The "Hammer" Delay is out! Bring on the next, Or: May the crying begin for you know who. (867 hits)
Category: Politics -> RepublicansRating: 0.87 on 35 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Insanethemind (View user info) at 2005-09-29 10:16:54 EDT
I could care less if he is a republican, democrat, independant, libertarian or a martian. He is a lying, cheating cocksucker and needs to flogged!
Today is a day of victory for all Americans who love their freedom and want honest (if that were even possible) candidates representing their best interests.
--------
DeLay blasts indictment, prosecutor
Texan steps aside as majority leader, blames partisan retribution
Thursday, September 29, 2005; Posted: 8:29 a.m. EDT (12:29 GMT)
DeLay: "My defense in this case will not be technical or legalistic. It will be categorical and absolute."
Grand jury indictment
• Associates indicted
• No apologies, few boundaries
• Indicted DeLay steps aside
Texas
GOP
Tom DeLay
House Republican Conference
Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Tom DeLay went on the attack after his indictment on a conspiracy charge, blasting a Texas prosecutor and rejecting the allegation that forced him to give up the House leadership as "blatant political partisanship."
A Texas grand jury charged DeLay Wednesday with conspiring to illegally funnel corporate cash to state Republicans in 2002, and party rules forced DeLay to abandon his leadership post.
DeLay told reporters he was the victim of a partisan vendetta by the Democratic district attorney in Austin, Ronnie Earle.
"My defense in this case will not be technical or legalistic. It will be categorical and absolute," he said. "I am innocent. Mr. Earle and his staff know it, and I will prove it." (Watch Rep. DeLay's comments -- 4:23)
House Republicans met Wednesday to choose a new leader for their conference, naming Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri their temporary leader.
Deputy Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia and Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier of California will also share in the duties. (Full story)
DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said the congressman "has nothing to hide" and wants a trial "before the end of the year."
"There's no crime that's been committed," DeGuerin said. "I am confident that, when we get to trial, we'll show that Tom DeLay did nothing wrong."
Reaction in Washington to DeLay's indictment broke down along party lines.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean took the opportunity to draw attention to other GOP controversies.
"With House Republican leader Tom DeLay under criminal indictment, Senate Republican leader [Bill] Frist facing SEC and Department of Justice investigations and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove under investigation, the Republican leadership in Washington is now spending more time answering questions about ethical misconduct than doing the people's business," Dean said in a statement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, described congressional Republicans as "plagued by a culture of corruption."
But Republicans offered support for DeLay.
New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said prosecutor Earle "has been incapable of separating his personal politics from his professional responsibilities."
"Democrats resent Tom DeLay because he routinely defeats them -- both politically and legislatively," he said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan lauded DeLay as a "good ally" of President Bush and said of the indictment: "The president's view is that we need to let the legal process work."
Earle denied any partisan motivation, telling reporters in Austin that 12 of the 15 public corruption cases he has prosecuted involved Democrats. (Watch: DeLay faces conspiracy charge -- 3:38)
Earle's record on high-profile corruption cases is mixed.
A 1994 case against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Republican, was tossed out of court on the first day of trial, and Democratic Attorney General Jim Mattox was acquitted in 1985.
But House Speaker Gib Lewis, a Democrat, pleaded no contest to ethics charges in 1992, and several cases against lower-profile officials have resulted in convictions, Earle said.
Nicknamed "The Hammer" during his tenure as GOP whip, DeLay has been the Republican leader in the House of Representatives since 2002. He has represented a suburban Houston district in the House since 1985. (Chronology)
The grand jury in Austin charged DeLay, 58, and two associates who already faced criminal charges with a single count of criminal conspiracy, alleging they improperly steered corporate donations to Republican candidates for the Texas legislature in 2002. (Read the indictment)
The 2002 races led to GOP control of the state legislature and a controversial mid-census redistricting effort that bolstered Republican control of Congress.
DeLay called Earle "a partisan fanatic" bent on punishing him for that success.
If convicted, DeLay could face up to two years in prison and fines up to $10,000.
User Reviews
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-10-04 18:02:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Now I hear he faces up to LIFE in prison. What a fucking turn of events...
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-10-04 17:53:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I read that today cookielass.
The cookie continues to crumble.
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2005-10-04 13:14:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-10-04 10:01:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
Damnit, this goes on uberboard about 2 years after the fact. I guess my payment didnt go through in time, now its old news.
-----
Not really ITM. He just got indicted twice more for allegations of money-laundering
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-10-04 12:56:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Anything anti-GOP... auto +2
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-10-04 10:01:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Damnit, this goes on uberboard about 2 years after the fact. I guess my payment didnt go through in time, now its old news.
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-09-29 19:26:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Uber cutest-as-a-kid contest: http://www.ubersite.com/m/76162
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-09-29 19:09:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Howard Dean should have his smarmy, smirking face sliced off and fed to him.
Democrats blow, Republicans suck.
