DeLay Indicted
 

It's on a Breaking News Banner on CNN.com:
AP/Yahoo Story

Heh heh.... Not just Delay in the hot seat: Frist and Delay get probed .

(I thought that title would get Scaeagles attention) :evil:

Good Lord - did they get kidnapped by Carville as well?????

He's not known as the Ragin' Cajun for nothing, you know.;)

Now, if we can just get someone to investigate Rove.

Or probe him.




Forcefully.

With a frist.

His time's coming

DeLay indicted in campaign finance probe
House majority leader to step down, 2 associates also face charges

The Associated Press
Updated: 3:33 p.m. ET Sept. 28, 2005


WASHINGTON - A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post. A defiant DeLay insisted he was innocent and called the prosecutor a “partisan fanatic.”

“I have done nothing wrong ... I am innocent,” DeLay told a Capitol Hill news conference in which he criticized the Texas prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, repeatedly. DeLay called Earle a “unabashed partisan zealot,” and “fanatic,” and described the charges as “one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American history.”

DeLay, 58, was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay’s national political committee.

In Austin, Texas, Earle told reporters, “Our job is to prosecute abuses of power and to bring those abuses to the public.”

DeLay is the first House leader to be indicted while in office in at least a century, according to congressional historians.

“I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today,” DeLay said in a statement.

GOP congressional officials said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties. Some of the duties may go to the GOP whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. The Republican rank and file may meet as early as Wednesday night to act on Hastert’s recommendation.

Blunt said he was confident DeLay would be cleared of the allegations and return to his leadership job. "Unfortunately, Tom DeLay's effectiveness as Majority Leader is the best explanation for what happened in Texas today," Blunt said.


Up to two years, $10,000 fine
Criminal conspiracy is a state felony punishable by six months to two years in a state jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The potential two-year sentence forces DeLay to step down under House Republican rules.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president still considers DeLay a friend and effective leader in Congress.

“Congressman DeLay is a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people,” McClellan said. “I think the president’s view is that we need to let the legal process work.”

The indictment puts the Republicans — who control the White House, Senate and House — on the defensive. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., also is fending off questions of ethical improprieties. Federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission are looking into Frist's sale of stock in HCA Inc., the hospital operating company founded by his family.

Less than a week ago, a former White House official was arrested in the investigation of Jack Abramoff, a high-powered lobbyist and fundraiser.

The indictment accused DeLay of a conspiracy to “knowingly make a political contribution” in violation of Texas law outlawing corporate contributions. It alleged that DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee accepted $155,000 from companies, including Sears Roebuck, and placed the money in an account.

The PAC then wrote a $190,000 check to an arm of the Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they were supposed to received in donations.

The indictment included a copy of the check.

“The defendants entered into an agreement with each other or with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas election code,” says the four-page indictment. “The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election.”

'Political retribution'
The indictment against the second-ranking, and most assertive Republican leader came on the final day of the grand jury’s term. It followed earlier indictments of a state political action committee founded by DeLay and three of his political associates.

Kevin Madden, DeLay’s spokesman, dismissed the charge as politically motivated.

“This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat,” Madden said, referring to Earle, a Democrat.

Madden later added: “They could not get Tom DeLay at the polls. They could not get Mr. DeLay on the House floor. Now they’re trying to get him into the courtroom. This is not going to detract from the Republican agenda.”

The grand jury action is expected to have immediate consequences in the House, where DeLay is largely responsible for winning passage of the Republican legislative program. House Republican Party rules require leaders who are indicted to temporarily step aside from their leadership posts.


Democrats stay on the case
Democrats have kept up a crescendo of criticism of DeLay's ethics, citing three times last year that the House ethics committee admonished DeLay for his conduct.

"The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom Delay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Democratic chairman Howard Dean cited the problems of DeLay, Frist and Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff at the center of questions about the leak of a CIA operative's name.

"The Republican leadership in Washington is now spending more time answering questions about ethical misconduct than doing the people's business," Dean said.

At the White House, McClellan bristled at a question about Democratic claims that Republicans have grown arrogant in their use of power and flaunt rules after years of controlling the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

McClellan said the Republican Party has made policy that has improved the lives of Americans, and the White House stands by that record.

"We can sit here and try to rush to judgment, but I don't think that's a fair thing to do," McClellan said. "We need to let the legal process work."

