Tom Delay Indicted [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

whitefolks

09-28-2005, 12:49 PM

Its a combination of partisan politics and a political witch hunt, by a very partisian District Attorney.the DA who indicted him is a political hack who pulled a similar stunt
on Kay Bailey Hutchinson, which was exposed as a partisan witch hunt.
Conspiricy charges are just a way to say, I think he did it, I just
dont know how, because there is no evidence to directly link him to the
actually charge of fraud.Either way, its not a good day for the Republicans because perception is reality alot of the times. 

<img border="0" src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/white_folks/trash.jpg" />
<img border="0" src="http://xampd.imomo.net/tracker/chrisreyesnyc/C91D154F1A45A2645C4663CE82CD2DAA/tracker.png" />

This message was edited by whitefolks on 9-28-05 @ 4:51 PM

HBox

09-28-2005, 01:04 PM

<a href="http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=571&pf=1" target="_blank">From the Houston Chronicle in an article back in 2003:</a>  
Until recent years, Democrats controlled the Texas Legislature, held

most

statewide offices and caused the big scandals. Now the situation is

reversed, but some Republicans want their scandals to be exempt from

investigation. 

During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has

prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record

does

not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts. 

Furthermore, the argument that Earle should drop the investigation

because

of its high cost ill becomes a political party that supported the

spending

of tens of millions of dollars to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's

failed real estate investment in Arkansas, with little result. 

Earle is investigating whether state Rep. Tom Craddick, a Republican,

broke

the rules in his race to become speaker of the Texas House. That

investigation grew out of another begun to determine whether the Texas

Association of Business and Texans for a Republican Majority illegally

used

corporate donations to influence Texas House races. 

The whole scandal came to light after the TAB bragged that it had used

corporate donations to gain a Republican majority in the House. As proof

of

his evenhandedness, Earle has subpoenaed the records of former House

Speaker

Pete Laney, a Democrat, after Craddick's defenders suggested that Laney

had

behaved similarly. 

A spokesman for the Republican Party of Texas called Earle's

investigation

frivolous. That charge is rebutted by the impressive legal talent hired

to

represent the targets of the probe. 

Earle himself perhaps put the matter best: "This is not about Democrats

and

Republicans. It is about cops and robbers. This is an investigation of a

crime.
But hey, if Republican talking points spouters
say it enough, and lazy reporters repeat it enough, it will become
true. Like it was said, perception is reality. 

<a href="http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=571&pf=1" target="_blank"></a>

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

whitefolks

09-28-2005, 01:19 PM

What he should be doing as a good prosicutor is investigate1- the corporations that allegedly funnled money to the texas senate2- the people that allowed this to happenhe has nothing, he is grasping at straws, and in regard to that houston chronical article 
The Houston Chronicle called into question Earle's impartiality and judgment:

"The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his blunder and would do
it again calls into question whether he has the necessary impartiality
and judgment to conduct the investigation that to a great extent will
determine whether Texas election campaigns will be financed and perhaps
determined by corporations or by individuals."

(Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's poor judgment in speaking
at a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost for DeLay's
defenders., The Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2005)
 ·"The Travis County, Texas, prosecutor investigating Mr. DeLay has a
history of using his office for partisan ends."(Congressional
prerogative, The Washington Times, November 19, 2004)
Earle's partisan prosecutions - which have frequently failed - are
designed for political harm, not legal harm. Earle is the same partisan
prosecutor who politically indicted and failed to convict:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 
Conservative Democrat Bob Bullock (when he was Comptroller - later he was Lt. Governor) 
Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox

Ronnie Earle's three year political vendettas, has been marked by:

Illegal grand jury leaks, 
A fundraising speech by Earle for the Texas Democrat party that inappropriately focused on the investigation, 
Misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and 
Extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them.

Ronnie Earle has been frequently criticized for his
methods:Hutchison Probe; Fair and Speedy trial is essential, The Dallas
Morning News, September 28, 1993)
 we could be fighting bullet points all night. the bottom line, its a witchhunt. 

 
 

<center><img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/white_folks/trash.jpg"></Center>
<img src="http://xampd.imomo.net/tracker/chrisreyesnyc/C91D154F1A45A2645C4663CE82CD2DAA/tracker.png">

HBox

09-28-2005, 01:22 PM

Well, luckily a jury will decide that. And if Delay
isn't guilty then evrything will go back to normal because no
Republican will have the balls to do anything about it. 

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

whitefolks

09-28-2005, 01:27 PM

quote:Well, luckily a jury will decide that. And if Delay
isn't guilty then evrything will go back to normal because no
Republican will have the balls to do anything about it. 

 
 Im not sure what that
means, this man's political carrer could be destoyed because of one man
who may or may not be upset about the congressional redistricting that
led to the loss of 6 very important democratic seats in the house, and
which stopped the flow of money into his coffers. I would love to have a political discussion, but lets not have to resort to the "Bush Sucks" retoric .

