Join 3,517 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Discuss!
September 28, 2005 10:32 AM   Subscribe

O DeLay [newsfilter]
posted by furtive (240 comments total)

 
This brings me great joy, although it doesn't really mean anything yet. Cue the cries of partisanship, Democrats do it too, and other red herrings.
posted by rzklkng at 10:35 AM on September 28, 2005


GreatNewsFilter!!
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:36 AM on September 28, 2005


Awesome.
posted by Rothko at 10:36 AM on September 28, 2005


Good news indeed.
posted by OmieWise at 10:37 AM on September 28, 2005


I for one applaud the [newsfilter] addition. I don't really give much of a toss about the subject but that in-post tag is a good idea.
posted by peacay at 10:38 AM on September 28, 2005


Wait - you mean the arrogant powermongers of the New World Order can actually be CHARGED for their crimes?

Why haven't we been doing this all along?
posted by ToasT at 10:39 AM on September 28, 2005


"An indictment does not force DeLay to resign as a member of Congress, but the GOP's rules demand that he resign his post as majority leader as he fights the charges." ...

"DeLay...steps down. He could get up to two years if convicted."

[Austin American-Statesman | September 28, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:42 AM on September 28, 2005


It looks like David Dreier will replace DeLay as House Majority Leader. Dreier was previously discussed on MeFi here.
posted by the_bone at 10:43 AM on September 28, 2005


Congressional sources say House Speaker Dennis Hastert will recommend Congressman David Dreier of California take over DeLay's duties. [Associated Press | September 28, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:44 AM on September 28, 2005


I hope he likes one slice bologna sandwhiches and little cartons of orange drink... Here's hoping.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:44 AM on September 28, 2005


I hope the only further DeLay (rofl) in this conviction and sentencing process is that short span of time between the gavel pounding and our Hero realizing, "Gosh, I'm fucked."
posted by wakko at 10:44 AM on September 28, 2005


What the-bone said!
posted by ericb at 10:44 AM on September 28, 2005


Also, this is my third-favorite Beck album.
posted by wakko at 10:45 AM on September 28, 2005


"RAW STORY revealed Dreier was gay and lived with his chief of staff last year. LA Weekly then outed him, and he promptly disappeared from the television news show circuit."

I wonder how the religious right is feeling just about now?
posted by ericb at 10:47 AM on September 28, 2005


Congressional sources say House Speaker Dennis Hastert will recommend Congressman David Dreier of California take over DeLay's duties.

So they're replacing DeLay with DeGay? Hey-oh! Watch out now!

Anyway, good riddance to the Bug Man. He will be missed. Mostly, I presume, by those who paid large sums of money for his influence.
posted by billysumday at 10:47 AM on September 28, 2005


I do sure love me a Xmas in September. Bye bye, you son of a bitch. :)
posted by ed at 10:47 AM on September 28, 2005


You telling me that a good ole God fearing Southern Baptist Republican from Sugarland Texas would commit a crime? Naaa!!! Must be a damn liberal media conspiracy, just like what forced Brownie to step down from the FEMA chair.
posted by nofundy at 10:47 AM on September 28, 2005


Raw Story is reporting David Drier --- who is in line to take over as majority leader -- is gay. This'll be interesting.
posted by alms at 10:48 AM on September 28, 2005


Problem is Dreier's hypocritical standing in a long career of anti-gay stances.
posted by ericb at 10:48 AM on September 28, 2005


As a Texan, I can say that I don't give two shits about this unless the redistricting can be repealed as a result.
posted by melt away at 10:49 AM on September 28, 2005


melt away, are all Texan politicians untrustworthy or just most?
posted by stbalbach at 10:52 AM on September 28, 2005


The speculation is that Dreier is getting the job because he doesn't have enough support to hold onto it, making it easier for DeLay to reclaim it if and when he's cleared.
posted by anapestic at 10:52 AM on September 28, 2005


Let's get this party started!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:52 AM on September 28, 2005


Indictments are notoriously easy to get, especially if one limits the indictment to a very small and specific act. Ronnie Earle knows this, and he knows that he can get lots of press just by pursuing these "show" indictments.

