# Any thoughts on the Delay indictment?



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

I figured there would be a thread about this by now. But then I remembered who it was.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this. He claims this is a partisan effort on behalf of the DA, which I would find very believable. But, can a whole grand jury be partisan too? That seems less believable to me.

Comments?


----------



## deacon (Sep 12, 2003)

The guy should step down as party leader, at least temporarily. That is per congress rules. Where is his intergrity, follow the rules of congress. If his name is cleared then he can request to be party leader again.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

I thought he had stepped down already?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

He did step down already.

It takes very little for an indictment. A conviction on the other hand requires proof, and I doubt they have any. I would guess they simply hope to keep it going until election if possible. Keeping it going for a year will be a though act. Unfortunately many don't understand the legal process and think and indictment is close to a conviction. This I am sure is what they are counting on. I am confident that in the end it will be like the forged documents that had Bush AWOL.

It isn't that I have that much faith in DeLay, I have faith that the liberals are playing in the dirty again.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

If I were to say "I think he is guilty" without having any proof thats no different than not having any proof of the liberals acting dirty, but yet an opinion has formed. Everyone is entilted to an opinion. The tricky part will be the proof.

I just want to ask a favor of you conservatives....Just in case the dems screw up again, they more than likely will and not come up with a winnable candidate. Could you guys please pick one that believes in what his party should be about or atleast what they claim to be about. I'm shocked at what this administration continues to pull. I could vote for a fiscal conservative, perhaps the one who has the illigitimate black child! Oh wait thats not true that was the work once again of those involved in the current administration, never the less I could vote for him.

TC


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> but yet an opinion has formed


Perhaps the greatest influence on forming opinions is experience. I remember our old friend Militant Tiger who was falling for a new false story every other week. The many stories without content during the last election makes me think we are seeing another one of those liberal strategies unfolding before us again.

I will agree with you on the fiscal conservative part. The only difference is I would also prefer social conservatism along with the fiscal conservatism. An illigitimate black child is the same as an illigitimate white child. If he was currently both fiscally and socially conservative I would forgive him for an illigitimate, stripped, hermaphroditic, cross species child from another planet.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

He isn't indicted hes a defendant, there is a difference, and hes also a dispicable lover of pork, I think the first part is probably BS the dems fear him so hes a big target, but I'm open to hearing the whole story, if hes guilty send him packing like we did with Newt, and you wouldn't with Clinton, and there lies the big distinction between libs and conservatives.

The pork loving part I have no tolerance for. We should give him the ax just for that alone.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2005 10:27 p.m. EDT
Morris: Earle Crazier Than Garrison

What embattled House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay has been accused of doing is "what happens every hour of every day in American politics - it happens all the time," said top political guru and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris.

Morris, the chief architect of some questionable Clinton-era campaign practices, called "really gross" some of DeLay's tactics in manipulating the 2002 elections so he could "finagle the [congressional] district lines and guarantee a whole bunch of extra Republican seats."

Appearing Wednesday night on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes show, Morris said proving the case against DeLay would require a large paper trail, which he does not believe exists. Morris added "everything that DeLay said about [Texas state prosecutor Ronnie] Earle is absolutely accurate. This guy not just a loose cannon, he's a loose hand grenade."

After a tirade by co-host Alan Colmes - who insisted that Earle is bipartisan and known as "Mr. Clean" - Morris chided Colmes saying, "I know Texas politics and you don't.

"There are good prosecutors and there are crazy ones. This guy makes Garrison - the guy who made that whole deal about the Kennedy assassination - look like a model of respectability," Morris said.

Asked by co-host Sean Hannity if Earle is "too political and too personal to prosecute - does he have any credibility?," Morris said: "I don't think he'll have much credibility, I think DeLay will beat the charge.

"But did DeLay do what they said he did?" Morris asked, rhetorically. "Probably." :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2005 9:49 p.m. EDT
Sen. Hutchison: DeLay Prosecutor 'Corrupt'

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who was indicted three times by Texas state Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle in a move widely seen as a bid to derail her 1994 Senate campaign, warned after she was acquitted that Earle had a history of corruption.

The same Travis County prosecutor indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Wednesday - and while so far Hutchison has been silent, she wasn't shy about criticizing Earle 11 years ago.

"Ronnie Earle's record is spotted with controversy, allegations of misuse of power, and corruption," Sen. Hutchison told the Associated Press back then. "This should not be tolerated in a prosecutor with such awesome responsibility."

The Texas GOP'er's ire followed Earle's repeated attempts to prosecute her while Hutchison was running for office - floating charges ranging from misuse or her office to an allegation that Hutchison "assaulted" one of her employees.

And when a Texas state judge finally ruled that his evidence against Hutchison was inadmissable, Earle summoned reporters to share the dirt he had gathered.

The Buffalo News reported that during the media gathering, *the vindictive Earle "*announced that a solid majority of 24 mock jurors had repeatedly found Hutchison guilty of the felony charges that she misused state employees and equipment for personal and political gain."


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Let's not forget that the first two investigations into Delay's conduct by the House Ethics Committee were BIPARTISAN investigations, and official reprimands were issued each time. Therefore, when Delay claims a history of partisan indictmants and investigations, that is not completely true. This guy doesn't exactly have a long track record of Ghandi-like moral character.

