Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Bug Man's been indicted! :-) (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The Bug Man's been indicted! :-)
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There were none. At least, not pertaining to this issue.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes there were. Delay got the GOP to change them so he didn't have to step down when Earle started investigating him. I'd look for a link, but, I'm on commercial break from the Sox/Yanks. And baseball is FAR more important then mere politics [Smile]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oops, sorry for the mistake, then.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My question still remains; what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
These are internal rules to prevent the appearance of being lenient on corruption.

Its like, if you have someone who's been indicted for theft, you don't let them have easy access to your company strong box. You might still employ them until convicted, but you limit the scope of their potential for abuse.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess you better be damn sure then, neh?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why? Indictments indicate there is strong reason to suspect someone has broken the law.

Innocent til proven guilty is only a legal maxim. It simply makes no sense anywhere else. There's a lot more grey area in business and politics and personal interaction.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To take it to an illogical absurdity, would you say that a day care center shouldn't suspended a child care provider who has "only been indicted" on molestation charges?
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are Prosecuters allowed to "Grand Jury Shop"? What I mean by that is, if a Grand Jury refuses to indict, can a prosecuter then go off and find another Grand Jury to try and get an indictment from? The reason I ask, is because apparently that is what Ronnie Earle has done here.

Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment

Apparently, after problems with the first indictment came to light, he went to another Grand Jury which was on its last day and it refused to indict, so he went to a third as it was being impaneled and got an indictment 4 hours after it was impaneled.

Personally, I don't know whether DeLay will be convicted or not and I want to allow the legal process to be followed all the way through. However, stories like this do make me wonder if charges that Ronnie Earles prosecution of DeLay is politically motivated have more to them than I at first believed.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record, of the 15 cases Ronnie Earle has brought against politicians over the years, 12 were against Democrats. Earle was so aggressive in going after corrupt Democrats, the Republicans never even put up a candidate against him all during the ‘80s.

I guess that puts a big hole in the liberal Democratic toady going after Texas Republican Delay narrative.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not being a lawyer, I'll probably butcher this, but yeah, I think prosecutors can keep bringing cases before various grand juries until they either get an indictment or get tired of trying.

Considering the standards for indictment are much lower than for conviction, and also given the fact that grand juries tend to look favorably on prosecutor's cases, I don't hold much faith that any particular indictment has substantial merit. Hearing that other grand juries refused to indict DeLay strengthens that belief in this case.

I'm still reserving judgement on this one, but if you asked me to make a wager on the outcome, I'd say that this either never comes to trial or that DeLay wins when he gets in front of a jury.

None of that changes my negative opinion of DeLay, but I'm all for fairness in the legal process and my gut tells me that this is anything but a fair and impartial indictment.

Edited to add: DR, what the DA has done in the past really doesn't have any bearing on what he's doing today. If every corruption case he had ever brought had been against members of the opposing party, then the case would be easy to make that he's a partisan hack, but just because he's indicted other Democrats doesn't mean he isn't primarily motivated by politics in this case. Believing that he's impartial based on that sort of track record is a logical fallacy, pure and simple.

[ October 05, 2005, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that the first grand jury he showed the second charge to decided not to indict probably had more to do with the fact that they were on their last day than with the substance of the charges. They probably looked at it, decided it was too big to make a snap decision, and refused.

So he found a fresh jury, who quickly decided.

Now, if the first jury had deliberated for several days and decided not to indict, that would be indicative of "grand jury shopping." This is more indicative of a burnt-out grand jury on the last day of their term. (What is the term in Texas? A month? A year?)

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holy crap I was listening to the radio, and the foreperson of the grandjury that Idicted Delay had "made up his mind before hearing any evidence." Listening to the guy on the radio he sounded like he really hated the political Ads in the newspaper. I really don't know if a grand jury works like a jury in this regard... but seems like the guy isn't very impartial...
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Without any outside objective data I'm going to be under the assumption that you are just talking out of your sphincter again, Lew.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...probably had more to do with the fact that they were on their last day than with the substance of the charges"

I guess that's fine for opinion's sake, but it doesn't match with my understanding of grand juries. 'Failing to indict for reasons of exhaustion' doesn't sound right to me, but see below.