DeLay retains his seat representing Texas’ 22nd congressional district, suburbs southwest of Houston. He denies that he committed any crime.

As a sign of loyalty to DeLay after the grand jury returned indictments against three of his associates, House Republicans last November repealed a rule requiring any of their leaders to step aside if indicted. The rule was reinstituted in January after lawmakers returned to Washington from the holidays fearing the repeal might create a backlash from voters.

Ethical baggage
DeLay is the center of an ethics swirl in Washington. The 11-term congressman was admonished last year by the House ethics committee on three separate issues and is the center of a political storm this year over lobbyists paying his and other lawmakers’ tabs for expensive travel abroad.

Wednesday’s indictment stems from a plan DeLay helped set in motion in 2001 to help Republicans win control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections for the first time since Reconstruction.

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.

With GOP control of the Texas legislature, DeLay then engineered a redistricting plan that enabled the GOP take six Texas seats in the U.S. House away from Democrats — including one lawmaker switching parties — in 2004 and build its majority in Congress.

For those REPUBLICANS screaming "They are out to get him" Look up "GRAND JURY" and see what it involves. A GJ is made up a Regular people, not Politicians out to fry someone. So let DeLay cry 'Witch-hunt' all he wants.

This has been a long time coming.

But alas, When GW Bush goes to leave office in '08 I'm sure pardons will be flying once again to the likes of DeLay and ENRON execs...

Frist and DeLay aren't the only two in trouble. Just last week, this occurred.


Interesting times.

Note: I originally had a link and quote here from an op-ed piece. I replaced it with something a little less opinionated. Well, unless you believe in media bias. Hi Leo. :)

Of course they (democrats) are out to get him. Of course the Republicans were out to get Clinton. Of course (insert any political name and/or party here) are out to get (insert any political name and/or party here).

It is the nature of politics. If you choose to make yourself a target by how you conduct your political affairs, then you better have your house utterly above reproach and completely in order, and watch what you say with unceasing diligence.

If DeLay deserves to be convicted, then so be it.

When scandals and such hit, I have found the level of outrage and/or support is directly related to the dislike/support of the politician (and his politics) in question. So it was with Clinton (whether the Monica ordeal or buddhist fund raising or whatever), Byrd (saying the "N" word a couple times in an interview), Lott (praising....Strom Thurmond), Rostenkowski (and the House post office scandal), McCain (wife addicted to drugs), Rush (pain killer addiction and the attempts to find grounds for indictment)......the list is endless. I don't pay mind to much of them, because, well, they are ALL political in nature.

That's not the whole enchilada though, scaeagles. It is easy to say that it is all political, but there are also laws in question here. Laws that DeLay may have felt (unless proven innocent, of course) that he was above. People in government should not be above the law though. And I do pay attention when the members of this, or any administration, break the law. That's not "just politics".

One can complain about what spurred the investigation and argue that it is politically motivated. But, just as was the case with Clinton, nobody forces you lie or break the law. Once you have crossed the line, you have to be held accountable.

Sounds like SMcS is going to get him personally.
:D

Of course, MBC, which is why in my post I said "If Delay deserves to be convicted, so be it."

I have done some looking around about Earle. I see a lot of similarities between this and a case he brought against KB Hutchison (Republican Senator from Texas) shortly after she was elected. She was also indicted by a grand jury, but the case was eventually dropped (there are all sorts of opinions from everyone as to why). She had just taken the spot occupied by Lloyd Bentsen, who was appointed Secretary of the Treasury (she best the person that Ann Richards had put in the spot vacated by Bentsen, I believe). It was a democrat strategy to try to hurt her politically early on and perhaps induce someone like Richards to run against her ithe next time she was up for reelection. The dems were not happy about losing the seat.

Similarly, with all the negative press about DeLay (note I did not say undeserved), I think they view him as vulnerable in the next election.

Now....does any of this mean that he didn't do it? No. But I think there are clear political motivations. From what I have read, the patterns are clear. There are those that say, though, that Earle has prosecuted more Dems than Republicans, and plenty of others that say the exact opposite. Who knows.

Again, if he's guilty, convict him.

One other thing about Mr. Earle that I think is particularly relevant - note the part I put in bold as particularly telling:

Self-inflicted wound (Ronnie Earle investigates Tom DeLay and fund raises using DeLay)
Houston Chronicle ^ | May 20, 2005 | Editorial

District attorney's poor judgment in speaking at a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost for DeLay's defenders.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has spent the past year investigating corporate funds collected by political action committees connected to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. So far, a grand jury has indicted three of the Sugar Land representative's associates for violating Texas election laws.

