DeLay Indicted

[Gemini Cricket]

2nd indictment! Oy vey!

DeLay and two associates are now also charged with conspiring to illegally steer $190,000 in corporate donations to state legislative candidates in 2002 and to disguise its source by sending it through national Republican campaign committees.

[scaeagles]

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.

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[Alex]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I stand by my political motivation argument.

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

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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

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.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

[scaeagles]

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.

[wendybeth]

Are you PMSing, Scaeagles?



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