In 1994, Earle got an indictment against Kay Bailey Hutchinson. It fell apart before it could be tried and was withdrawn because the judge questioned the evidence.

In 1985, Earle tried to indict and prosecute Lt. Gov. Jim Maddox. That failed.

A couple of years ago, he floated the idea of trying to indict the president, but quickly learned that it would be a bad career move.

Now he has an indictment for conspiracy against Delay: a notoriously easy criminal charge to beat because the elements are so specific regarding intent. The necessary quantum of proof to get an indictment is vastly different than establishing the burden of proof at trial.

Tom Delay may very well be a scumbag, but this indictment will not hold (which is why DeLay is only stepping aside temporarily---he knows it will fail at trial). It is just another witchhunt for Earle offered as a way for Earle to advance his career.

If there were campaign violations committed by Delay, then it should be submitted to the FEC.
posted by dios at 10:52 AM on September 28, 2005


Tom Delay may very well be a scumbag, but this indictment will not hold

Hmmm...you got a crystal ball there?
posted by ericb at 10:54 AM on September 28, 2005


Does anyone remember Dan Rostankowski? He was an poster boy pointing towards Democratic corruption that helped lead to the Republican takeover of the House. Is Delay the new Rostankowski?
posted by dial-tone at 10:55 AM on September 28, 2005


which is why DeLay is only stepping aside temporarily

"An indictment does not force DeLay to resign as a member of Congress, but the GOP's rules demand that he resign his post as majority leader as he fights the charges." [from above]

According to their rules he has no choice, but to step down. Whether it is temporary or permanent has yet tp be seen.
posted by ericb at 10:56 AM on September 28, 2005


HA-ha!


posted by swift at 10:57 AM on September 28, 2005


One down, one to go.

Let's not forget that Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, is in the midst of his own money scandal (he *coincidentally* sold his stock in his dad's company a mere 2 weeks before the dismal earnings report was released).

Set 'em up and knock 'em down!
posted by aieou at 10:57 AM on September 28, 2005


The speculation is that Dreier is getting the job because he doesn't have enough support to hold onto it, making it easier for DeLay to reclaim it if and when he's cleared.

Exactly. If DeLay is cleared then they don't want someone doing a "better" job then him there when he wants back in.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:58 AM on September 28, 2005


Does anyone remember Dan Rostankowski?
it's spelled Rostenkowski, but let's not count chickens before they hatch.
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:59 AM on September 28, 2005


BTW - this isn't one person bringing an indictment ... it is a "grand jury" -- comprised of U.S. citizens -- that has brought the charge against DeLay.
posted by ericb at 10:59 AM on September 28, 2005


The real tragedy is that, as is always true of our Congress, no one will learn the real lesson from this:

Don't be an asshole.

Delay got to where he was by being the nastiest person on the hill. Something like this was bound to happen. It was absolutely inevitable. Karma at work in a very practical way.

But no one will see it like that. They'll just see it as proof that they need to be even nastier than DeLay to get ahead.

Sigh.
posted by InnocentBystander at 11:01 AM on September 28, 2005


dios is right. Conspiracy is a very tough charge to make stick. I wouldn't count DeLay out too soon. However, I can barely contain my giddy excitement at seeing one of the dirtiest of the dirty at the very least indicted.
posted by caddis at 11:01 AM on September 28, 2005


Oh good lord, dios, you're not even trying.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:02 AM on September 28, 2005


Indictments are notoriously easy to get

I'm surprised, therefore, that we haven't seen them for the myriad other crimes of this abysmal administration.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:02 AM on September 28, 2005


We should expect Bush to pin a Medal of Honor on DeLay's chest in the coming days...
posted by vannsant at 11:03 AM on September 28, 2005


Its a good first step but I'll be alot happier when he's sitting on his ass behind bars.
posted by fenriq at 11:03 AM on September 28, 2005


dios is a lawyer, so I'm sure he knows what a grand jury is. Surely you remember the old adage about grand juries and ham sandwiches?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:03 AM on September 28, 2005