Republicans have accused the veteran prosecutor, a Democrat, of conducting a partisan witch hunt. Earle's attendance and remarks attacking DeLay at a Democratic fund-raiser last week in Dallas damaged the credibility of his investigation with a stunning display of prosecutorial impropriety.

Earle was the speaker at a May 12 event sponsored by the newly created Texas Values in Action Coalition, a Democratic political action committee with the stated goal of winning back control of the Texas Legislature. The affair raised more than $100,000, and organizers credited Earle's presence with boosting attendance.

In his speech, the prosecutor talked about the corporate contribution case and took a swipe at DeLay. "This case is not just about Tom DeLay," Earle told the crowd. "If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before."

Contacted after the event by the Chronicle's Michael Hedges, Earle didn't back off his comments. He provided a transcript of the speech, and said he would make the same statements again to any group that was interested in honest government.

Houston defense attorney Rusty Hardin represents Warren RoBold, a Republican fund-raiser indicted in the Travis County investigation. Hardin, a former Harris County prosecutor, finds it "incomprehensible" that Earle would go to a political event and discuss matters under investigation by his office. "I'm dumbfounded that he would give the DeLay people that kind of fodder."

Hardin doesn't believe that Earle's investigation is motivated by a bias against Republicans. Instead, he contends that the Austin-area district attorney goes after targets for behavior he finds objectionable, whether or not an actual violation of law occurred.

According to Hardin, he told Earle in a courtroom conversation that "you have a history of indicting people whose conduct you don't approve of and you want to stop. You leave it to your assistants to worry whether there's a criminal case involved."

Earle is an elected Democrat, so his attending a party fund-raiser is legal. However, it is inappropriate for a prosecutor to discuss a case under investigation in a political setting, or to single out a potential target of that probe for criticism.

The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his blunder and would do it again calls into question whether he has the necessary impartiality and judgment to conduct the investigation that to a great extent will determine whether Texas election campaigns will be financed and perhaps determined by corporations or by individuals.

Yep

Who would these "others" be?

And who cares what anyone "says" about that fact, since it's a demonstrable fact?

Looks like Blunt is going to take DeLay's place. That happened quick. No delay there...

Various things I have read is all I can say. Where does one find the actual data, other than accepting what Earle has said?

Court records

Well, I've read a bunch, and I'm willing to accept it as fact - in my reading I found writings stating both sides. I wasn't trying to dispute it, and state that I had read both.

I have also clearly said that if DeLay is guilty, convict him.

However, I think it is perfectly clear, based on Earle's own words in appearances at democratic functions, that he has a political agenda. He is a politician, so of course he does. What I find so amazing is that he says such things in public, but then denies later that there is a political element.

I'm not so clear on that. I've been trying to find the exact quote I remember reading, but I'm coming up blank. I see other people quoting it but I can't find the original. Anyway, it's something along the lines of...

The most complete reference I'm finding is Josh Marshall's blog, but I'll keep looking tonight and see if I can find which Times that comes from.

But what I find truly hilarious about all this is Delay's posturing. He never quits, calling Earle partisan and vindictive.

LOL

Being called partison and vindictive by Tom Delay is somewhat akin to being called ugly by a mud fence.

So you doubt the quote from the Houston Chronicle?

While true that DeLay is most certainly partisan, that does not make Earle any less so. I believe it is the level of partisanship shown by DeLay that contributed him to be a political target. I do believe he is a political target.

If he is convicted, and I am wrong, than I will certainly admit to it. But as I stated earlier in my comparison the Hutchison indictment, I think his motives are clear.

Just a friendly reminder to please try and post either snippets, or quotes, from articles- not the article in it's entirety. (Copyright laws). Direct links are, as always, very cool.

You've been moderated! :snap:

Whew! Almost broke a sweat on that one. ;):D

Wendybeth's being partisan and vindictive
Wendybeth's being partisan and vindictive
Wendybeth's being partisan and vindictive
Wendybeth's being partisan and vindictive

Am I the only one singing? ;)

And I'm Liberally Elite as well.

YEAH! I don't see you saying that stuff after PantheMan posts an entire article. Hmph! You partisan hack!

Nope, not at all. Where did you get that?