It's like Southpark said, (paraphrase) "No matter which candidate you choose to vote for, you will always have to choose between some giant douche or some turd-sandwich."
We need to have some historians run for office, (e.g. David McCullough, Howard Zinn et al) because biographers are objective with their writing and while they certainly are not bipartisan when it comes to their politics they are honest, well educated, open minded individuals.
I would certainly vote for McCollough for President, Howard Zinn not so much, he is a bit too partisan for me
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:26:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:22:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
I vote neither - lets see what evidence they offer at trial before judgements are made.
--------------------------------------------------
Wow for once, or twice I agree with rad on something of a political nature! Right on Rad!
As for you CALLINGCOURT:
go fuck yourself. This post was obviously inflammatory material aimed at only one or two people in particular, just to see what kind of response I would get you half witted turd!
As for encouraging debate, funnily enough I do see a bit of debate here, even though that was not what I was asking for.
You are just jealous that you aren't beautiful/genius/charismatic me and happen to be only a mediocore francophile in a world that just isn't accepting of arrogant cunts such as yourself.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-29 13:39:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wookie -
True. It also brings up all sorts of questions about whom decided to convene the grand jury in the first place and why. THAT could be political, I suppose.
I'm still stuck on the fact that they're only going with the one charge of conspiracy against him though. Usually you would try to get them for Crime X AND conspiracy to commit Crime X. This makes me wonder. If the grand jury didn't think there was enough to indict him for the actual crime, only for conspiracy to commit it . . . I'm not sure that makes the prosecutor's case sound very solid. At least, not against DeLay. Maybe against the other two guys though.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-29 13:24:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, but I think zak's point is that, contrary to what indoninja is saying, this isn't an overzealous prosecutor who is willing to go after Republicans when he doesn't have much--if anything--on them, because it isn't solely the prosecutor's decision. If there wasn't much of a case, the grand jury--particularly a TEXAS grand jury--wouldn't have indicted him. Now, like you said Teeph, that doesn't mean there's enough evidence to convict him, but it does mean these aren't trumped up charges by a partisan prosecutor.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 13:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok
my knowledge of legal stuff is limited to Law & Order episodes, but I have a feeling that Jack McCoy would be all over this one.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-29 13:17:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Zak -
If I try to squeeze my sober brain to remember my criminal law stuff (damned conditional learning - I'd know this instantly if I were drunk, or rather, hung over) and can avoid the resulting anneyrism, I can tell you that:
the standard of evidence for a grand jury is less strict than that for an actual criminal prosecution. If I remember correctly, the standard for the grand jury is "the preponderence of the evidence" that probable cause exists whereas a petite jury or criminal jury would have to base their decision on the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" based solely on the facts as they relate to the statute in question.
What this means in layman's terms is that the grand jury looked at the evidence concerning DeLay's conspiracy and said, "I don't know, worth a shot I guess. Go for it."
Now it will be up to the prosecution to actually try to prove anything.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 13:04:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was reading that the decision to indite was the Grand Jury's, not the prosecutor alone. doesn't that suggest there is a strong case? true, my source for this assertion is the Daily Kos, but I think that's the case.
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:52:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just so you know, nothing is going to end up happening to him. A small fine, at best, but he'll never go to jail or pay any real penance for it. Bushie won't let it happen.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:44:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
(giggles)
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:19:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And the house of cards begins crashing down.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:17:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:07:39 (#)
Ranking: 1
However, I'm not buying the "partisan politics" thing so much, if the record of the prosecutor is accurate (12 of 15 prosecutions against his fellow Democrats).
----------------------------------------
You also need to look at his convictions in big cases. He is willing to go after Republicans when he has nothing to make them look bad. I am not saying that is the case here, and to be honest I would be happy if they really had something, but I doubt they do.
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:15:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
described congressional Republicans as "plagued by a culture of corruption
i think it's safe to say that ALL of american politics is in this boat.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:11:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:02:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as I know Dean was an honest governer and campaigner, even if his campaign did fall apart. Delay is consistently described as - or hinted at being - corrupt to the core, in stories from every source. plus people have been predicting this for a long time. so I already thought he was dirty, and the only surprise here is that he was actually indicted. I'd be much slower to believe it of Dean.
his being a Democrat, would it make a difference? probably. namely, he would be roundly condemned and probably ruined by it. Delay may well survive this. plus, the only power Dean seems to have just now is singlehandedly generating negative publicity. not so for Delay.
and what you were really asking, would I be easier on Dean (if he was to be charged) because he's a Dem? probably, yes. I would react differently. the only Dem administration I've lived through was Clinton's, and most of the world was happier with him they ever were with Reagan or Bush I. I don't need to tell you what Bush II has done to the image of Republicans worldwide. people in the rest of the world just like Dems more.
---------------------------------------------------
As I said before don't really trust him, and I would be happy over a conviction. I just doubt it is going to happen.
