1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Republicans move to protect DeLay

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by The Galatian, Nov 18, 2004.

  1. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    But Larry, DeLay has already been reprimanded by the House for his lack of ethics. He lost.

    Are you conceding that he's wrong to ask his accuser to pay his legal bills?
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    DeLay has yet to be indicted. In fact, news reports yesterday indicated he probably won't be. In addition, the guy who made the accusations was reprimanded by the same body for his lack of ethics.

    I repeat what I said above (since you apparently missed it): If DeLay is found to be not guilty of the charges, then the accuser should pay his legal fees.

    I am not sure how to make it any clearer (even though your history gives us little confidence that you are intereseted in what is actually said). This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. It is a common sense issue. If you are going to make false accusations, you should pay the bill.

    Did the House actually find that DeLay did something wrong? I think they found an "appearance" issue, but I am not sure. If the indictment happens, let it happen. I am not sure that DeLay is asking for expenses incurred in the house hearings, but I don't know.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    DeLay is to the Dems as Daschle was to the GOP. He is a lightening rod... and seems to be satisfied to accept the warrior role.

    If he is guilty then he should pay the consequences.

    However, I thought guys like Galatian and PA Jim were looking for guys who buck the system and won't kowtow. If he had been a "go-along-to-get-along" type of guy, there probably wouldn't have been any ethics or legal charges.

    I haven't heard anyone say that DeLay is not a dogmatic idealogue. In fact, it seems that his willingness to play the same kind of political hard ball that the liberals played for years to get move his positions forward is what galls the Dems the most.

    Certainly if they were "purist" concerning ethics, they wouldn't have provided cover for Clinton or Gore and the Buddhist temple.
     
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Right. DeLay is the ultimate Soviet-style apparachnik. He's not a great leader, he's a master of the small favor, carefully distributed to build loyalty within the system. That's destructive to independence.

    He's in trouble exactly because he played the "go-along-to-get-along" game. He just pushed it beyond what the law would allow.

    And here, I thought it was because he was a perjurer and a crook.

    Notice, though, that in order to get someone reprimanded, convicted, etc, you have to have more than allegations. You need evidence. Hence, DeLay's problems. Clinton's problems come down to his zipper. DeLay's are much more serious and much more damaging to America.
     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Doesn't matter. The guy DeLay is whining about, filed an ethics complaint. The House ethics committee agreed and reprimaned DeLay. DeLay lost. Since he's guilty, do you think his accuser should pay his legal bills?

    No, that's wrong. He was not reprimanded, although the committee criticized him.

    So, since the House ethics committed found DeLay to be guilty of violating the rules, and reprimanded him, we will conclude you think he shouldn't have to do it.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't matter.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course not ... In Galatian's new America, you don't have to indict anymore. Just make accusations and pretend like they are true.

    [qutoe] Since he's guilty, do you think his accuser should pay his legal bills?[/quote]Asked and answered. Go back and read it.

    WASHINGTON -- A Texas congressman who brought a successful ethics complaint against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was himself chided by the ethics panel for violating the rules in the way he brought the complaint.

    While Bell's complaint had some merit, the ethics committee said in a letter to him late Thursday it violated a House rule because it contained "innuendo, speculative assertions and conclusory statements."

    "This is a serious matter," Committee Chairman Joel Hefley, a Colorado Republican, and Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, the panel's top Democrat, wrote. They warned all members against filing such complaints.

    web page


    I stand by what I have already said. Read it ... You would help yourself our a lot by reading what people write.

    I do not know if the Ethics committee involved in legal work. I do not know if the Texas investigation stemmed from Bell's complaints. So I can't comment on that. I already answered your question. Get over it.

    *edited only in an attempt to fix page view*

    [ November 25, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Doesn't matter. The guy DeLay is whining about, filed an ethics complaint. The House ethics committee agreed and reprimaned DeLay. DeLay lost. Since he's guilty, do you think his accuser should pay his legal bills?

    And another Larryism...
    In addition, the guy who made the accusations was reprimanded by the same body for his lack of ethics.

    Barbarian observes:
    No, that's wrong. He was not reprimanded, although the committee criticized him.

    Barbarian asks:
    So, since the House ethics committed found DeLay to be guilty of violating the rules, and reprimanded him, we will conclude you think he shouldn't have to do it.

    DeLay had his chance to present his case before the ethics committee. He lost, and they reprimanded him for the (fourth?) time in recent years. You may not like it, but DeLay got due process and then some.

    Barbarian observes:
    No, that's wrong. He was not reprimanded, although the committee criticized him.

    (evidence that Bell was not reprimanded:)

    WASHINGTON -- A Texas congressman who brought a successful ethics complaint against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was himself chided by the ethics panel for violating the rules in the way he brought the complaint.

    While Bell's complaint had some merit, the ethics committee said in a letter to him late Thursday it violated a House rule because it contained "innuendo, speculative assertions and conclusory statements."

