Tom DeLay indicted

He'll get away with it. He always does. Who do you think will be investigating him?

The House Ethics committee... which he formed and appointed everyone to. Wheeeee!


But hey, Clinton got a blowjob! EEEVIL!

Quote:

Original post by Mithrandir He'll get away with it. He always does. Who do you think will be investigating him? The House Ethics committee... which he formed and appointed everyone to. Wheeeee!

Are you serious? I don't know much about the US government but it seems like something like this should be investigated by, I don't know, judges.

Quote:

Original post by Ravuya This is good, it helps stop some of the crooked fundraising happening in the US government

It won't. In fact, it might just make things worse, as I'm sure it'll lead to cries for even more rules governing political contributions.

Quote:

Original post by Mithrandir But hey, Clinton got a blowjob! EEEVIL!

Clinton lied under oath.

Quote:

Original post by Mithrandir He'll get away with it. He always does. Who do you think will be investigating him? The House Ethics committee... which he formed and appointed everyone to. Wheeeee!

Er.... what makes you think so? Last time I checked, indictments were handed down by courts, not by Congress.

Just to clarify a bit... the indictment will (hopefully) get him into a courtroom for the legal side of his problems.

The House Ethics Committee will then review him *because* he's been indicted for something covered by ethics regulations.

I'm not sure about the specifics in this case, but most political dealings related to money are governed by normal laws under the guise of state/federal tax authority or voting/campaigning regulation. The House Ethics committee has some overlapping areas, as well as additional regulations that are purely binding because he's congressman (in other words, by accepting election as a congressman you agree to be bound by the ethics, but they can't throw you in jail for ethics violations). I guess it's what they'd call an adminstrative rule as opposed to a law.

Anyway, he's a dirty, dirty man that seems to have far too little actually stick to him... I hope they get him, but I wouldn't be suprised if he ducks it (or at least "runs out the clock" so to speak). It certainly isn't helping any intentions he may have had to run for "higher" office.

Quote:

Original post by Mithrandir He'll get away with it. He always does. Who do you think will be investigating him? The House Ethics committee... which he formed and appointed everyone to. Wheeeee! But hey, Clinton got a blowjob! EEEVIL!

Time to dust off your copy of Congressional Procedures and Regulations (or you can see the online copy here). Congress has nothing to do with whether or not DeLay is convicted. And impeachment trials are the purview of the Judiciary Committee (whether or not something was criminal, confirming judges, making appointments, A&C on nominees, etc.), not the Ethics Committee (whether or not something was unethical, standards of conduct for Congressional members of the House, rules on gifts/lobbying, etc.), so the example of Clinton isn't really relevant.

Let's be clear about one thing, though. Indicting a corrupt politician is almost invariably a Good Thing (although perhaps not for the people involved).

What did Tom DeLay do again? Is it something like the sponsorship scandal up here in Canada?

Quote:

Original post by Simagery I'm not sure about the specifics in this case, but most political dealings related to money are governed by normal laws under the guise of state/federal tax authority or voting/campaigning regulation.

The complexity is what will make few American's take interest. The much simplier "evil Democrats are out to get me" campaign being waged is the one more like to be picked up by anyone not already decided on Delay.

For the uniformed, it boils down to a form of political money laundering. Corporations have limits on how much they can donate to politicians, to avoid outright open bribery and undeniable corporate ownership of the entire US government. Tom Delay has a history of schemes designed to funnel money out of corporations that want extra influence and clean it up before it makes its way to himself or a fellow Republican.

For example he almost got caught for being involved in a 1996 scheme (the owner of the business did get caught, and was fined about half a million dollars and barely dodged jail time) where the company would give employees "bonuses". The employees where then marched out to the parking lot where those "bonuses" had to be handed over as "individual contributions" to a Texas politician sitting in his car.

In this new scheme Delay helped setup "Texans for a Republican Majority", a front group existing inside a campaign finance loophole that allowed them to give unlimited amounts of money without strong accounting requirements. Delay is being indicted for using it to launder money from corporations to republican politicians - basically companies would pass a check to the front group, and before you knew it the group would mysteriously donate that amount to whomever Delay ordered them to.