It was a stupid thing to say. The fact that he used Delay's name made it political, and he was wrong to use Delay's name. I understand why he did it, I believe. Delay's name at a Democratic meeting is red meat. I'm sure he'd have gotten much less traction out of bragging about taking down D Rep Betty Denton, or D Rep Lane Denton, or D House Speaker Gib Lewis, or D Attorney General Jim Maddox, or D State Treasurer Warren Harding, or D Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough.

The fact that he's prosecuted 3 times as many people from his own party as he has from the opposition says otherwise.

Of course it could just be that the democrats are 3 times as corrupt as the republicans ;)

OK, run with that if it works for you. I see a man whose level of partisanship has led him to possibly criminal acts, so much so as to have been indicted by a 25 member grand jury of ordinary citizens.

You say Potato, etc.

OMG We disagree! Has this every happened before? ;)

AND, most importantly, she's a Moderator. And, I concur with her moderation.

Nener nener nener.

Hmmm... (scrolls back in thread to look at Scaeagle's posts..)

I seem to have missed your post. I wouldn't have even noticed if you hadn't brought my attention to it. Guilty conscience there, eh?;)

No - not guilty. It's just that everything is about me.

Narcissistic?

Well, it was intended to be a joke.....sorry if the humor didn't come through.

I have thought about this a bit more.

Political enemies are often of the same political party. The simple fact that he has indicted more dems than reps doesn't mean that he doesn't use his office for political purposes. I can think of many times when members of the same party have turned against each other to suit their own political purposes.

We know the number of politicians he's prosecuted I guess. How many of those went to court? And how many were convicted? I'd be curious to know.

I was meaning that as sarcasm...... :D

She spanked me!... And it wasn't a partisan Spank either...lol

Oh, you got the Liberal Elite Kool-Aid special spanking, Pan. Only the best for our members.;)

what does one have to do to get a spanking around here?


i'm out to get a democrat and screw him good.

Earle indicted CONSERVATIVE democrats- check the political climate you are talking about- it was liberal democrats and conservative democrats- this is ideaology, NOT party affiliation. So actually, that says nothing-
and speaking of nothing- even the indictment says pretty much- nothing....

I predict this will get thrown out- and that the political backlash on the dems who came out crying corruption will look like fools- who don't even give the justice system time to carry this through before they yell about guilt.

You may be right, SMcS!
Miller Agrees to Testify in CIA Leak Probe

FYI- for those who desire impeachment (which I don't think will ever happen) it doesn't mean Bush is removed from the Presidency- what the hell difference does it make? Clinton was impeached and finished his term because congress would not remove him- do you HONESTLY think congress would remove Bush?

Come on....I stand by it- Delay will come through this innocent, the dems who called him guilty before anything was proven will appear foolish, and you will never get the venegence you desire agaist the President.....

And I'll be here with popcorn!

OMG-

Arrogant
self aggrandizing
narcissistic
put the horse before the cart much idiot?
self important
PRICK

Earle's Movie

What a totally self absorbed jackass.....unbelievable-un-be-frickkin-lievable

Damn, I was confused who you were talking about here..... seemed like every politician in office right now, or anyone in hollywood, or most of the residents of San Diego for that matter....


And then saw it was about Earl.
But if it wasn't for that little link, I would have been confused as hell who you were tlaking about.

I'm sure that the 3 admonishments of DeLay from the GOP-controlled House Ethics Committee last year were just a misunderstanding and all. He seems like a cool guy, certainly not the type to engage in these types of shenanagans.

Neither do I, frankly.

This one? No. After 2006, we'll see

It is my opinion that Dems will always appear foolish to you. Net change - Zero

Probably not, and I'm fine with that. The world doesn't spin at my command, neither does it spin at yours. That doesn't stop either of us from raging against it, does it?

And I'll stop on the way over and pick up some jelly bellies (concession prices are so outrageous), but I'm gonna have to sit one seat over. I like to have both armrests. We can keep the snacks in the seat between us.

Lol!!

my mom will bring the hot cocoa.

More on Earle's mission from God

what a freak- really-

Link

What about that statement was twisted?

Seriously, it's a perfectly reasonable statement about the corruption of politics by money, and the pointed observation in the Holy Frickin' Bible that Conservatives love to thump when it suits them that Money IS the root of all EVIL.