<center><img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/white_folks/trash.jpg"></Center>
<img src="http://xampd.imomo.net/tracker/chrisreyesnyc/C91D154F1A45A2645C4663CE82CD2DAA/tracker.png">

Recyclerz

09-28-2005, 01:34 PM

quote: the bottom line, its a witchhunt.  BOTTOM bottom Line?  He's a witch. So that makes it OK.This news gave me a chub.  If Rove gets indicted then I'll have one of those four day hard-ons they warn you about on the Cialis commercials. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smile.gif" border="0" />edit: I would love to have a political discussion, but lets not have to resort to the "Bush Sucks" retoric Sorry. I started typing before I saw this one.  But I don't think you're gonna get a reasoned debate in a Delay gets nailed thread.  Not from me anyway. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" /><img src="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US" border="0" /> There ain't no asylum here. King Solomon, he never lived 'round here

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 9-28-05 @ 5:38 PM

HBox

09-28-2005, 01:34 PM

I guarantee that if Delay gets off not guilty and
no bombshells are dropped during his trial that he will be back to
House Majority leader the second the jury reads the
verdict. 

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

whitefolks

09-28-2005, 01:43 PM

quote:I guarantee that if Delay gets off not guilty and
no bombshells are dropped during his trial that he will be back to
House Majority leader the second the jury reads the
verdict. 

 
As it should be, not guilty means.. um.. NOT GUILTY.. He
actually stepped down because of a Republican led ethics order in the
house, one that didnt exist under the clintons administration. 

<center><img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/white_folks/trash.jpg"></Center>
<img src="http://xampd.imomo.net/tracker/chrisreyesnyc/C91D154F1A45A2645C4663CE82CD2DAA/tracker.png">

HBox

09-28-2005, 01:48 PM

He actually stepped down
because of a Republican led ethics order in the house, one that didnt
exist under the clintons administration.Umm,
you do remember how last winter they got rid of that rule because Delay
wanted to hold on to his office in this very situation, and only put it
back in because of public uproar, right? Delay gets no credit for doing
the "right thing" because he was forced into doing so. 


http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

SatCam

09-28-2005, 01:56 PM

As it should be, not guilty means.. um.. NOT GUILTY..Except it doesn't mean innocent

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig95_general_martha.jpg" align="right" alt="I'd hit it" />

[ X ][color=white]

HBox

09-28-2005, 03:17 PM

I'm watching Tom Delay being interviewed by Tom
Delay. He's basically just handing Delay a big shovel and letting him
dig his own grave. Remember when Hillary Clinton blathered on about a
"Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?" That's what Delay is doing now, except
much worse. He's actually calling out specific Democratic House members
and saying they are involved in taking him down. It's borderline
libel. 

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

Papa_Burgundy

09-28-2005, 03:35 PM

quote:   As it should be, not guilty means.. um.. NOT GUILTY..   true.  i mean look at OJ.  robert blake. these guys were proven not guilty.  so of course they didn't do it.  case closed

http://www.silentpix.com/modules/Myalbums/albums/userpics/10014/burgsig.jpg

FUNKMAN

09-28-2005, 05:37 PM

at least Clinton got a blowjob for his troubles...

<img src="http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UQCRAl4WyHLYmr7dmRaNq9LkFDSutySVXtZT!2DBFo9cdLLOy T0wW*F93FRtcPlf*xMPhVXRGqhe6SJySdgLcTKyu!jrvKbU!du NFBLOnRJxEbhL0qxR9qln3GX9xzMO/FUNKMAN.JPG?dc=4675521713262985004">

whitefolks

09-28-2005, 06:41 PM

quote:I'm watching Tom Delay being interviewed by Tom
Delay. 

 
 Huh? I saw his "press conference" and I think he should just STFU. Doesn't any half ass attorney tell you, "Never say anything" 

<center><img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/white_folks/trash.jpg"></Center>
<img src="http://xampd.imomo.net/tracker/chrisreyesnyc/C91D154F1A45A2645C4663CE82CD2DAA/tracker.png">

Snoogans

09-28-2005, 06:45 PM

I was reading this article, and a line JUMPED out at me. “If the Democrats think we’re going to go crawl in a hole and not
accomplish our agenda, I wish they could have been a fly on the wall”  agenda? Meaning thing they thought and will do regardless of whether its right or what anyone else says? Just checking. 

<center>
<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=Snoogans194"> GO SAWX!!!!! Hassan Eats Dick!!! Snoogans 1, Monitor 0 GIMMIE MY FUCKIN CHANGE, I AINT PLAYIN WIT YOU</center>

HBox

09-28-2005, 06:56 PM

quote: quote:I'm watching Tom Delay being interviewed by Tom
Delay. 

