Full Version: Ethics/Values in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
Texass is not a democracy.
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 5 2005, 04:18 PM)
I find it very odd that you guyses don't seem to regard the central question as a "moral" one.
DeLay's goal was to redraw Congressional districts so that the outcome of elections there would be fore-ordained. To make six more districts where "voting" for Congresscritters is a rather silly exercise unlikely to have any impact on government. To reduce the ability of the citizenry at large to influence the laws and policies by which they are governed.
Now, that's very much a moral question in a democracy.
[right][snapback]133886[/snapback][/right]
DeLay's goal was to redraw Congressional districts so that the outcome of elections there would be fore-ordained. To make six more districts where "voting" for Congresscritters is a rather silly exercise unlikely to have any impact on government. To reduce the ability of the citizenry at large to influence the laws and policies by which they are governed.
Now, that's very much a moral question in a democracy.
[right][snapback]133886[/snapback][/right]
Not to these chaps
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 5 2005, 03:18 PM)
I find it very odd that you guyses don't seem to regard the central question as a "moral" one.
[right][snapback]133886[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133886[/snapback][/right]
We can just disband the court and go to confession instead.
DeLay, Successor Blunt Swapped Donations
By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.
When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.
The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.
The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.
"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the
Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.
None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_..._money_carousel
By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.
When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.
The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.
The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.
"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the
Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.
None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_..._money_carousel
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Oct 5 2005, 05:25 PM)
DeLay, Successor Blunt Swapped Donations
By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.
When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.
The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.
The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.
"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the
Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.
None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_..._money_carousel
[right][snapback]133892[/snapback][/right]
By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.
When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.
The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.
The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.
"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the
Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.
None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_..._money_carousel
[right][snapback]133892[/snapback][/right]
When you sleep with dogs, you get ______.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Oct 5 2005, 03:29 PM)
When you sleep with dogs, you get ______.
[right][snapback]133893[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133893[/snapback][/right]
Chelsea Clinton?
Well, y'know, there IS another approach to campaign finance reform. We could simply require all political donations to be made anonymously, in green dollars, through a central clearing house that simply aggregates the cash and who it was donated to, and dispenses the whole lump sum to the candidate.
No way of knowing who gave you money, or why, or if they followed through on their promise to give you money. Nothing but a note from the clearinghouse: "$547,000 was donated in your name this year. Here's your check."
No way of knowing who gave you money, or why, or if they followed through on their promise to give you money. Nothing but a note from the clearinghouse: "$547,000 was donated in your name this year. Here's your check."
QUOTE
None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.
If you can't sic the law on him, maybe you can send the Pope.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 5 2005, 05:33 PM)
If you can't sic the law on him, maybe you can send the Pope.
[right][snapback]133896[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133896[/snapback][/right]
I think he's busy hunting gays in the clergy.
Maybe next year.
White House's Former Purchasing Chief Is Indicted
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 5, 2005
Filed at 5:12 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's former chief procurement official was indicted Wednesday by a federal grand jury on charges of making false statements and obstructing investigations into high-powered Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The five felony counts in the indictment charge David H. Safavian with obstructing Senate and executive branch investigations into whether he aided Abramoff in efforts to acquire property controlled by the General Services Administration around the nation's capital.
Both probes looked into an August 2002 golf outing that Safavian took to Scotland with Abramoff, former Christian Coalition executive Ralph Reed, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and others.
Safavian, a former lobbying associate of Abramoff, is the first person beyond Abramoff himself to face charges arising out of the probe of the lobbyist, who is a major Republican fundraiser with close ties to GOP leaders in Congress.
The indictment covers May 16, 2002, until January 2004, when Safavian was chief of staff at the General Services Administration, the government housekeeping agency. From November 2004 until late last month when he resigned three days before his arrest, he headed the government's top procurement officer in the Office of Management and Budget.