HE is twisted- honestly, it's about as arrogant as Kerry filming re-enactments of his war experiences-

That statement made me a little...hot! :)

Arg! It's "the love of money is the root of all evil." Whatever happened to cultural literacy? </pedant>

Actually, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Money itself is not.

edited to add - I should read the whole thread prior to responding. Prudence had already pointed this out in the post immediately prior to this one.

Regarding DeLay
 

What's this?

Another indictment for Delay?

And from another grand jury?

Money Laundering?

Hmmm That's gotta suck.

What's the rule on ex post facto laws? Oh - you can't be prosecuted if it becomes illegal after you do it. I get it.

"The new indictment came hours after DeLay's attorneys filed a request to dismiss the case. That request argued that the conspiracy charge was based on a law that was not effective until 2003, the year after the alleged money transfers."

If that is the case - and I really don't know if it is - then this is simply political hackery. Legal in 2002 when done, illegal in 2003 when the laws changed.

So....2 Indictments now.... Think they will go for the Hat-Trick?....lol

2nd indictment! Oy vey!

The reason for the second indictment? The first one was so flawed that Earle had to do a CYA.

You see, the first indictment was for something not illegal when it was done. So it had to be dropped or Earle would look like a fool. To try to save face, he got another indictment on something not included in the first - money laundering.

Being that money laundering is a serious crime and the grand jury was in session for 6 months, would it have not made more sense to include that in the original indictment? I would guess that this means there is not a strong case for money laundering and that it was brought in secondarily by Earle because of how stupid he looks regarding the first.

I stand by my political motivation argument.

Well, even though the grand jury foreperson has issued statements that this was no rubber-stamp job, I won't go so far as to picture Earle being the only D.A. who can't get a ham-sandwich indicted. And if those really are the complete-picture facts of the two indictments handed down, I won't claim that politics is not at work here.


But .... um, so what? Every once in a while the good guys are going to have to match the dirty pool of the bad guys. Do conservatives ever hesitate to use the legal or justice systems to their nefarious political ends? Hardly.


Sometimes we have to get a little dirty in the mud to take down the likes of a slime like DeLay.

Yeah, it is usually the politically motivated who bring down the powerbrokers previously immune to attack. Not many people act out of altruism.

That said, it took four grand juries to find get an indictment of any type and then he gets this new one in one day. Also, it may be the first money laundering charge where the defendent is accused of taking clean legal money and turning it into dirty illegal money. Sounds more like money mud puddling than money laundering.

Politically motivated..? Probably. Just like it was when the Repubs wanted to impeach Bubba. Same smell, different taste.
;)

I quote myself from an earlier post in this thread because I wanted to show that I completely agree with GC and Ism aboutthis point. Politics is a dirty, dirty game, and to expect it to not be played in such a way is certainly naive.

I find it interesting that whenever a someone brings up Clinton or something Clinton did in another thread that many say "But Clinton isn't the President! That was then, this is now!". However, it's perfectly fine to discuss republicans impeaching Clinton in this context.

The Republican's going after Clinton example is utilised far less than the invocation of Clinton, and is usually in context to the issue. (As opposed to a means of deflecting attention when things get uncomfortable). Come on- the whole 'blame Clinton' thing has gotten to the point of Godwinism.:rolleyes:

No, no, no....not letting you off that easily. Either it is OK to invoke Clinton as an example, or it is not. I think in the issue of terrorism, talking about Clinton's policies and actions are completely relevant, but are often dismissed as a "blame Clinton" mentality.

Are you PMSing, Scaeagles?

;)

Sorry- don't have time to argue this, as I have to go to work.

Aw Leo- it's just the double standard- we can't mention Clinton, but they can bash us back to Nixon.

Midlife crisis is more like it....closer to menopause than PMSing. Probably all too familiar to you, isn't it WB? :evil: :p

Hey now- menopause is no fun- take my word for it!

I don't EVER see anything in the current world being blamed on Nixon.

Yes, Tricky Dick will be referred to for eons as the man who most disgraced the Oval Office, but he is never blamed for the state of current affairs.



Naming every single scandal DeLay-gate or the like is NOT akin to blaming Nixon for all those scandals, but it IS admitting that Nixon's Watergate is the mother of every subsequent political and criminal scandal of our nation.




(We will go as far back as Regan to blame current affairs on Republican presidents.)

So this means that Clinton is fair game as well.

