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

[Ramo]

Because DeLay has been so corrupt, and is involved in so many scandals. Most of the press has been on other things, namely the three rebukes from the House Ethics Committee. I doubt that many people were the least bit familiar with the money laundering charge until just recently.

"Schumergate" is a nonissue that y'all are desperately trying to cling to as some kind of equivalence to the largescale corruption by powerbrokers in the GOP. I could probably do what these staffers did, if I had the inclination. There's simply no comparison.

Any idea when DSCC took it to the authorities

No. You clearly don't either.

The worst thing that happened is that the DSCC were a little late in reporting an identity theft. So what? While wrong (if that's indeed the case), it's hardly as big a deal as flooding campaigns with hundreds of thousands in illegal money. Or outing a NOC and compromising our intelligence operations.

Are you now implying that it was indeed Schumer and not some middle manager at DSCC who suspended the employees 2+ months ago. If so you imply he had immediate carnal knowledge of the issue.

No, I'm not implying anything. I don't know the specifics, nor do you.

[Ramo]

I don't like Delay, and I don't necessarily trust the National Review. But this article certainly seems to raise some questions about what Earle is doing. I would be most interested to hear Lefty's views on the situation.

I googled it, and couldn't find a reference on a non-crackpot news source. Do you happen to have one?

Not to say that it isn't true, but I wouldn't take it uncritically (just as I wouldn't post something from Indymedia without corroboration in a real news source).

But I'm not sure what the big deal is. Corporations illegally donate to political campaigns, so Earle gets them to fund public advocacy warning of corporate money in politics. And gets them to pay a lot more than they would've with a conviction.

[Dinner]

I know in California it is a fairly common compromise for a corporation who wants to settle a case but who doesn't want to admit guilt they agree to donate money to a charity. It's not that uncommon on the national level either as you may recall from Microsoft agreeing to donate large amounts of its software underprivilaged children, or some such, to settle one of its cases of wrong doing. It seems like this occurs when the corporation wants to end the case but doesn't want to pay a fine to the court and sees this as a way to repair their corporate image.

I don't know the details and I'm just talking about past cases which have occured here in California or at the national level. Personally, I 'd like to hear what Earle has to say about the case though I do know the right wing smear machine has unjustly gone oafter a lot of people in the past for politicial reasons and right now they've got the talking points to go after Earle. I think most people would agree National Review is very much part of the right wing information machine.

[Ramo]

Just found this gem:

The day after U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's grand jury indictment, his lawyer and the jury foreman on Thursday appeared to contradict the Texas politician's assertions that he was not given a chance to speak before the jury.
The foreman, William M. Gibson Jr., a retired state insurance investigator, said the Travis County grand jury waited until Wednesday, the final day of its term, to indict him because it was hoping he would accept jurors' invitation to testify.

DeLay said in interviews that the grand jury never asked him to testify.

[...]

"I have not testified before the grand jury to present my side of the case, and they indicted me," said DeLay, according to the Associated Press.

Dick DeGuerin, the attorney representing DeLay, said Thursday that DeLay actually was invited to appear before the grand jury, where he would have been under oath. The Houston attorney was not yet on the legal team when DeLay was asked to appear, but he said other attorneys advised him not to testify — a decision DeGuerin supports.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3376104

[Adam Smith]

Ramo:

That's all I've got, and, as noted, I do not take it uncritically.


Ramo, Oerdin:

re contributions as settlements, I have two problems.

1. Note the diference between contributions to a charity (free software for underprivileged kids) and what some would see as an advocacy group (in this case, a specific advocacy group)
2. The prosecutor has some ability to impose costs on defendants through higher legal fees, regardless of the merits of the case. This can lead to larger settlements than would otherwise be appropriate (e.g., $20K vs $1 mil) and avoid the reproval prosecutors face in losing weak cases.

Again, more reason I would appreciate hearing Lefty's views on this.

[Ramo]

AS, giving things to underprivilidged children, while great, doesn't actually address the relevant problem here of corporate money in politics. And so doesn't do too much in terms of preventing similar abuse in the future. It looks like Earle is trying to address that.

