NationStates Jolt Archive

House GOP change rules to shield DeLay
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 Posted: 1:33 PM EST (1833 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury on state political corruption charges.

By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition, the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.

The current party rule in this area requires House Republican leaders and the heads of the various committees to relinquish their positions if indicted for a crime that could bring a prison term of at least two years.

It makes no distinction between a federal and state indictment.

Three of DeLay's political associates already have been indicted by that Texas grand jury.

Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, said that under the change embraced Wednesday, the House Republican Steering Committee would have 30 legislative days to review a felony indictment and recommend to all House Republicans whether a lawmaker who is charged could remain as a committee chairman or leader.

There is no indication that DeLay will be indicted in connection with a Travis County, Texas, campaign finance investigation.

But the majority leader has called the probe a partisan attack on him.

Bonilla said there was no vote count taken in the closed meeting but said the proposal passed overwhelmingly.

"This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" party leaders and make a name for himself, Bonilla said.

Lawmakers said that DeLay did not publicly push for the change and did not participate in the closed-door debate which lasted several hours.

Bonilla said the leader would not have to step aside while fellow party members considered whether an indictment was frivolous.
==========================================================

And I am sure EVERY indictment will be frivolous against Republicans. Christ! Write your representatives in Congress and protest this attempt to shield Delay from justice.

It's funny how the party of morals and family values seems to keep racking up ethics violations.

Indeed. Tom DeLay himself has been rebuked at least twice for ethics violations already.

I can't find a news source on what the indictments are anywhere, could someone link me something.

I saw the report on CNN I think.

bump

Hmm, I seem to remember a former president that was guilty of purjury and obstructing justice but he kept his job..

Where were you then?

Hmm, I seem to remember a former president that was guilty of purjury and obstructing justice but he kept his job..

Where were you then?
Nixon?

Hmm, I seem to remember a former president that was guilty of purjury and obstructing justice but he kept his job..

Where were you then?
Was it unethical to lie about a blowjob? Yes, but the republican's ethics violations tend not to be victimless crimes.

Gee, an indictment is simply an accusasion. It is not a conviction.

And these are party rules. They have every right to modify them as they seem fit.

Note, all they said is that the person is not automatically removed without a review by committee. If he is convicted or the accusation looks to be rock solid, he will still be removed.

Not an unreasonable rule change when it's been shown that liberals will use fraud to try and defame conservatives. Forged documents about National Guard service ring any bells?

Was it unethical to lie about a blowjob? Yes, but the republican's ethics violations tend not to be victimless crimes.

If diddling your interns is such a victimless crime then why is it wrong? If anyone in the world of big business did this, there would be calls for their head from NOW.

If diddling your interns is such a victimless crime then why is it wrong? If anyone in the world of big business did this, there would be calls for their head from NOW.
Actually the only victim is the wife. So in that sense it was victimless. Seeing as she forgave him: you have no case.

Gee, an indictment is simply an accusasion. It is not a conviction.

And these are party rules. They have every right to modify them as they seem fit.

Note, all they said is that the person is not automatically removed without a review by committee. If he is convicted or the accusation looks to be rock solid, he will still be removed.

Not an unreasonable rule change when it's been shown that liberals will use fraud to try and defame conservatives. Forged documents about National Guard service ring any bells?

There were no criminal indictments over the forged documents. I would imagine that if there is an indictment, there would be more evidence than 30 year old documents.

I'd like to see DeLay get indicted. He gerrymanders Texas to knock out 5 Congressional Democrats, and then claims Bush's leadership is shifting the House.

There were no criminal indictments over the forged documents. I would imagine that if there is an indictment, there would be more evidence than 30 year old documents.

Of course not, as it wasn't a criminal accusation. But a comparable fraudulent document could easily yield an indictment if it was. I offer the example as proof that there are people who would resort to such lows to attack Republicans.

Even the article mentioned that the concern is that political adversaries could make up accusations and the leader would be removed whether it's true or not. This decision simply restores the "innocent until proven guilty" premise that out country's legal system is founded on.

Do you really have a logical agruement as to why this should not be?

Hmm, I seem to remember a former president that was guilty of purjury and obstructing justice but he kept his job..


Guilty? Hrmmm ... I seem to recall acquittal ... innocent of all charges ... go figure.

Anyway, the ruling states that anyone indicted of an offense that would merit more than 2 years in prison. Nothing Clinton did would have meritted more than a fine ... if he were guilty ... but he wasn't.

Delay is a whole other animal. He could spend up to 10 years in prison if he's convicted of what he's done. I hope he gets it, too, and a nice big Democrat or Libertarian ass rapes him daily.

Was it unethical to lie about a blowjob? Yes, but the republican's ethics violations tend not to be victimless crimes.


Well it was also perjury too.

Well it was also perjury too.

Well, as he was found not guilty of it, then you can't call it perjury. Clinton was cleared of all charges, hence why he remained President.

Funny how conservatives seem to have such a selective memory.

It's business as usual for both sides of the aisle in Congress. That being said, I find it extremely unethical for the caucus to do. I wish that DeLay gets whatever he deserves, no more, and no less. Besides, there are over 200 other Republican congressman, so at least one other must be capable of being Majority Whip.

that democrats would do the same
if they were faced with a similar situation,
I think so.