Well, well, well. This ought to be interesting.
Well, well, well. This ought to be interesting.
Interesting for sure. Satisfying only if this uber-hypocrite/political mobster/moron is convicted.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Between TRMPAC and Abramoff the noose certainly has been tightening for a while now. The FBI investigation will be the next source of news followed by the Senate panel investigating Abramoff. Could be a very unpleasant winter for Mr. Delay.
If he is shown to have been involved in nefarious dealings anybody want to hazard a guess on what the effect will be in Texas during the '06 elections?
D*mnit!!! Between him and Frist I may have to turn Independent!!! :hammer:
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
There's plenty of room over here on the bright side.Originally Posted by karen
You might as well. Texas Republicans (Delay, Bush, etc.) are just the tiniest bit extremist.D*mnit!!! Between him and Frist I may have to turn Independent!!!
California Republicans, particularly Southern California Republicans, aren't quite of the same breed. By and large--and I'm speaking from personal experience here, my own and my family's--socially libertarian-ish; fiscally very conservative; strong military supporters, partly out of patriotism, partly (and more greatly, I'd guess) due to the vast amount of Marine (I can practically see Pendleton from my house) and Naval bases and the pull that the genesis of the military-industrial complex in the 50s and 60s that fueled the postwar population explosion out here initially...
I'm getting off track, aren't I? Anyway. Point is, if you live in San Diego, Orange, Riverside or San Bernardino County and think you're a Republican--or at least today's Republican--you're not. You're a Libertarian that votes Republican for reasons I can't quite figure out yet, but certainly don't relate to the current discussion.
*cough* Soooo...Delay. Indicted. Bad for him.
He is rich and powerfull anybody want to put bets on him getting off with a slap on the wrist.
Any takers?
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
You must not read many of my posts... :o I am pretty conservative and Libertarian is something I am definitely not. I think most Cali Republicans are pretenders (David Dreier being my most recent object of scorn) and I have mentioned more than once I would fit in in Texas much better than here.
I admit to being blissfully ignorant of what a not nice guy Delay was until this surfaced. I am enough of a Republican to feel there is a little bit of the "we are gonna get you" from the other side of the aisle but evidence is evidence so he may be heading for the hoosgow. I will say I am dissapointed in my party's leadership on many different levels but won't jump ship just yet.
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
Have you seen "The Life of Brian"??? I am singing the bright side song in my head right now!
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
Watch for the swift-boating of the TX prosecutor. DeLay is trying to make this all seem partisan, interesting that the prosecutor (a staunch Dem) has indicted 16 gov't officials over the years--11 of them Democrats. More interesting is the House Ethics Comm (Rep majority) has three times chastised Mr DeLay.
Warning: nasty and unnecessary comment coming up:
Doesn't this guy just look like a weasel?
It's also worthwhile to remember that DeLay was indicted not by the prosecutor but by a grand jury in Texas. Regardless of the prosecutors motive a jury of DeLay's peers found the evidence compelling.
Edit: I just found this quote on MSNBC, Earle is the prosecutor in question:
The grand jury’s foreman, William Gibson, told The Associated Press that Earle didn’t pressure members one way or the other. “Ronnie Earle didn’t indict him. The grand jury indicted him,” Gibson told The Associated Press in an interview at his home.
Last edited by coda; 09-29-2005 at 11:50 AM.
I agree with you! Bush' political machine will get him off the hook by hook or crook! I just saw the other night the documentry by Micheal Moore,"F9/11.
Interesting!
http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics...ide_Life.shtml
This is really going to disappoint those of you who have a liberal persuasion but the inditement has no specific charges, which it must have. This makes it a general witch hunt. Probalbly no trial will be brought and just reputations shattered.
But then that's the Democrat way isn't it?
Chip
He was indicted so clearly a) there are specific charges or b) specific charges are not necessary.
I'm not a lawyer, but this looks pretty specific to me:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...y92805ind.html
This is just the beginning of DeLay's reputation being "shattered"--Lord talk about shutting the barn door....wait til this Abramoff stuff hits the fan.
And yes, this is absolutely the "Democrat way". Shhhhhhh.
Last edited by chm2023; 09-29-2005 at 02:55 PM.
This is really going to disappoint those of you who have a liberal persuasion but the inditement has no specific charges,I would call that fairly specific, but maybe there's something in "accused of a criminal conspiracy to funnel corporate donations illegally to influence electoral politics" that's, I don't know, overly vague.link
The indictment accused DeLay, 58, of a conspiracy to violate Texas election law, which prohibits the use of corporate donations to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates.
...
Criminal conspiracy is a state felony punishable by six months to two years in a state jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
Anyway, I don't know for sure if he's guilty or not--I certainly believe that he is, since I've been personally following this story fairly closely for over a year. Whether he actually is guilty is now up to the legal process, which I'm told even Republicans respect.
Karen, I didn't mean "you" to mean "you specifically", it was a more "you six million or so residents of the mentioned counties." And before you throw in wholeheartedly with Texas Republicans, if you didn't already read the link that I tossed in up there, I'd urge you to do so. And this is interesting, too.
Bad month to be a Republican. Between Delay, Frist, Cheney's Chief of Staff...whoo. I just hope Bill Frist is treated as fairly as Martha Stewart was.
