NationStates Jolt Archive

Depending on who you are, it might surprise you...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6419.shtml

The only Congressmen I like are Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.

Depending on who you are, it might surprise you...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6419.shtml

Teddy Kennedy. Any member of Congress (or the Senate) who gets away with murder is the most corrupt.

wow thats sad, why are know crimnals alowed to run?

Teddy Kennedy. Any member of Congress (or the Senate) who gets away with murder is the most corrupt.

Don't start that bullshit again. It is a flat-out lie.

Don't start that bullshit again. It is a flat-out lie.

Well sir, it is not. I happened to be living in Massachusetts when the incident happened. I am very familiar with what happened.

wow thats sad, why are know crimnals alowed to run?

Another member of the Massachusetts Congretional deligation is a member of NAMABLA. I guess you will have to ask the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts why they are allowed to run and keep getting elected.

Well sir, it is not. I happened to be living in Massachusetts when the incident happened. I am very familiar with what happened.
Let's go ask Mary Jo Kopechne about the incident. Oh shucks, I guess we're too late to get her opinion. Maybe if Teddy had worried more about her than about his political future, we might be able to ask and expect an answer.

Wow O_O
Ted Stevens (Alaska) is nothing compared to that

Well sir, it is not. I happened to be living in Massachusetts when the incident happened. I am very familiar with what happened.

Although you could also claim to be Stephen Hawking, I believe you about living there at the time. But unless you were standing on Dike Bridge or the banks of Poucha Pond around 12:45 AM on Saturday July 19, 1969, you have no basis for claims of special knowledge.

Feel free to start another thread. I've debated this before and I am well-informed on the topic.

Even the most vicious allegations against Senator Kennedy do not amount to murder.

Although you could also claim to be Stephen Hawking, I believe you about living there at the time. But unless you were standing on Dike Bridge or the banks of Poucha Pond around 12:45 AM on Saturday July 19, 1969, you have no basis for claims of special knowledge.

Feel free to start another thread. I've debated this before and I am well-informed on the topic.

Even the most vicious allegations against Senator Kennedy do not amount to murder.

Actually the most vicious allegations against Senator Kennedy do amount to murder. In this part of the country the kindest amount to Neglegent Homocide, and to be honest I don't remember that being an option at the time.
Personally, I think it was a tragedy and at the very least a shame he was never held accountable for his actions, or lack of them. Perhaps his biggest crime though is just being a very stupid and weak individual who can't leave booze alone.

Liverbreath']Actually the most vicious allegations against Senator Kennedy do amount to murder. In this part of the country the kindest amount to Neglegent Homocide, and to be honest I don't remember that being an option at the time.
Personally, I think it was a tragedy and at the very least a shame he was never held accountable for his actions, or lack of them. Perhaps his biggest crime though is just being a very stupid and weak individual who can't leave booze alone.

Bullshit.

I'd love to see you show how Senator Kennedy's actions satisfied the elements of murder under the law at the time.

By the way, you do know that Senator Kennedy pled guilty to and was punished for a crime -- the only crime with which he was charged -- in relation to this incident?

Bullshit.

I'd love to see you show how Senator Kennedy's actions satisfied the elements of murder under the law at the time.

By the way, you do know that Senator Kennedy pled guilty to and was punished for a crime -- the only crime with which he was charged -- in relation to this incident?

I wouldn't even try. That was one of the most masterful coverups in history. Besides, that still doesn't alter the fact that he is to this day still seen as a murderer that got away with it.

What did they do? Issue a ticket for littering? After all she was a nobody.

Liverbreath']I wouldn't even try. That was one of the most masterful coverups in history. Besides, that still doesn't alter the fact that he is to this day still seen as a murderer that got away with it.

What did they do? Issue a ticket for littering? After all she was a nobody.

Cute. You'll make slanderous accusations, but you won't back them up. You'll hide under the safety blanket claim of a "cover-up."

Can you even make allegations of actions that would amount to murder?

Yes, some people cling to the ridiculous notion that he "got away with murder." Some people think the moon landing was faked. Your argumentum ad populum is particularly flawed in this case. As clearly the majority of people in Massachusetts have not agreed.