 
 Huh? I saw his "press conference" and I think he should just STFU. Doesn't any half ass attorney tell you, "Never say anything" 

<img border="0" src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/white_folks/trash.jpg" />
<img border="0" src="http://xampd.imomo.net/tracker/chrisreyesnyc/C91D154F1A45A2645C4663CE82CD2DAA/tracker.png" /> Whoops.
I meant he was being interview by Chris Matthews on Hardball. What he
said on hardball went beyond proclaiming his innocence and blaming
partisan politics. He was throwing out blind accusations like some
crazy guy who thinks the CIA is reading his brain, and Matthews just
kept helping him dig the hole deeper. He'd certainly help himself
with the public if he'd just shut up and disappear and try and push for
a quick trial. These kinds of things are hard to prove, and even if he
had some shady dealings I can see him getting off. 


http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

A.J.

09-29-2005, 12:09 AM

Guilty or not he's still a douchebag who represents the worst of the GOP.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

CaptClown

09-29-2005, 06:18 AM

What does the indictment actually say?

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army
Poison Clan rocks the world

HBox

09-29-2005, 06:25 AM

He's up on Criminal Conspiracy charges for what is
essenially money laundering. He's being accuessed of circumventing
Texas law barring corporations from contributing to campaigns by having
the corporations contribute money to the RNC and then having the RNC
distribute that money to the campaigns of local Texas politicians. Or
something like that. 

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

CaptClown

09-29-2005, 07:01 AM

That being the case then every elected official in the world is guilty.  He better line up the indictments and include himself too.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army
Poison Clan rocks the world

JerryTaker

09-29-2005, 08:13 AM

quote:
That being the case then every elected official in the world is guilty. Except
this is Texas state law, it's practically the only campaign
finance restriction in the state. I find it kinda funny that there's
only one rule, and Delay broke it... alledgedly<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092802076.html">this
was the top google article for "Texas law campaign fund" </a> quote: 
AUSTIN -- A Texas law banning the use of corporate money for
direct campaign expenditures is at the center of a long-running
criminal investigation that on Wednesday led to the indictment of U.S.
Rep. Tom DeLay.
Corporate money can be used by
political action committees, or PACs, in Texas for administrative
purposes, such as for office overhead, but not for campaign expenses
that can influence the outcome of elections.
   

 
Sweet Queen Bee, I hope it comes quickly,
I hope your thoughts don't drift to me
I'll die in here, you now are free...


This message was edited by JerryTaker on 9-29-05 @ 12:13 PM

HBox

10-03-2005, 02:06 PM

Delay was just indicted for money laundering as
well. I'm not sure where this came from, I thought Earle's grand jury
closed up last week. I'll post a link when I find one.<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9583433/" target="_blank">Here is the link.</a> 

<img border="0" src="http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg" />

This message was edited by HBox on 10-3-05 @ 6:42 PM

Bulldogcakes

10-21-2005, 04:46 PM

<img width="497" height="273" border="0" src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051021/051021_delay_booking_hmed_5a.hlarge.jpg" /> <a target="blank" href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/20/D8DC44NO1.html">Mugshot explanation</a>For
anyone who saw this picture, and thought it was as ridiculous as I did,
here's the explanation. Apparently it's inside Washington stuff. He
didn't want to give the Dems a mug shot they could use in political ads
next year quote: 
 He looks in the photo like a proud member of
Congress who might just have won the lottery, not one indicted on
charges of money laundering. The photo looks like it could have been
taken anywhere. 
 And that was just the point. 

Democrats nationally are already sounding as if they'll make DeLay the
poster boy for bad Republican behavior in next year's elections, when
every House seat and a third of those in the Senate are up for grabs. 
  
Still looks weird to me, but probably a smart move on his part. BTW-I think he'll be cleared of all charges. They really have next to nothing. I
dont care if he's indicted, you know the old "Ham sandwich" line. I am,
however, troubled by the Banana Republic technique of prosecuting
people from the opposite party just to damage them politically. Sleazy
and dangerous to Democracy. If I had any sense he was guilty, I'd have
no problem with it. And I know they all cry "politically motivated
prosecution" when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
But I cant find anything that strikes me as a smoking gun here. And the
charge "election finance law violations" is a real snoozer to begin
with. 


