Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Tom Delay Finally Gone?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    "Ronny Earle has won indictments against more conservative Democrats than Republicans"

    FYP

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Leader
      "Ronny Earle has won indictments against more conservative Democrats than Republicans"

      FYP
      I would agree with that. Texas Democrats are a different species than liberal Democrats.

      Comment


      • #33
        Earle was jobbing his office from 1976, when virtually every single statewide office was held by Democrats, the majority party in Texas at the time, and until recent years. Corruption was rife (as it always is when Democrats control ANYthing), and it is simply common sense that Earle would've indicted more Democrats than Republicans (which is hardly something our Kool-Aid Drinkin' Democrat, Broken, should be bragging about).

        And I didn't say DeLay needed to serve jail time. Read it again, Gutless Wonder, and stop telling us how easy it is fer them wascally Wepublicans to get out of trouble with their nefarious old-boy network. If he is convicted, OR plea-bargains, OR is censured by the House - in other words, if he is found GUILTY of conspiracy - you get my money.

        You want the action or not?

        And in a seperate bet, I'll go another $20 that Delay is NOT working as a lobbyist in two years. It was your bet; will you back it, or was that just another throw-away figure-of-careless-speech that you so often throw out there?

        Comment


        • #34
          From Captain's Quarters:
          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.
          Last edited by Bluesman; 30 Sep 05,, 08:23.

          Comment


          • #35
            That was the WASHINGTON POST, for God's sake. Not exactly the broadsheet for DeLay's political action committee, to say the least.

            I know what's going on here, and anybody with an adult's normal understanding of Democratic Party dirty tricks can perceive it. Does anybody here think that it's just a cowinky-dink that just a day after Bill Frist - Majority Leader in the Senate - gets slimed for what will be proven in the fullness of time to be humbug/trumped-up ethics charge, that Tom DeLay - Majority Leader in the House - gets slimed for what will be proven in the fullness of time to be humbug/trumped-up indictment? And perhaps Bush's right-hand man in the White House just happened to get hisse'f all tangled up in something - oh, it's not really clear EXACTLY what he did wrong, but we just KNOW he's a wrong-'un.

            Bullsh!t. This is an orchestrated campaign to affect the last campaign the Democrats have a chance to be competititve in - the '06 Congressional election. This is it: all or nothing, hell-for-leather, send in the reserves time. They're going all-in, and knowing they're holding a weak hand, they have to look as tough as they can, and hope the other guy folds.

            Dean - the over-boss holding the creature Earle's leash - would've liked to wait until about six months out from the elections next November for maximum impact, thus ensuring there wouldn't be enough time for either man to clear his name. But he's going with what he's got - nothin' - right now, because the day the indictment came down was THE LAST DAY it could've been issued. Now, WHY do you suppose that is? Because if they play their cards right, the Democrats can string this along until that magical date in which the 'stench of corruption' (in the oh-so-nonpartisan and even-handed way one of the Democrat's media collaborators put it in the White House press conference yesterday) will still be hanging around the Republican's top leaders. But they need every day they can get for the charge to be fresh, for it to be harder to defend against due to compressed time. So they waited until NOW, the last possible day.

            I will make a prediction: the process will move VERY slowly, and with the Democrats inexplicably dragging their feet. (They will probably claim to be 'going by the book', so that the object of their second-greatest hatred - DeLay - will be treated fairly. If you buy that, shame on you for being a gullible ingenue that shouldn't be allowed to take the family's cow to market, let alone VOTE in November.)

            Can't get Bush lying under oath, like they did with our guy? Tear into everybody around him, and neuter Bush by proxy.

            THAT is what this is all about.

            Comment


            • #36
              DeLay isn't the first, nor the last, to do the dirty....the only difference is he got caught. The Republicans are the majority now, and the Democrats aren't going to pull out any stops to reverse the situation. Ladies and gentlemen....it's called POLITICS. ;)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Julie
                DeLay isn't the first, nor the last, to do the dirty....the only difference is he got caught.
                Did you even read what I posted? I dispute that he got caught. If you disagree, then what say we each back it up?


                Originally posted by Julie
                The Republicans are the majority now, and the Democrats aren't going to pull out any stops to reverse the situation. Ladies and gentlemen....it's called POLITICS. ;)
                Well, I agree with THAT part. And politics does not belong in the criminal court system.