From XQUZYPHYR link: "Earle has, in fact, prosecuted more Democratic politicians than Republican politicians."
posted by ericb at 11:03 AM on September 28, 2005


ericb writes "BTW - this isn't one person bringing an indictment ... it is a 'grand jury' -- comprised of U.S. citizens -- that has brought the charge against DeLay."

ericb, while I share some of your hope here, I think you're letting it get in the way of reading dios's comment. dios is a lawyer and it's very clear when he writes, "[i]ndictments are notoriously easy to get," that he understands from whence the indictment comes. Also, your snarky comment about the crystal ball is only that, snarky. dios provided several examples that indicate why we might not want to crack the corks just yet.
posted by OmieWise at 11:04 AM on September 28, 2005


ericb, which is why I included the term "temporarily." He would have likely stepped down completely if the charges had merit. He temporarily stepped aside as he knows that the indictment will be tossed, and fairly quickly.

As far as whether I have a crystal ball, lets just say that I read the indictment, know the law, and it is pretty obvious that this a flimsy piece of garbage. I don't need a crystal ball to state an opinion.

As far as your grand jury comment, that is a fairly silly attempt at populism. Grand juries are notoriously easy to convince as they do whatever the prosecutor asks (there is no defense presented). The quantum of proof necessary to get an indictment is laughable, which is why grand juries are abolished in most places. Look at the percentages of indictments that grand juries grant true bills---its like 90%.
posted by dios at 11:05 AM on September 28, 2005


I a'int cracking any corks yet. I think it is beyond any of us to be able to prematurely predict what the outcome of this indictment is -- whether we are lawyers or not.
posted by ericb at 11:06 AM on September 28, 2005


From what I've read, dios seems largely correct in his assumption that this charge may very well be too flimsy to prosecute. However, there seems to something concretely nefarious about the intersection of DeLay, Abramoff, Reed, and that lot. IANAL, but could this indictment somehow become intertwined with the investigation into Abramoff's Indian casino dealings?

Can we at least prosecute them for being slimy, awful human beings? It's like they watched a movie with evil politicians in it and decided to act just like that.

Also, XQUZYPHYR: I believe that the charge against Earle is not necessarily that he's partisan, but that he's out to make a name for himself by prosecuting the biggest names he can, Republican or Democrat. If he's trying to make a name for himself by prosecuting criminal politicians, then I'm all for it.
posted by billysumday at 11:06 AM on September 28, 2005


*of this indictment will be*
posted by ericb at 11:06 AM on September 28, 2005


The Dreier fall-guy thing is an interesting theory, but I have two questions:

* Is there harder evidence of Dreier's gayness than the LA Weekly provided, which seems to be a lot of circumstantial stuff mostly backed up by his opponent in a previous race?

* If Dreier is "provably" gay, wouldn't his ascendancy to the post fall apart before DeLay gets cleared, assuming he does?

These aren't rhetorical. I've read most of the links, but would appreciate if people could point me to answers on these.
posted by soyjoy at 11:07 AM on September 28, 2005


DeLay has accused Earle of "trying to criminalize politics and using the criminal code to insert himself into politics,"


From XQUZYPHYR's link. If there is a God delay will now be struck by twelve bolts of lightning.

Dios does have a point about conspiracy charges being easy to slip, but other stuff can come out during the grand jury no?


On the whole partisanship thing, does that mean that only republicans can indict other republicans? Cause I might switch parties and go rob a bank.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:08 AM on September 28, 2005


For those who missed it, I didn't say that this was a partisan move. I said he went after big fishes in order to advance his own career. He went after Maddox (a Democratic Lt. Gov.) and failed. He went after Hutchinson (a Republican) and now DeLay. He did consider going after George Bush, as well. Which means, with the exception of Ann Richards (a Democrat whom I have no knowledge of whether he went after), Earle has gone after every important Texas politician in the last two decades.

