Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Magnetic Poles, Sep 28, 2005.
Could this guy be America's next high profile jailbird?
Could be. We will see.
Looks like he has been indicted and he will step down as Majority Leader, link to follow when we get it.
In your wildest dreams!
Or ... could Earle fail to prove his allegations in court and be seen for what he may actually be doing?
Actually, I understand that Earle has indicted more Democrats than Republicans.
Actually, I understand that was back when there were no Republican leaders in Texas, and the big fight was between conservative and liberal Democrats. Quick, somebody do a check and find out who these Democrats were.
I'm sure that Delay is squeaky clean and is just the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy.
Didn't say that. But, two things are certain in my mind:
1. Earle is a political hack and has been out to get Delay for political reasons for years.
2. Delay is innocent until proven guilty.
Would you give that same benefit to a Democrat?
Sure. Why wouldn't I?
I was just curious.
Why were you curious?
Because you are usually not kind to anyone who disagrees with you. Did you give the same benefit of the doubt to Bill Clinton when he went through his legal problems?
Of course I did. I debate ideas and work very hard for it not to be a personal issue. If I have failed in that, I am sorry. I don't think debating issues, however, is unkind.
The difference is, Bill Clinton was proved to be guilty of the things he was charged with. He later "admitted", sort of, lying to us all.
I think anyone should have the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty. or, unless the public evidence is just so extremely overwhelming that it would be laughable to presume innocence.
Bill Clinton had the benefit of the doubt in many areas of his "troubles" until the truth about him and Monica was learned for sure. He then lost all credibility in other areas.
From what I have seen and heard of the charges against Tom Delay, if and when it does go to court, it will be thrown out.
It took Ronnie Earle 6 times to find a gullible-enough grand jury to bring an indictment.
If that doesn't tell you something about the charges, then surely nothing will.
I guess the first 5 grand juries were just overlooking the evidence that only Earle and the 6th jury saw.
I don't know how many politicians Earle has convinced a grand jury to indict. It does bother me that it took six to indict Tom Delay. I can't say, for a fact, whether Delay is guilty or not. I hope the truth will be found by the judge and jury that hears the case. In that process the evidence will be presented, cross examined, and the allegations will have to be proven to stand. Right now, I'm suspicious of the motives Earle may have had and doubt the allegations are true. If Delay is guilty then let justice be done. If Delay is not guilty then also let justice be done. If it's the later we will see what's said by the accusers. Do you think Earle then admit he was wrong?
He might be "squeaky" clean.
Allegations are allegations regardless of political party affilation. Credibility varies according to established record, response to charges, circumstances, degree of perceived evidence, etc. Some people "seem" more likely to be guilty of allegations than others. Popular conclusions can be made in advance but, in the end, the due process must decide for certain.