                But this is what the Democrats have been reduced to: not only UNFAIR tactics (they've ALWAYS done THAT), but actual usurpation of the people's power.

                THIS WHOLE THANG is an abuse of power by a zealous left-wing nut-case, closing out his career with a super-nova partisan explosion. Either way it goes, nobody is going to EVER forget Ronnie Earle.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Bluesman
                  Basically, he's been slimed by the Democrats, not with anything specific, mind, just vague insinuations of bad character, etc.
                  And three times by the Ethics Commettee...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Bluesman
                    Did you even read what I posted? I dispute that he got caught. If you disagree, then what say we each back it up?
                    There is always one tiny issue that prompts an investigation of this magnitude. At this point in time, I'm just speculating sweetie. What prompted it? Or who?

                    You want to talk about someone with some motive, what about Roy Blunt, the one taking DeLay's place? "He was elected 10 years ago, and Blunt's quick rise to the No. 2 spot in the House has ruffled some feathers. In the meantime, the logistics of moving DeLay out of his office and melding his staff with Blunt's dominated the attention of many in the Capitol."

                    We'll find out later, in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind. ;)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Bluesman
                      That was the WASHINGTON POST, for God's sake. Not exactly the broadsheet for DeLay's political action committee, to say the least.
                      I am glad to see that the Washington Post is now on your list of credible opinion sources. Here is a decent article summing up what Earle will need as evidence in order to convict Delay:

                      Texas Case May Require Insider Testimony
                      Experts say prosecutor must show that the indicted congressman intentionally committed a felony in routing corporate donations.

                      By Scott Gold, Times Staff Writer


                      HOUSTON ó Prosecutors are prepared to use information from people involved in Rep. Tom DeLay's fundraising organization, including out-of-state business executives, against him in an effort to prove that he conspired to route illegal corporate money into elections, attorneys and officials close to the case said Thursday.

                      That information ó some of it contained in documents, such as a note reminding DeLay to call an executive whose company was preparing to write a $25,000 check ó would be used at trial to suggest that the indicted congressman was directly involved in the fundraising setup, the attorneys and officials said.

                      Still, analysts said it was not enough for Dist. Atty. Ronald Earle, who is leading the prosecution, to show that DeLay helped raise money from corporations, even though Texas law bans corporate contributions to legislative candidates.

                      To convict DeLay, Earle must show that the U.S. House majority leader intentionally agreed to commit a felony.

                      Earle would have to show, essentially, that DeLay knew the corporate money he was raising was going to be routed to Republican legislative candidates.

                      For that, Earle would need an inside witness to turn state's evidence ó and a furious parlor game has begun in Texas over whom that might be, and what that person might be willing to say at trial.
                      LA Times
                      I know what's going on here, and anybody with an adult's normal understanding of Democratic Party dirty tricks can perceive it.
                      Yep, and Karl Rove is the Fairy Godmother. I haven't seen any evidence lately that Republican politicians are shining examples of political morality. How many indictments, arrests, and Grand Jury investigations have their been lately? I've lost count. Nobody in 1994 would have bet that Republicans could out-corrupt the Democrats.
                      Does anybody here think that it's just a cowinky-dink that just a day after Bill Frist - Majority Leader in the Senate - gets slimed for what will be proven in the fullness of time to be humbug/trumped-up ethics charge,
                      ďWell, I think really for our viewers it should be understood that I put this into a blind trust. So as far as I know, I own no HCA stockÖI have no control. It is illegal right now for me to know what the composition of those trusts are. So I have no idea.Ē - Bill Frist January 2003.

                      On May 16, 2002, Scobey (Frist's Trust manager) advised Frist that four investments were contributed to a Frist blind trust, including HCA stock valued at $500,000 to $1 million. A second letter the same day mentions the same four investments going into a different trust, but with different valuations, including HCA stock valued at $250,000 to $500,000.

                      Frist asked a trustee to sell all his HCA stock in June, near a 52-week price peak of $58.40 a share. Reports to the SEC showed HCA insiders sold about 2.3 million shares.

                      Frist's sale came about two weeks before the company issued a disappointing earnings forecast that drove its stock price down almost 16 percent by mid-July and still have not recovered. HCA rose $1.70 Friday, closing at $47.60.