    "This is a serious matter," Committee Chairman Joel Hefley, a Colorado Republican, and Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, the panel's top Democrat, wrote. They warned all members against filing such complaints. [/b{

    Bell was not reprimanded because his conduct, while it broke House rules, was not serious enough to deserve a reprimand such as the one DeLay got.

    Barbarian observes:
    So, since the House ethics committee found DeLay to be guilty of violating the rules, and reprimanded him, we will conclude you think he shouldn't have to do it.

    You've been avoiding a yes or no answer, but since DeLay had his day before the committee and was found guilty and reprimaded, that seems to settle it.

    Might be good to learn the facts before telling us about them, um?
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist


    Notice, though, that in order to get someone reprimanded, convicted, etc, you have to have more than allegations. You need evidence. Hence, DeLay's problems. Clinton's problems come down to his zipper. DeLay's are much more serious and much more damaging to America.
    </font>[/QUOTE]And all of this in one post!

    DeLay has been accused. Not indicted. Not impeached. Not convicted. So why does your argument above not apply to DeLay? Ethics violations that ended in a brokered deal hardly rise to the level of the chief law enforcement officer lying under oath.

    Strange that you should mention perjury as if all of a sudden that mattered. Clinton's problem did not come down to his zipper... it came down to when he raised his right hand, swore to tell the truth, then lied through his teeth. Are you saying there was no proof of Clinton's perjury? Are you saying that the severity of lying under oath is relative to how political damage is inflicted?

    Of course, I think the Monica diversion de-fanged the GOP preventing them from addressing Clinton's real problems. Maybe that was the intent all along since they probably assessed (wrongly) that the political risks to them would be less than if they addressed real issues of wrong doing- ie. 500 illegally held FBI files, the for rent sign on the Lincoln bedroom, Whitewater, Rose Law, illegal campaign funds funneled from Chinese, the tragic deaths of those with inside info (say what you will, we don't have people with dirt on Bush conveniently dying left and right), the abrupt removal of all US Attorneys as one of his first acts as President... including those investigating Whitewater, etc.

    Thinking of those 500 FBI files, isn't the main complaint against DeLay that he misused Federal resources? At least he was trying to force elected officials to do their job, the Clinton's were just playing dirty politics.
     
  9. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
  10. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Reprimanded. Formally so, by the House Ethics committee. Bell filed a complaint, DeLay got his chance to defend himself, and he was found guilty and reprimanded.

    You mean "chief executive officer?" The chief law enforcement officer is the attorney general. DeLay's perjury came not in this latest case, but his falsely testifying that he was not an officer of a company in one case, and submitting a financial disclosure form in another that admitted he was.

    The irony, of course, is that DeLay was screaming that a public servant who lied under oath about anything needed to be removed immediately, at the same time he had done just that.

    He lied, at least in the intent of the law. He did a very Clintonian thing, in asking for a definition of sex, got a response that excluded what he actually did, and then denied having sex.

    Technically legal, but dishonest to the core.

    It matters for a public servant. Hence, DeLay lying about his financial status under oath is more severe than Clinton lying about his sex life under oath.

    Of course, they are both crimes, but yes, one is worse than the other. That being so, they probably both could use some time behind bars, but for technical reasons neither will. Clinton used a dodge to technically tell the truth, but in a misleading way, and the statute of limitations has run out for DeLay.

    As Starr admited, that was all he had.

    Actually, we do. For example, all those folks cited for deaths in Mena, are actually more closely connected to Daddy Bush via CIA connections and Ollie North, than to Clinton.

    There's a lot more. The "many who ended up dead" gag depends on the number of people who are connected to any president, and how many degrees of separation you allow. Do a statistical analysis of the death rate for any president, and you'll find the same thing.

    In fact, Kenneth Starr was given the freedom to hire his own as independent counsel. Did you know that Clinton (unlike Delay) waived his statute of limitations rights for Whitewater? That doesn't make him a hero in my eyes; he clearly had done nothing wrong and knew they wouldn't find anything.

    Filed a false report, or rather induced others to do so. As you know, Starr looked at the FBI file case, and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

    Ironically, Daddy Bush actually did a background check on Clinton's mama to look for dirt. Like father, like son.

    The Department of Homeland Security was bamboozled into thinking a plane carrying legislators might have crashed, to induce them to spend resources looking for the plane. Very illegal, and if the proof can be found, DeLay is in big trouble.

    As you saw in DeLay's case, that's not against the law. Lying to the Department of Homeland Security is a felony. Big difference.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man, you have serious issues reading. I already answered this several times, and you just seem to not want to hear it. It hasn't changed.

    They criticized him for breaking house rules. That is a reprimand for violating the rules. I posted the evidence. Just deal with it and get over it.

    Why wouldn't I like it? More importantly, why would I care one way or the other. If he was wrong, he should have been reprimanded. That sounds like what happened. I have no issue with that.