He pled guilty to a misdemeanor. That is all he was guilty of.

Another member of the Massachusetts Congretional deligation is a member of NAMABLA. I guess you will have to ask the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts why they are allowed to run and keep getting elected.

Who? Proof?

(And, although I despise the group and everything they stand for, it is not a crime to be a member of NAMBLA.)

(And, although I despise the group and everything they stand for, it is not a crime to be a member of NAMBLA.)

That organization should be shut down and banned personally and all its members tossed into jail.

That organization should be shut down and banned personally and all its members tossed into jail.

Down with the First Amendment!

Thought-crimes should be punishable!

Down with the First Amendment!

Thought-crimes should be punishable!

I wouldn't go that far but this organization does need to go.

Cute. You'll make slanderous accusations, but you won't back them up. You'll hide under the safety blanket claim of a "cover-up."

Can you even make allegations of actions that would amount to murder?

Yes, some people cling to the ridiculous notion that he "got away with murder." Some people think the moon landing was faked. Your argumentum ad populum is particularly flawed in this case. As clearly the majority of people in Massachusetts have not agreed.

He pled guilty to a misdemeanor. That is all he was guilty of.

I made no accusation or allegation at all. I simply stated that it is out there and it is a prevelant belief that he is a murderer in the midwest. I do believe that he was and is an irresponsible elitest drunk who was responsible for the girl's death and I do believe that he left the scene of an accident and let it go unreported long enough for him to sober up.
I can tell you this for a fact. Many millions more believe Tipsy Teddie is a murderer than believe the moon landing was faked.

Even the most vicious allegations against Senator Kennedy do not amount to murder.
This is probably the only time I'll ever agree with C-T. Kennedy should have been charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide (the latter, probably) but not murder.

Thought-crimes should be punishable!
They already are. Just look up any "hate crime" legislation. Crimes treated differently/more harshly due only to the intent/thoughts of the accused.

Thoughtcrime is already alive and well in the US. :headbang:

They already are. Just look up any "hate crime" legislation. Crimes treated differently/more harshly due only to the intent/thoughts of the accused.

Thoughtcrime is already alive and well in the US. :headbang:

LOL.

Nope.

Most crimes have an intent element. And actions have always been treated differently depending on the intent of the accused. For example, different degrees of homicide.

Hate crime legislation increases the punishment for certain actions -- that are already crimes -- if the intent meets certain criteria. Nothing new or unique about that.

And nothing about that punishes pure thought. It requires action. In the case of hate crime legislation, it actually requires an underlying complete crime.

:headbang:

wow that chick is hardcore. I need to get her input on how to handle my finances so i can have lots of money thru illegalities and still keep my job and freedom.

LOL.

Nope.

Most crimes have an intent element. And actions have always been treated differently depending on the intent of the accused. For example, different degrees of homicide.
Actually, you just proved my point for me. Any crime that is judged on intent/thought of the accused is basically a thoughtcrime.

LOL.

Nope.

Most crimes have an intent element. And actions have always been treated differently depending on the intent of the accused. For example, different degrees of homicide.

Hate crime legislation increases the punishment for certain actions -- that are already crimes -- if the intent meets certain criteria. Nothing new or unique about that.

And nothing about that punishes pure thought. It requires action. In the case of hate crime legislation, it actually requires an underlying complete crime.

:headbang:

Yah, but hate crimes blur the line between intent and motive. I think that's what troubles a lot of people. Me, included. Also, how can you demonstrate what the particular motive was for any specific act beyond a reasonable doubt without testimony from the accused.

Although you could also claim to be Stephen Hawking, I believe you about living there at the time. But unless you were standing on Dike Bridge or the banks of Poucha Pond around 12:45 AM on Saturday July 19, 1969, you have no basis for claims of special knowledge.

Feel free to start another thread. I've debated this before and I am well-informed on the topic.

Even the most vicious allegations against Senator Kennedy do not amount to murder.

