Is the Delay Case Falling Apart?

[MizBlu]

Yes, President Clinton was Impeached and the Senate decided not remove him from office, that is true. He did lose his ability to practice law for a number of years as a result of his perjuring himself, however.

So then leaving the impression Clinton got away scot free isn't quite right, now is it?

 

[yeartolate]

Again, I don't have a high opinion of Delay, but I trust absolutely nothing that comes out of Ronnie Earl's offiice.

Reminds me of OJ Simpson......OJ was probably guilty, but it too Mark Fuhrman to undermind the evidence and cast doubt.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Well, Faux's been leading the charge "this is a thin indictment because it doesn't present any evidence". Faux's own judiical shill, Andrew Napolitano, made the statement to the effect that in federal court and most state courts, evidence has to be presented with the indictment. Heavy on the "most state courts".

Newsflash: Texas isn't one of those places.

Reminds me of Fox's take on America's poverty rates of Clinton and Bush 43 being at the same percentage at the beginning of each of their 2nd terms. If you only look at the numbers, you'd say that it was the truth.

But...if you look at the facts behind the numbers, you'd see that during Clinton's 2 terms in office, the poverty rate dropped, and during Bush 43's term, they have risen, so at the beginning of their 2nd terms, they were equal...just going in opposite directions...and it tells an entirely different story of the President's record.

But Fox was right...the numbers do match!!

 

[Puffy2]

Not only is the case not falling apart - it is expanding with each and every day. This AM, yahoo posted that the majority whip - republican Roy Blunt is also being investigated in the Delay scandel:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006...FSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[sgtdisney]

So then leaving the impression Clinton got away scot free isn't quite right, now is it?

Is that your impression?

I said it once, I suspect it bears repeating. If Delay is found guilty of breaking the law, he should be punished. However this should be done in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

 

[bsnyder]

Not only is the case not falling apart - it is expanding with each and every day. This AM, yahoo posted that the majority whip - republican Roy Blunt is also being investigated in the Delay scandel:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006...FSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Did you read the article? Who is investigating Blunt?

 

[septbride2002]

A guy I work with is a die hard conservative Republican and yesterday he told me he hopes Delay gets what coming to him. Even he thinks he is a disgrace. We finally found something we have in common

 

[MizBlu]

Is that your impression?

Honestly, that was my impression.

I said it once, I suspect it bears repeating. If Delay is found guilty of breaking the law, he should be punished. However this should be done in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

Public opinion is what it is.

However, I believe there are people who are so poisonous to the political system however you can get rid of them, short of maiming or killing, is the best for the nation.

I understand Delay is a successful, powerful politician, but he not the first one in history. There was another Texan equally as powerful and equally as successful. His name was Sam Rayburn. There was a story about Sam Rayburn, Harry Truman, and the bomb. Harry Truman needed more funding from Congress, but he didn't want blow the cover on the bomb. Truman did tell Rayburn and Rayburn went back to the House, and told the membership, the President needed more funding and he could not tell them why. They would have to trust Sam Rayburn that it was for something vital. Truman got his funding.

Can anyone see something like that happening with Delay? I don't even think he has the respect of his own party and if it wasn't for the fear of repercussion, they wouldn't go along with him.

As I've said before, I don't care if he gets convicted of felony jaywalking as long as it sends him packing.

Just my $0.05 worth.

 

[bsnyder]

And as for the Delay indictment(s):

Other jury declined to indict DeLay
Texas prosecutor described as angry
By Larry Margasak and Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press | October 6, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A Texas prosecutor tried to convince a grand jury that Representative Tom DeLay gave tacit approval to a series of laundered campaign contributions, and when jurors declined to indict, he became angry, according to two people directly familiar with the proceeding.

The grand jury was one of three that considered whether there was probable cause to indict DeLay. Two other grand juries did indict the former House majority leader, who had to step aside temporarily under Republican rules.

Both indictments focused on an alleged scheme to provide corporate political donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The two people interviewed, who commented anonymously because of grand jury secrecy, said Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle became visibly angry when the grand jurors last week signed a document declining to indict, known as a ''no bill."