This is a career move; not necessarily a partisan move.
posted by dios at 11:13 AM on September 28, 2005


could this indictment somehow become intertwined with the investigation into Abramoff's Indian casino dealings

Well, there does seem to be a lot coming to light about the intersection of the characters involved with Abramoff. Newsweek's article: 'A Washington Sand Trap -- A golf outing trips up a widening circle of power brokers ' is an interesting read.
posted by ericb at 11:15 AM on September 28, 2005


Wikipedia: "Among bipartisan polls of congressional aid staff, Dreier is consistently ranked as the best dressed member of the House of Representatives."
posted by iviken at 11:16 AM on September 28, 2005


Remember that Daily Show segment when there was a mention of Tom Delay standing in the middle of a crowd of convicts?

Apparently it was prophetic after all...
posted by clevershark at 11:18 AM on September 28, 2005


"BEST DRESSED 1. David Dreier (R-CA) -- A landslide. Dreier’s natty attire helped him win favor with Bo Derek." [from the Wikipedia article's link]
posted by ericb at 11:19 AM on September 28, 2005


Can we at least prosecute them for being slimy, awful human beings?

Ooo Oooo, can we throw in Santorum as well?!!!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:23 AM on September 28, 2005


DELAY - ROVE - FRIST - BROWNIE ... look at the dirty self-righteous bastards fall - lets hope they take the frat boy with them.
posted by specialk420 at 11:23 AM on September 28, 2005


The fact Earle waited until the last day of the grand jury's term may indicate the case may not be as strong as we'd all like.

Ronnie has been the DA in my county forever. Those damn librul bastards in Austin seem to like him -- even if he does do showboat indictments against politicians.
posted by birdherder at 11:25 AM on September 28, 2005


I'm not entirely sure that making jokes about how a gay Republican was named "best dressed" (and, as such, is somehow proved to be more gay) is making Democrats look great here.

Honestly, we get on Republicans for their anti-gay agenda, but then when DeLay's replacement is named, we make fun of him because he's gay? I understand that he has anti-gay stances and won't be popular with the religious right, but jokes about his wardrobe are not raising the level of public discourse in the least.
posted by trey at 11:26 AM on September 28, 2005


Funny how the rule suddenly changes to "You don't have to step down if you think the charges are bogus."

Sorry, the rule is "If you are indicited, you must step down from any leadership position."

It was put there specifically because Dan Rostenkowski refused to give up his position when indicted. Of course, IOKIYAR.

As to bogus charges? Everyone's surprised that they got Delay, but nobody's surprised why. What people are forgetting is that Earle has already flipped a bunch of people on this. Translation: He had them nailed, and traded prosecution for tesitimony.

As to the "partisan" Earle: he's previously prosecuted four elected Republicans and 12 Democrats for corruption or election law violations, only two failing -- one because the admissibility of the evidence was questioned (if admitted, Hutchison would still be in jail) and one full acquittal. That crazy liberal rag known as The Houston Chronicle noted "The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts."

As to Delay calling him names -- "Being called vindictive and partisan by Tom DeLay is like being called ugly by a frog."

Remember, kids: DeLay did everything he could to change the rule that requires him to step down.

So, one majority leader indicted, the other majority leader under SEC investigation for stock fraud. Yep, that's that responsible goverment the GOP promised us. IOKIYAR.

The rethugs are panicking because it's changing the frame, which is why they're so busy screaming things to distract people. It's got to annoy them -- they're trying to steal the country blind, why do these stories keep popping up.
posted by eriko at 11:27 AM on September 28, 2005


but jokes about his wardrobe are not raising the level of public discourse in the least.

The what of the what now? Public discourse is dead. Roger Ailes shot it, Karl Rove buried it, and Bob Novak takes daily squats on its grave.

