DeLay Indicted

Remove all ads!

Sorry, but that's a completely meaningless charge, as he has prosecuted more Democrats than he has Republicians. And quite frankly, I'm a bit disappointed by such claims, whether DeLay is making them (which has been his defense), or one of his apologists.

EDIT - This piece by Jonathan Alter says quite a bit:

Hits the nail, as some would say:

But it seems we will still have more of the same:

Well, yes, until the American people, with their much better sense, tells them that their time is up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9557669/site/newsweek/

[ October 03, 2005, 17:11: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Hot damn - the hits just keep on comin.'

Damn those pesky lefty political hacks who stack the juries in Texas. Or something.

 

Thanks for the link, DR. I heard some stuff about this earlier, but did not find a mainstream press link (well, looks like the NYT and WP also picked up the story).

What is not clear from the AP article is that this is another grand jury! Would it be the same prosecutor in both cases? It gets hard to keep track of all the suff DeLay is involved with

 

I'll admit that I don't really understand what constitutes "fair" in the description of a trial, but can DeLay really recieve one from a jury of citizens in the United States? How about from his own constituency in Texas?

The possibilities for jury influence are just endless, both from the senator, his cohorts, his allies, and his admirers. The possibilities are equally endless from other politians, political enemies, and just those who hope he is harmed.

Not to mention the fact that the man is a complete polemicist and most if not all US citizens have strong opinions towards him.

To illustrate my point: Imagine a jury consisting in part of St. James, Death Rabbit, Chandos the Red. While it is quite obvious that Death Rabbit would be the head juror, could even he, in all his wisdom, insure a fair trial?

 

Out of curiosity - will this be a jury trial, or a trial before a bench of 3 or more judges? I'm guessing it's the former.

That someone inspires the strongest of emotions (either in his defence or against him) and is deliberately combative and inflammatory should not be a defence against prosecution. In any trial, people are going to have preconceptions about the accused; it's just that in this case, they know more about him than they would about a typical defendant.

Short of importing jurors from another country, you're not going to get around that. And even then, you still might not manage it. So long as the evidence considered and presented is what is deliberated upon and forms the basis of the verdict, rather than "This man is scum/a hero", there shouldn't be any more of an issue than in any other case.

Hey, I can dream, can't I? I predict that this is going to be a bitterly personal trial and that the recriminations and allegations are going to be flying thick and fast... probably more from the defence than the prosecution, if DeLay's initial comments about Earle are anything to go by.

 

All citizens of Texas stand to benefit or be harmed by their decision as a juror in the trial of DeLay. Not the same can be said of MJ (hey-hew!!)

I just think they should move the trial to a different location; my initial choices would be New York, Maine, or California.

 

Cheers, dmc. I figured as much, but wasn't sure.

DeLay indicted again

Honestly, DeLay's responses to these allegations are baffling to me. Sure, protest one's innocence and declare loudly that you will be acquitted, but why play the man and not the charge? The typical ploy of trying to sully the reputation of one's accuser is almost inevitably a diversionary tactic, since it doesn't address the charges at hand.

That said, it'd be funny if it were true. The irony of DeLay getting nailed by a corrupt prosecutor wouldn't be lost on anybody...

Also, I'm sure that some of the British SPers might find this one interesting, if somewhat tangential:

Police to quiz Thatcher in US corruption probe

 

The DA does seem to be a bit of a card; he once prosecuted himself just to make a point.

 

Ok, so basically all you guys linked me to were vague descriptions of DeLay being "corrupt."

Care to give me a concrete example -- just ONE -- of something that he has actually done? Not just that's he's accused of.

Yes, he stopped meeting with lobbyists from K Street if they had no Republicans on staff. So what? Does he have to meet with everyone to satisfy you? FYI, K Street has leaned overwhelmingly Democratic, which is not fair at all.

BTW, I work in Washington, DC. You might want to reconsider before putting your "Everyone in Washington knows" comments out.

The fact is that DeLay is loathed because he has worked to cement the Republican majority and used Democratic tactics against them -- e.g. redistricting.

And the whole "Ronnie Earle is fair because he indicted more Dems than Republicans" is hogwash. He has done that because he goes after conservative Democrats.

I return to my prediction: DeLay will be found not guilty on all counts. And it will not be because he is a big scary man who secretly runs the whole country -- that job is Karl Rove's.

