NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/28/delay.investigation.ap/index.html

I can hear it now! Partisan mudslinging! Activist judges! :rolleyes:

No, DeLay was an idiot. Not as bad as Howard Dean (losing his party's nomination for president really screwed him up), but DeLay was an idiot.

One word!

YES!

One word!

YES!

lmao, you do still understand that doesnt make the democratic party the majority, all thats happened is a leadership change, doesnt change much of the vote

one of many articles (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/28/D8CTCK201.html)

"A state political action committee he created, Texans for a Republican Majority, was indicted earlier this month on charges of accepting corporate contributions for use in state legislative races. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used to advocate the election or defeat of candidates; it is allowed only for administrative expenses."

So what?
Campaign financing by corporations?
Wow, really evil :rolleyes:

Much worse than campaign financing by Soros and other billionaires?
I say, let anyone who wants to throw their money in should be allowed, with no limits.

The resulting commercials would be way cool! ;)

lmao, you do still understand that doesnt make the democratic party the majority, all thats happened is a leadership change, doesnt change much of the vote

Yes, of course I realize this, but for months I really thought he was going to wiggle his way out of it.. it's good to see he is being made to answer for his criminal behaviour. No one can scream it's playing politics.. everyone surrounding this have also been indicted. And if convicted which I suspect he will be, say good-bye to DeLay, his career is so overah! :)

Looks like we're in need of a thread merge...

THis is a beautiful thing. Let's keep those convictions coming for ALL members of the government who would circumvent the law to put fellow business politicians in office.

one of many articles (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/28/D8CTCK201.html)

"A state political action committee he created, Texans for a Republican Majority, was indicted earlier this month on charges of accepting corporate contributions for use in state legislative races. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used to advocate the election or defeat of candidates; it is allowed only for administrative expenses."

So what?
Campaign financing by corporations?
Wow, really evil :rolleyes:

Much worse than campaign financing by Soros and other billionaires?
I say, let anyone who wants to throw their money in should be allowed, with no limits.

The resulting commercials would be way cool! ;)
hes right woudnt it be cool to start recieving bribe on who to vote for :)

THis is a beautiful thing. Let's keep those convictions coming for ALL members of the government who would circumvent the law to put fellow business politicians in office.
....*cough*Bush*cough*....

Looks like we're in need of a thread merge...

Mine is spelled correctly, so it wins!

one of many articles (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/28/D8CTCK201.html)

"A state political action committee he created, Texans for a Republican Majority, was indicted earlier this month on charges of accepting corporate contributions for use in state legislative races. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used to advocate the election or defeat of candidates; it is allowed only for administrative expenses."

So what?
Campaign financing by corporations?
Wow, really evil :rolleyes:

Much worse than campaign financing by Soros and other billionaires?
I say, let anyone who wants to throw their money in should be allowed, with no limits.

Well, that's great that you say that and if you believe it, then you should work to see that the laws are changed to support it. Until then, the laws are very specific about campaign contributions, let alone how organizations such as ARMPAC report and track their funds.

So the big deal is he broke the law and that is, at the very least, illegal.

Now, I could expand on this, but I'm too busy being happy that he has at least been indicted and that this fat cat is going down.

Mine is spelled correctly, so it wins!

It was also first. :)

It was also first. :)

So, should we start a pool as to who is indicted next? Rove? Frist? Someone else?

So, should we start a pool as to who is indicted next? Rove? Frist? Someone else?

Well Rove should be indicted on the Plame issue.. but you know he's Bush's bestest buddy.. so who knows.

As for Frist, he's already being investigated for his insider trading.

Just saw DeLay on CNN. He denies all wrongdoing and claims the whole affair is due to blatant partisan retribution by a "rogue distric attourney" (Earl) over his redistricting of Texas.

I hope those comments are played over and over again when he's convicted.

Earl commented that he was merely doing his job. The charge is a felony, by the way.

Oh, and an overview of who this rougue partisan DA has gone after:

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, 1994: Acquitted of official misconduct and records tampering after Earle dropped the case during the trial.

Former state Rep. Betty Denton, D-Waco, 1995: Sentenced to six months probation and fined $2,000 for listing false loans and contributions on campaign finance reports.

Former state Rep. Lane Denton, D-Waco, 1995: Sentenced to 60 days in work-release program and six years probation, fined $6,000 and ordered to pay more than $67,000 restitution after being convicted of theft and misapplication of fiduciary property for funneling money from the Department of Public Safety Officers Association to a Denton company.