EDIT: Pasted an excerpt twice
Specific names who what where how much, stuff like that not just a general accusation. Like John Doe gave Sam Smith x dollars for changing the records of...
None of this is in the "indictment."
Any prosecutor can bring any charges against anyone with or without merit. To be legitimate charges they have to have some who what when where and why. These don't.
Chip
Ask any second year law student for a "legal evaluation" of this witch hunt and accusation.
Chip's post prompted me to use Google to look for the source of that oft-repeated legal adage "A prosecutor can indict anybody or anything, including a ham sandwich". That's one version of it anyway. It's been paraphrased thousands of times. Here's what I found:"bar" none: online archive of popular legal maximsNew York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler in a 1985 interview with Marcia Kramer ... [Wachtler] actually said "pastrami" sandwich, which Kramer misquoted as "ham" ...
Was Sol Wachtler really the first one to say it? I also found this:http://www.law.com/Ham On Wry
By Adam Freedman
Corporate Counsel
May 1, 2004
When a Brooklyn grand jury handed down an indictment last year against his client, defense attorney Ronald Aiello didn't flinch. "A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich," scoffed Aiello, whose client, Brooklyn Democratic party leader Jeffrey Feldman, had been accused of various acts of political corruption. (Feldman denies the charges.) But Aiello did not come up with this zinger himself. The phrase has been bandied about so much in recent years that most people are probably a little afraid to order a ham sandwich, lest they be indicted as accomplices.
The exact origin of the indictable ham sandwich — like so much else in the law — is shrouded in mystery. In her memoir Mayflower Madam, Sydney Biddle Barrows, of the 1980s prostitution case, attributes the phrase to New York criminal defense lawyer Barry Slotnick. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D—New York) cites a different source. In her memoir Living History, she writes, in "the immortal words of Edward Bennett Williams, 'a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he chooses.' " Williams, now deceased, was a giant of the Washington, D.C., bar and founder of Williams & Connolly. Although such a quip would not have been out of character for him, I can find no further evidence to support his authorship.
The most commonly cited source of the "ham sandwich" critique is a 1985 interview with then-chief judge Sol Wachtler of the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. It is possible, however, that Wachtler was repeating something he heard elsewhere. Either way, Wachtler's use of the phrase served to popularize it, and it has since become a courthouse staple. In what might safely be called an ironic twist, Wachtler was indicted seven years later for harassing his former lover and was later convicted.
rinselberg salutes OptiBoard's "Real Men of Genius"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...38&postcount=4
... inspired by one of OptiBoard's newest members.
Last edited by rinselberg; 05-07-2007 at 04:06 PM.
Well, there's an invitation I can't pass up. Here's my legal evaluation: Chip, what is it that makes you so willing to make statements in a topic area about which you obviously have absolutely no knowledge, neither general, nor specific?
Here's the indictment:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...y92805ind.html
Tell me what it doesn't include that you think is necessary (you don't really have to read very far into the document; I know this will be difficult for you).
Oh, and, here's what's necessary, excerpted from the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (I've added emphasis to the parts that are really relevant to your claim, to make this a little easier for you) :
Art. 21.01. [395] [450] [438] "Indictment"
An "Indictment" is the written statement of a grand jury accusing a person therein named of some act or omission which, by law, is declared to be an offense.
Art. 21.02. [396] [451] [439] Requisites of an indictment
An indictment shall be deemed sufficient if it has the following requisites:
1. It shall commence, "In the name and by authority of The State of Texas".
2. It must appear that the same was presented in the district court of the county where the grand jury is in session.
3. It must appear to be the act of a grand jury of the proper county.
4. It must contain the name of the accused, or state that his name is unknown and give a reasonably accurate description of him.
5. It must show that the place where the offense was committed is within the jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is presented.
6. The time mentioned must be some date anterior to the presentment of the indictment, and not so remote that the prosecution of the offense is barred by limitation.
7. The offense must be set forth in plain and intelligible words.
8. The indictment must conclude, "Against the peace and dignity of the State".
9. It shall be signed officially by the foreman of the grand jury.
Art. 21.03. [397] [452] [440] What should be stated
Everything should be stated in an indictment which is necessary to be proved.
It may also be of use to know that in Texas, conspiracy can be proved by circumstancial evidence. See, Texas Rule of Evidence 801(e)(2)(E). (Note to Texans: don't conspire). (Note to Mississippians: listening to the right-wing radio talk shows will not make you smarter - on the contrary, it will make you more like Chip).
Shanebaum: Just love you little diggs.
I wonder if this could be the start of Bush' political machine demise!
I love how factual debunking of delusional claims can be transmuted magically into "little diggs" [sic]. I'm just curious--Chip, had you thought of addressing the substance of what was said in reply rather than just changing the subject?
To my mind I did, Shanebaum did not. However this is all I intend to say on the subject and see how the court drama (if any) works out. Remember all you Dems are delighting in the indetement, not the conviction. As of now DeLay is "innocent of any crime until proven guilty." As you would be if indited.
Chip
I love your little digs.
HUH??? The indictment names names of the folks who contributed the money, the folks who sent the money to the RNC, the folks at the RNC who received the money, and the amounts. If you click on the link in my above post, it takes you straight to the indictment where this is plainly (or so I thought...) stated.
I understand a conspiracy is hard to prove, and don't believe DeLay will be found guilty, but come on, let's live in the real world.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks