DeLay Indicted

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

[Nephythys]

excsue me while I snicker-

Rep. Tom DeLay said District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who is prosecuting him for trying to involve corporate money in Texas politics, has taken such contributions himself.
"It's real interesting he has this crusade against corporate funds. He took corporate funds, and he's taken union funds, for his own re-election. That's against the law," Mr. DeLay told The Washington Times yesterday.
A review of Mr. Earle's campaign-finance filings in Texas shows that he has received contributions from the AFL-CIO, including a $250 donation on Aug. 29, 2000. He also has received contributions listed on the disclosure forms only as coming from the name of an incorporated entity, often a law firm.

link

[scaeagles]

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would just figure if you're going to get dirty you should have something a little better than what Earle has.

How do you know what evidence Earle has?

[Nephythys]

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!

[Motorboat Cruiser]

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

[Motorboat Cruiser]

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?

[scaeagles]

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

[scaeagles]

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.

[scaeagles]

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. "