One person said the sole evidence Earle presented was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor, in which DeLay said he was generally aware of activities of his associates. He is charged in an alleged money- laundering scheme to funnel corporate donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The person said that Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay ''didn't say 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

After the grand jurors declined to go forward, the mood ''was unpleasant," the other person said, describing Earle's reaction.

DeLay and political aides Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were indicted last week by another grand jury, accused of criminal conspiracy to violate Texas election laws.

After the second grand jury declined to indict, a third grand jury brought money laundering charges against DeLay on Monday.

Dick DeGuerin, attorney for DeLay, sought to have the original conspiracy charge dismissed Monday by arguing in a court filing that contended the indictment was based on a law that the Legislature changed in 2003. The original indictment alleges that the illegal acts date to 2002.

Earle said late Tuesday that he sought the second indictment of DeLay on Monday because he became aware of additional evidence.

This contradicts the "conventional wisdom" that's been surmised by the Left (including here on the DIS on another thread last week on this subject) that Earle's indictment would have to include someone testifying against Delay. If he had such testimony, he didn't use it with the Grand Jury that failed to bring the indictment. And the notion that he received additional evidence over the weekend, after a 3 year investigation, and right before the statute of limitations was going to run out strains credibility beyond the breaking point.

The person said that Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay ''didn't say 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

I'm not a big Delay fan, but I'm also not a fan of prosecutorial misconduct. The actions that Delay and Republicans are being accused of were also routinely taken by the Democrats. They took money from certain sources that the laws entitled them to do, and routed it to others, by using separate bank accounts.

It's hypocritical to say it's okay for one party to do it, but illegal for the other to do the same thing.

 

[bsnyder]

When did staying just this side of legal become the moral standard in this here United States of America?

When did staying just this side of legal become grounds to indict and convict someone of a crime here in the United States of America?

And why no outrage for the Democratic party over doing the same thing with their fundraising?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

And why no outrage for the Democratic party over doing the same thing with their fundraising?

When one of ours is indicted, I'll lead the charge! Until then, I'll stick with shaking my head in disgust with DeLay.

In the tit for tat political world today, you can't tell me that the Republicans aren't searching high and low for someone on the left to indict...somehow, no one's turned up yet...interesting...

 

[Puffy2]

In the tit for tat political world today, you can't tell me that the Republicans aren't searching high and low for someone on the left to indict...somehow, no one's turned up yet...interesting...

You got that right!

 

[MizBlu]

When did staying just this side of legal become grounds to indict and convict someone of a crime here in the United States of America?

*****

 

[bsnyder]

When one of ours is indicted, I'll lead the charge! Until then, I'll stick with shaking my head in disgust with DeLay.

In the tit for tat political world today, you can't tell me that the Republicans aren't searching high and low for someone on the left to indict...somehow, no one's turned up yet...interesting...

So, I take it that it's not the unethical behavior that really bothers you. If the Republicans can come up with an unscrupulous prosecutor to play politics and bring an indictment on a Democrat, then you'll "lead the charge"?

FEC Fines Pelosi Committees as Result ot NLPC Complaint;
Hypocrisy of “Reformer” Exposed

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has fined two leadership PACs associated with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in response to a Complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) on October 25, 2002. The FEC also has fined three campaigns that failed to return excessive contributions from Pelosi’s PACs within 60 days, as required by law.

Under conciliation agreements reached with the FEC, Pelosi’s two committees — PAC to the Future and Team Majority — will pay $21,000. Julie Thomas for Congress Campaign Committee (D–IA) and Van Hollen for Congress (D–MD) will each pay $2,500, and Joe Turnham for Congress (D–AL) will pay $2,000. The three campaigns also agreed to disgorge $5,000 each to the U.S. Treasury.

Law Circumvented

In its Complaint, NLPC alleged that Pelosi violated federal election law by operating two “leadership” political action committees (PACs) in order to circumvent contribution limits. Members of the Democrat and Republican leaderships in the House and Senate may legally have one so-called leadership PAC in addition to their own campaign committee. The purpose of leadership PACs is to make contributions to the campaigns of other Congressional candidates.