House Speaker Gib Lewis, D-Fort Worth, 1992: In plea bargain, Earle dropped more serious charges when Lewis pleaded no contest to failing to disclose a business investment. Lewis was fined $2,000, and the judge said he took into consideration that Lewis was retiring from public office.

Attorney General Jim Mattox, Democrat, 1985: Acquitted on felony bribery charges. Won re-election.

State Rep. Mike Martin, R-Longview, 1982: Pleaded guilty to perjury after lying about having himself shot to gain publicity. Did not run for re-election.

State Treasurer Warren Harding, Democrat, 1982: Pleaded no contest to official misconduct and dropped re-election bid.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough, Democrat, 1978: Sentenced to five years for lying to a grand jury and forgery. Gave up seat.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/28/135713/851

sorry for the "partisan" link, but the info is accurate nontheless, unless someone has some counter evidence otherwise?

Yes, of course I realize this, but for months I really thought he was going to wiggle his way out of it.. it's good to see he is being made to answer for his criminal behaviour. No one can scream it's playing politics.. everyone surrounding this have also been indicted. And if convicted which I suspect he will be, say good-bye to DeLay, his career is so overah! :)

I agree so when can we see the see the samething happen to the Democrats. They also are just as guilty as the republicans are.

This should get interesting

I agree so when can we see the see the samething happen to the Democrats. They also are just as guilty as the republicans are.

This should get interesting

Oh, no doubt. DeLay presides over the most corrupt Congress of the past century.

However, if one makes a list of the worst, well, if he's not number one, then he probably has a political action committee working on bribing his way there.

I agree so when can we see the see the samething happen to the Democrats. They also are just as guilty as the republicans are.

This should get interesting

Oh, I'd be happy to see a whole lot of Dems get the boot as well.

Let's make these people uncomfortable...so that they realize that in order to keep their jobs, they have to behave and look out for our interests!

Well Rove should be indicted on the Plame issue.. but you know he's Bush's bestest buddy.. so who knows.

You have to prove it first.

As for Frist, he's already being investigated for his insider trading.

Yea he is and I bet ya 3-1 he'll be not guilty of it.

You have to prove it first.



Yea he is and I bet ya 3-1 he'll be not guilty of it.

I'll take that bet. $20 sound good?

Oh, I'd be happy to see a whole lot of Dems get the boot as well.

Let's make these people uncomfortable...so that they realize that in order to keep their jobs, they have to behave and look out for our interests!

Gymoor, it is rare when we can agree on things politically but in this case, you are 100% on the nose. It is high time we take back our country.

I'll take that bet. $20 sound good?

I take Cash, check and charge! :D

Anyway, if I'm wrong, I'll denounce him too.

Yea he is and I bet ya 3-1 he'll be not guilty of it.

Gee, yes, because it just such a cowinkydink that you hold shares in your own family business and decide to sell them a week before they bottom out.. because most people have no value for what their family builds.. it's all business, it's not like he had insider info letting him know a hospital his family owns was going to have a bad report.. yep, all just a cowinkydink.

Gee, yes, because it just such a cowinkydink that you hold shares in your own family business and decide to sell them a week before they bottom out.. because most people have no value for what their family builds.. it's all business, it's not like he had insider info letting him know a hospital his family owns was going to have a bad report.. yep, all just a cowinkydink.

If I'm wrong, and as I already told Gymoor, I'll denounce him too! Learn to read everything Steph! :rolleyes:

I think the Republicans should try something new and look for honest people to run their party. Heck, with a radical idea like that it just might give them some credibitly. But then again, I guess it's hard to win an election honestly. The above also applys to the Democrats.

Yea he is and I bet ya 3-1 he'll be not guilty of it.

Do you mean "found not guilty" or actually not guilty. Cause those are two different bets.

Gee, yes, because it just such a cowinkydink that you hold shares in your own family business and decide to sell them a week before they bottom out.. because most people have no value for what their family builds.. it's all business, it's not like he had insider info letting him know a hospital his family owns was going to have a bad report.. yep, all just a cowinkydink.


When he's finished his punishment-if there is any conviction- he can fill in as a guest host on Martha Stewart's new show(s).

Do you mean "found not guilty" or actually not guilty. Cause those are two different bets.

Hmmm you do have a point. I'll have to think on that one for abit before I render an opinion on that :)

When he's finished his punishment-if there is any conviction- he can fill in as a guest host on Martha Stewart's new show(s).

