DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   GOP Pushes Rule Change To Protect Indicted Leaders (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/396238-gop-pushes-rule-change-protect-indicted-leaders.html)

bfrank 11-29-04 10:15 AM

This guy is a scumbag. I am amazed anyone could defend him.

classicman2 11-29-04 10:24 AM


Originally posted by bfrank
This guy is a scumbag. I am amazed anyone could defend him.
The Travis County DA is even a bigger scumbag.

He's even more political than DeLay, and that's saying something.

Myster X 11-29-04 04:36 PM


Originally posted by bfrank
This guy is a scumbag. I am amazed anyone could defend him.
I agree if you put Boxer's name on the list. :lol:

dork 11-29-04 05:33 PM


Originally posted by classicman2
The Travis County DA is even a bigger scumbag.

He's even more political than DeLay, and that's saying something.

You keep saying that. Could you please provide some evidence? Something not originating from DeLay's office might be nice.

classicman2 11-29-04 05:43 PM

Look up the Kay B. Hutchison (now senior senator from Texas) fiasco.

You might want to check into two former Texas Land Commissioners (just happened to be Democrats) also.

dork 11-29-04 06:02 PM


With no assurance that the judge would admit the prosecution's evidence, Mr. Earle refused to open his case in court, leading to a directed acquittal. Ms. Hutchison, who won the election, has not forgotten, her spokesman, Kevin Schweers, said. ''It was a nakedly partisan attempt to win a Senate seat in the courtroom rather than the ballot box,'' Mr. Schweers said, saying it cast a cloud over Mr. Earle's actions in the current contributions inquiry.

Mr. Earle disputed the charge. ''I did at the time what I thought was right,'' he said.

Dick DeGuerin, the lawyer who represented Ms. Hutchison, called the prosecution ''just an excuse to prevent her from being elected'' and said Mr. Earle got pressure from Ms. Richards and other Democrats after Mr. DeGuerin moved to subpoena telephone logs of the governor and the Democrats to show they ran their offices the same way Ms. Hutchison did.

Mr. Earle denied any pressure from Ms. Richards to drop the case. At any rate he had also clashed with her a few years before on an ethics bill that she signed but that he called ''a new rug to sweep things under.''

Mr. Earle has been recognized as an innovator for working, sometimes with his wife, Twila, to mobilize communities to fight crime. ''Mostly, I got tired of waiting for something terrible to happen before I could do anything,'' Mr. Earle told a 2002 conference on drugs at Rice University.

Meanwhile, he racked up some other prominent prosecutions of Democrats, winning a guilty plea for misuse of office against State Treasurer Warren G. Harding in 1982; a guilty plea on financial disclosure violations from the Texas House speaker, Gib Lewis, in 1992; and various convictions against state legislators of both parties. But he lost a felony bribery case against Attorney General Jim Maddox, a Democrat, acquitted in 1985.

He took considerable heat in the 1990's for his capital murder prosecution of an 11-year-old Austin girl, LaCresha Murray, charged with killing a toddler in her care. Two convictions were successively overturned, in part over disputes about the girl's statements to the police.

The girl's supporters said she was railroaded, but Mr. Earle said the facts permitted him no other course.

Among those he successfully prosecuted was himself. As he announced in a news release on March 14, 1983: ''I have discovered that my officeholder campaign finance reports were not filed for 1981 and 1982.'' He filed them belatedly, he said, apologizing to his constituents for the misdemeanor and adding: ''I have today caused a complaint to be filed against me in this matter and this afternoon I expect to pay a fine assessed by the court.'' It came to $212, including court costs.

X 11-29-04 06:35 PM

Here's the link for dork's quote in case anyone wants it:

http://www.cleanuptexaspolitics.com/node/view/257

dork 11-29-04 06:53 PM

My link was from LexisNexis, not some weirdo blog. :mad:

classicman2 11-29-04 06:58 PM

I just heard 2 commentators say that 'the Republicans changed the rules of the House.'

FACT: The Republicans changed the rules of the Republican Conference - they didn't change the rules of the House. If they had, this might be a somewhat meaningful story.

X 11-29-04 07:06 PM


Originally posted by dork
My link was from LexisNexis, not some weirdo blog. :mad:
You're just lucky I didn't find it at Slate!

bfrank 11-29-04 07:12 PM


Originally posted by Myster X
I agree if you put Boxer's name on the list. :lol:
not really a fan but what did she do?

classicman2 11-29-04 07:17 PM


Originally posted by bfrank
not really a fan but what did she do?
She put the members of the Senate Energy Committee on the floor in paroxym of laughter that took them a full 30 minutes to recover from when Murkowski was Chairman with her 'understanding' of the energy problem faced by this country. ;)

Does that count? :)

X 11-29-04 07:19 PM


Originally posted by bfrank
not really a fan but what did she do?
She let her daughter marry Hillary's sleazeball brother. :yack:

Didn't last very long.