Holy hell. Are you serious? Do you honestly think Kennedy isn't a criminal? This is coming from someone who lothes Tom Delay. KENNEDY IS A CROOK.

They both should hang. Corruption is an enemy to our republic from within.

Actually, you just proved my point for me. Any crime that is judged on intent/thought of the accused is basically a thoughtcrime.

So first-degree murder is a thought-crime? :rolleyes:

Almost all crimes have a mens rea requirement.

Many crimes require a specific intent. Attempted rape?

Pure thought, without any criminal action, is not and should not be a crime.

Another member of the Massachusetts Congretional deligation is a member of NAMABLA. I guess you will have to ask the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts why they are allowed to run and keep getting elected.

and the kicker is,these murdering..pedophiles are anti gun?wonder why?
i guess it is ok to kill a girl and be a pedophile..but own a gun...thats just wrong..lol.
maybe they hate guns cause their afraid they might get shot,apperantly they have nothing to fear from the law...oh thats right,they right them. :sniper:

and mass. is one of the largest gun manufacturing states in the union,strange. :(

So first-degree murder is a thought-crime? :rolleyes:

Almost all crimes have a mens rea requirement.

Many crimes require a specific intent. Attempted rape?

Pure thought, without any criminal action, is not and should not be a crime.
What about "conspiracy to commit" crimes? If there is only thought (planning), but no action (the actual crime), wouldn't that count as a thoughtcrime?

(Not trying to be snippy...well.. yes, I am :p...but I'm not as well-versed in the law, so this is a legitimate question.)

Yah, but hate crimes blur the line between intent and motive. I think that's what troubles a lot of people. Me, included. Also, how can you demonstrate what the particular motive was for any specific act beyond a reasonable doubt without testimony from the accused.

Hate crime legislation -- other than establishing data collection and research -- merely provide for additional punishment for crimes based on intent.

In the case of federal law, Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 merely provided for a sentence enhancement based on a hate crime intent.

That is codified in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as follows:

§3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim

(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.

(b)(1) If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.

(2) If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.

(c) Special Instruction

(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of this subsection.

Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.

Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known of the victim’s unusual vulnerability. The adjustment would apply, for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant selected a handicapped victim. But it would not apply in a case in which the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. Similarly, for example, a bank teller is not an unusually vulnerable victim solely by virtue of the teller’s position in a bank.

Do not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. For example, if the offense guideline provides an enhancement for the age of the victim, this subsection would not be applied unless the victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to age.

3. The adjustments from subsections (a) and (b) are to be applied cumulatively. Do not, however, apply subsection (b) in a case in which subsection (a) applies unless a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

4. If an enhancement from subsection (b) applies and the defendant’s criminal history includes a prior sentence for an offense that involved the selection of a vulnerable victim, an upward departure may be warranted.

If you are familiar with the Sentencing Guidelines, then you know that sentencing enhancements are provided based on a very wide range of criteria -- including all sorts of things related to intent or motive.

The DoJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service links to this site (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp) for further explanation of hate crime legislation.

Anyway, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html ) (92-515), 508 US 47 (1993). I find the majority opinion persuasive. Obviously others are free to disagree.

Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant. See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 820-821 (1991); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). The defendant's motive for committing the offense is one important factor. See 1 W. LeFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 3.6(b), p. 324 (1986) ("Motives are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of his bad motives"); cf. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 156 (1987) ("Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished"). Thus, in many States, the commission of a murder or other capital offense for pecuniary gain is a separate aggravating circumstance under the capital sentencing statute. See, e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(F)(5) (1989); Fla.Stat. 921.141(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(e)(6) (1992); Wyo.Stat. 6-2-102(h)(vi) (Supp. 1992).

... Thus, in Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (plurality opinion), we allowed the sentencing judge to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim. The evidence in that case showed that the defendant's membership in the Black Liberation Army and desire to provoke a "race war" were related to the murder of a white man for which he was convicted. See id. at 942-944. Because "the elements of racial hatred in [the] murder" were relevant to several aggravating factors, we held that the trial judge permissibly took this evidence into account in sentencing the defendant to death. Id. at 949, and n. 7.