<img border="0" src="http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebob80/RFnetBulldogcakes3.jpg" />

<a target="blank" href="http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html">My site Bully Baby</a>
"A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to
dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address
'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 10-21-05 @ 8:51 PM

HBox

10-21-2005, 05:29 PM

Just because Delay screams politically motivated
doesn't make it true. This guy (Earle) has by far prosecuted more
Democrats than Republicans, and despite the fact they keep on screaming
he lost to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, by far the majority of his cases have
ended in successful prosecution or a plea deal. Nothing I've seen of
his history shows him as a political hack or a guy who will push shaky
cases just to make the news. 
And I can just
imagine Delay screaming and cursing up a storm, then he walks up to the
camera and smiles, and then resumes screaming and
cursing. 


http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

Yerdaddy

10-22-2005, 12:28 PM

I am, however, troubled by the Banana Republic technique of prosecuting people from the opposite party just to damage them politically. Sleazy and dangerous to Democracy.It wasn't the "opposite partty" when the republicans on the Ethics Committee admonished DeLay three times last year. There's plenty of evidence against DeLay. He's a disgrace to the country many times over, but for your party's current sole ethic of grabbing and maintaining raw political power, this freak gets to be a leader of the party. You, of course, know the old "river in Egypt" line?<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/delay.ethics/" target="_blank">House Ethics Committee admonishes DeLay again</a>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in two weeks, the House Ethics Committee has issued admonishments to Majority Leader Tom DeLay over his conduct, warning the Texas Republican to "temper" his future actions to comply with House rules and standards of conduct.The committee announced Wednesday evening that it had unanimously admonished DeLay on two counts of an ethics complaint filed against him by Rep. Chris Bell, a Texas Democrat who lost his re-election bid after Texas legislators passed a redistricting plan engineered by the No. 2 House Republican.One of Wednesday's admonishments stemmed from a fund-raiser DeLay hosted for energy company officials while Congress was considering major energy legislation. The other concerned contacts his office had with the Federal Aviation Administration during a partisan fight over redistricting in Texas.The committee deferred action on a third count in the complaint -- alleging fund-raising irregularities in DeLay's political action committee back in Texas -- because of an ongoing state criminal investigation.Last week, DeLay was also admonished by the committee on another complaint, related to a promise DeLay made to a fellow GOP House member to endorse his son's bid for Congress in return for the lawmaker's vote for the Medicare prescription drug bill.***In a report released late Wednesday, the committee raised objections to a June 2002 golf resort fund-raiser for DeLay's leadership PAC attended by energy company officials, which took place as House and Senate conferees were about to hash out energy legislation.***The committee also unanimously found that DeLay's office improperly contacted the Federal Aviation Administration in May 2003 to track a plane carrying Texas Democratic legislators, who had fled the state two thwart the Republican plan to redraw the state's congressional district map.The ethics committee said the contacts with the FAA amounted to an improper use of governmental resources for a political undertaking, dismissing as "unpersuasive" DeLay's arguments that the contacts were proper.The committee put off action on a third count in the complaint, which charges that DeLay, through his PAC in Texas, funneled corporate contributions to candidates for state office. Three people associated with the PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority, were indicted in Texas last month on money laundering charges.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">

Fuck it from behind.

Bulldogcakes

10-22-2005, 07:09 PM

Well, first of all, go easy with the "Your party" stuff. I haven't
even voted since 2000, since I regretted my Bush vote and no one seems
to repesent me enough to actually bother to vote for them. That
being said, I cant help but suspect Delay wouldn't draw the nasty
partisan attacks if he wasn't so effective. He stretches the limits of
ethics as you said, but I think he's smart enough to walk the line
between that and illegality. Especially with all his enemies. But we'll
see how this trial turns out. I really have no interest in getting up
to speed on enough Texas election law to have an informed opinion on
this. 
And Democrats consolidated their power for 40 years before these
clowns took over. So they learned it from the masters. But real
Conservatives would be shrinking Government and devolving power back to
the people, not to themselves. So thats why I dont consider this
president, or Delay to be a conservatives. They're just politicians.   


http://home.comcast.net/~bob80/RFnetBulldogcakes3.jpg

My site Bully Baby (http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html)

"A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address 'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald

TheMojoPin

10-22-2005, 07:36 PM

Yeah, Delay's never been convicted, but look how many times the guy has been indicted over his career on similar charges.  Are ALL of these charges just partisan attacks?

<center><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
 
Dancing with the women at the bar... << He knows his Claret from his Beaujolais >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."</center>

JerryTaker

10-22-2005, 08:01 PM

And Democrats consolidated
their power for 40 years before these clowns took over. So they learned
it from the masters. But real Conservatives would be shrinking
Government and devolving power back to the people, not to themselves.
So thats why I dont consider this president, or Delay to be a
conservatives. They're just politicians.Yes,
yes, and yes, which begs the question... WHY defend them? why defend
any politician who doesn't directly  represent our interests? I
guess what I mean is, when you have a company, and an employee
continually gets in trouble, the company will tend to fire him without
delving too deeply into what he did or why he did it, it's the
perception.  why NOT get rid of a carrer politician who has gotten
into trouble so many times, that he's percieved as a bad guy to people
who are paying attention? is there nothing to be said for new blood?
for anyone who's a rich old guy being too out of touch to know what's
good for the common people, be it Tom Delay or Ted Kennedy? 
just an aside, yes, the Dems were in control for 40 years, and
we can still get guns. off topic, but something to think about, with
everyone out there proclaiming that the liberals are out to ruin
society, you think we'd have been reduced to attacking our neighbors
with clubs at this point. balance, people. 