*LOL* yeah, that's the ticket. He'll get a movie deal. :)

I think the Republicans should try something new and look for honest people to run their party. Heck, with a radical idea like that it just might give them some credibitly. But then again, I guess it's hard to win an election honestly. The above also applys to the Democrats.

An "honest" politician?

There is a small movement in NJ thats been trying to gain momentum for a few years now. Their slogan is "G.R.I.P" or Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians-meaning to vote them all out of office in their next elections-and keep doing so til they truly get it and start acting in the interests of their constituents.
It could be a step in the right direction. People sticking to their party lines are being cheated and embarrassed every day.

*LOL* yeah, that's the ticket. He'll get a movie deal. :)

He's a little harder to look at than Martha is. Maybe they could do a reality show on politicians in jail. Though their "jails" are more like a rehab/spa in Camelback,Arizona

An "honest" politician?

Probably .0001% of existing politicians I'm sure

There is a small movement in NJ thats been trying to gain momentum for a few years now. Their slogan is "G.R.I.P" or Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians-meaning to vote them all out of office in their next elections-and keep doing so til they truly get it and start acting in the interests of their constituents.
It could be a step in the right direction. People sticking to their party lines are being cheated and embarrassed every day.



oh I like it - I think I will get G.R.I.P. and push for that movement to make its way to Nevada as well.

Yes, of course I realize this, but for months I really thought he was going to wiggle his way out of it.. it's good to see he is being made to answer for his criminal behaviour. No one can scream it's playing politics.. everyone surrounding this have also been indicted. And if convicted which I suspect he will be, say good-bye to DeLay, his career is so overah! :)
I agre with you for once. De'Lay = pwn3d!

Yeah, last I'd heard, Earle had given up on trying to indict DeLay because of a jurisdictional issue, but according to the stories I read last night, the Grand Jury actually wanted to go after Delay, and they gave him the conspiracy count.

DeLay's a cancer, and has been for a long time--I'd like to think that the more honest members of the Republican House would take this chance to purge him from the leadership long term. I doubt it happens unless this drags on for a while, but it would be nice.

Seriously, DeLay's speech today made me ill.

Jesh... what IS it with Congress lately?

I'm starting to agree with some Democrats, being in power has made the Republicans arrogant and started them doing the very things they promised not to do when they were first voted into power.

Again, time will tell whether this is a real coup for Democrats, or not. If the Democrats don't start promoting something besides "Republicans are bad" and "Bush is stupid", I don't see much coming from this. Hell, DeLay would probably win an election from jail.

Come on Democrats, figure out how to be an opposition, not just a bunch of whiny losers.

Again, time will tell whether this is a real coup for Democrats, or not. If the Democrats don't start promoting something besides "Republicans are bad" and "Bush is stupid", I don't see much coming from this. Hell, DeLay would probably win an election from jail.

Come on Democrats, figure out how to be an opposition, not just a bunch of whiny losers.How about this for ideas from Democrats:
We balanced the budget.
Social Security is the most successful social plan of the last hundred years.
Medicare/Medicaid is the second most successful social plan of the same period.
Home ownership goes up under Democratic leadership.
Poverty goes down under Democratic leadership.
Some of us actually learned a lesson or two from Vietnam--not all of us, but we're working on it.
We want everyone in the country to have access to quality health care.
We want everyone in the country to have a quality education.

In short, Democrats think that government ought to be helping more people, not fewer, and the poorer, not the wealthier.

How about this for ideas from Democrats:
We balanced the budget.

Which really wasn't balanced to begin with.

Social Security is the most successful social plan of the last hundred years.

Nearly out of money!

Medicare/Medicaid is the second most successful social plan of the same period.

See above

Home ownership goes up under Democratic leadership.

More people have been buying homes since Bush took office.

Poverty goes down under Democratic leadership.

Not necessarily true but I won't fight it.

Some of us actually learned a lesson or two from Vietnam--not all of us, but we're working on it.

So has the military. Don't listen to the politicians and actually fight!

We want everyone in the country to have access to quality health care.

Which won't happen and we all know it.

We want everyone in the country to have a quality education.

Not just Democrats.

In short, Democrats think that government ought to be helping more people, not fewer, and the poorer, not the wealthier.

Then why has Bush been giving more money to the poor than even Bill Clinton did?

No, DeLay was an idiot. Not as bad as Howard Dean (losing his party's nomination for president really screwed him up), but DeLay was an idiot.