The indictment said Safavian falsely told a GSA ethics officer, a GSA inspector general's agent and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that Abramoff had no business with GSA at the time the Scotland trip was being planned. It said Safavian concealed that Abramoff did have business with GSA before the trip and that Safavian was aiding him in dealing with GSA.
Barbara Van Gelder, Safavian's lawyer, has said that Safavian accurately reported Abramoff was not doing business with GSA at the time of the trip, and she said Safavian would fight the charges.
Each count carries a potential top penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/A...artner=homepage
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 5, 2005
Filed at 5:12 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's former chief procurement official was indicted Wednesday by a federal grand jury on charges of making false statements and obstructing investigations into high-powered Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The five felony counts in the indictment charge David H. Safavian with obstructing Senate and executive branch investigations into whether he aided Abramoff in efforts to acquire property controlled by the General Services Administration around the nation's capital.
Both probes looked into an August 2002 golf outing that Safavian took to Scotland with Abramoff, former Christian Coalition executive Ralph Reed, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and others.
Safavian, a former lobbying associate of Abramoff, is the first person beyond Abramoff himself to face charges arising out of the probe of the lobbyist, who is a major Republican fundraiser with close ties to GOP leaders in Congress.
The indictment covers May 16, 2002, until January 2004, when Safavian was chief of staff at the General Services Administration, the government housekeeping agency. From November 2004 until late last month when he resigned three days before his arrest, he headed the government's top procurement officer in the Office of Management and Budget.
The indictment said Safavian falsely told a GSA ethics officer, a GSA inspector general's agent and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that Abramoff had no business with GSA at the time the Scotland trip was being planned. It said Safavian concealed that Abramoff did have business with GSA before the trip and that Safavian was aiding him in dealing with GSA.
Barbara Van Gelder, Safavian's lawyer, has said that Safavian accurately reported Abramoff was not doing business with GSA at the time of the trip, and she said Safavian would fight the charges.
Each count carries a potential top penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/A...artner=homepage
Arturo_Vandelay, et al,
I am a Republican.
(COMMENT)
Does anyone actually think that Tom Delay didn't have this done as a means of circumventing the law?
As I understand it - they do not deny that they did the old Texas two-step with the shuffling of the money. What they claim is that it was a legal way of circumventing the law that made the direct transfer otherwise illegal.
The question is, do politicians have a special right and privilege to circumvent the law? Are circumventing the law ethical and an example of moral courage and justice?
We haven't actually even begun to address the gerrymandering issue, the reason for necessity.
Most Respectfully,
I am a Republican.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 5 2005, 06:33 PM)
If you can't sic the law on him, maybe you can send the Pope.
[right][snapback]133896[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133896[/snapback][/right]
(COMMENT)
Does anyone actually think that Tom Delay didn't have this done as a means of circumventing the law?
As I understand it - they do not deny that they did the old Texas two-step with the shuffling of the money. What they claim is that it was a legal way of circumventing the law that made the direct transfer otherwise illegal.
The question is, do politicians have a special right and privilege to circumvent the law? Are circumventing the law ethical and an example of moral courage and justice?
We haven't actually even begun to address the gerrymandering issue, the reason for necessity.
Most Respectfully,
Mr. Rosano!
You home?
I think Mr. DeLay, in effect, bragged about circumventing the law. It seems a bit preposterous to claim that "people were out to get him."
When someone brags about a crime they "got away with" publically, I'd think it would behoove law-abiders to "go after" them.
You home?
I think Mr. DeLay, in effect, bragged about circumventing the law. It seems a bit preposterous to claim that "people were out to get him."
When someone brags about a crime they "got away with" publically, I'd think it would behoove law-abiders to "go after" them.
QUOTE(Bee @ Oct 5 2005, 06:17 PM)
Mr. Rosano!
You home?
I think Mr. DeLay, in effect, bragged about circumventing the law. It seems a bit preposterous to claim that "people were out to get him."
When someone brags about a crime they "got away with" publically, I'd think it would behoove law-abiders to "go after" them.
