NationStates Jolt Archive

So, the DeLay thing has been beaten into the ground at this point, but being the loyal conservative that I am, it's a good time to say what I'm thinking so I won't be accused of hypocrisy later.

First, my position: I was skeptical about charges against DeLay and though the lone prosecutor with a vendetta argument was a plausible defense. However, now that he has been formally indicted by a Grand Jury, the credibility of his guilt is far greater, and I am very much inclined to believe that he probably broke the law. I don't celebrate any person's wrongdoing, but it sure is nice to see that our system still works enough that people as powerful as the House majority leader can still be prosecuted and be looking at jail time. I despise criminals and I despise corruption, so if/when he goes down, I'll be cheering all the way.

That said, are there any liberals who are also happy to see DeLay going down who felt differently when Clinton was facing impeachment? I just recall that, at that time, many on the left were moaning about how it was all just a witch hunt and obstruction of justice isn't that serious a crime or perjury is a felony but it's not a big deal when lying under oath about sex or et cetera, et cetera. From my perspective, the shoe is on the other foot, and I wonder if you find that it still fits.

That said, are there any liberals who are also happy to see DeLay going down who felt differently when Clinton was facing impeachment?

I am absolutely ecstatic to see DeLay finally going down. I just wish they could get him on all the things he's done in his time in public service.

As for Clinton, that's a completely different case. You cannot compare the two.

For one thing, lets get something straight. Clinton did not "face impeachment," he was impeached. This is a commen misconception among the American people. Impeachment does not mean that you are removed from office, but rather that you will be tried to determine if you should be removed, with the senate acting as the "jury." Clinton was impeached, his case brought before the senate, and they voted not remove him from office.

Now, as to my personnal feelings at the time of the impeachment, I was against it. That was because the press was basically reporting that he was being impeached for the sex scandal, not for commiting perjury. It wasn't that they said it wasn't about perjury, it was that they basically just didn't say the word "perjury."

In retrospect, knowing that it was about perjury, which would be a crime that a president can be removed from office under the constitution, it was the right thing that he was impeached. To not impeach him would have set the precident that a president can commit perjury without being at risk for impeachment. After that, it is up to the senate to determine if a crime was committed that was bad enough to be removed from office, and I don't think lying about a sex scandal is bad enough, and the senate agreed.

As for the term "witch hunt," it does not apply to Clinton or to DeLay. In order for something to be a "witch hunt" the prosecuters would have to be going after person after person for the crime, and they aren't here. An example of a witch hunt would be McCarthyism, were hundreds of people were brought in front of the senate and occused of being communists, when they weren't.

I do feel that the House of Representatives only brought the impeachment up because they didn't like Clinton. Regardless of it being right or wrong, I feel that they were motivated by a dislike of the president more than caring about upholding the constitution.

As for Clinton, that's a completely different case. You cannot compare the two.


I beg to differ. Someone needs to dig up some quotes from liberals about how the Clinton scandal was a horrid injustice. And I'll wager those same people are holding the torches and leading this lynch mob against Delay.

"I tried to talk a friend into dipping his balls into his drink. Offered a dollar. But he wouldn't do it. And, I know why. It's because, if he did it, and they floated... then we would know that his balls were a witch." - Sarah Silverman

I beg to differ. Someone needs to dig up some quotes from liberals about how the Clinton scandal was a horrid injustice. And I'll wager those same people are holding the torches and leading this lynch mob against Delay.

Well lets see. A guy gets a hummer and lies about it.

A guy supposedly takes corporate donations(against Texas law from what I heard) launders it into his redistricting schemes.

How are the two the same?

Hi guys, just wanted to throw in my change:
I'm in Texas, and my district was one of the many that were reformed. I voted for Martin Frost (on electronic machines with no paper trail) and knew it was a hopeless cause. The game was fixed and I'm not the kind of person who usually sees the glass half empty. That being said, what happened down here was a travesty and no one thought twice about it. Whe we teeny tiny people stood up and said, "hey that aint right" we were put down for whining or being pinko liberals who couldnt take defeat.
What I'm saying is Delay did more than launder money, he rigged the system and the whole geography of Texas politics changed. We havent had a republican majority in FOURTY YEARS. You know? Anyway, thats my beef, Clinton didnt cheat the country, he just cheated his wife. Delay cheated his state and the people he was put in power to represent. I'm so sick of politicians who forget they work for US.

Thanks for reading
JACKiE, Texan, and not proud right now

So, the DeLay thing has been beaten into the ground at this point, but being the loyal conservative that I am, it's a good time to say what I'm thinking so I won't be accused of hypocrisy later.