My home district (Texas 22nd) is represented by DeLay. I remember him from way back when.
The neighboring district is represented by the Hon. Dr. Ron Paul.

I have met bot of them personally (although it has been many, many years). One is an utter jack ass, and always has been. The other is damned smart and holds my complete respect (although I do not agree with him 100%).

3 guesses as to who is who....

Which really wasn't balanced to begin with.[quote]

Yeah, it was a surplus



[QUOTE]Nearly out of money!

Thanks to Bush


See above

see above


More people have been buying homes since Bush took office.

And more people have been going into bankruptcy and losing their homes. I'd also like to see a breakdown as to who is buying homes sometime.



Not necessarily true but I won't fight it.

Poverty and crime went down almost every year Clinton was in office.

So has the military. Don't listen to the politicians and actually fight!

Too bad the military listened to the Bush administration instead of to General Shinseki.



Which won't happen and we all know it.

Why not? Poorer countries can do it, why can't we? Oh, that's right. The medical and insurance lobbyists won't allow it.


Not just Democrats.

not sure where you're going with that.

Then why has Bush been giving more money to the poor than even Bill Clinton did?

More money tossed around with less effect. Gotta love those Republicans.

How about this for ideas from Democrats:
We balanced the budget.
Social Security is the most successful social plan of the last hundred years.
Medicare/Medicaid is the second most successful social plan of the same period.
Home ownership goes up under Democratic leadership.
Poverty goes down under Democratic leadership.
Some of us actually learned a lesson or two from Vietnam--not all of us, but we're working on it.
We want everyone in the country to have access to quality health care.
We want everyone in the country to have a quality education.

In short, Democrats think that government ought to be helping more people, not fewer, and the poorer, not the wealthier.
If you were running for office, that would be a good start. I'd probably even listen until you started talking about soaking the rich. By the way, the balanced budget thing is history. How will you do that now?

Why hasn't the leadership at the DNC or DLC or MoveOn figured it out?

Jesh... what IS it with Congress lately?

I'm starting to agree with some Democrats, being in power has made the Republicans arrogant and started them doing the very things they promised not to do when they were first voted into power.
Do you mean to suggest that power currupts? Surely, you jest good sir!

If you were running for office, that would be a good start. I'd probably even listen until you started talking about soaking the rich. By the way, the balanced budget thing is history. How will you do that now?

Why hasn't the leadership at the DNC or DLC or MoveOn figured it out?
They have its called repeal the tax cuts so they can actualy pay for the services they put in place.

Why hasn't the leadership at the DNC or DLC or MoveOn figured it out?

Two reasons:

1. Any time they try, they are accused of being communists and anti-Americun!

2. The corporations who help the Dems get elected (same ones as the Republicans,) don't want to hear about it.

Does anybody even know what he's being charged with?

Does anybody even know what he's being charged with?

Conspiracy

Conspiracy

To do what?

Yes, of course I realize this, but for months I really thought he was going to wiggle his way out of it.. it's good to see he is being made to answer for his criminal behaviour. No one can scream it's playing politics.. everyone surrounding this have also been indicted. And if convicted which I suspect he will be, say good-bye to DeLay, his career is so overah! :)
Read the following.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005531.php

The indictment of Tom DeLay by DA Ronnie Earle has split the blogosphere into predictable battle lines, with liberal bloggers celebrating the indictment and conservatives, such as myself, pointing out the long history of partisanship that Earle has displayed in his pursuit of DeLay. Lost in the shuffle, for the most part, is the indictment itself. Apart from the arguable partisanship, the argument for a criminal indictment on the basis of the kinds of transactions alleged appears very weak, as even the Washington Post acknowledges:

Nonetheless, at least on the evidence presented so far, the indictment of Mr. DeLay by a state prosecutor in Texas gives us pause. The charge concerns the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee created by Mr. DeLay and his aides to orchestrate the GOP's takeover of the Texas legislature in 2002. The issue is whether Mr. DeLay and his political aides illegally used the group to evade the state's ban on corporate contributions to candidates. The indictment alleges that TRMPAC took $155,000 in corporate contributions and then sent a check for $190,000 to the national Republican Party's "soft money" arm. The national committee then wrote $190,000 in checks from its noncorporate accounts to seven Texas candidates. Perhaps most damning, TRMPAC dictated the precise amount and recipients of those donations.