As for proof, the fact that it may be difficult to prove intent or motive beyond a reasonable doubt only makes it more difficult to enhance someone's sentence because they committed a hate crime. In other words, hate crime enhancements may be difficult to prove and are less likely to be imposed. That would not seem a good argument against the existence of hate crime penalties. To the contrary, the fact that the intent element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a protection against abuse of the law.

What about "conspiracy to commit" crimes? If there is only thought (planning), but no action (the actual crime), wouldn't that count as a thoughtcrime?

(Not trying to be snippy...well.. yes, I am :p...but I'm not as well-versed in the law, so this is a legitimate question.)

Conspiracy laws come the closest to thought-crime, but such statutes require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

But, you've just illustrated that hate crimes aren't some special new kind of law that focuses on intent. Conspiracy requires a specific intent.

Another member of the Massachusetts Congretional deligation is a member of NAMABLA.

Who?

We all know its actually John Kerry.

Well sir, it is not. I happened to be living in Massachusetts when the incident happened. I am very familiar with what happened.

Where in Massachusetts were you living?

Even if Brown is as dirty as that article indicates, she's still not as dirty as Delay. Why? She doesn't have the pull Delay has in the US government, and doesn't have the power to subvert the will of the Congress that DeLay has used in the past. She may be dirtier personally, but DeLay is dirtier on a much larger scale.

That organization should be shut down and banned personally and all its members tossed into jail.
The National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes? What'd they ever do to you? Let the poor bastards pursue their strokes and heart attacks in peace for God's sake.

C-T, I'm not saying anything about the Gentleman from Massachusetts.

Down with the First Amendment!

Thought-crimes should be punishable! Correct me if I'm wrong (me not being very knowledgeable about US law), but surely "man-boy love" is not a thought-crime?

So first-degree murder is a thought-crime? :rolleyes:

Pre-meditated murder. If they judged that you deliberately did it.....

C-T, I'm not saying anything about the Gentleman from Massachusetts.

I appreciate it. Thanks. :)

Correct me if I'm wrong (me not being very knowledgeable about US law), but surely "man-boy love" is not a thought-crime?

The act would be.

Individuals that have sex with minors are guilty of a crime.

A group that advocates making sex with minors legal is disgusting and should be scorned, but has committed no crime.

A group that advocates making sex with minors legal is disgusting and should be scorned, but has committed no crime.

If you found them giving a lecture on the topic to 10 year old boys, using their usual material (which discusses various topics such as how easily certain appendages fit into certain recesses in a young boy's body), you might be able to charge them with CDM.

Pre-meditated murder. If they judged that you deliberately did it.....

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me, or missed the point.

The argument was being made that any crime or punishment enhancement that hinged on one's intent was a thought-crime.

I was making the distinction between a crime of pure thought (a thought-crime) and crimes having an element of intent (almost all crimes).

Pre-meditated murder is an example of a crime that requires evidence of a specific intent. Much like a hate crime enhancement. Neither are thought-crimes.

I was making the distinction between a crime of pure thought (a thought-crime) and crimes having an element of intent (almost all crimes).

Pre-meditated murder is an example of a crime that requires evidence of a specific intent. Much like a hate crime enhancement. Neither are thought-crimes.
This is on a slightly different tack. None of which has anything to with politicians.

Don't you thing there is a substantial difference between the intent that is required for pre-meditated murder and what is required to demonstate a hate crime enhancement? Maybe this is a state-by-state thing, but the hate crime enhancement in Georgia seems to be directly related to what the criminal was thinking while committing the crime.

For example, I go out for a walk one evening. I'm beaten and robbed. All the while the attacker is yelling about "worthless old white crackers". In Georgia, the attacker could have a couple extra years tacked on to his sentence. Now that's about as close to a thought crime as there is.

The other difference is that a hate crime is prosecuted as a assault, a murder, or whatever. Then the hate aspects are tried at sentencing. Isn't a crime of pre-meditated murder tried that way? As opposed to trying it as murder, then tacking on a death sentence after the verdict because the accused was found to have pre-planned the murder.