[right][snapback]133905[/snapback][/right]
You home?
I think Mr. DeLay, in effect, bragged about circumventing the law. It seems a bit preposterous to claim that "people were out to get him."
When someone brags about a crime they "got away with" publically, I'd think it would behoove law-abiders to "go after" them.
[right][snapback]133905[/snapback][/right]
Like that old Mormon freak with the teenage wives.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Oct 5 2005, 03:47 PM)
I think he's busy hunting gays in the clergy.
[right][snapback]133898[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133898[/snapback][/right]
A blind man could bag the limit during their coffee break.
QUOTE(RoccoR @ Oct 5 2005, 04:03 PM)
Arturo_Vandelay, et al,
I am a Republican.
I am a Republican.
That makes one of us.
QUOTE
(COMMENT)
Does anyone actually think that Tom Delay didn't have this done as a means of circumventing the law?
[right][snapback]133902[/snapback][/right]
Does anyone actually think that Tom Delay didn't have this done as a means of circumventing the law?
[right][snapback]133902[/snapback][/right]
People circumvent the law to avoid breaking it all the time. Part of why I favor fewer laws.
Hope you're home safe. We missed you.
QUOTE(RoccoR @ Oct 5 2005, 11:03 PM)
I am a Republican.
Most Respectfully,
[right][snapback]133902[/snapback][/right]
Most Respectfully,
[right][snapback]133902[/snapback][/right]
With Republicans like you...who needs Democrats?
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 5 2005, 03:33 PM)
Well, y'know, there IS another approach to campaign finance reform. We could simply require all political donations to be made anonymously, in green dollars, through a central clearing house that simply aggregates the cash and who it was donated to, and dispenses the whole lump sum to the candidate.
No way of knowing who gave you money, or why, or if they followed through on their promise to give you money. Nothing but a note from the clearinghouse: "$547,000 was donated in your name this year. Here's your check."
[right][snapback]133895[/snapback][/right]
No way of knowing who gave you money, or why, or if they followed through on their promise to give you money. Nothing but a note from the clearinghouse: "$547,000 was donated in your name this year. Here's your check."
[right][snapback]133895[/snapback][/right]
Would be OK with me.
Or conversly let people donate what they want, but account for every penny. No money that isn't given as a check, debit, credit and clearly marked as to the donor.
QUOTE(Bee @ Oct 5 2005, 04:46 PM)
Oh. Yeah. When someone looks down their nose at me and poses a "holier than thou" attitude, I tend to react that way.
But I always forget, I'm not entitled to an opinion on this board. You can talk about policy, but the minute I make a comment about one group or policy, it becomes all about me personally.
Sometimes I wonder what some of the posters would have to talk about if I wasn't here.
[right][snapback]133880[/snapback][/right]
But I always forget, I'm not entitled to an opinion on this board. You can talk about policy, but the minute I make a comment about one group or policy, it becomes all about me personally.
Sometimes I wonder what some of the posters would have to talk about if I wasn't here.
[right][snapback]133880[/snapback][/right]
Perhaps we'd find a more pleasant topic.
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 5 2005, 02:33 PM)
Well, y'know, there IS another approach to campaign finance reform. We could simply require all political donations to be made anonymously, in green dollars, through a central clearing house that simply aggregates the cash and who it was donated to, and dispenses the whole lump sum to the candidate.
No way of knowing who gave you money, or why, or if they followed through on their promise to give you money. Nothing but a note from the clearinghouse: "$547,000 was donated in your name this year. Here's your check."
[right][snapback]133895[/snapback][/right]
No way of knowing who gave you money, or why, or if they followed through on their promise to give you money. Nothing but a note from the clearinghouse: "$547,000 was donated in your name this year. Here's your check."
[right][snapback]133895[/snapback][/right]
The only problem with that is it can be construed as the equivalent of turning well-reasoned, specific speech into "noise, generally in support of such and such or so and so was made".
Does that make sense?