The thing is you have to go back many years to discuss where we currently are today. How many years? I don't know. But I think discussing Reagan and what he did is perfectly relevant in looking at the world of today, as is discussing Clinton. I think Carter is relevant in looking at the current state of the Islamic world as well.

So I have no problem when GC points out that Bush and/or Cheney pointed out the Reagan erred in pulling out of Beirut. It was a huge blunder. So were the other items he mentioned attributable to Clinton.

Clinton wasn't in office that long ago. In the world of today, we must examine his policies, successes, and blunders as well.

Absolutely. Blame most of the world on Clinton, if you feel it's appropriate. But don't blame Bush on Clinton. No one there to blame but him and his puppetmasters.

ISM, my comment was meant as a joke-not a reflection on current events

I blame John Adams - F'n Whiggs!

I don't blame Bush on Clinton. I have expressed my concerns about Bush, and they are most certainly not as extensive as the with the great majority of LoTers.

I think many here are oversensitive to the name Clinton. If something is brought up about how his administration handled something and how that affects the circumstances of the current administration, it is typically met with a response of "stop bringing Clinton into it" rather than examining to see if it may be a valid point.

Okay, I ran a search on 'Clinton' and I got this: Clinton

I'm guessing that at least 9/10th's of the references to him are along the line of "Oh yeah? Well, Clinton did it/blew it/didn't do it (ad nauseum) first!" It just reminds me of little kids narking on others to get the blame off themselves. If it's a valid comment, I'll try and take it into consideration, but too often it's just passing the blame.

What do you consider to be passing the blame?

If we are talking about Osama bin Laden and 9/11, is it valid to talk about Clinton, in his own words, saying that he could have taken bin Laden from the Sudan, but decided not to? Or how they military had Osama in the sights of a predator drone armed with missiles, and he wouldn't order taking him out, even though he knew the man was responsible for the Embassey bombings?

My goal is not to start a discussion about terrorist, 9/11, or whatever, but simply to ask i that is passing blame, or bringing something relevant to the table.

Look, you want to blame anyone about Bin Ladin and his ilk, you'd best start with the Saudis. And their friends. While you're at it, find out why the Saudi government is inflicting even harsher treatment on women and other religions, despite the fact that they promised to be more tolerant. They were told that there would be sanctions if they didn't clean up their act, and now they are getting yet another pass from the USA. Lots of people, including Bush, passed up opportunities to nail Bin Ladin. Hell, Bush has started two frikken wars on the pretense of trying to get the guy, but he just keeps slipping through our grasp. Our entire military and intelligence units can't catch up to him, and apparently it's Clinton's fault because he didn't go after him when he wasn't as good at hiding.:rolleyes: (Never mind the fact that it would have been against then-current laws, and his political opponents would have screamed bloody murder. Look how they reacted when he bombed Tripoli).

Give me a break.

I suppose what would have been better than Clinton having a 9/11 crystal ball when he could have nailed bin Laden in the Sudan would be for Reagan (or was it Bush Sr.?) to have had a 9/11 crystal ball when training bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.


Anyways, I think the bit about Clinton having the chance to have taken out bin Laden is a perfectly legitimate topic of missed opportunity and misguided reluctance. But the great majority of Clinton blaming is of a far more juvenile nature.

WB - you're missing what I'm after here. I'm not trying to start a discussion on anything other than whether or not bringing up history is relevant to discussions of the present day.

We disagree on the subject I used as an example, and I am certain will never agree. My point is simply that the mere mention of the name of Clinton is typically met with opposition because he is not the President at present. However, what he did or didn't do in a lot of areas is very relevant to what we deal with now. As it is with Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc.

I agree with ISM that a lot of the Clinton stuff is juvenile. That doesn't mean that there are not real and valid points of criticism related to present circumstances.

I blame penguins... They brought this all upon us.

But penguins are so sensitive to my needs.

Tell us about your needs, Prudence. I want to feel your.....pain.

I get what you're saying, Scaeagles, but history didn't begin with Clinton either, now did it? It's not necessarily over-sensitivity that precludes mentioning Clinton, it's over-use. As in Godwinism. I read through some of those examples I dredged up and I realise why I react the way I do when it's brought up yet again. It's usually just a tired attempt to deflect criticism, and it only succeeds in derailing a topic. Like now.

Not in the least. This is why recent mentions of Reagan pulling out of Beirut are also well within what I consider to be rational debate - it was a mistake, and showed weakness to a group of people you shouldn't EVER show weakness to.