This was an obvious end run around the corporate contribution rule. The more difficult question is whether it was an illegal end run -- or, to be more precise, one so blatantly illegal that it amounts to a criminal felony rather than a civil violation. For Mr. DeLay to be convicted, prosecutors will have to show not only that he took part in the dodge but also that he knew it amounted to a violation of state law -- rather than the kind of clever money-trade that election lawyers engineer all the time.

As I pointed out yesterday, the Democrats used the exact same manuever in the same election cycle. The Texas Democratic Party sent $175,000 to the DNC and got $195,000 in return in three pairs of matching transactions between June 2001 and October 2002, all pairs occurring on the same date:

The only problem is that similar transactions are conducted by both parties in many states, including Texas. In fact, on October 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party sent the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $75,000, and on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $75,000. On July 19, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000 and, again on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000. On June 8, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000. That very same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000.

If what Earle alleges that DeLay did amounts to money-laundering -- which Earle charged the other conspirators with committing, but not DeLay -- then why not the Democrats as well? If in fact both violate Texas law, then both groups should face prosecution. Did Earle present that to the grand jury, or did he just limit it to DeLay and the GOP? Earle's use of this case as a stump speech for Democratic Party fundraising this past May indicates that he had little motivation for equal application of the law -- which gives the understandable impression that Earle acted out of political malice and not a desire to see justice done.

Again, if DeLay broke the law, then he needs to face trial for it and answer for his actions, no question. If he conspired to launder money through a series of illegal transactions, then he should not only lose his leadership post but should get booted from Congress altogether. But like the Washington Post, I remain deeply skeptical about a criminal complaint concerning what appears to be a manuever used openly by both political parties and only one of them being held accountable for it -- by an activist for the other party.

I also agree with the Post about one other issue. We need to decide whether Tom DeLay should continue to represent the GOP in a leadership position even if this indictment gets tossed out, as it likely will as soon as a judge reviews it, but not for the hypocritical "ethics" charges that the Democrats keep tossing at DeLay, such as travel-expense irregularities that they more than casually commit themselves. We need to recapture the mantle of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, and DeLay appears to have swung over to the Drunken Sailor wing of the GOP establishment. His ludicrous statement earlier this month that the House had trimmed all the fat off the government budget at first sounded like an attempt at irony, but instead it demonstrated that the one-time firebrand for limited government had grown addicted to pork.

We need to ensure that those who lead the GOP understand that we elected them to cut the pork, not just shift it around to benefit Republicans. They seem to have forgotten that it's not their money -- it's ours. We only want it spent on items of national importance, and the rest of it should come back to us. If Tom DeLay can't find any waste in a federal budget that now eats up 20% of our gross domestic product, then he's obviously the wrong man to lead the party.


The author is the one that essentially forced your government to lift it's ban on the coverage of your recent govenment scandal.

More here http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003628.htm

With this from an e-mail out of Delay's office

Statement from the Office of the Majority Leader

(WASHINGTON) - Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (TX) today released the following statement regarding today's announcement by the Travis County (TX) District Attorney's Office:

"These charges have no basis in the facts or the law. This is just another example of Ronnie Earle misusing his office for partisan vendettas. Despite the clearly political agenda of this prosecutor, Congressman DeLay has cooperated with officials throughout the entire process. Even in the last two weeks, Ronnie Earle himself had acknowledged publicly that Mr. DeLay was not a target of his investigation. However, as with many of Ronnie Earle's previous partisan investigations, Ronnie Earle refused to let the facts or the law get in the way of his partisan desire to indict a political foe.

This purely political investigation has been marked by illegal grand jury leaks, a fundraising speech by Ronnie Earle for Texas Democrats that inappropriately focused on the investigation, misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them. Ronnie Earle's previous misuse of his office has resulted in failed prosecutions and we trust his partisan grandstanding will strike out again, as it should.

Ronnie Earle's 1994 indictment against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was quickly dismissed and his charges in the 1980s against former Attorney General Jim Mattox-another political foe of Earle-fell apart at trial.

We regret the people of Texas will once again have their taxpayer dollars wasted on Ronnie Earle's pursuit of headlines and political paybacks. Ronnie Earle began this investigation in 2002, after the Democrat Party lost the Texas state legislature to Republicans. For three years and through numerous grand juries, Ronnie Earle has tried to manufacture charges against Republicans involved in winning those elections using arcane statutes never before utilized in a case in the state. This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat."

Note the bolded, Earle's pulled this sort of shit before apparently.