The whole POINT of contributing to political campaigns is for it NOT to be anonymous on either end.
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/conten.../10/5earle.html
Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment
Newly impaneled grand jury returned money-laundering charge within hours
Advertisement
MORE ON THIS STORY
* Past coverage and related documents
By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.
In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.
Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.
Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.
Lawyers for DeLay immediately called foul after Earle released his statement after 5 p.m. Tuesday.
"What could have happened over the weekend?" said Austin lawyer Bill White, who represents DeLay. "They investigate for three years and suddenly they have new evidence? That's beyond the pale!"
White suggested that Earle released his statement Tuesday because he feared reporters would learn about the no-bill.
In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.
DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.
"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"
The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.
The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.
According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."
It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.
Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.
Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.
When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.
About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.
DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.
"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."
Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment
Newly impaneled grand jury returned money-laundering charge within hours
Advertisement
* Past coverage and related documents
By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.
In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.
Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.
Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.
Lawyers for DeLay immediately called foul after Earle released his statement after 5 p.m. Tuesday.
"What could have happened over the weekend?" said Austin lawyer Bill White, who represents DeLay. "They investigate for three years and suddenly they have new evidence? That's beyond the pale!"
White suggested that Earle released his statement Tuesday because he feared reporters would learn about the no-bill.
In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.
DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.
"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"
The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.
The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.
According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."
It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.
Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.
Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.
When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.
About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.
DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.
"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 5 2005, 09:28 PM)
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/conten.../10/5earle.html
Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment
Newly impaneled grand jury returned money-laundering charge within hours
Advertisement
MORE ON THIS STORY
* Past coverage and related documents
By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.
In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.
Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.
Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.
Lawyers for DeLay immediately called foul after Earle released his statement after 5 p.m. Tuesday.
"What could have happened over the weekend?" said Austin lawyer Bill White, who represents DeLay. "They investigate for three years and suddenly they have new evidence? That's beyond the pale!"
White suggested that Earle released his statement Tuesday because he feared reporters would learn about the no-bill.
In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.
DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.
"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"
The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.
The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.
According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."
It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.
Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.
Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.
When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.
About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.
DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.
"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."
[right][snapback]133967[/snapback][/right]
Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment
Newly impaneled grand jury returned money-laundering charge within hours
Advertisement
* Past coverage and related documents
By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.
In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.
Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.
Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.
Lawyers for DeLay immediately called foul after Earle released his statement after 5 p.m. Tuesday.
"What could have happened over the weekend?" said Austin lawyer Bill White, who represents DeLay. "They investigate for three years and suddenly they have new evidence? That's beyond the pale!"
White suggested that Earle released his statement Tuesday because he feared reporters would learn about the no-bill.
In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.
DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.
"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"
The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.
The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.
According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."
It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.
Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.
Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.
When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.
About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.
DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.
"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."
[right][snapback]133967[/snapback][/right]
The larger question I have is about grand juries, in general . . . it's been said that if you can't indict someone via grand jury you must have the weakest case; or that you can indict a 'ham sandwich" through a grand jury.
All politics aside, and the particulars of this case notwithstanding, what do you think about that?
An honest prosecutor is the innocent's first line of defense. I recall a saying from the Movie, The Thin Blue Line.
"It takes a good prosecutor to convict the guilty, it takes a great one to convict the innocent." If you get unlimited tries you ought to be able to get an indictment, especially if you've spent three years getting the fact someone is being investigated into the press.
"It takes a good prosecutor to convict the guilty, it takes a great one to convict the innocent." If you get unlimited tries you ought to be able to get an indictment, especially if you've spent three years getting the fact someone is being investigated into the press.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 5 2005, 09:41 PM)
An honest prosecutor is the innocent's first line of defense. I recall a saying from the Movie, The Thin Blue Line.
"It takes a good prosecutor to convict the guilty, it takes a great one to convict the innocent." If you get unlimited tries you ought to be able to get an indictment, especially if you've spent three years getting the fact someone is being investigated into the press.