 

Right. Because as we all know, Gerrymandering is a recent development, pioneered by the Democratic party in order to wrest control away from the conservative majority.

Oh, wait...

 

So what sort of evidence would you accept, St. James? You want a tape of him getting a wad of bills from some lobbyist? Sorry, but this is not how things are done these days.

In the Smith affair, the (Republican) congressman Nick Smith pretty much directly accused DeLay of offering to help Smith's son (who was running for office) in exchange for Smith's vote for the Medicare bill (to the tune of $100,000). Of course, given DeLay's clout with the Rep. machinery, he quickly backpedalled. Smith's initial statements are a matter of public record, though.

A quote from the Suntimes:

(the original article is in an archive, and requires a fee, but Timothy Noah has written a series of columns on this in Slate)

Of course, if you are just willing to consider everyone which utters bad words about Delay a party hack bent of destroying him, thats your prerogative.

[ October 04, 2005, 17:12: Message edited by: khaavern ]

 

To be fair here, it does appear that the first charge is bogus. According to the article Death Rabbit linked, the initial crime he was charged for was based on a law passed in 2003, but the reported time of the crime was 2002. That's ex post facto, no?

 

Well, according to a law prof interviewed by the Houston Chronicle, the 2003 law was only a clarification of an existing law, and that conspiracy still would have applied to elections before the 2003 law:

 

I hope this helps for all those who are wondering what the big fuss is about regarding DeLay:

Some of us, very few of us, still belive that the American government is one that is "For the people, and by the people." It's quite hard to believe in our times that big money should not play so large a part in the politics of our Nation - that the business of government is really the "business of the American people." Imagine that.

That's the whole problem with someone like DeLay. He only respects wealth and power. And for him they are bound and connected in such a way that they are inseparable. He seems to have no problem bending the rules in this regard. And that's the problem - ethics, the American people, good government - none of that appears to have a place in his book. Instead it is all about power: who has it, and who does not.

For some of us, good government is a moral imperative, because it provides protections for those who don't have THE POWER. It is one of the basic reasons why the Revolution was fought in the first place. Those who believed it was their "right" to govern - not because of the will or desire of the people - but because they controlled the wealth, and thereby, the power.

On the other side of this equation is another Republican: John McCain. His argument, and he has been fighting this battle for years, is that the government belongs to the people. He has made many valiant efforts to reform the system. But in the end the big money always seems to win out.

So this is really not about Repulicans and Democrats, but about the fate of the government, and in a larger context, the American people themselves. Does the government, and its laws belong to them? Or to those who can afford to buy it? Which side do you believe Tom DeLay is on?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9558565/site/newsweek/

[ October 05, 2005, 07:41: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ Aldeth,

As Bion has already indicated, it seems that the 2003 laws were simply a clarification to make the precise conduct for which DeLay has been indicted explicit in the legislation, rather than implicit. The problem that may arise is that the pre-2003 statutes will need to be the subject of judicial and juror consideration to determine whether DeLay's actions were criminal.

As I see it, this is a safety measure, just in case the initial charge is dismissed on a legal technicality when (as it seems) the conduct would have been illegal, but not was explicitly prohibited in the legislation. Supporters of DeLay may see that as evidence of a witch-hunt or a dodgy case; I would prefer to wait and see the evidence before deciding.

@ St James,

No-one said DeLay was stupid, which is what he would have to be to get caught red-handed with a lobbyist handing him a stack of cash. That kind of criminality (especially money laundering) is far more sophisticated and increasingly reliant on electronic transfers, redirected funds and "cleaning" through fronts.

From all accounts, DeLay is not the most sympathetic character. However, you can't take away someone's liberties just for being a prick - unless they're breaking the law in the process.

@ Chandos,

Good point - this isn't about Republicans versus Democrats (or at least, it shouldn't be). More fundamental matters are at stake when people who have the power are given such control over the rules of the game.

 

@ St. James

I'll give you several - and I hope you don't find them too vague.

