This is topic The Bug Man's been indicted! :-) in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/7329.html

Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Read and enjoy

[ September 28, 2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
I've never been a big fan of DeLay, but I'm reserving my handsprings for the day when Cynthia McKinney takes the perp walk.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
Even if he's found guilty of anything, he'll just get a pardon.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Remind me what McKinney did?
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
I had no clue who 'the Bug Man' would be - whats with the derogatory name?

LetterRip
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Tom DeLay. He used to be an exterminator. [Smile]
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A. Alzabo:
Even if he's found guilty of anything, he'll just get a pardon.

I'm willing to bet against that.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
I'm willing to bet against that.
And I'd be willing to pay money for it not to happen.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Oooh--does that mean that, if he ever opposes Arnold Schwartenegger, it'll be the Terminator vs. the Exterminator? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I saw this, and figured it would be SEC stuff. Delay could be in a world of hurt, huh?
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
Looks like more pols might join the James Traficant Society.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
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.



 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"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."

While the prosecutor may have political motivations, political motivations are not usually enough to get an indictment.
 
Posted by Adjudicator (Member # 724) on :
 
Reminds me of a parable by Mark twain in his Jumping Frog book. A kid is yelled at and beaten by his parents, lies and cheats and steals, becomes an abusive tyrant father himself, actually ends up murdering a few people- so they vote him into office and he becomes a distinguished senator people must call "sir".
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
"Remind me what McKinney did? "

Besides just being a general jackass/moron and blaming the Jews for just about anything and everything? I don't have anything specific, but her father is a notorious local politician and has personally engineered her political career. If there isn't at least one skeleton in her closet, I'd be amazed.

I wasn't making a specific allegation, I'd just like to see her go down in flames. She's supposedly my 'representative' in Congress, though I doubt she'd ever take one of my calls.


Edited to add: A personal McKinney related story occurred during the '04 primaries. GA had implemented early voting where we could vote up to a week in advance by going to a central location, which I decided to take advantage of. Since it was the first time this had been tried, there was some confusion over whether camapaigning near the polling place is allowed (it isn't). A group of about 10 McKinney supporters were gathered around near the entrance.

After I voted and was leaving, one of them yelled, "Hey whitey, I hope you voted for the KKK!". The rest laughed.

I was holding the hand of my then-3 year old daughter and carrying my 18 month old daughter at the time.

"Who's the KKK, daddy?" was the question I had the privilege of answering in the car on the way home. This is the political reality of the 4th Congressional district in Georgia.

[ September 28, 2005, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
That's disgusting. Blaming the Jews, huh? Of course... [Mad]
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
AKA The Rat Man.

This indictment put a smile on my face all day long. He stepped down as majority leader. Now he'll have time for that face lift he missed our on when he was busy screwing over Texas congressional districts!
 
Posted by Lewkowski (Member # 2028) on :
 
http://www.liberalscum.com/democratsracist.html

McKinney is just one of many blatently racist democrats.

But you don't even have to look at individual people from that party. Just look at what it stands for. Affirmative Action, the treating of people differently soley based on the color of their skin. Is it any wonder racists would flock to the party?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Lew, the stink of desperation isn't attractive.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
LOL.

Lew, if memory serves, people who were dissatisfied with civil rights advances and who wanted to preserve segregation found their place in the GOP, not the other way around. So which party is racist? (Hint: neither, really, but if you gotta pick one, it really is no contest).
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
I didn't mean to derail the thread with my McKinney comment. It was just the first thing I thought of when I heard DeLay was indicted. "Why the heck can't someone get the goods on 'ol Jihad Cindy?" (a nickname she earned around these parts).

Please, continue with your daily fillet of DeLay.

[ September 29, 2005, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Digger ]
 
Posted by Ivan (Member # 1467) on :
 
Seems like a minor thing. Delay et al wanted to funnel a little bit more money towards some local Republican candidates and went around the rules to get the money there. If he's found guilty, the sentance probably won't be too harsh.

But people are going to make a mountain out of this molehill....
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

Seems like a minor thing.