"Corporations have limits on how much they can donate to politicians, to avoid outright open bribery and undeniable corporate ownership of the entire US government."

I prefer open bribery to secret bribery.

No matter how much they want to regulate political contributions (FEC considers restricting online political activities), people will always find ways to tilt the balance of power in their favor. If you ask me, the more rules, the more power is given to those at the top, as they seem more capable of abusing loopholes than those at the bottom (tax evasion, anyone?).

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst Clinton lied under oath.

For being asked if some fat ugly intern had his wang in her mouth. Who cares?

It's against the law in Texas for politicians to accept political contributions from corporations.

Delay's troubles are bound up with Abramoff's. And the latest reports are connecting Abramoff with the mafia: 3 Charged in Killing Of Fla. Businessman.

As far as what Congress can do, Congress can kick him out if wants to but I doubt that will happen. It's more likely that if convicted he would resign so that the Governor of Texas can appoint a GOP member to fill the seat for the remainder of the term.

David Drier is the congressman slated to take over the majority leader slot. There are rumors that he is in the closet. He took some heat this last election from conservatives in his district upset with illegal immigration.

And over in the Senate: Frist Faces Heat as SEC Orders Formal Investigation.

@Silvermyst, "Clinton lied under oath." - Yes and Bush lied to Congress so that he could start a war...

Quote:

Original post by Programmer One Quote: Original post by Silvermyst Clinton lied under oath. For being asked if some fat ugly intern had his wang in her mouth. Who cares?

Amen breh

Quote:

Original post by LessBread There are rumors that he is in the closet.

And you thought that important to mention, because...

Quote:

@Silvermyst, "Clinton lied under oath." - Yes

I'm glad you agree.

Quote:

and Bush lied to Congress so that he could start a war.

a) That's entirely possible.
b) And Congress was irresponsible in giving him that power.
c) I'm glad you put 'and' instead of 'but'.
d) If Bush lied to Congress, the severity of that lie is obviously far greater (resulting in loss of life, loss or reputation, loss of preparedness, etc) than Clinton's lie about having sex with his intern (and other sexual encounters, some of which may not have been entirely consentual).

Speaking of Senate Majority Leaders... Frist is being investigated for insider trading and it's barely being covered. Compare it to the coverage on Kate Moss and you see what all these pinkos mean when they talk about corporate news being crap.

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst Quote: Original post by LessBread There are rumors that he is in the closet. And you thought that important to mention, because...

Because he is the target of an outing campaign arising from blogactive. Here is a story about it from a year ago: David Dreier and his straight hypocrisy. The blogactive site argues that the media will be more likely to closely scrutinize Dreier's background thus exposing him and the GOP as hypocrits for their antigay agenda which would hurt them with their base and that this has led Hastert to bypass Dreier to pick Blunt as laid out here: Republicans dump gay leader, pick House Whip Blunt.

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst Quote: @Silvermyst, "Clinton lied under oath." - Yes I'm glad you agree.

A fact is a fact. He had sex with that woman. That said, I don't think his lie was serious.

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst Quote: and Bush lied to Congress so that he could start a war. a) That's entirely possible. b) And Congress was irresponsible in giving him that power. c) I'm glad you put 'and' instead of 'but'. d) If Bush lied to Congress, the severity of that lie is obviously far greater (resulting in loss of life, loss or reputation, loss of preparedness, etc) than Clinton's lie about having sex with his intern (and other sexual encounters, some of which may not have been entirely consentual).

If Clinton had raped someone, Ken Star would have been all over it. After $50 million dollars of investigation the best he could come up with was lie about a blow job.

Meanwhile, $300 billion spent, 2000 killed, 20,000 wounded, 100,000 civilian deaths later ...

Quote:

Original post by LessBread this has led Hastert to bypass Dreier to pick Blunt as laid out here: Republicans dump gay leader, pick House Whip Blunt.