This being said, let's wait to see how the investigation turns out. If he is convicted, it won't matter if the indictmant was issued by a Democrat or Republican.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> This guy doesn't exactly have a long track record of Ghandi-like moral character


.

I bet he did it, but I also bet he doesn't convicted because these guys are too smart to leave any proof....

Its depressing the people we have in congress, but I guess anyone that expects honesty from a person that will spend millions to get elected to a job the pays little over a hundred grand a year is naive.
I've come to believe almost everyone of them is a crook...


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

I love it. GOP is shaking and it deserves it. Pigs at the trough are grunting.


----------



## model12 (Oct 9, 2005)

*I think it took this DA between 6 and 9 grand juries before he could get one to indict DeLay. When the first indictment started falling apart, after DeLay's lawyer moved to have it thrown out, pointing out no law had been broken, the DA went grand jury shopping. The grand jury that had brought the first indictment had expired, so he found another grand jury that was in session, but that one wouldn't indict DeLay so he found a third one, which finally brought an indictment, this time for money laundering. From what I can determine, both the laws which the indictments are based on, were not in place until a year later when McCain/Feingold so-called campaign finance reform created them.*


----------



## model12 (Oct 9, 2005)

bobm, but Dick Morris also knows it might not be illegal too. What the commiecrats are ****** about is that a hundred years ago they had gerrymandered the state of TX so that it was a commiecrat stronghold. A republican could hardly get elected to office there. What Tom DeLay did was undo that and turned TX into a republican state. It's all about politics. Politics is a rough and tumble game. You remember a guy named Lyndon Johnson, from TX? Stuff he did makes DeLay look like a boy scout much the same as Klinton made Nixon look like a choir boy. What appears to have happened was that this DA knew he had nothing on DeLay and had said he wasn't going to indict, which brought the big wig commiecrats in DC down on him. So basically DeLay kicked the crap out of the 'rats in politics so they got this chump to ambush him in the alley. Another theory is that, Hillary and Billary's civil trial for campaign fraud in Hillary's past Senate campaign is coming up before long in California and the 'rats wanted this indictment against DeLay to try to offset that.


----------



## model12 (Oct 9, 2005)

BTW bobm, what was Newt guilty of? I know he was accused...I know he got a book deal. I know the book deal was no different than the one that Gore got when he was a Senator. And I know that Newt stepped down from his leadership post in the House, but I also remember that an investigation exonerated him of wrongdoing after the fact. The problem is that republicans have to not only contend with the 'rats, but the lefty press too. Newt had to step down, because the uproar caused republicans to ask him to step down, much the same as republicans went to Nixon and told him if he didn't resign they would impeach him. Contrast that with the 'rats who went to Klinton held a big rally and said they would support him no matter what. It's all about politics. The 'rats weren't after Nixon for Watergate. They knew Nixon hadn't authorized it and besides, they knew that political thievery was as old as the country. They knew they had done it against Goldwater in '64. The reason the commiecrats hated Nixon was because back in 1948 he had successfully prosecuted their icon, Alger Hiss, a commie spy and traitor.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> BTW bobm, what was Newt guilty of?


Adultery, which after his attempt to undo Clinton for his adultery was a real indication of where his morals. What a phony, and I was one of his most fervent supporters prior to that. I still strongly support his political ideas. Too bad the current Republicans don't, spend spend spend , big govt, big govt, big govt....... :eyeroll:

You either have standards or you don't, and once you prove you don't, I and most conservatives will not support you ever again, and Newt had enough dignity and was smart enough to understand that, at least.

Leftists don't have standards, they don't admire character and honesty Clinton's widespread support after his actions in the White house proved that. Thats the reason they are slowly being defeated good always conquers evil. If evil is exposed.
Its really a shame because both Clinton and Newt were very capable people, like many criminals that are highly intelligent but have no moral compass. Its a waste.


----------



## model12 (Oct 9, 2005)

Adultry? First it would be speculative unless there was a "stained dress" too. I know Newt was estranged from his wife. But beyond that, Klinton wasn't impeached for adultry, notwithstanding the evidence thereof. The 'rats tried very hard to make the public think it was about adultery. I don't believe adultry in and of itself is an impeachable offense. The 'rats tried that with Henry Hyde too, for a supposed adulterous affair 30 years prior. I believe it was that upstanding example of moral rectitude and 'rat operative Larry Flynt who was digging up the dirt. A decidedly unreliable source for sure.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Newt admitted it, he was my congressman I followed it pretty close,it was disappointing to say the least.

I never said anything about WHY Clinton was impeached I was speaking to the moral vacancy of the left, how thru scandle after scandle they stuck with him :eyeroll: and Clinton had no shame, but I guess if you have no moral compass shame would not occur to Clinton, so I guess that explains it.


----------



## model12 (Oct 9, 2005)

If you want to read about the Klinton Impeachment, get a hold of the book 'Sell Out', The inside Story of President Klinton's Impeachment. The book is written by David P. Schippers, the Chief Investigative Counsel for the Klinton Impeachment. He is a life long democ-rat, and a Chicago democ-rat to boot.


----------