DeLay has been rebuked by the house ethics committee 3 times - the most in history for a House Majority leader, I believe. The first was when he bribed/threatened fellow congressman Nick Smith to vote "yeah" on the medicare bill. The second was for throwing his weight around to send the FAA after the Texas Democrats who fled the state during the redistricting thing last year. The third was when he promised political favors to Westar energy in exchange for a hefty donation from them. Then there were the lavish vacations for Tom, his family, staff and friends to London, Korea and Russia - all paid for by lobby interests for whom he voted favorably, which makes them illegal. The nature of these trips were recently brought to light - via the investigations of the dirty dealings of Jack Abramoff, a close ally of DeLay's - and are currently under investigation by the Ethics Committee.

Is far as I'm concerned, a rebuke here or there is understandable. Once? Mistake. Twice? Pushing it. Three times and beyond and you're dealing with someone who clearly doesn't think the rules should apply to him.

Now these are just the official public rebukes DeLay has had from the House Ethics Committee. There are many, many more instances where DeLay has clearly and unethically bent or subverted the rules in his favor while not *technically* violating a specific rule. DeLay is so drunk on his own power that he actually went after the Ethics Committe themselves for having the nerve to rebuke him. Due to a partisan rule change pushed through by Delay, the Ethics Committee (which is evenly divided Dem and Repub) is now required to have the support of at least one Republican in order to move forward with any investigations. Half of the committee refuses to institute the blatantly partisan change and thus the committee remains in a stalemate, deadlocked, unable to investigate anything at all. And then DeLay saw to it that the Republican members who DID rule against him were kicked off the committee. They were of course replaced with a couple of lackeys of his.

There are many other instances of clearly corrupt and unethical dealings, most of which have been well documented. So well documented, in fact, that again I must say I'm surprised you've never heard of any of them. It's not like they all happened last week and you've just been out of town or anything. This has been DeLay's MO for quite some time.

Now this will be a busy week for me, and I may not have time to dig up a photo of Tom DeLay signing a deal with Satan while ass-raping a toddler on top a mountain of laundered money - so hopefully you'll be satisfied that I've provided sufficient evidence above to at least establish a hint of Tom DeLay's corruption.

Everyone? Not necessarily. But I don't think the leader of the House of Representatives meeting only with people who vote his way, kiss his ass and toss him money - a partisan exclusivity DeLay is quite proud of, I might add - is a terribly ethical thing for a man in his position to do, do you?

I'd be interested to see what evidence you have to back this up. Not calling you out here, I'm genuinely curious.

The "fact is" nothin'. First of all - Democrats didn't invent redistricting. Second, the redistricting was a blatant political sham, and wasn't of any significant benefit to the residents of the state of Texas at all (who have more than enough Republican representation per capita as it is), which is supposed to be the reason such maneuvars are done in the first place. He did this for no other reason than to solidify Republican power in Washington, in a move I personally don't consider very "representative," as his title of office suggests. It passed because DeLay did his homework, threw his weight around, and it wasn't against any technical rules to redistrict in that manner. But that doesn't mean it was ethical.

You seem to be covering for DeLay pretty passionately here, which I must admit I don't quite understand. You seem to be saying that DeLay is peachy and these scandals are all nothing but "sour grapes" on the part of the Democrats, who are just petty and mad that DeLay gets what he wants. An arguement which really isn't supported by the facts at all. No, in this case, writing it all off as Democratic whining doesn't make the things DeLay has done acceptable by ANY standard, left or right. I assume you're a Republican for defending him so fervently. I would think, if you really cared about your party and the integrity of our government, you'd be doing the opposite. It's guys like DeLay and the people who follow him that made me leave the Republican party altogether.

Nobody said he's fair because he's gone after Democrats. What it means is that dismissing these endictments as merely a political attack from a partizan zealot is a really lame excuse.

Usually in a discussion about our government and the politicians therein, the term "everyone in Washington" quite clearly refers to members of our government and the political community who operate in Washington, not the civilian residents of the city of Washington DC itself. Since I can safely assume your "work" doesn't fall within that category - as I'm sure you'd have mentioned it by now if it had - I think it's pretty obvious I wasn't referring to you.

And, as a sidenote, working in Washington DC doesn't make you an expert on politics any more than me living in DeLay's district makes me an expert on him. But as long as you continue to appear oblivious to things commonly known about the man you're defending, I'll continue "putting out" any comments I like, thank you.

For the record: I think DeLay will beat the charges, one way or another, but he'll never attain the same power he had again. I think he's toast after this.

 

This just in...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/19/delay.indictment.ap/index.html

Time for the perp walk.