I will say that grand juries can throw everyone for a loop under the right circumstances. A good friend of mine was on a grand jury that failed to indict in a case involving a guy cutting a boot off his car with an acetylene torch. The guy clearly violated a law, clearly caused the booting company financial harm, freely admitted what he had done, and should have been indicted. But the members of the grand jury hated the practice of booting and refused to indict. Tough noogies, guys. Grand juries don't have to explain why they do or don't indict anyone - which is why all the speculation around what happened with DeLay is just that, speculation.

Just as an FYI - grand juries seldom deliberate for any length of time. My buddy tells me they went through over 30 indictments a day, never spending more than 5 minutes deliberating each one. These included murder indictments, so the 'seriousness' of the crime is seldom an issue. The usual practice (around here, anyway) is to hear the case made by the prosecution and immediately take a vote. Only if there is dissent does any deliberation take place. And often, if there is stubborn dissent, they'll just refuse to indict, figuring the DA will tighten up their presentation and bring the case back up to another grand jury if they really think it's important.

That sounds more plausible for the DeLay situation: There may have been a holdout or two and the DA tweaked his pitch before trotting it out again for a new batch of folks. I doubt we'll ever really know for certain.

[ October 05, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The argument I heard from Earle is that the Grand Jury had invited DeLay to defend himself, and were waiting for a response which never came.

No idea if that's true or not.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love the way the faithful are closing ranks behind DeLay. [Big Grin]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Justice Department has informed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that the government has ended a six-year investigation of his ties to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to DeLay’s lead counsel in the matter, Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods.
Case closed. An investigation that lasted through two presidents and four AG's and we find he did nothing wrong.

What goes around comes around ... will the libs love this tactic just as much when it comes around to them?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
DeLay's legal problems aren't over. He has been indicted in Texas on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, allegedly connected to 2002 state legislative elections. That case is pending.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
I love the way the faithful are closing ranks behind DeLay. [Big Grin]

I guess that would make Obama's justice department part of "the faithful," Ricky? [Big Grin]

Never liked Tom DeLay ... he seemed to me like a complete party toady. But it amazes me how long a thread like this could go on without anyone discussing any basic evidence for the crime he was accused of.

As with Martha Stewart, it was a complete revenge of the Beta females ... I'd run into women who were going on gloating about how Martha was going down as a criminal, and I'd ask them to explain the crime that Stewart was accused of, and they neither knew nor cared.

With Clinton, most of us would agree that he did something wrong (if not in the affair with a white house intern, then in perjury to the court and/or in holding a special press conference to pro-active lying to the American people), but wasn't at least some of the rage attributable to male jealousy, just as Stewart's unpopularity stemmed from female jealousy?

Of Marilyn Monroe, Ayn Rand commented that:

quote:
It was a malice of a very special kind. If you want to see her groping struggle to understand it, read the magnificent article in a recent issue of Life magazine. It is not actually an article, it is a verbatim transcript of her own words...and the most tragically revealing document published in many years. It is a cry for help, which came too late to be answered.

"When you're famous, you kind of run into human nature in a raw kind of way," she said. "It stirs up envy, fame does. People you run into feel that, well, who is she...who does she think she is, Marilyn Monroe? They feel fame gives them some kind of privilege to walk up to you and say anything to you, you know, of any kind of nature...and it won't hurt your feelings...like it's happening to you clothing...I don't understand why people aren't a little more generous with each other. I don't like to say this, but I'm afraid there is a lot of envy in this business."

"Envy" is the only name she could find for the monstrous thing she faced, but it was much worse than envy: it was the profound hatred of life, of success and of all human values, felt by a certain kind of mediocrity...the kind who feels pleasure on hearing about a stranger's misfortune. It was hatred of the good for being the good...hatred of ability, of beauty, of honesty, of earnestness, of achievement and, above all, of human joy.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Texas indictment deal with 8 year old events and has been lingering, unprosecuted and essentially unpersued, for over 5 years. You know why? So people can point to it and cry about it as though it's somehow real and means something. If it goes forward, it will almost certainly be dismissed.

You can indict anyone, anytime, for anything you want. Indictment is simple and easy. With the right politically motivated DA (as in the Texas case) you can indict your political opponents ad nauseum in an effort to smear them and damage their careers and blunt their political efforts.

It's just another liberal tactic in modern politics.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1