[right][snapback]133971[/snapback][/right]
"It takes a good prosecutor to convict the guilty, it takes a great one to convict the innocent." If you get unlimited tries you ought to be able to get an indictment, especially if you've spent three years getting the fact someone is being investigated into the press.
[right][snapback]133971[/snapback][/right]
I take it you think DeLay is innocent, then, right?
I don't get it. Whether DeLay is a Republican or Democrat, laundering corporate money so that it can be used locally is not kosher.
I don't know. Democrats are sleeze-balls, for the most part, both locally and nationally . . . tough choice for a real lefty . . .
Point is whether there's an honest prosecutor in this case. I figger he's in the same category you all like to put Ken Starr in.
QUOTE
Documents unearthed this week and reported by The Associated Press and PoliticalMoneyLine, a research group, revealed fund-raising tactics used by Mr. DeLay in 2000 that could draw additional scrutiny.
The documents showed that a committee operated by Mr. DeLay for the Republicans' 2000 convention in Philadelphia diverted tens of thousands of dollars to other organizations run by the former majority leader and his allies, including Representative Roy Blunt, the Missouri Republican who assumed Mr. DeLay's duties after his indictment.
Mr. DeLay's committee gave at least $150,000 to Mr. Blunt's Rely on Your Beliefs Non-Federal Committee in 2000, which in turn wrote checks to several other DeLay organizations, the documents showed.
They showed that Mr. Blunt's group gave $100,000 to the Missouri Republican Party, which later spent tens of thousands of dollars supporting Mr. Blunt's son, Matt, in his campaign for secretary of state. Matt Blunt is now the state's governor.
An aide to Mr. Delay declined to comment, and a spokeswoman for Mr. Blunt said there was nothing improper in the transfer of the money between the groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/politics/06delay.html
The documents showed that a committee operated by Mr. DeLay for the Republicans' 2000 convention in Philadelphia diverted tens of thousands of dollars to other organizations run by the former majority leader and his allies, including Representative Roy Blunt, the Missouri Republican who assumed Mr. DeLay's duties after his indictment.
Mr. DeLay's committee gave at least $150,000 to Mr. Blunt's Rely on Your Beliefs Non-Federal Committee in 2000, which in turn wrote checks to several other DeLay organizations, the documents showed.
They showed that Mr. Blunt's group gave $100,000 to the Missouri Republican Party, which later spent tens of thousands of dollars supporting Mr. Blunt's son, Matt, in his campaign for secretary of state. Matt Blunt is now the state's governor.
An aide to Mr. Delay declined to comment, and a spokeswoman for Mr. Blunt said there was nothing improper in the transfer of the money between the groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/politics/06delay.html
Hmmm it appears there was new evidence.
He's also being investigated by the Feds
from above
Seems lots of things changed this week regardless of what DeLays lawyers are whining about.
from above
QUOTE
Administration officials acknowledged this week that the Justice Department had asked the British police to interview former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about a meeting with Mr. DeLay during a 2000 trip to Britain arranged by Mr. Abramoff. It was the first public acknowledgment that Mr. DeLay's actions were also under investigation.
Seems lots of things changed this week regardless of what DeLays lawyers are whining about.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Oct 6 2005, 01:57 AM)
I take it you think DeLay is innocent, then, right?
I don't get it. Whether DeLay is a Republican or Democrat, laundering corporate money so that it can be used locally is not kosher.
I don't know. Democrats are sleeze-balls, for the most part, both locally and nationally . . . tough choice for a real lefty . . .
[right][snapback]133978[/snapback][/right]
I don't get it. Whether DeLay is a Republican or Democrat, laundering corporate money so that it can be used locally is not kosher.
I don't know. Democrats are sleeze-balls, for the most part, both locally and nationally . . . tough choice for a real lefty . . .
[right][snapback]133978[/snapback][/right]
DeLay is a rightwinger, therefore artie defends him.