Seriously, though, what I read out of all this is cynicism - Dreier is a (possibly) homosexual anti-homosexual, which either indicates extreme self-loathing at best or rank hypocrisy (granted, a hallmark of Democrats and Republicans alike) at worst. The only possible reasons to elevate such a weak representative would be to A) ensure DeLay (or his appointed successor) gets hit place back after this is resolved, whatever the outcome or B) elevate the national profile of a possibly troublesome representative so they can plausibly back someone else in the '06 Republican primary after the righteous religious outrage.
posted by Vetinari at 11:34 AM on September 28, 2005


eriko - informative post. Thanks. From the Houston Chronicle article to which you linked:
"The grand jury will continue its work, abiding by the rule of law. That law requires a grand jury of citizens, not the prosecutor, to determine whether probable cause exists to hold an accused person to answer for the accusation against him or her."
As said before, a jury of 6 or 12 citizens made the determination to bring an indictment.
posted by ericb at 11:36 AM on September 28, 2005


The only possible reasons to elevate such a weak representative would be to A) ensure DeLay (or his appointed successor) gets hit place back after this is resolved, whatever the outcome or B) elevate the national profile of a possibly troublesome representative so they can plausibly back someone else in the '06 Republican primary after the righteous religious outrage.

How about merit? Could it be that he deserved it? (I guess not because you have already deemed, ipse dixit, that he is "weak.").

As said before, a jury of 6 or 12 citizens made the determination to bring an indictment.
posted by ericb at 11:36 AM PST on September 28


eric, you are deliberately ignoring the wide spread criticism that grand juries are worthless. Your pseudo-populism "the people have spoken" position ignores the fact that the prosecutor chooses whether to submit a case to the grand jury and that grand juries almost always issue true bills. Most states and Britain have abolished the ridiculous use of grand juries because they acknowledge that they are little more than a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. So you might want to cool it on the grandstanding. Earle has done this before on mulitple occasions, and he has failed.
posted by dios at 11:45 AM on September 28, 2005


So you might want to cool it on the grandstanding.

No grandstanding here...just looking at the situation from one point-of-view.
posted by ericb at 11:49 AM on September 28, 2005


yer doin' a heck of a job , tommy !
posted by mishaco at 11:50 AM on September 28, 2005


is this really gonna make any difference?.
posted by johnj at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2005


Earle has done this before on mulitple occasions, and he has failed.

Out of curiosity -- how many times has he failed? Is eriko wrong with his statement: "...he's previously prosecuted four elected Republicans and 12 Democrats for corruption or election law violations, only two failing -- one because the admissibility of the evidence was questioned (if admitted, Hutchison would still be in jail) and one full acquittal."

If so, help us to better understand Earle's record by citing sources.
posted by ericb at 11:54 AM on September 28, 2005


MeTa, just to be thorough...
posted by mkultra at 11:54 AM on September 28, 2005


Could it be that he deserved it?

Whether he deserves it in any universal sense or not is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the Republican party leadership thinks appointing him meets their goals. In light of the fact that Republican appointments within the party seem largely to be awarded on the basis of rigid loyalty to the party's ideological line and acceptability to the party's various special interest groups (esp. millenial-dispensationalist, fundamentalist evangelical Protestants), assuming that Dreier was chosen because he's the second-best choice to DeLay by those metrics requires some suspension of disbelief. I'm calling Dreier weak because the Republican leadership is treating him as such.

ipse dixit

You mean, like "the wide spread criticism that grand juries are worthless"? Just sayin'.
posted by Vetinari at 12:00 PM on September 28, 2005


Honestly, we get on Republicans for their anti-gay agenda, but then when DeLay's replacement is named, we make fun of him because he's A HUGE FUCKING HYPOCRITE?

I fixed that for you.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:02 PM on September 28, 2005


"During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts." [Houston Chronicle | March 17, 2003]

"Earle says local prosecution is fundamental and points out that 11 of the 15 politicians he has prosecuted over the years were Democrats." [El Paso Times | March 06, 2004]
posted by ericb at 12:08 PM on September 28, 2005


As the cries of partisan witchhunt start to fly, remember that Ronnie Earle has prosecuted 15 elected officials, of which "12 were Democrats; three were Republican".
posted by sophist at 12:13 PM on September 28, 2005


You mean, like "the wide spread criticism that grand juries are worthless"? Just sayin'.
posted by Vetinari at 12:00 PM PST on September 28


Except that isn't ipse dixit. I provided evidence: most states and Britain got rid of them because they are worthless. Do even cursory research on them.