    Galatian, you just cited evidence that proves me right and you wrong. They said Bell was wrong. That is what I said. They said he shouldn't have done it. That, by definition, is a reprimand. Once again, you cite evidence in support of you that actually supports me. How hilarious.

    I have not avoided an answer at all. You have either avoided reading, or avoided telling the truth. Not sure which, but I have answered this every time you have asked it.

    I haven't told you about those facts. I haven't even offered an opinion on that. If DeLay needs legal representation for false charges, the accuser should pay them. Since I don't know that DeLay asked for reimbursehment for legal defense at the House ethics hearing, I can't comment on that. Unlike you, I do find the facts before I comment.

    Once again, you have shown yourself to be unethical in teh way you handle people's words. You are dead wrong to do that. I have answered your questions several times. Deal with it. Close your browser so you don't keep embarrassing yourself like this.
     
  12. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Barbarian observes:
    No, that's wrong. He was not reprimanded, although the committee criticized him.

    No. A reprimand, under House rules, is a specific punishment. An admonishment is a weaker punishment. Bell got neither of these. He was merely warned that he had not followed the rule.

    For the second time in less than a week, the panel unanimously admonished DeLay for his past actions. But the committee’s reprimand amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist, coming in the form of a letter to the 10-term congressman that scolds him for his behavior and a report that criticizes his ethical lapses.
    web page one

    web page two

    "House Republicans earlier this week changed their rules to allow DeLay, who has had four ethics rebukes in the past five years, remain as their leader if he is indicted."
    web page three

    Just one more step in the descent of the GOP into corruption. Ten years ago Newt Gingrich came to Congress with a GOP majority, promising reform. What happened, was that Gingrich himself ended up censured and fined by the House.

    DeLay is following in Newt's footsteps. But even Gingrich wasn't in the docket and found guilty four times in five years.

    [ November 25, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is obvious I was not referring to house rules but to what "reprimand" means. It is a correction. They corrected Bell for what he did. They said he was wrong. That is a reprimand.
     
  14. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ah, but Bell got informally chided for his behavior. And DeLay was found guilty and formally punished.

    Four times, in the last four years. And he thinks the guy who caught him should pay his legal expenses.

    Tell him to ask the court to appoint him an attorney. The rule is, if you lose, you pay. DeLay lost.
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said he didn't lose in the Congress Galatian. That wasn't the issues at hand here. The discussion was about an indictment. I never defended DeLay in any of this. Get over yourself.
     
  16. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    This was a tough one for me. At first I was outraged at the Republican move. Bro. JR's post, and others, was eye-opening, though, as to the political nature of the charge. I believe the standard should be that if a politician is convicted he should step down immediately. Indicted is not the same as convicted. As KenH indicated there is a difference between charges of illegal actions by Republicans and illegal actions by Republicans. That said, I'm still embarrassed for the Republicans to have changed the rule. It's an action I would have expected from Democrats, but I believe that Republicans should hold themselves to a higher standard, in this case of not changing the rules to suit one of their own.
     
  17. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's what DeLay wants Bell to pay for. The criminal complaint has not even been filed yet.

    It was for Delay. He wants Bell to pay his legal fees for filing and ethics complaint. A complaint that was held to be valid by the ethics committee.

    Since DeLay lost, and Bell's complaint was upheld, do you think Bell should have to pay DeLay's legal bills?

    BTW, FTR, the democrat party, when one of it's own was accused of unethical conduct, didn't wait for an indictment. They got rid of a democrat speaker for the mere appearance of shady dealings.

    The Republicans apparently thought that they needed a special rule to do the right thing. Small good it did. The first time it looked to be used, they got rid of it.


    The discussion was about an indictment. I never defended DeLay in any of this. Get over yourself.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Galatian, To repeat myself yet again (yes, an intentional redundancy since I have said this many times), I do not know if DeLay incurred any legal expenses for the house ethics investigation. Your word is not believable due to your consistent pattern of dishonesty.

    If someone is falsely charged, the party that makes the false charge should pay the legal bills. That is pretty clear; I don't see how you can possibly misunderstand that.
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    I guess that's the closest thing to a straight answer we can expect from Larry.

    I got it. You think DeLay should pay his own legal bills, since the complaint was upheld.

    You could have just admitted it from the start.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you had read carefully, there would have been no question. I have been consistent all the way through this discussion. You, for some reason, just missed it, or continued to make a point that you knew better about. Either way, you should have just closed your browser and kept quiet about it.

    I repeat again what I have said often? As to whether or not DeLay should pay his own legal bills, that answer hinges on what legal bills he is asking for. If he incurred expenses with relation to the House investigation, he should not be reimbursed. If he incurred expenses in relation to the Texas inquiry for which an indictment appears not to be forthcoming, the accuser should pay. That was clear from the beginning. You just didn't think very clearly about it. YOu need to work on that so you don't keep asking for the same answers over and over again.
     
Loading...