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

[Sikander]

Originally posted by 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.

People used to know that the earth was flat too. None of us here know anything of the sort, though many of us have strong opinions on the matter. Even after a trial none of us will really know what happened. I'd personally like to Delay flayed alive, but I can't say that he's guilty (in any sense) of the crimes he's being charged with. I simply haven't seen the evidence, nor personally witnessed any of the events described in the indictments.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Admiral
Bear in mind that this is the publication that referred to the congressional black caucus as "a march of nuts."

I personally refer to them as the Congressional Whack Caucus. It's not far from the truth if you take some of their public pronouncements seriously.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
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/s...toryId=4944057

If the story on the Newshour tonight turn out to be true, there is a good chance Delay will be down to one charge again soon, as it sounds like the original conspiracy charge has some problems.

[Dinner]

Any comment about ABC's claim that they have a source which links both Bush and Cheney to the leak of the CIA agent's identity? If true this would be a huge deal. The President and Vice President would have been active participants in the commission of a felony.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin

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.

Hey Einstein, Check the records, I never claimed it compared to the Delay issue. I did bring up the FACT that the WaPo compared it to Watergate. I also brought up the fact that IMO it was comparable to Watergate break-in save the lack of coverage even though Schumer was but one degree of separation from the issue AND He fully well knew that the activities were illegal AND he or his organization were legally duty bound to report ASAP. A point which they apparrently did NOT considering Steele was alerted only last week.

Your characterization of some poor misguided naive college intern also is misplaced considering those same NOT college interns were essentially battle hardened veterans doing their nasty work for the Edwards campaign. For example Katie Barge a COLLEGE GRADUATE of Wesleyan in 2001 (for you math challenged thats 4 full years of real world experience plus any interning previously done) worked previously in the dirt digging field for Media Matters. I might as well claim the poor burglars of Gonzalez, McCord, Sturgis, Martinez, and Barker were simply poor misguided naive guys simply setting up a phone network.

The context of the arguement was, simply and as always, the selective airing of corruption issues.

And please if you are going to attempt use my name in reference can you at least attempt to spell it correctly. Its Ogie not Oggie. Oggie is some cartoon dog while Ogie is at least a reference to the greatest hockey movie of all time.

[Ramo]

Hey Einstein, Check the records, I never claimed it compared to the Delay issue. I did bring up the FACT that the WaPo compared it to Watergate. I also brought up the fact that IMO it was comparable to Watergate break-in save the lack of coverage even though Schumer was but one degree of separation from the issue AND He fully well knew that the activities were illegal AND he or his organization were legally duty bound to report ASAP. A point which they apparrently did NOT considering Steele was alerted only last week.

Comparing this to Watergate is inane. Colson sure as hell wasn't suspended immediately after it happened and booted off soon afterwards, nor did the WH go to the DA and tell them about it. And most importantly, the Watergate break-in was one dirty trick out of many.

I still don't see any actual evidence that the DSCC was late in reporting it to the DA (and even if they were, that's certainly a hell of a lot better than covering it up). As for coverage, the only paper that went after Watergate for a long, long time was WaPo. OTOH, a number of sources have covered the DSCC story already.

People used to know that the earth was flat too. None of us here know anything of the sort, though many of us have strong opinions on the matter. Even after a trial none of us will really know what happened. I'd personally like to Delay flayed alive, but I can't say that he's guilty (in any sense) of the crimes he's being charged with. I simply haven't seen the evidence, nor personally witnessed any of the events described in the indictments.

TRMPAC has already been found guilty in a civil suit.

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/05/26trmpac.html

Unless you're willing to believe that DeLay's so inept that he can lose track of hundreds of thousands of dollars in TRMPAC, he's guilty of charges brought against him.

If the story on the Newshour tonight turn out to be true, there is a good chance Delay will be down to one charge again soon, as it sounds like the original conspiracy charge has some problems.

DeLay's lawyer, DeGuerin, in the grand jury proceedings, waived the statute of limitations on the conspiracy charge (to avoid the far more serious money-laundering charge). And obviously, the only reason to pass up that line of defense is that he knew he would lose in a trial.

From the indictment:

"The Grand Jury further presents that, with the advise and consent of counsel, the defendent, Thomas Dale DeLay, did heretofore knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive application of Articles 12.01 and 12.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to the indictment presented herein. In particular, the Grand Jury present that with the advice and consent of counsel, the defendent, Thomas Dale DeLay, did knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the requirement that an indictment for the felony offense of criminal conspiracy, the object of which is felony other than those listed in Subdivisions (1) and (5) of Article 12.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, may be presented within three years from the date of commission of the offense, and not afterward, insofar as such requirement pertains to the indictment presented herein,"

DeGuerin then attacked the conspiracy charge on the basis of statute of limitations requirements (I'm not really sure how the above waiver could be invalidated) and tried to get it thrown out, so a second grand jury (presumably, one DeGuerin wasn't aware of) hit DeLay with the money-laundering charge.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Comparing this to Watergate is inane. Colson sure as hell wasn't suspended immediately after it happened and booted off soon afterwards, nor did the WH go to the DA and tell them about it. And most importantly, the Watergate break-in was one dirty trick out of many.

Firrstly, you realize of course Colson did time for the Daniel Ellsberg break in not necessarily Watergate.

Secondly, it was the WaPo editorial that drew the first Watergate analogy. Curiously it was by way of that analogy that was used to simply excuse them of doing any serious investigative work. Afterall if the repubs did it 30 plus years ago well its all good then that the Dems get to do it.

Re: one trick of many, Of course it was exemplary of a number of dirty tricks. Which is all the more reason to investigate Schumer's DSCC comittee rather than take it on an article of faith that this was a one time occurence.

