Good for the goose........

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:54 am

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories ... 819,0.html#

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:57 am

Of course he didn't funnel money from his charity to his campaign...

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:59 am

Of course he didn't funnel money from his charity to his campaign...

Of course you will provide proof that Delay did something illegal..........

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:04 pm

Jecks did you read the article?

The ethics of lawmakers paying their families jumped into the spotlight on Capitol Hill last week, following reports that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas had paid his wife and daughter more than $500,000 for campaign-related work.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:59 pm

Yes, did you?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:05 pm

Of course you will provide proof that Delay did something illegal..........

I think the Feds are in the process of doing that for me.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:14 pm

Hell I linked an article where Maxine Waters family was paid over 1 million dollars.

Chants Evensong · Post by **Chants Evensong** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:59 pm

Roger L. Simon has a pretty balanced take on this:

He's no Fidel...when it comes to putting his hand in the people's cookie jar, but I had to laugh when I read that the former "socialist" mayor of Burlington has been caught with his wife and step-daughter on the payroll from campaign donations. Those who think this exonerates Tom DeLay, accused of the same thing, are of course ridiculous. To the extent this may or may not be legal or improper, it doesn't necessarily implicate or exonerate either of them. It just proves once again that the labels people apply to themselves are just that -- labels.

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:08 am

I think the Feds are in the process of doing that for me.

I think you would be wrong. I can not find anywhere that say DeLay is the target of any Federal investigation. He is, however, under investigation by a county DA in Texas by the name of District Attorney Ronald Earle. Earle has indicted 3 DeLay associates but has not indicted DeLay himself.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:16 am

You should actually find out more about Ronald Earle......it all sounds strikingly familliar.........like other overzealous investigators in our recent ast who made mountains from molehills.........I did not like it then and I do not like it now.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:58 am

Well, if you wish to defend DeLay, by all means do so. I've seen enough from gerrymandering to this to convince me.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:02 am

Well, if you wish to defend DeLay, by all means do so

I don't think that pointing out your mistake in thinking DeLay is a target of Federal investigation amounts to a defense.......

.....But I do feel we do not have all the facts. I understand your partisan desire to leap to conclusions and find fault....I saw the same thing from the right during the Clinton admin....I just think we need to take a step back and examine things more closely before using opinions and blogs as fact.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:06 am

Yes, you did accurately point out that I was mistaken about who was investigating DeLay.

Then you attacked the credibility of his investigator, to defend DeLay.

I disagree that it's "leaping to conclusions" at this point, however. The evidence has mounted past the point where Jim Wright or Newt Gingrich would have resigned, and DeLay is changing the rules so he can stay in power - that's indisputable and inexcusable in and of itself.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 am

Then you attacked the credibility of his investigator, to defend DeLay.

I only asked that you look up Ronald Earle and gave an opinion as to what it seemed like to me. That was not a defense. I am not presuming anything since I do not have all the facts.

and DeLay is changing the rules so he can stay in power

Can you tell me exactly what the rule changes were and what exactly makes them so bad? I already know....I am just trying to see whther you know what the rule changes are or if you simply are relying on talking points.

evidence has mounted past the point where Jim Wright or Newt Gingrich would have resigned

Anectdotal evidence? Sworn testimony? Press releases from democrats? What kind of evidence exactly? If 1/4 of what has been alleged is "proven" by evidence I daresay DeLay would have already been indicted and be serving jail time.

All I am saying is the feeding frenzy currently looks like a case of the seriousness of the charge outweighing the evidence.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:37 am

I daresay DeLay would have already been indicted and be serving jail time.

Um, no. Sitting Congresscritters can't be prosecuted. They're immune. They have to be kicked out of office first.

Can you tell me exactly what the rule changes were and what exactly makes them so bad? I already know....I am just trying to see whther you know what the rule changes are or if you simply are relying on talking points.

There has been more than one, but the first one was forcing the majority leader to step down upon indictment for any crime. That rule was quietly gotten rid of.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:10 am

There has been more than one, but the first one was forcing the majority leader to step down upon indictment for any crime

As far as I can tell that rule is in effect. A leader must step down if indicted.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050 ... -4542r.htm

They had changed the rule but put it back in place after discovering it was stupid to change it in the first place. It gave dems too much ammunition and was imho a gross abuse of power.

I agree with the rule change allowing a person under committee investigation to use their own attorney and be allowed due process before any committee action may be taken. Previously the committee could have taken a wide gambit of actions towards a member without ever hearing from the member themself.

I agree with the rule change that changes "...conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." to Members will be judged on whether they complied with "applicable laws, regulations and rules." This is of course paraphrased. A member should be judged by his peers when he breaks the rules of the House or laws of the land.......and judged by his constituents when he does something lawful yet distasteful.

I disagree with the rule change that forces the evenly divided ethics committe to have a simple majority before an investigation may occur. While on the surface it would appear that this would prevent purely partisan investigations it does force a member from the accussed own party to vote for an investigation. The previous rule allowed an investigation to proceed automatically with a 50 percent aye vote.

Now an ethics complaint will simply die due to inaction. This rule is the show stopper and I feel the dems are correct in fighting this rule change by deadlocking the commitee.

I also find the replacing of certain republican members of the commitee distasteful on its face.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:34 am

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that one. Replacing every Republican on the ethics committee who had voted last year to censure DeLay with Republicans who donated to DeLay's legal defense fund was so brazenly unethical it floored me. I don't think even the most partisan right-winger on the board can defend that.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:33 am

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories ... 27,00.html

Update~ Apparently he does not like getting the DeLay treatment.