Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by go2church, Sep 28, 2005.
CNN Story Link
After 5, that is five, grand juries!
Six, not five!
Let's not forget the fact that the house rules had to be "set aside", the whole messy ethics "thing" that DeLay was sent to the woodshed for and his friends already in legal hotwater, yeah...he is clean as a whistle.
Six, not five! </font>[/QUOTE]Ronnie Earl just kept trying until he found one who would go along with him.
He's got a very weak case or the first Grand Jury would have indicted. It wouldn't have taken however many it took.
He was mainly politically motivated and wanted to bring down Tom DeLay more than anything else. Even if he had to manufacture a case. He finally found the right combination to do just that.
My gut tells me you're right but I'll be watching closely to see if a conviction follows but I don't like crooks, especially the ones on my side. I hold my side to a higher standard, though for that reason I won't jump to a conclusion based on what may be a politically motivated campaign.
Not to excuse breaking of the law but...
I would say that if you have a dedicated prosecutor that spends 3 years looking into the campaign finances of every politician in Washington, 90 % of them would be indicted regardless of party. 100% is entirely possible.
Democracy in action. If the majority is doing it it's cool.
Our system of justice will, hopefully, correctly determine whether there was or was not any wrong doing by Tom DeLay.
Something to remember about the criminal justice system in Texas.
Indictments are easy to get. Any District Attorney can get almost anyone indicted for anything.
Mr Earle also had Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson indicted on more than one occasion while she was a state official. When it came time for trial on one of those cases, Earle had no evidence to present. The judge dismissed the case on the spot.
Earle knows that an indictment alone is enough to ruin a politicians reputation and possibly their career. It wouldn't surprise me if that was a factor in his zeal. He is on record as comparing DeLay to a "bully" I believe.
Apparently there's no limit to the number of times an indictment can be sought even for the same alledged offense. If a person repeats a lie enough times they'll even convince themself it's the truth. If it's a lie, which I suspect it is, then it shouldn't hold up in court before a judge and a jury if it comes to that.
Which is all the more reason that folks like DeLay should stop holding themselves up as some superior moral force within the government. As it turns out he is a weasel!
There is no doubt that there are alot of folks in Washington who are equally unethical as DeLay so when we finish with him, move on to the next one!
Somehow the message must be sent that corruption is not going to fly. Indict whomever needs it and clean the place up. Sounds polly-annish I know but the standard has to be higher then "we've never been caught" or "my buddies said it was ok"
I wonder if these DeLay "bashers" are also Bush "bashers" and Clinton "LOVERS"?
I don't know.
Let him have his day in court. If he's guilty, then I'll even call him a weasel. 'till then, we should give him the same benefit of the doubt we give all indictees.
But I don't expect him to be found guilty.
If he is another Tip O'neal, he should have to leave like O'neal did. If not, well I hate politics.
Actually the judge directed a verdict of Not Guilty so jeopardy was attached and Ms. Hutchinson could not be reindicted on the same frivolous charges. Obviously the judge was familiar with Earle.
Actually, I hear he refused to present his evidence during the trial, and then when the charges were dropped, he found the nearest camera and started presenting his case in front of the cameras, thereby trying her in the court of public opinion instead of a court of law. Apparently, he believes in vigilante justice and not due process.
I have not been to impressed with Delay, but I am feeling pretty confident this is a political black bag job.