I don't see what the problem is in wrt charging higher money than the statute called for. That strikes me as a more effective deterrent, and thus a reasonable thing to do. I mean, $20k is chump change for a Sears, hardly a reasonable penalty for fixing elections through illegal contributions. And it's just money (and from wealthy targets), not jail time, etc. And FYI, according to the article Earle got $500,000 for the program, and there were several corps involved, so we're talking ~$140k vs. $500k.

It may not have been the best course of action, but I don't think this is a serious mark against the man (there's also the possibility that Sears, etc., gave him evidence on DeLay in exchange for dropping the charges).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I just said I'd be happy to see DeLay go. The Republicans need better hacks if I'm the best they can find.

Now now now just because you hate both parties doesn't mean that you aren't a shill for not seeing the beauty and wonderfulness of the Democratic party.

[Dinner]

You and I both know Drake, of all people, does not hate both parties no matter what sad story he may spin. Drake is a whiny little wing nut who has never found a Rush Limbaugh show he hasn't liked. That's just the way it is and his posts online back that up.

I appreciate how he would want to hide that fact but it is still so.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake is a whiny little wing nut who has never found a Rush Limbaugh show he hasn't liked.

I don't think I've listened to Limbaugh for more than an hour or so combined in my entire life.

But seriously, DISCUSS THE TOPIC, NOT THE POSTERS! You don't want to take a trip to Mingapulco just to attack a "freeper scum" like me...

[Lancer]

Oerdin, you're starting to sound like you need a vacation to someplace real.

[Dinner]

Tom Delay has now also been charged with money laundering. That's now two charges he is facing one for the original money laundering and the second for the conspiracy to hide the money laundering.

Oggie can no reexplain why college interns downloading a $5 credit report off of the internet is just as bad as the House Majority Leader laundering money.

A nice article on Delay's lastest indictment from NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4944057

[Dinner]

The best part is this is the second grand jury who has come to the conclusion that Tom Delay is a crook. I'm sure the Republicans will continue to claim that both of the grand juries are just meanies out to get them.

[DRoseDARs]

Damn, I just finished laughing my ass off (well stopped laughing as hard as I was when I first read about this new indictment anyway...) and was going to post this. You stole my thunder, Oerdin!

[Dinner]

Also to keep our friend Drake amused I have found a brand spanking new article from NPR which details that both Libby & Rove are likely to get indicted soon. It seems Robert Novak identified two sources for the Plame leak one was Libby & the other was Rove. Miller has agreed to testify against Libby but is refusing to talk about Rove and has been in jail even though Miller gave her the release months ago.

So why did Miller sit in jail if Libby already agreed to release her? Simple she would have been forced to also go under oath about Karl Rove as well which she didn't want to do and her current deal gets her out of jail while only allowing the questions about Libby but not Rove to be asked. Pretty filthy if you ask me.

Still, at least we still have Novak who has rolled over like the lapdog he is and has pointed the finger at both Rove and Libby.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4934477

Next we have a very interesting new development if it is true. If ABC News is correct then that would mean that both the President and the Vice President were involved in a conspiracy to commit a felony and then both took part in the cover up to hide that felony.

Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal

Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:

Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.

This would explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom of it.” As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanageable.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved

Crooks & Liars has the video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/02.html#a5192

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You pull up a case from a guy who last served in 1994 and who's crimes were commited in the last 1980's through very early 1990's? 10-15 year old stuff. As I said the Democrats have had their bad guys but if you take the number of crooks & liars both parties have had and you compare the number of years each party has been in control you will easily find that the current crop of Republicans are the worst of the lot. I said that earlier.

The best possible way to run the government is with one side controlling the executive and the other controlling the House with the Senate evenly split. That's the only way to keep the corruption in check yet even then Reagan still managed to be a pretty big crook.

He was responding to a post where you talked about Carter (1977-81), and Reagan (1981-89) and you complain because he talks about Rostenkowski in the early 90s? Come on Oerdin, you're better than that.