I've always thought that Delay's destiny would be a jail cell. He's going there straight from congress. Just one question... who in their damned minds votes for men like him in the first place? :mad:

oh I like it - I think I will get G.R.I.P. and push for that movement to make its way to Nevada as well.
Nevada doesn't need G.R.I.P. You have None of the Above.

Note the bolded, Earle's pulled this sort of shit before apparently.

Yeah, against a lot of Democrats too.

Also, most prosecutors have cases fall apart. Crowing about that as proof of Earl's partisanship is like saying Babe Ruth wasn't a great baseball player because (gasp!) sometimes he struck out!

To do what?

Basically to do an illegal end-run around campaign finance laws.

The Austin grand jury charged that the conspirators carried out the scheme by having the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee send corporate money to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back a like amount - $190,000 - to distribute to Texas candidates.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050930/D8CUAHCG0.html

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the full indictment listing in detail the particular parts of the Texas Election Code that were violated: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0928051delay1.html

I've always thought that Delay's destiny would be a jail cell. He's going there straight from congress. Just one question... who in their damned minds votes for men like him in the first place?

I grew up in his district (and it's still mine as far as voting goes). I never voted for him, but I can tell you that many of the people I know there are equally as slimey and as fake as he is.

Oh, and an overview of who this rougue partisan DA has gone after:



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/28/135713/851

sorry for the "partisan" link, but the info is accurate nontheless, unless someone has some counter evidence otherwise?

I prefer to think of it not so much as "counter evidence" as *the REST of the story*! ^_~

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004/11/bs_from_media_m.html

"And of course Earle prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans - the lead sentence of the editorial defending him explains why:


Until recent years, Democrats controlled the Texas Legislature, held most statewide offices and caused the big scandals. Now the situation is reversed, but some Republicans want their scandals to be exempt from investigation.


Finally, this ignores Mr. Earle's indictment and non-prosecution of Kay Bailey Hutchison (Rep.), which the Dallas Morning News viewed as partisan"

So poor, demented Mr. Earle does have a track record of doing this for political gain. And to say "most prosecutors have cases fall apart" in his defense is just plain lame since in point of fact *most* prosecutors are professional enough to operate on more than a "Let's make up a charge and hope a jury believes it basis" as Mr. Earle seems to. It's a job where you demonstrate competance by having a high conviction rate and that generally requires such things as trying to build as good a case as possible against people who look like their guilty as sin instead of making stuff up against people for no better reason than that they are your political rivals in the hopes that some naive jury somewhere will actually be stupid enough to buy it. :rolleyes:

But this does bring up an interesting point - to the extent that the liberals are supporting Mr. Earle's efforts they are advertising themselves as the sort of people who intend to abuse whatever political office they hold for the sake of powergrubbing. Not just to GOPers, but to Liberterians, Greens, Socialists, and genuinely independent voters as well.

Can any voter outside their party who sees this doubt that this is ongoing proof that the Democrats remain unfit for office? :eek:

I prefer to think of it not so much as "counter evidence" as *the REST of the story*! ^_~

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004/11/bs_from_media_m.html

"And of course Earle prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans - the lead sentence of the editorial defending him explains why:


Until recent years, Democrats controlled the Texas Legislature, held most statewide offices and caused the big scandals. Now the situation is reversed, but some Republicans want their scandals to be exempt from investigation.


Finally, this ignores Mr. Earle's indictment and non-prosecution of Kay Bailey Hutchison (Rep.), which the Dallas Morning News viewed as partisan"

So poor, demented Mr. Earle does have a track record of doing this for political gain. And to say "most prosecutors have cases fall apart" in his defense is just plain lame since in point of fact *most* prosecutors are professional enough to operate on more than a "Let's make up a charge and hope a jury believes it basis" as Mr. Earle seems to. It's a job where you demonstrate competance by having a high conviction rate and that generally requires such things as trying to build as good a case as possible against people who look like their guilty as sin instead of making stuff up against people for no better reason than that they are your political rivals in the hopes that some naive jury somewhere will actually be stupid enough to buy it. :rolleyes:

But this does bring up an interesting point - to the extent that the liberals are supporting Mr. Earle's efforts they are advertising themselves as the sort of people who intend to abuse whatever political office they hold for the sake of powergrubbing. Not just to GOPers, but to Liberterians, Greens, Socialists, and genuinely independent voters as well.

