Tough Times for Tommy
Tom DeLay, formerly the House Majority leader, was indicted today on charges of conspiracy to violate election laws.
Now starts the spinning. I heard Sean Hannity in the car a few minutes ago, angrily dismissing callers who called DeLay corrupt. Hannity said that he had read the indictment, and that it was baloney.
It might very well be. However, keep this information in mind when examining the case: a majority of a grand jury found that there was sufficient evidence for an indictment.
posted by Jack @ 4:04 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
great move turning on sean hannity the day delay was indicted. i wish i had been so wise. The only thing that bothers me is that a poll on cnn.com shows that 81% of its readers believe delay should resign from his congressional seat. This is despite the fact that this matter has yet to go to trial. This is despite the fact that every ethics charge against tom delay to this point has been found to be without merit. All citizens should be given the benefit of the doubt when accused of a crime. How much more benefit of a doubt should Tom Delay get in light of his being subject to baseless partisan ethical complaints in the past?
----- Julian
the grand jury that indicted him might disagree with your claim that the charges are baseless.
- Jersey Perspective
there's nothing to disagree about. the bipartisan house ethics committee themselves admonished Chris Bell for making a complaint containing "innuendo, speculative assertions or conclusory statements" read it for yourself http://www.house.gov/ethics/Press_Statement_DeLay_Bell.htm
---- Julian
Julian, you say that the charge has no merit, but you don't have any source for any of that beyond unrelated matters.
Do you in fact have any source for saying that the charge is without merit?
Here is where you can find a copy of the indictment: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/delay/delay92805ind.pdf
I don't see how you can refute the indictment coming from a Texas grand jury unless you are a Texas lawyer familiar with the facts, but you might be that for all I know, so have at it. Looking forward to your response.
Gotta reiterate Aidan's point when I say that the censorship of Bell's remarks is completely irrelevent.
Also, a bi-partisan committee doesn't mean one that is run with a bi-partisan consensus. It, like every other committee in Congress, has a Republican majority, a Republican chairman, and forms its decisions based on Republican policy. Sure, it called DeLay a few bad names last year, but it never pursued a real investigation. If Congress was Democratic, DeLay would be toast.
- Jersey Perspective
these new charges may very well have merit. the only point i am making is that in the past, delay has been subject to partisan ethical complaints wrought with innuendo and exaggeration.
because of these past allegations, i can't help but be suspicious of these new claims of ethics violations. this is the unfortunate price for crying wolf.
----- Julian
Bingo. Julian has it right. Allegations have been levied against DeLay for over 10 years and these are the only ones that have actually resulted in an indictment (which some suggest has little merit). We will see what happens.
If it were a Democratic Congress, the Dems would show NO interest in DeLay because DeLay wouldn't be in a position of influence and wouldn't be an effective symbol/target as a "corrupt, evil Republican".
If he has broken the law, he should be prosecuted. But, past history shows this is partisan politics as usual, not a quest for truth or justice, just political muckraking.
Of course they'd show interest in DeLay. You think the Republicans would simply shrug at the opportunity of putting Nancy Pelosi behind bars if they could? Discrediting the opposition before it can gain power is what politics is all about. It's what keeps congressmen in their seats for decades, and it's what keeps the political landscape in this country stale.
- Jersey Perspective
OK,
This ought to bring this discussion to rest. Delay, had the opportunity to appear in front of the grand jury to clear his name.
He didn't.
He chose instead to let them carry on, and well, now he got served with papers so he will have to go and put his hand on that bible he holds so dear.
Will he lie? or incriminate himself?
Fact is, he had ample opportunity to clear himself or at least tell his side of the story to the grand jury. This may not be an admission of guilt. But it certainly smells of guilt.
Perhaps he is waiting for the OJ/chewbacka defense to save him.
Too bad Johnnie Cochran is dead.
That was a good Southpark episode. Thanks for the analogy.
- Jersey Perspective
Post a Comment
<< Home