Dirty Republican Congressman admits taking bribes.

[notyoueither]

'My' country, because we are currently dealing with blatant theft of govt dollars directly funnelled back into the coffers of the ruling party, but no charges as of yet against any officer of that party.

I may be occupying a high ground, but Canada can claim none.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There's the rub, Nathan.

His first mistake was biting the forbidden fruit. This isn't 1820, or 1920, and organizations get severely punished for transgressions by people in power positions. It could have been right, or wrong, but that gets his ass fired if I have vote in 'my' corporation.

Nobody is saying it wasn't a bad thing to do. But the 'corporation' in this case voted to keep the CEO, mainly because they realized that him engaging in a consentual affair wasn't anything worth getting in a snit about.

If Clinton hadn't tried to hide the affair and had just owned up to it from the start, there would likely have been no impeachment saga. Well, maybe--I'm sure the zealot Republicans would have tried to impeach him anyway.

The second mistake, and more serious, was lying about it to a judge. That gets your ass thrown in jail in 'my' country.

That was the more serious issue. He was also acquitted on this. I'm sure that if a jury acquitted someone in Canada of perjury, they wouldn't still be considered a criminal, yes?

The judge gave her punishment--she took away his law license. If she had felt it merited putting him in jail, she would have. If Ken Starr thought he had enough evidence to indict Clinton for it, he would have. Neither was the case.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And no exposure to the office of POTUS whatsoever?

Not really. If Monica had perjured herself and filed a civil lawsuit, it could not have moved forward until after Clinton left office. The only real risk of legal action while Clinton was in office would be if false charges led to an impeachment, but it is unrealistic to expect presidents to live their lives based on an assumption that the people around them are out to get them in such a fashion.

Clinton definitely risked something that would make him look bad and, by extension, undermine the prestige of his office. But until he chose to commit perjury instead of owning up to what he did, I don't regard his legal exposure as a significant issue.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That was the more serious issue. He was also acquitted on this. I'm sure that if a jury acquitted someone in Canada of perjury, they wouldn't still be considered a criminal, yes?

It would depend on what the meaning of 'is' was, or something.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Nobody is saying it wasn't a bad thing to do. But the 'corporation' in this case voted to keep the CEO, mainly because they realized that him engaging in a consentual affair wasn't anything worth getting in a snit about.

Removing an elected president from office goes far, far beyond merely "getting in a snit." Actually, the vote on whether Clinton should be removed from office on the obstruction of justice charge was 50-50, which, while far short of the two thirds supermajority required to remove a president from office, hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement for the idea that Clinton's actions were no big deal.

The judge gave her punishment--she took away his law license. If she had felt it merited putting him in jail, she would have. If Ken Starr thought he had enough evidence to indict Clinton for it, he would have. Neither was the case.

If I recall correctly, Ken Starr's work ended before Clinton left office, and Clinton could not be criminally indicted while he was stilll in office. That would make it the Bush justice department's decision whether or not to seek an indictment, and since Clinton was already out of office, it made more sense for the nation to put the issue behind us rather than stirring up the political firestorm that an indictment of a former president by an administration of the opposite party would have brought.

[Ramo]

From what I understand, Texas law justifies charges of money laundering only if the money was obtained through illegal activities. What DeLay's organization did was analogous to money laundering, and was certainly against the spirit of the Texas campaign finance laws (assuming reports of what happened are reasonably accurate), but my impression is that it does not meet the legal definition of money laundering.

What do you mean, exactly? Corporate contributions for political expenses are illegal in Texas. Period. And laundering it through the RNC doesn't make it legal.

But if similar practices are fairly common in other Texas political organizations, including organizations from both parties, then singling out DeLay and his organization merely because they played the game more effectively than others and a Democratic prosecutor is angry about his party's loss of power would itself be grossly unjust.

First off, your characterization of this pracice as done equally by both sides is completely unsubstantiated.

Secondly, your characterization of Ronnie Earle is totally absurd. The vast majority that his Public Integrity Unit prosecuted were Democrats, including powerful state officials such as the Speaker of the House (the most important person in state politics), the Attorney General, Treasurer, and a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, he was so effective in taking down corrupt Democrats, he was unchallenged by Republicans in elections for a lengthy period.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Ramo

What do you mean, exactly? Corporate contributions for political expenses are illegal in Texas. Period. And laundering it through the RNC doesn't make it legal.