I have two concerns about hate crimes. The first is that they seem to allow victims a status of being more equal or more wronged than a victim of an equivalent crime that doesn't meet the specs for a hate crime. The other objection is that they may be paving the way for hate speech crimes, which may be setting the stage for hate thought crimes. [metaphor alert]

Brown sounds pretty bad, but Delay still has my vote for least ethical.

Depending on who you are, it might surprise you...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6419.shtml

Dealing with the actual substance here, it is bullshit.

First of all, who the hell is this source? Some crank with column on a website? In fact, when you look at the website Rep. Brown is just one many Representatives and Senators the site makes wild accusations against.

The websites wacky motto says it all: "Because nobody's life, liberty, or property are safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied." :rolleyes:

I can't find evidence that supports most of the allegations made in the column.

Most of the allegations made in the column don't have a damn thing to do with corruption. They may mean Rep. Brown is a sleazy or bad businesswoman, but they do not involve her position in Congress.

Allegations were made against Rep. Brown and investigated by the House Ethics Committee in 1999. They did not involve most of the garbage that site alleges. After investigating for over a year, the House Ethics Committee dismissed the allegations. The Committee did say that Ms. Browns that "actions demonstrated poor judgment and 'created substantial concerns regarding... appearance of impropriety and the reputation of the House'." The House took no action. They column reports -- and exaggerates -- the substance of these allegations as if they were true.

In the meantime, the House has taken action, including expelling other members, admonishing them, etc.

Just looking at the House of Representatives, much more corrupt during the same time period:
Rep. James A. Traficant, Jr.
Rep. Earl Hilliard
Rep. E.G. “Bud” Shuster
Rep. Jay Kim
Rep. Tom DeLay

Compare Rep. Brown's record with Tom DeLay's record with the House Ethics Commitee:

1996 - Allegations Delay improperly linked campaign contributions to official actions and improper political favors for Rep. DeLay’s brother, a registered lobbyist. Charges dismissed, but private letter sent to DeLay and press release issued advising DeLay "not create the impression that he would consider an individual’s request for access or for official action based on campaign contributions."

2004 - Allegations by a Republican that DeLay engaged in threats and bribes in order to get votes on a Medicaid bill. By unanimous recommendation of the House Committee, Delay was admonished by the House.

2004 - Delay admonished -- again based on unanimous recommendation of the House Commitee -- for participation in and facilitation of an energy company fundraiser (created an appearance that donors were being provided special access) and intervention in a partisan conflict using the resources of a federal agency.

Here is further information on DeLay from a prior argument. I have not updated this information since its original posting 6 weeks ago:

Let's see:

The Westar Scandal:

In 2002, executives at Kansas energy company Westar wrote a memo outlining how they could purchase a "seat at the table" with $56,500 in contributions to political committees associated with Tom DeLay and the GOP. DeLay was later admonished by the GOP-controlled House Ethics Committee for creating the appearance of impropriety.

The Texas Redistricting Scandal

When DeLay and his fellow Republicans were redrawing the Congressional districts in Texas to push Democrats out of the House, he used the Federal Aviation Administration to try and track a plane containing Democratic state legislators. The GOP-controlled House Ethics Committee investigated DeLay's actions and once again admonished him.

The House Medicare Vote Bribery Scandal

Tom DeLay and the Republican leadership kept open the vote for the Medicare bill for three hours -- long past the 15 minutes specified in House procedures -- in order to pressure Republicans to vote for the bill. Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) said GOP leaders offered "bribes and special deals," leading to an investigation by the GOP-controlled Ethics Committee, which admonished DeLay.

The K Street Scandal

Tom DeLay has pushed lobbying firms to deny jobs to Democrats, and hire only Republicans, resulting in another Ethics Committee admonishment for inappropriately pushing a lobbying firm to hire a former GOP congressman. DeLay has pressured GOP lobbyists to make contributions to Republican candidates and the RNC.