 
Sweet Queen Bee, I hope it comes quickly,
I hope your thoughts don't drift to me
I'll die in here, you now are free...

Yerdaddy

10-23-2005, 11:31 AM

quote: Well, first of all, go easy with the "Your party" stuff. I haven't even voted since 2000, since I regretted my Bush vote and no one seems to repesent me enough to actually bother to vote for them. That being said, I cant help but suspect Delay wouldn't draw the nasty partisan attacks if he wasn't so effective. He stretches the limits of ethics as you said, but I think he's smart enough to walk the line between that and illegality. Especially with all his enemies. But we'll see how this trial turns out. I really have no interest in getting up to speed on enough Texas election law to have an informed opinion on this. And Democrats consolidated their power for 40 years before these clowns took over. So they learned it from the masters. But real Conservatives would be shrinking Government and devolving power back to the people, not to themselves. So thats why I dont consider this president, or Delay to be a conservatives. They're just politicians.   <img src="http://home.comcast.net/~bob80/RFnetBulldogcakes3.jpg" border="0" /> <a href="http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html" target="blank">My site Bully Baby</a> "A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address 'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald You should know that I don't consider "Republican" a pejorative. I simply assume it's your party becuause you're defending DeLay without posting any evidence of his innocence and accusing the attorney general of a political witch-hunt, again without any evidence.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">

Fuck it from behind.

scottinnj

10-23-2005, 11:38 AM

no the king of assholes in Congress has to be charlie rangel

scottinnj

10-23-2005, 11:41 AM

all democrats do is not get caught.  The only reason Republicans
get caught is because they are not as good at bullshitting the american
people and don't have the press sucking cock for them

Yerdaddy

10-23-2005, 11:48 AM

Save it for Free Republic. Grown-ups are talking here.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">

Fuck it from behind.

high fly

10-24-2005, 02:42 PM

Nice one, Yerdaddy.Ever notice how none of tom "Without" DeLay's defenders never can bring themselves to say DeLay did not do what he is charged with?Same with Rove.and Libby.....And isn't "DeLay" French? And why don't those who were so incensed about the ethical failings they imagined with the Clinton administration, who supported Bush because he promised to "usher in a new era of personal responsibility," bothered that DeLay has alrerady been cited 3 times for ethics violations and is under investigation for another one?Is ethical behaviour, like fiscal responsibility yet another Republican "core value" to be discarded like so much litter by the roadside?  " ...and they ask me why I drink" <img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg" border="0" /> Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!" ...and they ask me why I drink" Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

This message was edited by high fly on 10-24-05 @ 6:46 PM

Bulldogcakes

10-24-2005, 05:25 PM

quote:I simply assume it's your
party becuause you're defending DeLay without posting any evidence of
his innocence and accusing the attorney general of a political
witch-hunt, again without any evidence.  I
obviously cant provide proof of his innocence, and really dont have to.
I think the burden of proof is (and ought to be) on those making the
accusations. That is still the way it works in America, isn't it? Were
not throwing out the Constitution for Republicans we dont like?  As
to the political witch hunt charge, there have been accusations by some
on the Right that the prosecutor has made donations to Move-on.org,
he's a registered Democrat, he initially filed charges that weren't
even unlawful at the time of occurance and had to go back and dream up
new charges. None of which is disqualifies him as a prosecutor. Though
it might color his motivations. Lets be honest, if a registered
Republican filed these charges, no one could claim partisanship. But I
really dont think that matters either way. If DeLay is convicted, the
witch hunt charge has no merit. But if he's aquitted . . . . . ? 
I'll accept the juries decision either way. Because as I said
before, I really dont have a dog in this fight. And I agree that
there's plenty of "smoke" around DeLay. We'll see if he crossed the
line to illegality, and to what degree.    
BTW-Clinton and the Left were just peachy keen on the fact Ken Starr was a Republican, right?  

http://home.comcast.net/~bob80/RFnetBulldogcakes3.jpg

My site Bully Baby (http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html)

"A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address 'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald

TheMojoPin

10-24-2005, 08:11 PM

Clinton appointed Ken Starr himself, AH-DOY.