Then why not just say that? There was nothing in your original statement suggesting any of that. All it said was "Drier may take over. He might be gay and he's weak on illegal immigration."

Quote:

A fact is a fact. He had sex with that woman. That said, I don't think his lie was serious.

I take government officials lying under oath very seriously, regardless of what they're actually lying about.

Quote:

If Clinton had raped someone, Ken Star would have been all over it.

He would've, but all the cases of women accusing Clinton of sexual harassment/abuse seem to be 'he said, she said' cases. I believe that the only reason Clinton was caught in his Lewinsky lie is the evidence he left behind on the dress. I suspect that there's at least some truth to the statements made by some of the women, and suspect that if Clinton was a registered Republican, the left would've gone after him whereas now they just say "He just got a blowjob."

Quote:

Meanwhile, $300 billion spent, 2000 killed, 20,000 wounded, 100,000 civilian deaths later ...

"Yes, your honor, I stole. But there are people who kill others, so you shouldn't send me to jail."

If it turns out that Hillary Clinton was aware of the fact that her campaign manager hid $2 million from the records, does that mean that suddenly DeLay's actions aren't all that bad?

Showing me a badly rotten apple doesn't make the somewhat rotten apple I'm eating taste any better.

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst Quote: Original post by LessBread this has led Hastert to bypass Dreier to pick Blunt as laid out here: Republicans dump gay leader, pick House Whip Blunt. Then why not just say that? There was nothing in your original statement suggesting any of that. All it said was "Drier may take over. He might be gay and he's weak on illegal immigration."

I suppose I could have added, Dreier is tight with Schwarzenegger. I listed what I thought was most significant about him. I didn't say "all that" and drop all those links because I thought it was enough to say it was a rumor and leave it at that.

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst Quote: A fact is a fact. He had sex with that woman. That said, I don't think his lie was serious. I take government officials lying under oath very seriously, regardless of what they're actually lying about.

I don't agree.

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst Quote: If Clinton had raped someone, Ken Star would have been all over it. He would've, but all the cases of women accusing Clinton of sexual harassment/abuse seem to be 'he said, she said' cases. I believe that the only reason Clinton was caught in his Lewinsky lie is the evidence he left behind on the dress. I suspect that there's at least some truth to the statements made by some of the women, and suspect that if Clinton was a registered Republican, the left would've gone after him whereas now they just say "He just got a blowjob."

Innocent until proven guilty and Star couldn't make the charges stick. I'd like to think that the Dems would have gone after him for being a hypocrit (as most Republican officials are when it comes to sex) but given how spineless they have become I wouldn't make too many bets on when they will attack and when they won't.

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst Quote: Meanwhile, $300 billion spent, 2000 killed, 20,000 wounded, 100,000 civilian deaths later ... "Yes, your honor, I stole. But there are people who kill others, so you shouldn't send me to jail."

Whose voice is that supposed to belong to? Dick Cheney?

Quote:

Original post by Silvermyst If it turns out that Hillary Clinton was aware of the fact that her campaign manager hid $2 million from the records, does that mean that suddenly DeLay's actions aren't all that bad?

Rosen was acquitted, so the premise of your hypothetical is flawed. Regardless, it has no bearing on DeLay's actions.

Quote:

Original post by Michalson The complexity is what will make few American's take interest. The much simplier "evil Democrats are out to get me" campaign being waged is the one more like to be picked up by anyone not already decided on Delay.

I'm assuming that it's Ronnie Earle (old story, but relevant) who took the case to the grand jury. If so it'll be interesting to see how the Republicans spin this as partisan politics, considering:

Quote:

Earle has prosecuted 12 Democrats and three Republicans - most of them successfully.

Oh well, they might not get DeLay this time, but my feeling is that barring a presidential pardon, all the bad karma he's been the cause of will eventually catch up with him.

[sarcasm] It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy [/sarcasm]

Why is lying under oath so much worse than lying any other time?

"This time I'm really telling the truth! WINK WINK!"