The Ethics Committee Scandal

Knowing that he faced investigation for a growing pile of scandals, Tom DeLay and the GOP House leadership purged the Ethics Committee of Republicans -- including Chairman Joel Hefley (R-CO) -- who weren't willing to overlook charges against DeLay, replacing them with members loyal to the leadership. They then changed the Committee rules to make it more difficult to begin investigations. Democrats on the Committee have refused to take any action in protest until the rules are restored.

The Travel Scandal

An investigation by the Bush Justice Department showed that Tom DeLay accepted a trip financed by the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, breaking House rules that prohibit accepting travel expenses from "a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal."

The TRMPAC Scandal

In Texas, it's illegal for corporations to make donations to fund political campaigns. So Tom DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee (TRMPAC) took $190,000 in corporate contributions and funneled them to the RNC, which then donated exactly $190,000 to TRMPAC-supported candidates. DeLay and TRMPAC are currently under investigation by a grand jury.

The Family Payoff Scandal

Since 2001, Tom DeLay's political action committees and campaigns have funneled more than $500,000 to his wife and daughter since 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/politics/06delay.html

The Travel Scandal II

Tom DeLay participated in a $70,000 expenses-paid trip to London and Scotland in 2000 that sources said was indirectly financed in part by an Indian tribe and gambling services company lobbying Congress.

Tom DeLay's airfaire for thetrip to England and Scotland was paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff's credit card, and other expenses, including food, phone calls, and golf was charged on another lobbyist's credit card. That's in direct violation of House ethics rules that prohibit registered lobbyists for paying for expenses for members.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12416-2005Apr23.html

The Travel Scandal III

Tom DeLay claims that a 1997 trip to Moscow (where he met with the Russian Prime Minister) was arranged and paid for by a nonprofit public policy organization. But people who knew about the arrangements claim that the trip was actually arranged by lobbyists and funded by a mysterious company registered in the Bahamas that may have served as a front for Russian companies with ties to Russian security forces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28319-2005Apr5.html

The Skybox Scandal

Tom DeLay invited donors to share a skybox with him at a Three Tenors concert, a skybox paid for by super lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is currently under investigation by the Senate. Just two months after the concert, DeLay voted against gambling legislation that Abramoff was lobbying against. The skybox tickets were worth thousands of dollars, and DeLay never reported the gift.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050420/ap_on_go_co/delay_skybox_3

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know... I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation."

-- Tom DeLay, 11/16/95

Further evidence:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/NEWS06/504280465/1012
http://campaignmoney.org/delay/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000783.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ethics29apr29,1,2140990.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=2&cset=true
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3159600
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678234.shtml
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7670799/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7446492/site/newsweek/
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/11/10_403.html

I could go on and on and on ... but I think this proves the point.

That an GOP-controlled Ethics Committee with a majority hand-picked by DeLay -- several of whom have contributed to his defense fund and most of whom have received money from DeLay's PACs -- have repeatedly admonished him and have launched several investigations speaks eloquently about the substance of the charges against DeLay.

Teddy Kennedy. Any member of Congress (or the Senate) who gets away with murder is the most corrupt.
Murder is a bit strong. What he did would probably be considered manslaughter.

Murder is a bit strong. What he did would probably be considered manslaughter.

The last time when went over the allegations, if true, amounted to Vehicular Homicide While Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol or Other Drugs under current law. The crime carries a mandatory minimum of 30 days and a possible penalty of up to 2 1/2 years in jail.

Laws against driving under the influence are tougher now than then. But I cannot say for certain what the statutes said in Massachusetts in 1969.

The National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes? What'd they ever do to you? Let the poor bastards pursue their strokes and heart attacks in peace for God's sake.
Nice South Park referance.

Allegations were made against Rep. Brown and investigated by the House Ethics Committee in 1999. They did not involve most of the garbage that site alleges. After investigating for over a year, the House Ethics Committee dismissed the allegations. The Committee did say that Ms. Browns that "actions demonstrated poor judgment and 'created substantial concerns regarding... appearance of impropriety and the reputation of the House'." The House took no action. They column reports -- and exaggerates -- the substance of these allegations as if they were true.

Works for me--they didn't even censure her, which they did to DeLay. He's the winner as far as I'm concerned.