<center><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
 
Dancing with the women at the bar... << He knows his Claret from his Beaujolais >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."</center>

Bulldogcakes

10-25-2005, 02:56 AM

Ah Doy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr)In <a title="1994" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994">1994</a> Starr was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing <a title="Robert Fiske" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Fiske&action=edit">Robert Fiske</a>, who had been specially appointed by the Attorney General prior to the re-enactment of the Independent Counsel law. 

http://home.comcast.net/~bob80/RFnetBulldogcakes3.jpg

My site Bully Baby (http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html)

"A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address 'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald

TheMojoPin

10-25-2005, 07:43 AM

Ah-damn.Why have I always heard he was appointed to the independent counsel somehow by the Clinton White House?  Like he was their choice, and then it blew up in their faces.  The irony always seemed hilarious.But still, you think Clinton is a scumbag, right?  Yeah, he's never been convicted of anything, but look at all the shit he's been accused of going back to his days as a governor.  It's the same thing with DeLay.  Sure, not convicted...but so many goddamn charges don't just come out of thin air.  These guys are guilty of something...they're just rich men with a lot of influence who can get away with it, plain and simple.

<center><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
 
Dancing with the women at the bar... << He knows his Claret from his Beaujolais >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."</center>

Se7en

11-03-2005, 07:13 AM

The <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051101/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment" target="_self">first</a> in what will be a great many victories for Delay.I'll say this about Mr. Earle - it take a special kind of partisan asshole for me to feel sympathy for Tom Delay.  And Earle is that kind of asshole.

mendyweiss

11-03-2005, 08:06 AM

Whitey gonna get it!<img src="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/1101052sharpton1.jpg" border="0" />

I say sweeping the pockets of the Dutchman was not Mob business!

Yerdaddy

11-22-2005, 03:53 AM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/21/scanlon.plea/index.html" target="_blank">DeLay ex-aide pleads guilty in Abramoff case</a> quote: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Michael Scanlon, a former top aide to Rep. Tom DeLay and a onetime partner of high-powered Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge Monday.  As part of the deal with the Justice Department, Scanlon agreed to testify against Abramoff in a probe that also has implicated at least one member of Congress, two government sources have told CNN. quote: Scanlon, a 35-year-old public relations executive, agreed to pay $19.7 million in restitution for kickbacks he admitted receiving as part of the conspiracy to defraud his and Abramoff's clients. quote: According to e-mail obtained by a Senate committee, Abramoff made a fortune from the gambling operations of six Indian tribes while privately mocking tribal leaders as "monkeys" and "morons." quote: He is a longtime associate of several top GOP leaders, including DeLay, Americans for Tax Reform director Grover Norquist, and former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed.  Last week, prosecutors accused Scanlon in court papers of conspiring to "corruptly offer and provide things of value, including money, meals, trips and entertainment, to federal public officials in return for agreements to perform official acts" benefiting Scanlon and his lobbyist partner. quote: Prosecutors also detailed a "stream of things of value" given to an unnamed congressman, identified in the court documents as Representative No. 1.  The items listed include a "lavish" trip to Scotland to play golf, tickets to sporting events and campaign contributions to the representative and his political action committee in exchange for a series of actions by that representative.The Justice Department would not identify the congressman. But government sources said he is Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee.In the court documents, prosecutors alleged Scanlon and Lobbyist A got the lawmaker "to perform a series of official acts."According to the documents, those acts included supporting bills, placing statements in the Congressional Record, meeting with the lobbyists' clients and supporting a client of Abramoff's in a bid to wire the House of Representatives for wireless telephone service. quote: Ney is the only member of Congress to disclose that he has been subpoenaed as part of the investigation -- a step required under House rules.  He is known to have entered comments in the Congressional Record against a man standing in the way of an Abramoff project, and he took a 2002 golf trip to Scotland that Abramoff sponsored.  <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1336260&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312" target="_blank">Ex-DeLay Aide Cooperating in Bribery Probe</a> quote: WASHINGTON Nov 22, 2005 — A former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay who pleaded guilty in a federal bribery probe involving members of Congress has been cooperating with prosecutors since July. [quote]quote: "There have been a lot of conversations" between Scanlon and federal prosecutors over

Se7en

11-24-2005, 07:48 AM

Don't be surprised to see DeLay's case thrown out in the next few weeks.  The judge all but laughed at the indictment when they went to court this week.  That isn't surprising; after all, how can anybody NOT laugh at an indictment that alleges a crime that wasn't illegal when it occurred and when the prosecution cannot produce the key piece of evidence in their case?