                      Business Week

                      So, at the very least, Frist was lying when he said he had no idea if HCA was in his trust.
                      Tom DeLay - Majority Leader in the House - gets slimed for what will be proven in the fullness of time to be humbug/trumped-up indictment?
                      The Jury Foreman, William Gibson, doesn't think the charges are trumped up:

                      Gibson thinks there is enough evidence to convict Delay.

                      "We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed the man, if we didn't feel there was sufficient evidence," said Gibson.

                      The evidence is there to prove Delay was involved in wrongdoing and also prove that he and his fellow grand jurors acted independent of political influence, Gibson said.

                      "It wasn't Mr. Earle that indicted the man. It was the 12 members of the grand jury," Gibson said.

                      Gibson is a former sheriff's deputy and a former investigator for what is now the Texas Department of Insurance.
                      News 8 Austin

                      This is an orchestrated campaign to affect the last campaign the Democrats have a chance to be competititve in - the '06 Congressional election.
                      Really? Why is 2006 "the last campaign the Democrats have a chance to be competititve in"?

                      You really think Abramoff, Delay, Rove, Frist, David Safavian, Larry Franklin, Randy Cunningham, etc, are all victims of some nefarious scheming Democrats?

                      Dean - the over-boss holding the creature Earle's leash - would've liked to wait until about six months out from the elections next November for maximum impact, thus ensuring there wouldn't be enough time for either man to clear his name.
                      You should stay away from those Conspiracy websites. Too much Kool-Aid isn't healthy. Delay is accusing Nancy Pelosi of pulling Earle's strings, not Dean. At least you two guys should drink the same Kool-Aid- it's less confusing that way.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Delay started coming unglued today. Look's like the pressure is getting to him. Tom should have listened to his lawyers. It's a bad idea to run your mouth on TV.

                        Oops #1:

                        Delay claims he was never allowed to speak to the grand jury.

                        The day after U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's grand jury indictment, his lawyer and the jury foreman on Thursday appeared to contradict the Texas politician's assertions that he was not given a chance to speak before the jury.

                        The foreman, William M. Gibson Jr., a retired state insurance investigator, said the Travis County grand jury waited until Wednesday, the final day of its term, to indict him because it was hoping he would accept jurors' invitation to testify.

                        DeLay said in interviews that the grand jury never asked him to testify.

                        In a Wednesday night appearance on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, he said Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle never talked to him or asked him to testify.

                        "Never asking me to testify, never doing anything for two years," DeLay said in the interview. "And then, on the last day of his fourth or sixth grand jury, he indicts me. Why? Because his goal was to make me step down as majority leader."
                        Houston Chronicle . The Chronicle is Delay's hometown newspaper.

                        Oops #2:

                        Delay claims he didn't know he was under investigation. On Thursday, DeLay said in another broadcast interview that he was under the impression that he wasn't going to be indicted because he hadn't been called to testify before the grand jury. Say what? Delay was told back in July to sign a waver on the statute of limitations for the investigation or he would be indicted right then and there.

                        Oops #3:

                        Delay wears his tinfoil hat on the TV with Wolf Blitzer:

                        DELAY: Ronnie Earle does this to all his political enemies. He did it to conservative Democrats. He did it ó and he does it to Republicans. And particularly in my case, he did it in conjunction and working with the Democrat leadership here in Washington, D.C.


                        BLITZER: Well, thatís an explosive charge you make, that there was some sort of collusion or conspiracy between Ronnie Earle and Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the Congress. What evidence, if any, do you have to back that up?

                        DELAY: Itís very good evidence, that they announced this strategy publicly, they put it on their website and this strategy is in their fund-raising letters.

                        BLITZER: Who specifically ó who announced this?

                        DELAY: The DCCC, the Democratic Campaign Committee, run by Chairman Rahm Emanuel.

                        BLITZER: They announced that they were working with Ronnie Earle to get you an indictment?

                        DELAY: No, they didnít do that.

                        BLITZER: What evidence is there they consulted with Ronnie Earle, that they talked to him or they had any dealings with him whatsoever?

                        DELAY: That evidence is coming. But the point is, they announced the strategy, and itís very funny that two weeks ago, when Ronnie Earle said publicly that I was not part of the investigation, that I hadnít been investigated, and then turns around in two days ó over the weekend ó he now is going to indict me. It is quite obvious, because the Democrats announced this strategy. And we all know how this place works. Iím sure they worked closely with Ronnie Earle on this strategy.