Can any voter outside their party who sees this doubt that this is ongoing proof that the Democrats remain unfit for office? :eek:

So, if DeLay is convicted, are you willing to eat a whole lotta crow with all the fixin's?

One more thing. How many cases agains Al Capone "fell apart" before they finally got him on tax evasion? So, without having ANY idea of the merits of any of the cases of Earl's that "fell apart," how can you possibly jump to the conclusion that "it was all partisan?"

Can anyone seriously investigate or criticize the Republicans without being smeared? Can you honestly stand there and say that there are no Republicans who are guilty of ethical misconduct?

The repeated tearing down of anyone who questions Republicans has become so moronically blatant as to be an insult to the intelligence of any open-minded person.

So, if DeLay is convicted, are you willing to eat a whole lotta crow with all the fixin's?

Works both ways. If this falls apart I expect YOU to eat a whole lotta crow with all the fixin's in this forum if Delay *IS NOT* convicted and if you don't I intend to start throwing this post in your face until you do. Are you still as intent on crow eating now that you know this? :rolleyes:

One more thing. How many cases agains Al Capone "fell apart" before they finally got him on tax evasion? So, without having ANY idea of the merits of any of the cases of Earl's that "fell apart," how can you possibly jump to the conclusion that "it was all partisan?"

A .200 batter is a .200 batter. Deal with it! :D

Can anyone seriously investigate or criticize the Republicans without being smeared? Can you honestly stand there and say that there are no Republicans who are guilty of ethical misconduct?

2nd question first: GOPers are human and so some are indeed guilty of such. That's why George Ryan is on trial in Illinois. Those who criticized and accused him knew what they were talking about and backed their words with more than the "He's Republican therefore he's guilty" basis and were completely unsmeared. Funny how that works. ;)

The repeated tearing down of anyone who questions Republicans has become so moronically blatant as to be an insult to the intelligence of any open-minded person.

Is that why GOPer George Ryan is on trial in Illinois without a peep of protest from most GOPers? :rolleyes:

The fact is that you guys tear yourselves down by pulling crud like this in the first place. Try accusing someone who's guilty and back your words with evidence and maybe you guys won't embarass yourselves as frequently as you do! :p

This adminstration is even more corrupt than the last one we had, and I, for one, am fucking sick of it.
Tom Delay should get a fair trial, just like anyone else. After wich, a non-partisan jury of his peers should decide his fate.
If hes guilty, they make an example out of his ass, to perhaps show our elected officials that they are not above the laws they create.

The news says this guy has been investigating Delays business for quite a while now, and he seems to think he has a case.

Clinton gets head, and the Republicans scream bloody murder, and launch a head hunt.

Rove leaks the name of an undercover agent, and now this, and they scream "No fair...partisanship!"

Screw that.

If he's innocent, he walks.
Simple as that.
However, it may be time for him to realize that no one is above the law.
I hope this sends a message to every politician in this country.

All of em.

Le'ssee,
Rant rant rant. Democrats are just being mean. Rant rant rant. Earle is a poltical hack. Rant rant and more rant
You forgot that this went before a grand jury, meaning it wasn't JUST Earle, this meant that a group of men and women thought there was enough evidence to bring the case to trial. Grand juries don't rubber stamp and I haven't heard of them being cherry picked Democrats either (beofre you try that).

Delay seems to have done something that's shady enough to be illegal. If it ain't so, he'll be a free man. If he is the man what done it, then he should face jail time. Criminial justice system at work, nothing more.

And before you scream any more about how only Democrats do this type of shite, don't forget about how the minority Republicans tried everything they could to bring down President Clinton including impeachment, when they gained control of the Congress, over oral sex.

Delay seems to have done something that's shady enough to be illegal. If it ain't so, he'll be a free man. If he is the man what done it, then he should face jail time. Criminial justice system at work, nothing more.

Since Delay is charged with conspiracy to and not that actual crime itself even if he was directly involved it will be extremely hard to prove.

Is that why GOPer George Ryan is on trial in Illinois without a peep of protest from most GOPers?

because not even delusional idiots feel the need to support a guy whose crimes wound up getting american children killed?