NLPC’s Complaint cited a second circumvention of the law, that of the limits on amounts donors may give to PACs. Team Majority, the newer PAC, reported sixteen contributions of $5,000 each from donors who also gave the maximum to Pelosi’s other PAC. Five of the donors gave to both PACs on the same day.

NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm reacted by stating, “We are delighted that the FEC has acted favorably on our Complaint. No member of Congress has ever set up a second leadership PAC to evade contribution limits. Pelosi has been caught violating the clearest and most basic law of all, the limits on contributions. Talk about hypocrisy.”

Within twenty-four hours of NLPC’s Complaint, Pelosi announced she would shut down Team Majority and retrieve contributions already made to candidates. The PAC made thirty-six contributions to candidates in the amount of $5,000, the legal limit. Her surviving PAC, which is called PAC to the Future, distributed $1.7 million to candidates in the 2001-2002 election cycle.

Sanctimonious Pelosi

Pelosi has been an outspoken advocate of campaign finance reform and Shays-Meehan, the companion bill to the McCain-Feingold legislation, that became law. In January 2002, she asserted, “One threat to our Constitution, indeed to our participatory democracy, is the role of the special interest money in the political process today.”

At an April 2002 kick-off event in San Francisco to the so-called Campaign Finance Victory Tour, Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger proclaimed, “The cynics in Washington said we couldn’t beat the entrenched power of big money, and thanks to courageous, independent people like Nancy Pelosi, we started the job.”

Pelosi complained of “extremists in the Republican Party who have repeatedly tried to undermine campaign finance reform” and of “sneaky tactics employed by the Republicans” to weaken Shays-Meehan.

Pelosi Gives Twice

Team Majority did not officially exist until October 16, 2002 but had been raising money since April 2002, and by September 30, 2002 had made donations to five House and one Senate challenger. Leo McCarthy, the treasurer of both PACs and the former Lt. Governor of California, candidly admitted to Roll Call that the “main reason” for setting up the second PAC was to “give twice as much (sic) hard dollars.”

The only defense offered by McCarthy was that he claimed the FEC somehow approved the improper arrangement in a phone call. He could not, however, provide the name of the FEC official with whom he allegedly spoke or provide evidence that such a call occurred. Indeed, it is the FEC’s policy that so-called Advisory Opinions be obtained in writing. McCarthy further acknowledged that he obtained no legal counsel despite the fact that Pelosi’s PACs collectively raised over a million dollars.

Pelosi was elected Democratic Whip on November 14, 2002 after Richard Gephardt (D-MO) announced he would step aside. She was propelled to the post in part by her ability to raise money for her colleagues. In addition to the $1.7 million given to Democratic candidates by PAC to the Future, Pelosi also crisscrossed the country taking part in fundraisers that reportedly generated over $6 million.

NLPC sponsors the Government Integrity Project. NLPC "blows the whistle" on government officials and interest groups engaged in questionable activities. NLPC has filed formal Complaints with a variety of authorities and regulators, including the FEC, IRS, and Congressional Ethics Committees. NLPC is strictly non-partisan. Complaints have been filed against Democrats and Republicans alike.

 

[bsnyder]

And maybe Chuck Schumer should be investigated for having these sleezy people work for him:

FBI Investigates Democrats on Steele's Credit Report

By John Wagner and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page B05

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two Democratic Party researchers in Washington illegally obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele as they conducted opposition research on the likely Republican Senate candidate.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged yesterday that two of his organization's employees had resigned as a result of the episode, which he said was subsequently referred to the U.S. attorney's office by the Democratic committee.



Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R) has acknowledged that he was in debt when he ran in 2002. (Katherine Frey - For The Washington Post)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Jeff Gannon - A Voice of the New Media
Ken Is Speaking
South Dakota Politics


Full List of Blogs (9 links) »



Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully obtain a credit report under false pretenses. A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia confirmed last night that an investigation by its fraud and public corruption section is proceeding with the assistance of the FBI.