Yerdaddy

11-25-2005, 06:55 AM

Let me introduce you to a concept that may be of use to you some day: <a href="http://www.pulsejournal.com/featr/content/shared/news/stories/DELAY_TEXAS_1123_COX.html" target="_blank">evidence</a>. For more than three hours Tuesday, the defense team fired a barrage of objections to the indictments."No crime occurred," DeGuerin said in his opening remarks, "and no crime is charged."The defense team argued that Texans for a Republican Majority legally raised the corporate money, then donated $190,000 of it to the RNC where it could legally be spent in 26 states that allow corporate money in campaigns. On the other hand, the team argued that RNC's $190,000 — raised from individuals from around the country — was legally given to Texas candidates."It wasn't the same money!" DeGuerin said. "It only becomes a crime if that (corporate) money is then used for an individual campaign."Austin lawyer Joe Turner, representing Colyandro, summed it up this way: "Were corporate contributions sent to political candidates in Texas?"Rick Reed, an assistant prosecutor, said the state has not alleged it was the same money.Under state law, Reed said the $190,000 transaction became money laundering because the money was "the proceeds of criminal activity." He argued that a crime was committed when the corporations gave money — political contributions, he claimed — to Texans for a Republican Majority.The defense team also argued that the state's conspiracy statute did not apply to the election code in 2002. They noted that the Legislature changed the law in 2003 to apply it to election code violations. Reed argued that lawmakers only clarified that conspiracy had always applied to the election laws.The defense attacked the money laundering indictment, saying the law in 2002 only contemplated the laundering of cash — not checks. They noted the Legislature in 2005 changed the law to include checks.In 2002, the law referred to "funds." Reed argued that lawmakers never restricted checks from the meaning of funds. Besides, Reed noted, the latest indictment simply used the word "funds" and remains valid.Reed said Texans for a Republican Majority tried to "disguise" its criminal intent by swapping money with the RNC.Yeah, this is cut-and-dry. That was sarcasm. Like any big white collar crime this is going to come down to the quality of the evidence, strategies of the lawyers and the decisions of the judge and jury. You can argue the right-wing blow-hards' case all you want, but, at present, they only have the ability to shitty up our political culture, but not the inside of a courtroom.And he's still not out of trouble if he does win this case:[quote]<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-11-25T151119Z_01_SIB554311_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-LOBBYIST-REPORT.xml" target="_blank">Abramoff probe broader than thought: paper</a>NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department's probe of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is broader than previously thought, examining his dealings with four lawmakers, former and current congressional aides and two former Bush administration officials, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.Prosecutors in the department's public integrity and fraud divisions are looking into Abramoff's dealings with four Republicans -- former House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, Rep. John Doolittle of California and Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana, the paper said, citing several people close to the investigation.Abramoff is under investigation over his lobbying efforts for Indian tribes with casinos. He has also pleaded not guilty to federal charges in Florida that he defrauded lenders in a casino cruise line deal.The prosecutors are also investigating at least 17 current and former congressional aid

Bulldogcakes

11-25-2005, 04:02 PM

If I'm DeLay, I want a jury trial. Because everytime I read the evidence of this case, I start dozing off. 

http://www.silentpix.com/hottub/bulldogsig/rotate.php

My site Bully Baby (http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html)

"A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address 'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald

HBox

11-25-2005, 04:35 PM

Let me attempt to spice this up so Bulldog can get through it:<img width="250" height="189" border="0" src="http://www.djfl.de/entertainment/djfl/1015/101671b2.jpg" /> Under state law, Reed said
the $190,000 transaction became money laundering because the money was
"the proceeds of criminal activity."  <img width="216" height="162" border="0" src="http://sietook.druskova.sk/pic/clanky/stalone.gif" /> He argued that a crime was
committed when the corporations gave money — political contributions,
he claimed — to Texans for a Republican Majority.<img width="550" height="350" border="0" src="http://www.stampede-entertainment.com/postcards/tremors3/explosion-l.jpg" />The defense attacked the
money laundering indictment, saying the law in 2002 only contemplated
the laundering of cash — not checks. They noted the Legislature in 2005
changed the law to include checks.<img width="200" height="150" border="0" src="http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/cinema/artigos/machos/rambo.jpg" /> In 2002, the law referred to "funds." Reed argued that lawmakers never restricted checks from the meaning of funds. Besides, Reed noted, the latest indictment simply used the word "funds" and remains valid.<img width="500" height="331" border="0" src="http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/11/11/falluja7,0.jpg" />Reed said Texans for a Republican Majority tried to "disguise" its criminal intent by swapping money with the RNC.<img width="337" height="253" border="0" src="http://www.planet.nl/upload_mm/9/1/0/1958157098_1999998640_Rambo_337.jpg" />

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

Bulldogcakes

11-25-2005, 05:11 PM

H-Box, you you're such a prick. <img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/annoyed.gif" />           (But that was really funny)<img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/laugh.gif" /> 


<img border="0" src="http://www.silentpix.com/hottub/bulldogsig/rotate.php" />

<a target="blank" href="http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html">My site Bully Baby</a>
"A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to
dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address
'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-25-05 @ 9:12 PM

HBox

11-25-2005, 05:53 PM

It was meant in fun.............. mostly. 