Well, it's pretty much the definition of money laundering, and a clear violation of both campaign finance laws and Congressional ethics rules. Is that minor?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
" If he's found guilty, the sentance probably won't be too harsh."

*Shrug* Its a felony. Its a molehill in the grand scheme of "how much corruption is there?" But there's jail time called for in the sentencing guidelines. Having a high ranking member of congress facing jail time is an actual mountain.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
I hope that, if he's guilty, there isn't any quarter given by the judge.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Javelin-
My biggest fear is that this could turn into another OJ example of justice. OJ confirmed to many americans that, if you have money, you can get away with murder. If Delay is found guilty, and gets a light sentence, many americans might then see justice as being something that the influential do not need to be scared of.

Since perception is almost everything in terms of having a good judicial system, this trial needs to go smoothly.

So I agree with you. Not because I want delay to go down hard (I do) but because America needs to see this as a fair trial.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
So I agree with you. Not because I want delay to go down hard (I do) but because America needs to see this as a fair trial.
Exactly my reasoning. I dislike the guy intensely, but it is more important that people understand that justice has been done - both congresspeople and us average people.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
So, turns out the Prosecutor has gotten 15 indictments against sitting politicians over the course of his career as a DA. Anyone wanna guess how many of those indictments have been against Democrats and how many against Republicans?
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
9 republicans, 5 democrats, and 1 independent?

Don't tease us like that, how many?
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
The Travis County District Attorney is an elected official carrying out the will of his constituents. That's why he keeps getting elected.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
May 15 Los Angeles Times Magazine article reported, "Over the years his [Earle's] Public Integrity Unit has prosecuted 15 elected officials, including 12 Democrats."
__________________________________________________

From "the situation room"

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/28/sitroom.02.html


So he's being called a political prosecutor. He addressed some of that in a news conference in Texas earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD EARLE, TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: At last count that totals 15, 12 of whom were Democrats and three of whom were Republicans.

Our job is to prosecute abuses of power. And we -- our job is to bring those abuses to the attention of the public through juries and that's what we do when we find a violation of the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
I'm no fan of DeLay, as I said earlier, but I'm not sure I'd want to be giving DA Ronny Earle a big sloppy tongue kiss anytime soon. Methinks there's a lot mud left to be slung before this one's over.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
I of course am happy about this, but from a nonpartisan point of view isn't it wrong that he is forced to resign his post before he is proven guilty?

KE
 
Posted by Haggis (Member # 2114) on :
 
Earl even prosecuted himself once.

quote:
Earle even prosecuted himself in 1983, paying a $212 fine for tardy campaign finance disclosure filings.


 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"I of course am happy about this, but from a nonpartisan point of view isn't it wrong that he is forced to resign his post before he is proven guilty?"

The idea is that if there is enough evidence to indict, then you're not "morally upholding the good name of the party." These are GOP rules that Delay had changed to be this way, instead of the earlier rules that said "If you are being investigated, then you must resign your post"
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Well, IMO, jumping to the conclusion that Earle's request for an indictment is partisan is indicative of paranoia.

They probably would have gotten more traction claiming he was just out to get his name in the headlines...except, of course, he's seemingly been perfectly happy to hold the same office for nearly 30 years.

I think we might just have to debate this one on it's merits instead of claiming a "vast libruhl conspiracy".

I'm perfectly willing to let Delay defend himself before I make up my mind, but I would be a bit more willing to believe what he says if he defended himself instead of making unfounded personal attacks against Earle.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
If DeLay is convicted, will he threaten the judges? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
So Haggis, Earle is a convicted criminal, then?
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Well that's kind of ironic, neh? Thanks Ev.

KE
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
What exactly were the rules before they changed?

KE
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
There were none. At least, not pertaining to this issue.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Oops, sorry for the mistake, then.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
My question still remains; what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

KE
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
I guess you better be damn sure then, neh?

KE
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
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?)
 
Posted by Lewkowski (Member # 2028) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Haggis (Member # 2114) on :
 
Without any outside objective data I'm going to be under the assumption that you are just talking out of your sphincter again, Lew.
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
"...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 ]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
I love the way the faithful are closing ranks behind DeLay. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Al Wessex (Member # 6541) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.


 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
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.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1