If campaign finance laws were violated, that is the charge the prosecutor should pursue. But if charges for violating campaign finance law cannot be proven, the necessary element of having obtained the money illegally cannot be shown, and therefore money laundering charges cannot be supported. The technique of focusing on money laundering charges rather than on the campaign finance law reeks of a witch hunt. Even if it's not a partisan witch hunt, it still stinks of looking for any excuse to go after DeLay for something that Earle personally believes is wrong but that was not a clear violation of the law - which, in essence, is a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws.

First off, your characterization of this pracice as done equally by both sides is completely unsubstantiated.

I did not characterize it as having been done equally on both sides. Rather, I raised the possibility that both sides may have done it. Do you have any evidence to refute that possibility? If not, then neither of us has the information needed to know how TRIMPAC's behavior compares with that of other Texas political organizations.

Secondly, your characterization of Ronnie Earle is totally absurd. The vast majority that his Public Integrity Unit prosecuted were Democrats, including powerful state officials such as the Speaker of the House (the most important person in state politics), the Attorney General, Treasurer, and a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, he was so effective in taking down corrupt Democrats, he was unchallenged by Republicans in elections for a lengthy period.

Until Earle went after Sen. Hutchison with charges so baseless that he was forced to withdraw them, how much reason did the Republicans have to target him? Also note that Texas is one of the Southern states where, until the Republicans transformed the political landscape in 1994, the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction tended to give Democrats a considerable advantage over Republicans in state and local elections. That certainly helped to reduce the likelihood of Earle's facing Republican opposition during that period. So I think you're reading more into Earle's long period without Republican opposition than is warranted.

[Dinner]

Re: Re: **** bag Republican Congressman admits taking bribes.

Originally posted by nbarclay
But if similar practices are fairly common in other Texas political organizations, including organizations from both parties, then singling out DeLay and his organization merely because they played the game more effectively than others and a Democratic prosecutor is angry about his party's loss of power would itself be grossly unjust.

I believe the prosecutor is actually a Republica and has spent most of his career going after Democrats. Hardly a case of partisanship.

That is not to say that corruption can never be a legitimate political issue. But issues of ethics need to be handled in an ethical way, focusing on the guilty without trying to spread blame to the innocent in an effort to gain partisan advantage.

Except the current Republican Leadership right down to many of the junior members really are corrupt and there really is a culture of corruption which goes way beyond the previous cases. The Republicans have controlled Congress only since 1994 (I believe) yet already they've racked up more cases of corruption and abuse of power then the Democrats did in the 35 years they controlled Congress. That's pretty impressive and even the highest ranking leaders have been winking and nodding to this corruption; people like Delay have even used access to illegal funds as a way to keep the rank & file in line. I.E. if you don't vote the way I want I will make sure you don't get any of the magic laundered money.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Political Affiliations: Unlike many gay people, I am a political moderate. I support the war in Iraq, however I do not support any ban against gay marriage. I respect all view points, as long as you respect mine. Just take it easy.. and live up to your own expectations of tolerance.

this was my favorite part - plus its not restricted.

[Dinner]

BTW the majority of Americans are moderates/centrists, however, extremists control each party's primary process so both parties tend to put up extremist candidates.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
The last thing I want to hear about is an old man having sex with a fat chick. I don't think it's relevant to his job, nor something to be dragged out in an overly public manner. If he raped her, sure; but since it was consensual I don't see how this should be public.

notyoueither's point is that when you are in sucha position of authority it can't really be considered consensual, or at least there is an implicit coercion in it.

[Az]

then I guess the president can't have sex with anyone, can he? ( which does explain the clintons.... )

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Then it's up to a court of law to convict him.

OH WAIT. He was never convicted of anything. Nor even indicted by a court.

When he's President he can't be. By the time he was out of office I imagine the statute of limitations would be in effect (and it'd be politically impossible anyway).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That was the more serious issue. He was also acquitted on this.

By the Senate. A political body. Give me a break.

[DanS]

I haven't read the responses to this thread to date, but note that the American people do tend to punish the ruling party when they feel the stable floor needs cleaned. See, f.e., the house banking scandal leading in part to the GOP sweep of the 1994 elections.

It might be time to get another set of Republicans in the next congress (or the one after that). I wouldn't be sad to see the current crop go.