First, my position: I was skeptical about charges against DeLay and though the lone prosecutor with a vendetta argument was a plausible defense. However, now that he has been formally indicted by a Grand Jury, the credibility of his guilt is far greater, and I am very much inclined to believe that he probably broke the law. I don't celebrate any person's wrongdoing, but it sure is nice to see that our system still works enough that people as powerful as the House majority leader can still be prosecuted and be looking at jail time. I despise criminals and I despise corruption, so if/when he goes down, I'll be cheering all the way.

That said, are there any liberals who are also happy to see DeLay going down who felt differently when Clinton was facing impeachment? I just recall that, at that time, many on the left were moaning about how it was all just a witch hunt and obstruction of justice isn't that serious a crime or perjury is a felony but it's not a big deal when lying under oath about sex or et cetera, et cetera. From my perspective, the shoe is on the other foot, and I wonder if you find that it still fits.

I suppose I qualify, but that is because the two are entirely different animals.

Let's be clear about the facts in the case of Clinton: Clinton was subpoenaed in conjunction with an investigation regarding improper conduct with Paula Jones. Namely, Paula Jones alleged sexual harrassment, and Kenneth Starr subpoenaed the President, and the President answered the subpoena. It should also be noted that Kenneth Starr was originally appointed as special prosecutor over the Whitewater affair-- an incident in which millions of dollars and years of investigation turned up absolutely no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Clintons. His mission then morphed to several other "scandals", like Travelgate, and in each of those incidents, again, the special prosecutor could find no evidence of wrongdoing.

During the testimony regarding what was supposed to be Paula Jones' sexual harrassment, Kenneth Starr then began to ask President Clinton about Monica Lewinsky. At this point, Clinton lied about the nature of the relationship: one of consensual, albeit infidelitous, sexual relations. At this point, Kenneth Starr presented the material to the House, which began impeachment hearings.

So if you look over the information like that, yeah, BT, it does look a hell of a lot like a witch hunt. Kenneth Starr spent five years and millions of taxpayer dollars looking for something, anything that Bill Clinton had done wrong. Finally, the guy slipped up when said prosecutor effectively entrapped him by asking him a question that had absolutely no relation to the matter under which he was subpoenaed: whether or not Monica Lewinsky was blowing Clinton has nothing to do with whether or not Paula Jones was sexually harrassed by Clinton, and one or the other might well be true completely independent of the other.

Tom DeLay, on the other hand, is not on the hook for being entrapped about an intern fellating him. He's on the hook for violating campaign-finance law by laundering money through the Texas Republican Party apparatus. If he did do that, he damn well ought to be removed from office, because that is a violation of the law of the highest order: doing so precisely to manipulate the political process for your own ends. That sounds to me like a far more legitemate grounds for removal.

And as a side note, I do always love how you so adroitly switch gears straight back to attacking liberalism. A synopsis of your line of thought, apparently no matter what happens, goes something like this: "Damn you liberals for pointing out how completely wrong we were and how right you are because of (Fill in the blank) scandal. Really, you are only right because the even worse scandals in your past have taught how to be better cronies than us, which is why in the future I'm going to vote more Republican in the next election." It's a very foolish line of thinking, but in a Nietzschian kind of way I do have to admire it, if for no other reason than that you are so skilled at the You-Too fallacy.

So if you look over the information like that, yeah, BT, it does look a hell of a lot like a witch hunt. Kenneth Starr spent five years and millions of taxpayer dollars looking for something, anything that Bill Clinton had done wrong. Finally, the guy slipped up when said prosecutor effectively entrapped him by asking him a question that had absolutely no relation to the matter under which he was subpoenaed: whether or not Monica Lewinsky was blowing Clinton has nothing to do with whether or not Paula Jones was sexually harrassed by Clinton, and one or the other might well be true completely independent of the other.

On your last point, if the information was irrelevant, it would have been inadmissible and Clinton wouldn't have had to lie to begin with. Clinton, himself a graduate of Yale law school, had his own personal team of expert attorneys who know what is and isn't relevant in a civil judicial matter. If the matter was, in fact irrelevant... or even if its probative value would be considered outweighted by its prejudicial value... any one of them would have had to simply chime in by saying "Your honor, I object. This question is irrelevant to the case." Any good or even modestly competent attorney would do this because that's just what a good or even modestly competent attorney would do to protect his client. That did not happen, however, because it was completely relevant because the American courts recognize sexual impropriety as a behavior that tends to follow a pattern, and evidence of a pattern lends to support the occurrance of an alleged event. This is exactly what makes it "relevant". The weight of the evidence shows that Clinton abused his power while Governor of Arkansas to elicit sexual contact from one of the state's employees--an extremely serious accusation for anyone who has been sexually harrassed by a superior officer or employer. In the investigation of those matters, Clinton perjured himself--a crime taken so seriously by the courts that it is a felony punishable by no less than a year in prison in any state in the country, and as many as four years in prison in some.