You calling Dreier weak is plainly your subjective opinion, and it seems to be contradicted by the fact that he was, in fact, made the Majority leader by his party.

HUGE FUCKING HYPOCRITE?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:02 PM PST on September 28


How is a hypocrite? A hypocrite is one who says something that they do not believe to be true. It is entirely possible that Dreier could believe that homosexuality or gay marriage is wrong and say that. If he says it, then he isn't a hypocrite. If he is gay, that doesn't change the question of whether he is saying what he believes. Why can't he oppose gay marriage and still be homosexual without being a hypocrite? Unless you have evidence that he doesn't believe what he is saying, than your hypocrisy charge has no evidence. Instead, what you are arguing is that as a gay man, he has to think like what you think. Because he doesn't, he is a hypocrite. Such rhetoric says more about you than him.

Earle says local prosecution is fundamental and points out that 11 of the 15 politicians he has prosecuted over the years were Democrats." [El Paso Times | March 06, 2004]
posted by ericb at 12:08 PM PST on September 28


That's completely irrelevant when the charge is that he does this for his own personal career gain.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the allegation that he does this for partisan reasons and the allegation that he has gone after the biggest name in Texas politics for his own personal gain (both career-wise and publicity).
posted by dios at 12:18 PM on September 28, 2005


He's been prosecuting these types of cases for 25 years, winning the vast majority of them. To think he's doing this for his own "personal gain" is desperate spin.
posted by gwint at 12:21 PM on September 28, 2005


(Earle has) previously prosecuted four elected Republicans and 12 Democrats for corruption or election law violations, only two failing

I like those odds!

Earle in his own words, quoted by the Houston Chronicle (linked by ericb above) about an earlier investigation:
"This is not about Democrats and Republicans. It is about cops and robbers. This is an investigation of a crime."

If DeLay gets convicted, how 'bout a little creative sentencing? Like, say, a two-year tour of duty in Iraq?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:21 PM on September 28, 2005


Earle has done this before on mulitple occasions, and he has failed.

dios -- from what I am learning from other posts and articles online is that Earle has had a very successful career of indicting corrupt politicians -- with only two instances of losing his cases. Is there something I'm missing.
posted by ericb at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2005


what gwint said!
posted by ericb at 12:25 PM on September 28, 2005


dios, we now know how you feel about Earle... how do you feel about DeLay? You said "Tom Delay may very well be a scumbag..." Which seems to imply that DeLay may not be a scumbag. What's your personal opinion?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:26 PM on September 28, 2005


ericb, remember: dios is a lawyer. His statement is misleading, but factually correct. "Babe Ruth has been up to bat on multiple occasions, and he has struck out."
posted by gwint at 12:26 PM on September 28, 2005


"'Tom DeLay was rebuked on three separate matters by the House Ethics Committee in the last Congress, an extraordinary slap at the leader,' says [Norm] Ornstein [, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute]. 'But they left open pending a fourth issue, which was the Ronnie Earle case in Texas. So what did the House Republicans do? They fire the chairman of the Ethics Committee. They removed two members.'

...'We're not talking about Mother Teresa here who gets caught for turning right on a red light in a state that doesn’t allow such a thing,' says Ornstein. 'The history of Tom DeLay in Congress is that he's pushed every envelope. It is often the case that powerful people get their comeuppance because of something that a lot of people would see as a technicality.'" [CBS News | March 6, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:29 PM on September 28, 2005


In these sort of cases, wouldn't the prosecutor make sure they have an exceptionally strong case before they would seek charges against Delay?
posted by dial-tone at 12:33 PM on September 28, 2005


Indeed, dios, he may be doing it to further his career, but with a record of 13-2, it sounds like he's doing a pretty darn good job of it. He's quite successful, really!

Grandstanding it may be, but he's convicting criminals, which is what a D.A. is supposed to do. I don't have any problem whatsoever with him going after criminal politicians, as such types wreak havoc not on a few victims here and there, but on pretty much every American. Crimes against the nation and the People.

Keep it up, Ronnie!
posted by zoogleplex at 12:37 PM on September 28, 2005


You seem unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the allegation that he does this for partisan reasons and the allegation that he has gone after the biggest name in Texas politics for his own personal gain (both career-wise and publicity).