Hell, artie joined DeLay in trashing the Shaivo husband too, would you expect anything different now that the scumbag has been indicted?
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Oct 6 2005, 04:59 AM)
Point is whether there's an honest prosecutor in this case. I figger he's in the same category you all like to put Ken Starr in.
[right][snapback]133980[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133980[/snapback][/right]
Point is you will apologize and justify ANY behavior from that evangelical crook.
Earle was honest enough when he was prosecuting Democrats.
QUOTE(Bee @ Oct 6 2005, 06:53 AM)
Earle was honest enough when he was prosecuting Democrats.
[right][snapback]133999[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133999[/snapback][/right]
It is fargin ridiculous.
DeLay is as crooked as they come. I hope the Feds indict him, too. I doubt that they'll be this same nonsense about Gonzales.
DeLay is as crooked as they come. I hope the Feds indict him, too. I doubt that they'll be this same nonsense about Gonzales.
QUOTE(Bee @ Oct 6 2005, 06:53 AM)
Earle was honest enough when he was prosecuting Democrats.
[right][snapback]133999[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133999[/snapback][/right]
Never heard of Earle till lately. Did you?
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Oct 6 2005, 07:01 AM)
Never heard of Earle till lately. Did you?
[right][snapback]134003[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]134003[/snapback][/right]
That's what records are for. 12 Democrats, 3 Republicans. He must be biased against Republicans ... according to the new Bush-logic.
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Oct 6 2005, 03:36 AM)
DeLay is a rightwinger, therefore artie defends him.
Hell, artie joined DeLay in trashing the Shaivo husband too, would you expect anything different now that the scumbag has been indicted?
[right][snapback]133995[/snapback][/right]
Hell, artie joined DeLay in trashing the Shaivo husband too, would you expect anything different now that the scumbag has been indicted?
[right][snapback]133995[/snapback][/right]
It never fucking occurs to you that people take the positions they take because they see things the way they do. Everybody on the other side is playing team ball to you.
Jackass
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Oct 5 2005, 11:57 PM)
I take it you think DeLay is innocent, then, right?
[right][snapback]133978[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133978[/snapback][/right]
How do I know? That's the point. There are mountains of laws, workarounds, political considerations, biased courts, and various legal minutiae involved. Yet the left is certainly ready to pronounce guilt even when the prosecutor is having a tough time getting an indictment, which as you know requires a fairly low standard of evidence. (found conveniently on the last weekend of the grand jury)
Put it this way, I'm a lot more open to the possibility he's guilty than most of the lefties are to the possibility he's innocent.
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Oct 6 2005, 04:36 AM)
DeLay is a rightwinger, therefore artie defends him.
[right][snapback]133995[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]133995[/snapback][/right]
And therefore you attack him? I notice you make the effort to be fair and criticize Democrats once in a great while, but in general you have your side and stick to it. What do you expect from everyone else?
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 6 2005, 11:03 AM)
How do I know? That's the point. There are mountains of laws, workarounds, political considerations, biased courts, and various legal minutiae involved. Yet the left is certainly ready to pronounce guilt even when the prosecutor is having a tough time getting an indictment, which as you know requires a fairly low standard of evidence. (found conveniently on the last weekend of the grand jury)
Put it this way, I'm a lot more open to the possibility he's guilty than most of the lefties are to the possibility he's innocent.
[right][snapback]134148[/snapback][/right]
Put it this way, I'm a lot more open to the possibility he's guilty than most of the lefties are to the possibility he's innocent.
[right][snapback]134148[/snapback][/right]
Oh, I'm open to the possibility that he's technically guilty. I'm NOT open to the possibility that his conduct was morally or ethically acceptable.
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 6 2005, 11:28 AM)
Oh, I'm open to the possibility that he's technically guilty. I'm NOT open to the possibility that his conduct was morally or ethically acceptable.
[right][snapback]134183[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]134183[/snapback][/right]
I've read your posts for a long time and don't recall you writing about morals or ethics in any large part. Why now?