Yadda, yadda,...this went before a grand jury, meaning it wasn't JUST Earle, this meant that a herd thought there was enough evidence to bring the case to trial. More yadda yadda about how grand juries are never wrong and how Democrats believe that the Constitution is wrong and those who are accused should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Then a little bit of yadda, yadda about Clinton in a vain hope to derail the topic while trying to get people forget that Clinton was guilty of sexual harrassment felonies under a law *he himself signed into existence* as well as perjury. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

So you never heard the saying that a determined persecuter could get a ham sandwich indicted? o_O

Oh well, in defense of grand juries I should probably note that the Ronnie Earle Clown Show had to go shopping for more then one grand jury before he could finally get one to go along with what he wanted. I continue to reserve the right to taunt Democrats when this one falls apart. :p

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/the_delay_indic.html

because not even delusional idiots feel the need to support a guy whose crimes wound up getting american children killed?

That does explain why GOPer George Ryan was abandoned by all his Pro "Choice" buddies, doesn't it? O wait! They haven't been abandoned yet themselves, have they? ;)

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/gops.html

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/exterm.html

:D

Since Delay is charged with conspiracy to and not that actual crime itself even if he was directly involved it will be extremely hard to prove.

Ah, but now the charge is money laundering.

Ah, but now the charge is money laundering.
Separate charge first of all, and secondly he reqiured a third grand jury to get that indictment. The second grand jury he called wouldn't indict Delay. The money laundering charges don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell of standing up because under Texas law for a charge of money laundering to be applicable, the origin of the money has to be illegal, whether it's from selling drugs, stolen from a bank, protection money etc... etc... The money in question came from perfectly legit corporations. As such the charge is fluff. Any serious prosecutor whose aim was to actually stop crime wouldn't have brought it to bear.

Separate charge first of all, and secondly he reqiured a third grand jury to get that indictment. The second grand jury he called wouldn't indict Delay. The money laundering charges don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell of standing up because under Texas law for a charge of money laundering to be applicable, the origin of the money has to be illegal, whether it's from selling drugs, stolen from a bank, protection money etc... etc... The money in question came from perfectly legit corporations. As such the charge is fluff. Any serious prosecutor whose aim was to actually stop crime wouldn't have brought it to bear.

The purpose of Grand Juries is to weed out this kind of frivolous indictment and to ensure that an actual law was violated....and yet 2 seperate grand juries indicted. If the case is as flimsy as you suggest, then there's no way a Grand Jury (much less 2,) would indict.

The purpose of Grand Juries is to weed out this kind of frivolous indictment and to ensure that an actual law was violated....and yet 2 seperate grand juries indicted. If the case is as flimsy as you suggest, then there's no way a Grand Jury (much less 2,) would indict.
Okay, this has probably been covered, and I apologize for not scrutinizing this thread for the answer. But I have a question about the first indictment. If the law that he was indicted for breaking was, indeed, passed a year after the crime was committed, how could the jury indict DeLay?

Okay, this has probably been covered, and I apologize for not scrutinizing this thread for the answer. But I have a question about the first indictment. If the law that he was indicted for breaking was, indeed, passed a year after the crime was committed, how could the jury indict DeLay?
He signed a waiver waiving the statute of limitations. His lawyer then tried to revoke the waiver, causing the prosecutor to issue the second one on the last day the statute of limitations applied for the crime.

He signed a waiver waiving the statute of limitations. His lawyer then tried to revoke the waiver, causing the prosecutor to issue the second one on the last day the statute of limitations applied for the crime.
Why would anyone, guilty or innocent, waive the statute of limitations on a impending prosecution? That sure looks like a dumb action to a non-lawyer.

Why would anyone, guilty or innocent, waive the statute of limitations on a impending prosecution? That sure looks like a dumb action to a non-lawyer.
That has been the subject of much debate. However, with a limited knowledge of the case, a reason jumps out:

DeLay knew he was going to get indited on the second charges, so he offered Earle a deal, waiving the statute of limitations in exchange for not being charged with the more serious offense. DeLay changed lawyers, and the new lawyer tried to revoke the waiver.

Why would anyone, guilty or innocent, waive the statute of limitations on a impending prosecution? That sure looks like a dumb action to a non-lawyer.

I think it was meant as a Delay delay tactic. :D

As for the Grand Jury that failed to indict, I read that that particular grand jury was convened to look at new evididence that was not included in the other Grand Jury cases. That evidence, isolated, was not enough to grant an indictment.

That has been the subject of much debate. However, with a limited knowledge of the case, a reason jumps out:

DeLay knew he was going to get indited on the second charges, so he offered Earle a deal, waiving the statute of limitations in exchange for not being charged with the more serious offense. DeLay changed lawyers, and the new lawyer tried to revoke the waiver.
It's becoming more clear. Thanks.