Isn't that who should be "gone after"? The bigger the name, the more damage their corruption can do.
posted by Happy Monkey at 12:38 PM on September 28, 2005


Wow, I thought I'd come to MetaFilter but apparently its been replaced by the Cult of Responding to Dios.

Oh well, I'll check back later when diosfilter has run its course.

dial-tone, you'd think so but that would be presupposing they actually want to prosecute him, not just put on a show for the sheeple.
posted by fenriq at 12:40 PM on September 28, 2005


Here is the text of the indictment, for your reading pleasure. (PDF alert!)
posted by SisterHavana at 12:44 PM on September 28, 2005


It should be pointed out that a prominent gay Republican blogger previously outed Dreier.

As for Dreier's Chief of Staff, Brad Smith has been the chief-of-staff for U.S. Representative David Dreier since 1980. In 1998, Mr. Smith taught parliamentary procedure for IRI in Romania, and was an election observer in the 2000 Croatian elections. In late 2004, he reportedly split his time between the Congressman’s office and the Office of the Governor in Washington, presumably helping out Dino Rossi's failed campaign.

"one of the week's most-talked-about events may be a $30,000 martini and cigar night honoring Rep. David Dreier . . . The invitation came in a cigar box, and the party favors will include silver-plated martini glasses.

"It may not be politically correct, but it is very chic," said Brad Smith, Dreier's chief of staff."



Hm.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:45 PM on September 28, 2005


Goodbye Tom DeLay-
You Nazi Facist piece of shit.
posted by phredhead at 12:46 PM on September 28, 2005


Which seems to imply that DeLay may not be a scumbag. What's your personal opinion?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:26 PM PST on September 28 [!]


Well, if you are interested in my personal opinion of him, I would tell you that I don't like the guy at all. If I was in his district in Houston, I wouldn't vote for him. I wish the people in the Sugarland area would vote in someone different. Hopefully they will wake up and vote for someone else.

But my personal opinion of the guy doesn't reflect at all on my analysis of this indictment. Earle is well known down here. His grandstanding and love of press is well known. And after reading the indictment, knowing about Earle's desire to bag the big politicians, and knowing about what is necessary to prove a conspiracy charge, it seems pretty clear to me that this will be unsuccessful and was motivated by a desire to bag a trophy.

In these sort of cases, wouldn't the prosecutor make sure they have an exceptionally strong case before they would seek charges against Delay?
posted by dial-tone at 12:33 PM PST on September 28 [!]


You would hope so, but read the indictment. It has been available on-line. Even to an untrained person, one can see it is extremely flimsy. There are very specific elements of the offense of conspiracy. But reading that indictment, one doesn't see them there. Now, it is possible that the didn't present all of his evidene at the indictment phase, but surely he would have presented the key element of conspiracy: intent to commit a felony. Intent is the downfall of conspiracy allegations. He needs element that DeLay intended to commit a specific felony, not just that DeLay intended a specific action to occur.

But read the indictment. It is extremely weak, and is just further evidence at how easy it is to get a true bill from grand juries.
posted by dios at 12:48 PM on September 28, 2005


dios, what is it called when someone actively works against one's own best interests, i.e., campaigning and legislating for the withholding of rights from a minority group to which one belongs? I've always chalked that up to plain old hypocrisy, but if there's a better, more specific term, I'd love to add it to my vocabulary.

(On preview, sorry, fenriq, but I'm really curious about this one.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:55 PM on September 28, 2005


Wow, I thought I'd come to MetaFilter but apparently its been replaced by the Cult of Responding to Dios.

But fenriq, don't you think that's because dios gives the only comments/opinions worth discussing? I find his comments very informative, and in this case, no matter what side you lean. Much more that say, this:

Goodbye Tom DeLay-
You Nazi Facist piece of shit.
posted by phredhead

posted by justgary at 1:00 PM on September 28, 2005


How about merit? Could it be that he deserved it?

His grandstanding and love of press is well known.