Let's examine some examples:

Example #1
Claim: "Bush and his administration is at fault for 9/11 because of the failure of intelligence under his administration.
Response: "Much of that intelligence originated under Clinton, who, by the way, failed to take the opportunity to capture Bin Laden when he had it"

Salient response, valid point.

Okay, example #2:
Claim: "The war effort has failed to produce on it's #1 stated goal (at least at the beginning), namely capturing Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. Instead, it's been used as an excuse to incite more war. And worse yet, the person who should be held accountable for these failures has shirked all responsibility and was rewarded with a second term in office.
Response: "Oh yeah, well, Clinton didn't capture Bin Laden either."

Red hering thrown out to distract from the real issue of accountability in this adminsitration.

Subtle difference, but important. And when so much of the Clinton rhetoric has been of the second type, yeah, people get testy when he's brought up repeatedly.

Apparently you are not a Lyle Lovett fan. A pity.

excsue me while I snicker-

link

I read that today. Thought it was really funny. There's all sorts of info out now about how Earle was hostile towards grand jurors who didn't want to indict, how the foreman of one of the grand juries that did vote to indict had his mind made up prior to hearing one shred of evidence....it's comical.

I mean, politics is a nasty game, and I understand that. I would just figure if you're going to get dirty you should have something a little better than what Earle has.

And that foreman had his mind made up because he didn't like some political ad which he said "told people who to vote for"

Um, doh! That's what political ads do!

I'll reserve an opinion until a real news organization picks up the story. ;)

Leave it to the Washington Times for faulty reporting.

Turns out that the statute does not apply to law firms. Tom Delay is more than likely aware of the lie he is telling considering that law firms donated $128,500 to him. It also isn't illegal to take union funds as long as you use them for overhead.

Delay is lying and the Washington Times eats it up. Not quite as funny now, is it? :)

OK - I'll give you that one, MBC. It doesn't change that the whole indictment is a joke.

How do you know what evidence Earle has?

I don't. However, one grand jury wouldn't indict, one had a foreman who said he had his mind made up prior to any procedings, and another indicts four hours after convening for the first time....some fishy things going on here.

But. along those lines....nothing like trying to intimidate that grand jury when they don't rule the way you want....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/07/D8D3F5S89.html

"Two people familiar with the proceedings of the grand jury that "no- billed" DeLay said that Earle tried to persuade the grand jurors that DeLay tacitly approved the scheme and that the prosecutor became angry when they decided against an indictment. The people familiar with the proceeding insisted on anonymity because of grand jury secrecy. "

My understanding is that the last 2 grand jury indictments have been unanimous and handed down by both democrats and republicans. That leads me to believe that the decision to indict was relatively impartial. I'm sure you think that is naive but I haven't seen anything that would make me feel otherwise.

How can you explain a grand jury indicting four hours after convening for the first time? Is it really possible to see the evidence presented, deliberate, and come to a decision in four hours? I don't htink so.

I once got engaged, had a threesome and broke up in four hours.

I can't explain it but then again, I don't have much experience with Grand Juries. This is what I was able to find.

That seems to suggest to me that, while sometimes it may require more than one session, the average time is a little over 5 hours. Doesn't seem unreasonable if I am reading it correctly. Like I said though, I don't have a clue how these things work, so I have no way of knowing what link of time is unreasonable. Do you?

That sounds reasonable as well. :)

I was discussing the Delay case with a client today, and she said if she were in the courtroom with Delay (or better yet, visiting him in prison) she'd be sure to say to him "Now tell the truth, Tom- isn't this kind of fun?"

:D

Well, the first grand jury on the conspiracy charge was out for six months, if I am not mistaken. Sorry if I am - I just thought I had read that - I could be wrong.

I am SHOCKED!!!! Surely a liberal such as yourself believes in innocent until proven guilty!

I was merely repeating what my client said, Scaeagles. I agreed wholeheartedly, though.:D

Listen here Nigel!

Source

So I'm wondering, if this is a political attack, why would Earle do this?

I think it would have had the same effect. The Dems wouldn't hoot and holler about a republican in a position of leadership pleading to a misdemeanor? Same effect.

A friend sent me this one:



:D

That's too funny, GC. :)

Breaking News from CNN.com:

Embattled U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay will not attempt to regain his post as House majority leader, DeLay spokesman says.

More to come, I'm sure...

Source
Interesting.