Tom DeLay, on the other hand, is not on the hook for being entrapped about an intern fellating him.

This is true.

He's on the hook for violating campaign-finance law by laundering money through the Texas Republican Party apparatus.

This is also true.

If he did do that, he damn well ought to be removed from office,

I agree.

because that is a violation of the law of the highest order: doing so precisely to manipulate the political process for your own ends.

You lose me a here with the "law of the highest order" thing, but I don't want to get hung up on that.

That sounds to me like a far more legitemate grounds for removal.

Felonies are pretty serious... actually, misdemeanors are too.

I don't do criminal law anymore, so I can't recall what an obstruction of justice charge would carry in California, but I remember that in Virginia, Obstruction of Justice was a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months incarceration and/or $1,000 fine. It's pretty serious because it basically means that you deliberately obstructed the judicial process. Then there's also the abuse of power charge (no idea what that carries) and the perjury (a felony, sentences previously discussed).

If you owned a store and had a cashier who was subseqently convicted on those charges, but answered, "sorry, but i was getting a bj and didn't want anyone to find out. so, after i finish serving my two years in the clink, can i have my job back? i'll need the money to pay off the $2,000 in fines that I got as part of the sentence," would you honestly be ok with that?

I suppose that discussion is moot, though, because what you basically seem to be saying is that DeLay's illegal activities, provided they're proven to be so, prove he is not fit for office. I agree. I really, really, really disagree though that Clinton's crimes did not prove him unfit for the office of the President.


And as a side note, I do always love how you so adroitly switch gears straight back to attacking liberalism. A synopsis of your line of thought, apparently no matter what happens, goes something like this: "Damn you liberals for pointing out how completely wrong we were and how right you are because of (Fill in the blank) scandal. Really, you are only right because the even worse scandals in your past have taught how to be better cronies than us, which is why in the future I'm going to vote more Republican in the next election."

I'm a conservative, not a Republican. :) Regardless, if people supported ideas instead of parties, the system would be better. (of course, supporting MY ideas instead of parties would be the best option, but I'm not holding my breath).

If you'd prefer, I could take the brainwashed soldier approach, and just call it an ideological witchhunt no matter what happens, including conviction.

[/QUOTE]It's a very foolish line of thinking, but in a Nietzschian kind of way I do have to admire it, if for no other reason than that you are so skilled at the You-Too fallacy.[/QUOTE]

Ah... the back-handed compliment :) Awesome :)

But I'm afraid that it has been too long since I took a communications/philosophy/whatever course to know what the "you-too fallacy" would be.

DeLay screwed over Texas, whereas Clinton merely screwed over Paula Jones (no pun intended).

That said, are there any liberals who are also happy to see DeLay going down who felt differently when Clinton was facing impeachment? I just recall that, at that time, many on the left were moaning about how it was all just a witch hunt and obstruction of justice isn't that serious a crime or perjury is a felony but it's not a big deal when lying under oath about sex or et cetera, et cetera. From my perspective, the shoe is on the other foot, and I wonder if you find that it still fits.
Because committing perjury in a trial about committing adultery is the same thing as money laundering, conspiracy to money laundering, and a plethora of other offenses.

You know as well as anyone else Brian that the perjury charges were inflated at best. Clinton was being a lawyer when he answered that question, and technically didn't purjure himself when he said he had no sexual relations with that woman, as he had at least a good faith belief that what he was saying was correct in the context of the definitions of the words "sexual relations" as laid down by the lawyers in this case.

DeLay screwed over Texas, whereas Clinton merely screwed over Paula Jones (no pun intended).
Not to mention Whitewater.

Whatever. Piss on all the politicians for all I care, just like they take their daily piss on the constitution.

You know as well as anyone else Brian that the perjury charges were inflated at best. Clinton was being a lawyer when he answered that question, and technically didn't purjure himself when he said he had no sexual relations with that woman, as he had at least a good faith belief that what he was saying was correct in the context of the definitions of the words "sexual relations" as laid down by the lawyers in this case.
Of course, this all depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.

Apologist bull shit on the same level as Republicans. Pathetic.

Of course, this all depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.

Apologist bull shit on the same level as Republicans. Pathetic.
Please. He's a lawyer for ffs, of course he's going to split semantic hairs. How about you learn something about the case before you call it "apologist bull shit".