DarkElf 11-30-04 03:56 AM


Originally posted by classicman2
I just heard 2 commentators say that 'the Republicans changed the rules of the House.'

FACT: The Republicans changed the rules of the Republican Conference - they didn't change the rules of the House. If they had, this might be a somewhat meaningful story.

So. Thanks for clarifying this. This hasn't gotten much attention (on the media outlets I get to listen to), but it's been grossly misreported. So it's less of an issue than I thought it was.

But, it sounds like the Republicans raised the standard when the Democrats were embattled, and now that they have some ethical problems, they've re-lowered the bar.

So the party that preaches ethics and morals has retreated to "the norm" when it's clear that one of their own has violated their "standard" of ethics. Again, when push comes to shove, they've lowered the bar to where things used to be, yet they preach ethics.

Myster X 11-30-04 12:01 PM


Originally posted by bfrank
not really a fan but what did she do?
Look at how much $$$$ her son got for Indian casinos consulting work.

Venusian 01-03-05 09:25 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p/house_ethics

Venusian 01-04-05 12:50 PM

no comments?

classicman2 01-04-05 12:52 PM

none

Perhaps if you gave us a hint of what you want us to say, we could accomodate you. :)

classicman2 01-04-05 01:02 PM

Speaking of the Repub leadership in the house, apparently Speaker Hastert did not want to seek re-election in 2006. Bush talked to him (took him to the woodshed) & told him - 'we need you.'

Really George - you know the real power in the house is not Dennis Hastert, but a fellow Texan - the subject of this thread. ;)

classicman2 01-04-05 03:09 PM

Here we go again.

Once again a member of the press on CNN (Ms. Kiely) stated in an interview with the CNN moderator that the Republicans attempted to change the rules of the House in regards to Tom DeLay.

Ms. Kiely covers the house for USA Today. I know she knows better. I'm certain she can distinguish between the rules of the Republican Conference and the rules of the House. The question is - why does she say that when it's obviously untrue?

wendersfan 01-04-05 03:14 PM


Originally Posted by classicman2
Really George - you know the real power in the house is not Dennis Hastert, but a fellow Texan - the subject of this thread. ;)

Yes, but <b>you</b> know just as well as Hastert and Bush that DeLay would not be an effective Speaker because he is too divisive a figure. Hastert has said as much in various interviews. Stop being so coy, c-man. ;)

classicman2 01-04-05 03:31 PM

My apologies to Ms. Kiely.

I now know what she was talking about. She was referring to the change in the rules of the House Ethics Committee that is just now being debated.

She's correct. The Repubs are attempting to change the rules of the House. ;)

They're obviosuly attempting to protect DeLay in the Ethics Committe. It's only member in the House that is equally divided - 5 Repubs & 5 Democrats. Under the current rule, if the vote is 5-5 on a matter, it's referred to independent investigators. The Repubs, bless their hearts, are attempting to change that where no referral takes place.

VinVega 01-04-05 03:46 PM


Originally Posted by classicman2
My apologies to Ms. Kiely.

I now know what she was talking about. She was referring to the change in the rules of the House Ethics Committee that is just now being debated.

She's correct. The Repubs are attempting to change the rules of the House. ;)

They're obviosuly attempting to protect DeLay in the Ethics Committe. It's only member in the House that is equally divided - 5 Repubs & 5 Democrats. Under the current rule, if the vote is 5-5 on a matter, it's referred to independent investigators. The Repubs, bless their hearts, are attempting to change that where no referral takes place.

I heard their arguement on NPR. Basically, they (the Repubs) said that a person was innocent until proven guilty and the 5-5 tie triggering an investigation was a "presumption of guilt." One thing that escapes them is that the Congress is not a court of law and there are standards that they should be held to. If the rules are a bit strict, tough. It's just plain hypocracy to make rules changes like this.

classicman2 01-04-05 04:05 PM

I believe that the argument that the Repubs are making (lack of due process for the accused) has some merit. But, under this rule that is being debated - it's guaranteed that either side can stall any ethics investigation, not matter what the accused has done.

BTW: I believe the committee chairman, Mr. Helfin (R/CO) actually opposes the change, but his arm is being twisted by the Repub leadership.

As a matter of fact, it seems that the powerful Chairman of the House Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier (D/CA) opposes the rule change.

Venusian 01-04-05 04:30 PM

How is the chair of a committe a D?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.