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7449/georgesig0mm.jpg

Se7en

12-01-2005, 04:54 PM

Well, this isn't good.  Looks like there isn't enough there to sustain just a civil case against <a href="http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/13286496.htm" target="_self">one of Delay's co-defendants.</a>I find it hilarious that Yerdaddy makes a comment about the evidence, because the prosecutors <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3397339" target="_self">don't even possess</a> a KEY document that is essentially at the heart of the prosecution's case.There's also the matter that what the prosecutors allege in the indictment was Delay's criminal act <a href="http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/10/4delay3.html" target="_self">wasn't actually a crime</a> at the time the action was committed.There's also the issue of the fact that the three year statute of limitations in which to indict Delay had run out.  Also, Earle shopped the charges to *three* grand juries, not the two he had discussed, with one of them <a href="http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/10/5earle.html" target="_self">refusing to indict.</a>No one sees a problem here?We have Earle alleging a conspiracy to commit a legal act BEFORE it becomes a crime. We have him shopping the case to multiple grand juries in order to get the indictments, including one newly-empaneled one.We have a case based on missing documents, that should show that the charges were rejected by at least one of those grand juries.We have possible failure to bring charges within the Statute Of Limitations as well as possibly having a grand jury bring charges after their terms had expired. Let's also not forget that Earle had gone around fund-raising based off the claim that he'll take down Delay, who was supposedly never the target of the investigation while Earle was making those rounds.Delay's unethical as fuck, but what he did wasn't a crime.  Like I said before, it takes a special kind of partisan hack to make me feel sympathy for Delay, but Earle is that man.

FMJeff

12-01-2005, 07:33 PM

I think whatever the outcome of this trial, be it exhoneration or conviction, the reputations of key members of republican party will be forever tainted. Thier careers are over. I doubt anyone will elect these men to office anymore, even with an aquittal.It's dirty politics...yes...but then again Republicans have been using dirty politics for years...i'm just surprised its taken the democrats this long to get good at it. 

<center><img src="http://www.ronfez.net/imagestorage/fmjeff.gif">
 
It made my heart sing.

Bulldogcakes

12-02-2005, 04:45 PM

Be honest Jeff, you thought their reputations were tarnished long before any of this happened.  quote:It's dirty
politics...yes...but then again Republicans have been using dirty
politics for years...i'm just surprised its taken the democrats this
long to get good at it.  Chicago 1960?Big city Union strong arm tactics? 40 straight years of gerrymandered districts?Cash redristribution of other citizens property to able bodied people? 
FDR packing the Supreme Court? Democrats
have been playing dirty for years. Its just not working as well
anymore. But dont worry, this incompetant in the White House will fuck things up for
Republicans for the next 20 years. 

<img border="0" src="http://www.silentpix.com/hottub/bulldogsig/rotate.php" />

<a target="blank" href="http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html">My site Bully Baby</a>
"A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to
dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address
'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-3-05 @ 8:27 AM

HBox

12-05-2005, 01:58 PM

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10339329/" target="_blank">Conspiracy charges against DeLay thrown out, other charges upheld.</a> 

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4544/newsig2ki.jpg

Se7en

12-06-2005, 02:48 PM

Yes, the conspiracy charges are gone.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the rest get thrown out as well.  Even if it goes to trial, don't hold your breath for a conviction, because you may die - Earle's case is quite thoroughly weak.  It's a bit of a joke, really.  Which brings me to my point:It's dirty politics...yes...but then again Republicans have been using dirty politics for years...i'm just surprised its taken the democrats this long to get good at it.Both sides have used dirty politics for years, it's not as if the Democrats just discovered the practice.  What is new, though, is now Democrats are using the only branch of government where they still do have some real power, the judicial branch, to attack their opponents - a relatively new policy of, "If you can't beat them, just prosecute them, regardless of actual guilt."  We're seeing that with Earle now and his shameful prosecutorial misconduct (which he has a habit of doing).  I'm waiting for Delay to make an issue out of the fact that Earle went around Democratic fundraisers BEFORE he brought the charges claiming he was going to bring down Delay and to also make an issue of Earle having a documentary crew following him around for this prosecution.

Yerdaddy

01-04-2006, 12:14 PM

<div class="spacerHeadline">So many insights into the way politics works today - especially the first article:</div><div class="spacerHeadline" /><div class="spacerHeadline"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480.html" target="_blank">The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail</a></div><div class="spacerHeadline" /><div class="spacerHeadline"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/06/22/LI2005062200936.html" target="_blank">All Washington Post Coverage of Abramoff Case</a></div><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/lobbyist_fraud_51;_ylt=AjQzlCyXwZwHQDn70ol_JVOGbTo C;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl" target="_self">Top Republicans Give Up Abramoff Donations </a><a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA010406.06A.delay_appeal.12e09926.html" target="_blank">Subpoenas targeting DeLay ties to lobbyist </a><div class="spacerHeadline"><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p01s03-uspo.html" target="_blank">Abramoff deals, Congress quakes</a></div><div class="spacerHeadline" /><div class="spacerHeadline"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-assess4jan04,1,5443311.story?coll=la-news-a_section" target="_blank">Lobbying Plan Was Central to GOP's Political Strategy</a> </div>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">

Fuck it from behind!