                        BLITZER: When is the evidence going to be made available? You say itís coming. When are you going to make that evidence available?

                        DELAY: When itís timely.

                        BLITZER: What does that mean?

                        DELAY: When itís timely.

                        BLITZER: All right. Well, weíll have to wait and see for that evidence.


                        Link to CNN Video

                        By the way, this was Tom DeLay, quoted in the Washington Post, October 9, 1998:

                        "I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. "

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Didn't take the bet, did you, Gutless? Thought you wouldn't; hoped you would.

                          But I will be calling this thread back when Delay is exonerated.

                          You really are a piece of work, you know that? I took you off my 'Ignore' list in order to see if you'd take my bet (NObody wanted a chance at my money, but I was really hoping that YOU, at least, would have the guts - one dam' time - to show a little faith in your own beliefs...and you turned like the worm you are AGAIN). But what do I get for un-ignoring you? Just more aggravation.

                          Well, Lazarus, back to the tomb with you. Rest In Peace, for all eternity.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bluesman
                            Didn't take the bet, did you, Gutless? Thought you wouldn't; hoped you would.
                            Tell me, Bluesman, is $20 a lot of money to you? Did it take a lot of guts for you to make that wager?

                            I come to this forum to discuss and debate, not to engage in mickey-mouse bets. I make my income through investments. As a pure capitalist, I have more than my fair share of gambling in my life. If you feel deprived, go to Vegas.
                            I took you off my 'Ignore' list in order to see if you'd take my bet .
                            Heh, heh. Bluesman, you are always putting me on your ignore list. Sadly, you keep ignoring your own list.

                            In any case, Delay IS no longer Majority Leader. Roy Blunt has his spot and Blunt ain't about to give it up.

                            Not that Blunt is any less in bed with the Washington lobbyists than Delay was. Here is a good profile of the man: Washington Post
                            Last edited by Broken; 02 Oct 05,, 00:13.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I thought this was an interesting article I found on Earle:

                              AUSTIN, Texas - Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor vilified by Rep. Tom DeLay as a "rogue district attorney" and an "unabashed partisan zealot," has heard worse.

                              There was the time, for instance, that a prominent Texas Democrat vowed to murder him.

                              "He would hold all these press conferences and say terrible things about me," Earle said, referring to Bob Bullock, the future lieutenant governor whom Earle investigated for allegedly misusing government resources in the 1970s.

                              I know at least twice people took guns away from him when he said he was going to kill me."

                              Earle, a Democrat, was laughing as he recounted the story in the Travis County district attorney's office last week. And like many sagas in Earle's career, the Bullock episode comes with a footnote.

                              Earle couldn't persuade the grand jury to indict Bullock, who was then the state's comptroller and struggling with a drinking problem. But years later, once Bullock had sobered up, the two men were recounting old times at Bullock's kitchen table.

                              "You know years ago when you investigated me?" Earle recalled Bullock telling him. "I was guilty as hell."

                              An appetite for confrontation
                              It's unlikely that Earle will be reminiscing over a kitchen table anytime soon with DeLay, the powerful Texas Republican he indicted last week. DeLay, whom Earle charged with conspiring to funnel illegal corporate campaign contributions into the state's 2002 legislative elections, has been forced to temporarily abdicate his post as House majority leader.

                              But one can see why Earle loves telling the Bullock story. It vindicates Earle's position, at least in his own retelling (Bullock died in 1999). It also exemplifies his willingness to target swaggering political figures, regardless of party.

                              A recurring theme among Earle's critics over the years -- and a centerpiece of DeLay's attacks -- has been that Earle courts media attention too aggressively. "During his investigation," DeLay said, "he has gone out of his way to give several media interviews in his office. The only days he actually comes into his office, I'm told." These critiques gained resonance last week when the National Review reported that Earle had allowed a film crew extensive access to his office while he worked on the DeLay case.

                              Explaining his cooperation with the media, Earle places it in the broader context of his mission. "Justice depends on the law," he said. "The law depends on democracy, democracy depends on free elections and free elections depend on freedom of the press. I see it as all of a piece."

                              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9535913/

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I notice that the MSNBC story didn't mention that Earle is cooperating on a movie being made about him. Is there anything relevant about that? Of course there is. And no mention of it in the article.

                                THIS is the MSM in action. Or inaction. Take your pick.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X