than simply succumbing. Anyway, this isn’t a thread about prescriptivist versus descriptivist grammar, so i’ll leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/137 "2010-11-23T14:55:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Hmm, correct term? Boobophobia? Melonoma? Rack Induced Stress Disorder? Mammalomania? TittyTerror. I don’t understand this thread though - the rightists have been running on an anti-science, pro-petty vendetta platform for some time now. It’s no good to blame the panderers, you’ve just got to be disgusted by the people who demand shit like this from their government. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/138 "2010-11-23T15:06:49Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > TittyTerror. > > I don’t understand this thread though - the rightists have been running on an anti-science, pro-petty vendetta platform for some time now. It’s no good to blame the panderers, you’ve just got to be disgusted by the people who demand shit like this from their government. It’s not the call to abuse the power, it’s the abuse of power that is the problem. People can call for all kinds of unethical conduct by their elected representatives, but its when those representatives actually abuse their power that there is a problem. It’s not the anti-science thinking, though that is all too prevelant, this thread is about the use of Cooch’s job as AG to go on a fishing expedition, to intimidate scientists, and to punish those who disagree with his preconceived notions of “science”, with no legitimate basis. Feel free to blame the idiots who want this to happpen too, but don’t give any leeway to the guy abusing his power for his own ends. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/139 "2011-05-22T02:30:24Z")
UPDATE A huge support for Cuccinelli was the Wegman report. > **[Report: Journal retracts climate study amid plagiarism allegations](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/475746/report-journal-retracts-climate-study-amid-plagiarism-allegations/)** > > A professional journal has retracted a study headed by a George Mason University professor amid allegations of plagiarism and a flawed peer review > [@](#): > > A professional journal has retracted a study headed by a George Mason University professor amid allegations of plagiarism and a flawed peer review process, USA Today reports. > > … > > But a review by three plagiarism experts for USA Today said that portions of the report contained text from Wikipedia and other textbooks. Wegman and his lawyer, meanwhile, maintain that neither he nor a student co-author engaged in plagiarism. > > How does this relate to Virginia (beyond the GMU connection)? Well, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has cited the Wegman report, commissioned by Sen. Joe Barton, R-Texas, in his demand for records related to climatologist Michael Mann from the University of Virginia to see whether Mann defrauded taxpayers by obtaining state-funded research grants. For more information one should check the report from USAToday [http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman\_n.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman_n.htm) And also check the Deep Climate site that did a lot of the work finding the plagiarism and errors made by the Wegman report. > **[Retraction of Said, Wegman et al 2008, part 1](https://deepclimate.org/2011/05/15/retraction-of-said-wegman-et-al-2008-part-1/)** > > It’s been a long time coming, but there has now been an official finding in at least one of the complaints concerning the dubious scholarship of GMU professors Edward Wegman and Yasmin Said. … > [@](#): > > It’s been a long time coming, but there has now been an official finding in at least one of the complaints concerning the dubious scholarship of GMU professors Edward Wegman and Yasmin Said. According to Dan Vergano of USA Today, the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis (CSDA) has officially confirmed that Said, Wegman et al 2008, a follow up to the infamous Wegman et al report to Congress, will finally be retracted following complaints of plagiarism and inadequate peer review. > > The CSDA paper, Social Networks of Author–Coauthor Relationships, was a follow up to the 2006 report to congress by Wegman, Said and Rice University professor David Scott. Both the Wegman report and Said et al claimed that the “entrepreunerial” style of co-authorship in paleoclimatology demonstrated lax peer review in the field, while the “mentor” style of an established professor collaborating with former students would be less problematic. All three of Wegman’s 2008 co-authors – Said, Walid Sharabati and John Rigsby – were former or current students > [@](#): > > And I recently showed similar cut-and-paste scholarship in the WIREs Computational Statistics article, Color Theory and Design (see part 1 and part 2). Not only was this article written by Wegman and Said alone, they also are editors of the journal (along with the afore-mentioned David Scott), raising once again the issue of lack of peer review of the pair’s scholarship. > > There will now be even more pressure on George Mason University to finally resolve the myriad misconduct complaints launched against Wegman and his team. Not to mention increased calls for the retraction of all the other examples of the pair’s dubious scholarship – including the Wegman et al report to Congress itself. Currently, we are waiting for the Virginia Supreme Court that has agreed to hear an appeal from Cuccinelli, but we can expect the attorney to do the right thing and drop the issue, eh? Not holding my breath for that one, and neither for an apology to Mann from all the denier posters that in the past claimed that Wegman was the beesnees. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/140 "2011-05-22T16:17:05Z")
I think the rapture will have to happen before “Crazy Ken” apologizes. (Checks date) And not even then. In all seriousness, this is why prosecutors should be non-partisan and trustworthy beyond reproach. Real human lives can be irreparably damaged or destroyed by baseless politically inspired fantasy fishing expedition persecutions like this. Cooch shouldn’t have any position of public trust, but he’ll probably be our next governor. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=8)