Tom Delay indicted, to step down as Majority Leader...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I said the facts of the case have been discused for years and everyone knows them. The court can throw out what it likes and so this guilty man could be the next OJ Simpson to walk free but he's still guilty as sin and even you know it.

No, I dont know it. I have very little faith in 'conspiracy' allegations.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Who the hell is Dick Schumer?

Chucky "Tricky Dick" Schumer to be explicit.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


No, you can compare the group of hacks the Republicans currently employee vs the group of hacks the Democrats currently employee and you really can say one side is worse then the other.

Only if you've been blinded by party propoganda.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I said the facts of the case have been discused for years and everyone knows them. The court can throw out what it likes and so this guilty man could be the next OJ Simpson to walk free but he's still guilty as sin and even you know it.

While in my own personal opinion, I "think" he is guilty...
(and is probably the biggest pond scum in government)

That is why we have trials. He is indeed innocent until proven guilty. I'm hoping the courts can find all the facts and come to a real conclusion on whether he has broken the law. But until that happens... he's innocent.
We don't just lynch people anymore in this country without a trial first

[Ramo]

There's a rather significant difference between being innocent in the eyes of the law and being innocent. Being convicted doesn't suddenly change whether or not you're innocent. And no one is suggesting that DeLay should be thrown in prison without a trial.

OBL has never been convicted for 9/11, does that make him innocent of the crime?

There's a possibility that DeLay shielded himself with enough plausible deniability to get out of conviction, etc., but we all know he did it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Only if you've been blinded by party propoganda.

Or if you've bothered to look at the facts and review the case in an intelligent manner. It's the whole bothering to look at the facts part which catches most of the right wingers here.

I look forward to a guilty verdict even if he'll only get 6 month (3 with good behavior) and a $10k fine for taking a $190k bribe.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Or if you've bothered to look at the facts and review the case in an intelligent manner.

It's the whole bothering to look at the facts part which catches most of the right wingers here.

Ahhh yes the infamous your either evil or stupid mantra.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ramo
but we all know he did it.

Do you personally know that?
I'll wait to review all the "facts" that come out at the trial. Right now, who knows which "facts" are real or not.

Also... some of the things he has done may have been sleezy, but not against the law.

Again, personally I think he is quilty, but I'm not ready to declare that I know ALL the facts and can say that he is truely guilty and has actually broken some law.

After the trial is done, I hope it goes the way that many of us expect it to go... and that he starts sharing a cell with Bubba

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Ahhh yes the infamous your either evil or stupid mantra.

No, not stupid. Just not bothering to look at the facts.

[Ramo]

Do you personally know that?
I'll wait to review all the "facts" that come out at the trial. Right now, who knows which "facts" are real or not.

Also... some of the things he has done may have been sleezy, but not against the law.

A lot of what TRMPAC did is public record. The Austin American-Statesman (a paper that endorsed Bush-twice, incidentally) has been doing good investigative reporting on the matter.

And yes, in Texas, laundering corporate donations through the RNC and distributing them to political campaigns is against the law.

As I said, there's a chance that DeLay insulated himself with some sort of plausible deniability deal, but that isn't the least bit credible on anything past a strictly legal level. DeLay isn't the type to lose track of hundreds of thousands of dollars in his own organization.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


No, not stupid. Just not bothering to look at the facts.

Or perhaps its the zeal with which facts are selectively made available to the public. Considering the WaPo considered the above Schumer-gate issue on par with Watergate.

As political dirty tricks go, snooping for financial dirt on Mr. Steele by illegal means strikes us as roughly on a par with eavesdropping on a rival party's private telephone conversations, as Virginia Republican officials did several years ago.

and yet it was relegated to an A22 position. But I'm sure we've heard all about it in other reputable news sources such as NYT and others, no?

[Ramo]

Using the SSN from public documents to get a credit report on a political opponent requires slightly less complicity from the top (FWIW, the researcher was fired) than laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars in corporate contributions.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
Using the SSN from public documents to get a credit report on a political opponent requires slightly less complicity from the top (FWIW, the researcher was fired) than laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars in corporate contributions.

A) where does it say the SSN was obtained from public documents?

B) the comparison was drawn between Watergate wire tapping and the illegal obtaining of credit reports (an apt comparison)


So in summary, I could give two figs about Delay, may he hang from the highest rafters, OTOH, we all know the amount of press that resulted from Watergate why the deafening silence around Chuck Schumer and his staffers?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Or perhaps its the zeal with which facts are selectively made available to the public.

This has been explored up, down, left, right, and sideways by every creditable news group out there and they've been doing it for years. There is no vast conspiracy to selectively make facts available. Everything has come out in the last three years.

and yet it was relegated to an A22 position. But I'm sure we've heard all about it in other reputable news sources such as NYT and others, no?

It was some low level college kids who acted stupidly and got fired for it. It deserves to be on A22 while I got sick and tired of seeing the corruption investigation for the Republican leader of the House (and now of the Senate as well) being stuck on A22. The wrong doing of party leaders with power should be put well ahead of stupid college kids.

[Ramo]

Watergate didn't get any press besides from the WP for a very long time. And Colson sure as hell wasn't fired almost immediately after W&B started looking into it.

A. From the NYPost (first link with the relevant info):

Sources familiar with the situation said the committee's head of research, Katie Barge, and a deputy, Lauren Weiner, got the credit report by using Steele's Social Security number, which they say they obtained from public documents.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/28399.htm

B. My point was that calling it "Schumer-Gate" is a wee-bit premature.