As far as democrats being condemned by stuff like this you are dead wrong. Look at the congressman for New Orleans, he has been (is again) under investigation for all sorts of fraud. He used national guardsmen to go to his house (went to the house alone, days before feds raided one of his other houses and found money, hmm fishy?) and the democrats love him. this isn't a D vs R issue. They are both dirty.
The world was happier under Clinton? Sorry that isn't true. He put out a better image, sure. He was also much closer to the center then bush is.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:07:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Here's why I'm on the fence:
I don't have a problem with there not being too many details out yet, that's just how grand juries are supposed to work.
But, as Zak points out, if this guy is as dirty as he's supposed to be, the grand jury only comes down with ONE charge, and that one charge is conspiracy? That makes the case seem not so strong, IMHLO (in my humble legal opinion).
However, I'm not buying the "partisan politics" thing so much, if the record of the prosecutor is accurate (12 of 15 prosecutions against his fellow Democrats).
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 12:02:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as I know Dean was an honest governer and campaigner, even if his campaign did fall apart. Delay is consistently described as - or hinted at being - corrupt to the core, in stories from every source. plus people have been predicting this for a long time. so I already thought he was dirty, and the only surprise here is that he was actually indicted. I'd be much slower to believe it of Dean.
his being a Democrat, would it make a difference? probably. namely, he would be roundly condemned and probably ruined by it. Delay may well survive this. plus, the only power Dean seems to have just now is singlehandedly generating negative publicity. not so for Delay.
and what you were really asking, would I be easier on Dean (if he was to be charged) because he's a Dem? probably, yes. I would react differently. the only Dem administration I've lived through was Clinton's, and most of the world was happier with him they ever were with Reagan or Bush I. I don't need to tell you what Bush II has done to the image of Republicans worldwide. people in the rest of the world just like Dems more.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-09-29 11:57:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-09-29 11:37:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
I love how when a republican gets caught doing something wrong they blame it on partisan politics. But when they impeached Clinton - oh that wasn't partisan at all, that wasn't trumped up at all, basically I hate how they can say one thing one minute and then change thier mind when they cant get away with something.
I hope he gets sent to jail and assraped.
------------------------------
He had oral sex with an intern (would get you fired from most jobs in the private sector, and definately if you worked for the govt), then he LIED about it under oath. Those are the facts. They aren't trumped up charges. There is nothing partisan about it, do you think republicans wouldn't be calling for impeachment if Bush did that? What do you think the democrats would do?
That guy prosecuting him has had 15 public corruption cases. Twelve of them were democrats. Fine, great that looks non partisan. But how come the only high profile cases he had convictions on have been democrats? How come all his big cases against republicans have been thrown out? Because he goes after republicans when he doesn't have shit.
I don't like DeLay. He probably is involved in some underhanded stuff somewhere (I tend to think any congressmen D or R at his level is) my point is they don't have shit, and this prosecuter doesn't care if he doesn't have shit because he is going after a republican.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-29 11:47:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-09-29 11:37:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
I love how when a republican gets caught doing something wrong they blame it on partisan politics. But when they impeached Clinton - oh that wasn't partisan at all, that wasn't trumped up at all, basically I hate how they can say one thing one minute and then change thier mind when they cant get away with something.
I hope he gets sent to jail and assraped.
----------------------------------------------
Even IF he gets convicted, his sentence will be suspended and the money for the fines will come from the same corporate cash he's accused of illegally funnelling...
Because that's the way the system works.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-09-29 11:40:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:18:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
A)If you are for this cocksucker, please comment and rate -2
B)If you think he should be horsewhipped and disemboweled, please comment and +2
===
Way to encourage debate.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-09-29 11:37:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love how when a republican gets caught doing something wrong they blame it on partisan politics. But when they impeached Clinton - oh that wasn't partisan at all, that wasn't trumped up at all, basically I hate how they can say one thing one minute and then change thier mind when they cant get away with something.
I hope he gets sent to jail and assraped.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-09-29 11:20:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
He won't get convicted, I don't know if it is because he is too smart, or they have a trumped up case.
I love how cases like this bring out the worst in politicians of all sides.
Zak, as to your comment to Rad, how would you feel if it was Howard Dean?
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:56:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Delay felched sally struther's emu.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:48:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
huh?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:34:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Yeah, I really have no opinion on this until I hear a little more about the facts.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:33:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
rad1101: calm and reasonable when it's a Republican on trial.
Submitted by Ainkara (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:26:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I vote neither since I have absolutely no idea who these people are, and to be honest, I didn't even read the whole thing.
Submitted by tuesdaydelay (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:25:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
T. Delay is dead, long live t'delay!
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:22:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I vote neither - lets see what evidence they offer at trial before judgements are made.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:20:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
so when he calls SOMEONE ELSE "partisan" does he mean it as criticism or praise?
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2005-09-29 10:18:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
A)If you are for this cocksucker, please comment and rate -2
B)If you think he should be horsewhipped and disemboweled, please comment and +2
Thanks
ITM
My vote is for B therefore +2