Considering that the likes of Barge were specifically hired for their dirt digging efficacy one is inclined to believe it likely that tactics of this nature are NOT a one time occurrence.

I suppose then we should simply take Schumer's and DSCC's word just like WaPo should have taken Zeigler's pronouncement that Watergate was a simple one off "third rate burglary". Your kool-aid drinking trust in the Democratic leadership obviously does not mirror mine.

OTOH, a number of sources have covered the DSCC story already.

Of course it has been, in a dismissive fashion. It's already been dismissed by WaPo as ohhh its OK because Repubs have done the same thing in times past. OTOH Schumers home town paper the NYT has yet to print word one on this story.

[Ramo]

I never wrote that I trusted the DSCC or Schumer (Schumer doesn't make up the "Democratic Leadership" BTW). I said that there's absolutely no evidence to think that they're responsible for crimes on the scale of Nixon (and for that matter, DeLay). To suggest otherwise is hackery of the highest order.

It's probably not a one-time occurence. Since it's so freaking easy to do. Since I or basically anyone else can do it. I'm sure large numbers of campaigns are involved in this kind of dirt digging.

The important thing to note is that the DSCC didn't wait for a prosecutor or reporter to look into this, but went to the DA after find out, and suspended the employees during the investigation. This suggests that there isn't institutional tolerance for these sorts of actions in the DSCC.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
I never wrote that I trusted the DSCC or Schumer (Schumer doesn't make up the "Democratic Leadership" BTW). I said that there's absolutely no evidence to think that they're responsible for crimes on the scale of Nixon (and for that matter, DeLay). To suggest otherwise is hackery of the highest order.

It's probably not a one-time occurence. Since it's so freaking easy to do. Since I or basically anyone else can do it. I'm sure large numbers of campaigns are involved in this kind of dirt digging.

The important thing to note is that the DSCC didn't wait for a prosecutor or reporter to look into this, but went to the DA after find out, and suspended the employees during the investigation. This suggests that there isn't institutional tolerance for these sorts of actions in the DSCC.

If you believe as I do that this has happened on frequent or even infrequent occasion then by inference since the DSCC and Schumer have said this is a one time occurrence you thereby agree there is coverup. I therefore submit then you should be perfectly accepting of the media making every effort to investigate this story to its utmost, no? A point to which you have been reluctant to do so saying it is not worthy of investigation.

As for the suspensions, resignations and reporting I would be mightily interested to know the exact time frame to see whether as a result of the resignations an effort was made to disclose to the FBI as a consequence of the DSCC no longer having any leverage over Barge and Weiner.

[Ramo]

If you believe as I do that this has happened on frequent or even infrequent occasion then by inference since the DSCC and Schumer have said this is a one time occurrence you thereby agree there is coverup.

This "logic" is absurd. And painful. Extremely painful. Is this meant to be a parody of an argument?

As for the suspensions, resignations and reporting I would be mightily interested to know the exact time frame to see whether as a result of the resignations an effort was made to disclose to the FBI as a consequence of the DSCC no longer having any leverage over Barge and Weiner.

Well, if in drinking Republican "kool aid" you want to make half-assed conspiracy theories, I won't stop you. But the simple fact is that there is absolutely nothing to suggest any wrong-doing by Schumer on the matter.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

This "logic" is absurd. And painful. Extremely painful. Is this meant to be a parody of an argument?

By no means. You essentially admitted you believe this type of activity goes on an ongoing basis because "its so freakin easy to do".

We on the other hand of measured assurances from the DSCC and Schumer that this is a simple one time occurrence.

I would assume if you are truly a man of your convictions and if you truly beleive it happened on an ongoing basis you would want the truth to see the light of day and would likewise want it investigated to settle the matter.

Seeing as you don't I can only surmise you are not a man of your convictions.

And so if you mean painful, I suppose the realization that you simply are not a man of conviction would yes imply emotional pain.

[Sava]

I think Delay is probably the biggest scumbag ever...

he has got to be.... at least in the last few decades...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Sava I agree he most likely is.

[chequita guevara]

What Shumer's people did is a crime, and it should be investigated and possibly punished. However, it doesn't involve cheating people out of their government (or its funds), so it's not a crime against us. Thus it's not in the same league as what Delay is accused of doing or Watergate or even what Rostenkowski did.

[Ramo]

By no means. You essentially admitted you believe this type of activity goes on an ongoing basis because "its so freakin easy to do".

We on the other hand of measured assurances from the DSCC and Schumer that this is a simple one time occurrence.

I would assume if you are truly a man of your convictions and if you truly beleive it happened on an ongoing basis you would want the truth to see the light of day and would likewise want it investigated to settle the matter.

Seeing as you don't I can only surmise you are not a man of your convictions.

And so if you mean painful, I suppose the realization that you simply are not a man of conviction would yes imply emotional pain.

For the record, I meant that in general, I'm sure that this kind of illegal oppo research goes on all the time. Not that the DSCC is engaged in it on an ongoing basis. Once again, that the DSCC went to the DA and suspended the relevant employees without external provaction, suggests that it's not engaged in illegal data mining at a significant scale (at least, not to a greater extent than the NRSC, etc.).

You're paranoid charges of "coverup" are absolutely rediculous. I'm still trying to understand why they went to the DA about these activities, or suspended the employees that engaged in them if they're trying to do some kind of coverup.

As for investigations, sure, I'd like to see them investigated. Every other major political organization too. But it's not ZOMGGHF LIBURL BIAS when the DSCC's shenanigns aren't investigated by the media to the same extent as Nixon.

I'm just not going to continue this. Arguing against your kind of intellectual bankruptcy is pointless.