The July episode came as both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates for Maryland's two marquee races next year, for governor and an open U.S. Senate seat.

Steele's chief of staff, Paul Ellington, said FBI agents interviewed the lieutenant governor about the matter last week.

Ellington said Steele learned of the possible impropriety when agents approached him. "He didn't have any idea this was going on," Ellington said. Personal finances could be fertile territory for researchers looking into Steele, who acknowledged financial difficulties when he ran for statewide office three years ago.

The DSCC, the arm of the Democratic Party tasked with promoting Senate candidates, declined to disclose the names of the employees involved. But sources with knowledge of the episode identified them as Katie Barge, the committee's former research director, and Lauren Weiner, an employee who had been researching Steele even before he formed an exploratory committee for Senate in June.

Bill Lawler, an attorney representing Barge, said she had brought the matter to her superiors' attention. "She resigned because she didn't want this episode to negatively reflect on the committee," Lawler said.

An attorney said to be representing Weiner did not return a phone call yesterday.

Singer said the two employees acted without the committee's authorization but later told their superiors, who "immediately ensured that Mr. Steele's credit report was not used or disseminated to anyone."

Singer added that the former employees were cooperating with authorities and that the DSCC had launched an internal review of the matter. He said the DSCC is not a target of the federal inquiry.

Sources familiar with the episode said Steele's credit report was obtained with the use of his Social Security number, which was found on a public court document.

Shortly after being named by Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) as his running mate in 2002, Steele disclosed to reporters that he owed more than $35,000 in personal debts and had an unpaid political loan of $25,000 from a previous race.

Steele, a former corporate lawyer who started his own consulting firm in 1998, said at the time that his "tight" financial situation should not detract from his political message. "At least my report reflects a blue-collar man, an entrepreneur out there trying to start a business in Maryland," Steele said in July 2002. "I don't have trusts that are going to cover me."

Steele is paid $120,833 a year as lieutenant governor. According to the most recent financial disclosure he submitted to the Maryland State Ethics Commission, which covers 2004, he has paid off some of his debts.

Steele has been heavily courted to run for Senate by national GOP leaders and is expected to give the party its best shot at a Senate seat in years.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

So, I take it that it's not the unethical behavior that really bothers you. If the Republicans can come up with an unscrupulous prosecutor to play politics and bring an indictment on a Democrat, then you'll "lead the charge"?

My concern is with "illegallity", not what is "ethical" and what is not, unless you want to start prosecuting people for being "unethical", in which case, line 'em up, because I'll bet we could find someone who think's that you, me, and every other living person does something that they consider "unethical". What's next...the Thought Police?

 

[bsnyder]

My concern is with "illegallity", not what is "ethical" and what is not, unless you want to start prosecuting people for being "unethical", in which case, line 'em up, because I'll bet we could find someone who think's that you, me, and every other living person does something that they consider "unethical". What's next...the Thought Police?

So then you're only concern with Tom Delay is the current indictment? Because that's the only thing he's ever been accused of that's illegal. And I'll be wllling to make a wager with you right now that he will never be found guilty of money laundering or conpiracy in this case. Because the prosecutor doesn't have a case. How about it?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

So then you're only concern with Tom Delay is the current indictment? Because that's the only thing he's ever been accused of that's illegal.

I dislike DeLay because as a member of Congress, the things he does, such as the Terri Schivo fiasco, his stance on a woman's right to choose, the separation of church and state, etc., has a direct result on how this country moves forward into the future. But I don't think that he should go to jail for these things.

And I'll be wllling to make a wager with you right now that he will never be found guilty of money laundering or conpiracy in this case. Because the prosecutor doesn't have a case. How about it?

I don't gamble...it's unethical...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

So then you're only concern with Tom Delay is the current indictment?

And I thought it was indictments...

 

[bsnyder]

And I thought it was indictments...

Delay's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the first indictment. The judge is out of town and hasn't ruled on that motion yet. But Earle obviously thinks it will be thrown out, otherwise he wouldn't have been rushing around at the 11th hour grand-jury shopping the new one.