Of course, this all depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.

Apologist bull shit on the same level as Republicans. Pathetic.
Technical correctness rules the courtroom.

Please. He's a lawyer for ffs, of course he's going to split semantic hairs. How about you learn something about the case before you call it "apologist bull shit".
I’m sure Republicans will be using the same type of crap when they defend DeLay.

You know as well as anyone else Brian that the perjury charges were inflated at best. Clinton was being a lawyer when he answered that question, and technically didn't purjure himself when he said he had no sexual relations with that woman, as he had at least a good faith belief that what he was saying was correct in the context of the definitions of the words "sexual relations" as laid down by the lawyers in this case.

I respectfully disagree. I didn't even realize that the criminality of Clinton's actions were still in contention.

Of course, this all depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.

Well said.

I respectfully disagree. I didn't even realize that the criminality of Clinton's actions were still in contention.
You're right, there isn't. He was found not guilty of all charges by a jury of his peers (not even close to being found guilty), and thus there is no debate: clinton did nothing illegal.

So, the DeLay thing has been beaten into the ground at this point, but being the loyal conservative that I am, it's a good time to say what I'm thinking so I won't be accused of hypocrisy later.

First, my position: I was skeptical about charges against DeLay and though the lone prosecutor with a vendetta argument was a plausible defense. However, now that he has been formally indicted by a Grand Jury, the credibility of his guilt is far greater, and I am very much inclined to believe that he probably broke the law. I don't celebrate any person's wrongdoing, but it sure is nice to see that our system still works enough that people as powerful as the House majority leader can still be prosecuted and be looking at jail time. I despise criminals and I despise corruption, so if/when he goes down, I'll be cheering all the way.

That said, are there any liberals who are also happy to see DeLay going down who felt differently when Clinton was facing impeachment? I just recall that, at that time, many on the left were moaning about how it was all just a witch hunt and obstruction of justice isn't that serious a crime or perjury is a felony but it's not a big deal when lying under oath about sex or et cetera, et cetera. From my perspective, the shoe is on the other foot, and I wonder if you find that it still fits.


Getting a blow job and campaign fraud are two different things :)

I beg to differ. Someone needs to dig up some quotes from liberals about how the Clinton scandal was a horrid injustice. And I'll wager those same people are holding the torches and leading this lynch mob against Delay.
Lying under oath is an impeachable offence, Clinton was impeached. Lying about having an affair under oath -however- hardly is sufficant grounds to remove a President from Office. So I'd say justice was served.

You're right, there isn't. He was found not guilty of all charges by a jury of his peers (not even close to being found guilty), and thus there is no debate: clinton did nothing illegal.

Not guilty and innocent are two different things.

Or are you saying OJ did nothing wrong? :rolleyes:

Not guilty and innocent are two different things.

Or are you saying OJ did nothing wrong? :rolleyes:
Please. Talk about being like a lawyer.


Yes, there is a slight difference between not guilty and innocent, but no verdict "innocent" exists for a jury to return. Not guilty (acquittal) or guilty, no "innocent". There was not enough evidence suggesting wrongdoing-Clinton was found not guilty. Under the law, he did nothing wrong. Move on.


Actually, most senators voted for "innocent", at least in the laymans term, as can be seen by Specter, Arlen's vote (R-PA) "Not Proved".

Please. Talk about being like a lawyer.


Yes, there is a slight difference between not guilty and innocent, but no verdict "innocent" exists for a jury to return. Not guilty (acquittal) or guilty, no "innocent". There was not enough evidence suggesting wrongdoing-Clinton was found not guilty. Under the law, he did nothing wrong. Move on.


Actually, most senators voted for "innocent", at least in the laymans term, as can be seen by Specter, Arlen's vote (R-PA) "Not Proved".
As Republicans will say after DeLay is found not guilty.

As Republicans will say after DeLay is found not guilty.
Notice how I haven't ran around saying "ding dong the witch is dead" like some people here? It's because I wait for the jury to come out before passing judgement.

I beg to differ. Someone needs to dig up some quotes from liberals about how the Clinton scandal was a horrid injustice. And I'll wager those same people are holding the torches and leading this lynch mob against Delay.

Conservatives said at the time that "a man that can push the red button should be impeached for lying". I wonder what they said when it was discovered that Bush lied about the WMDs. Pot, kettle here. You're black.

Conservatives said at the time that "a man that can push the red button should be impeached for lying". I wonder what they said when it was discovered that Bush lied about the WMDs. Pot, kettle here. You're black.

1. Lying is not a felony. Lying is not punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year.

2. Bush never lied.