As to technically guilty I figured your assumption was it really didn't matter. It was about ruining his reputation rather than winning in court anyway. I'm sure Earle will be fine with it even if DeLay wins in court.
PS: I hope your herbal treatments are helping.
I've often tried to start discussions about there being more to morality than sex, without stirring any interest.
wont get anywhere with that with all these super "free market" capitalists.
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 6 2005, 12:20 PM)
I've often tried to start discussions about there being more to morality than sex, without stirring any interest.
[right][snapback]134218[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]134218[/snapback][/right]
Maybe because a lot of people agree. I note there is a lot more interest in disagreement on discussion boards.
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 6 2005, 02:20 PM)
I've often tried to start discussions about there being more to morality than sex, without stirring any interest.
[right][snapback]134218[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]134218[/snapback][/right]
We already know all about that. But the dems still contend it's all about sex, so why bother?
QUOTE(beasty @ Oct 6 2005, 12:23 PM)
Maybe because a lot of people agree. I note there is a lot more interest in disagreement on discussion boards.
[right][snapback]134221[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]134221[/snapback][/right]
Saying that it's all about sex is how Dems cut off discussion of anything else. They paint Reps as sex obsessed (maybe some truth to that) so they can dismiss them.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Oct 6 2005, 01:33 PM)
PS: I hope your herbal treatments are helping.[right][snapback]134184[/snapback][/right]
These guys may be able to help.
http://www.healthebodyessence.com/
QUOTE(beasty @ Oct 6 2005, 02:23 PM)
Maybe because a lot of people agree. I note there is a lot more interest in disagreement on discussion boards.[right][snapback]134221[/snapback][/right]
Which is also why threads on jury nullification usually go nowhere, anywhere. No matter most peoples' political bent, most all seem to believe that it's the jury's job to judge both the facts of the case and the law(s) in question.
QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Oct 6 2005, 12:32 PM)
These guys may be able to help.
http://www.healthebodyessence.com/
[right][snapback]134232[/snapback][/right]
http://www.healthebodyessence.com/
[right][snapback]134232[/snapback][/right]
I've heard some stuff on PH balance on the radio. Not sure if it's the same. At any rate Judy's herbal suppliment is more munchy related, if you get my drift.
For many, alkalizing is extremely helpful in healing, not just treating symptoms.
QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Oct 6 2005, 12:35 PM)
Which is also why threads on jury nullification usually go nowhere, anywhere. No matter most peoples' political bent, most all seem to believe that it's the jury's job to judge both the facts of the case and the law(s) in question.
[right][snapback]134236[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]134236[/snapback][/right]
I agree. Give the jury all the facts and let them decide.
QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Oct 6 2005, 01:35 PM)
Which is also why threads on jury nullification usually go nowhere, anywhere. No matter most peoples' political bent, most all seem to believe that it's the jury's job to judge both the facts of the case and the law(s) in question.
[right][snapback]134236[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]134236[/snapback][/right]
I doubt you're gonna get any jury nullification on laws against corporate contributions to political candidates. Likely a not guilty for DeLay because of slim evidence.
So, how about you guys comment some on the morality and ethics of the means the GOP leadership has been using--the long vote, the K Street Project, Abramoff's hijinks, this campaign finance mess? Do you consider this moral, ethical, or both?
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 6 2005, 12:46 PM)
I doubt you're gonna get any jury nullification on laws against corporate contributions to political candidates. Likely a not guilty for DeLay because of slim evidence.
[right][snapback]134246[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]134246[/snapback][/right]
How do you think Clinton finished his term?
QUOTE
So, how about you guys comment some on the morality and ethics of the means the GOP leadership has been using--the long vote, the K Street Project, Abramoff's hijinks, this campaign finance mess? Do you consider this moral, ethical, or both?
How about you all simultaneously comment on the Dem's scandals, including Earle's "slim evidence" vendetta that he announced long ago in a political arena?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.