So does being a contrarian mean that you assume that politicians who work for discrimination against a group that they may be a part of have merit, but that district attorneys who try to prosecute criminals are grandstanding?

This is the essence of your argument: we don't know why they appointed Dreier, so we should assume the best motives, and we don't know why Earle sought charges against DeLay, so we should assume the worst motives.

You like to try to sound detached and objective, but you're not. Just so you know.
posted by jlub at 1:05 PM on September 28, 2005


The case is conspiracy merely to get jurisdiction in state court. An easier charge to prove might be the underlying election law violation, but that is a Federal crime and the local Federal DA is a Republican. Strangely, he seems to have no desire to pursue the matter.
posted by caddis at 1:05 PM on September 28, 2005


How is a hypocrite? [sic] A hypocrite is one who says something that they do not believe to be true.

No, dios, that's a "liar."

A hypocrite is one who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold.

If Dreier votes as if he believes homosexuality is immoral, but has sex with men, then he's a hypocrite.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:06 PM on September 28, 2005


Goodbye Tom DeLay-
You Nazi Facist piece of shit.
posted by phredhead


To be fair, justgary, it's thisclose to being a sweet little haiku.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:08 PM on September 28, 2005


The similarities between Jesus and Tom Delay are striking.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:08 PM on September 28, 2005


what is it called when someone actively works against one's own best interests, i.e., campaigning and legislating for the withholding of rights from a minority group to which one belongs?
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:55 PM PST on September 28 [!]


I struck out the non-essential parts of the question, since it shouldn't matter one damn bit whether one is a minority or whatever.

One of the great facts about America is that when it got rid of slavery, it was an action by the slave-holding class. Every civilization has had slavery. Much of them disposed of slavery following a slave revolt or when conquered by another country. In the United States, the slave holding class stood up and said "we should not own people to do our work for us." That is actively working against one's own best interests. I hardly would call abolitionists hypocrites.

But at a less historical level, this occurs more times than not. People voting for more taxes. People voting for more criminal laws. People voting for tort reform. All of these are people choosing things with work against their own self-interests, and they aren't hypocrites.

A hypocrite is a person who says one thing and believes another. I have yet to hear an explanation why a homosexual can't rationally be opposed to gay marriage (or whatever it is Dreier is supposed to be opposed to) even if that limits his personal lifestyle.

It is entirely possible and rational that Dreier believes what he says. Moreover, to say that Dreier should be pursuing a particular agenda because he is gay shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of representative democracy. Dreier is supposed to represent the best interest of his consistuency. As such, to call him a hypocrite, one has to establish many facts. The argument seems, instead, to be "since he is gay, he has to believe X."
posted by dios at 1:09 PM on September 28, 2005


A hypocrite is a person who says one thing and believes another. I have yet to hear an explanation why a homosexual can't rationally be opposed to gay marriage (or whatever it is Dreier is supposed to be opposed to) even if that limits his personal lifestyle.

You're right, the correct term is cynic.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:10 PM on September 28, 2005


Roy Blunt and Dave Drier to share responsibility for leading the House of Representatives while DeLay deals with the indictment and resulting trial.
posted by ericb at 1:10 PM on September 28, 2005


Who cares if it's vindictive behavior based on thin evidence?

Delay is the worst sort of slimeball cock-helmet that ever shat in a Congressional stall. I won't even try to defend the merits of the case to dios or anyone else who says it's partisan. OK, it's partisan. You win. Now what? Oh yeah, the majority leader gets to take it in the ass. Any more cogent points?
posted by docpops at 1:11 PM on September 28, 2005


It has been available on-line.

For how long? The indictment itself is date stamped 12:15 PM Central time, today. That means it's all of 3 hours old at this point. What point do you find is "extremely flimsy?" I've read the indictment, it looks like a pretty standard conspiracy charge to me. Looks like a group of guys got together and formed an organization. They raised some money to give illegally to candidates. They wrote a check and that is that.

This part is where the intent to commit a felony is written out:

John Domanick Colyandro, James Walter Ellis, and Thomas Dale DeLay, the defendants herein, with the intent that a felony be committed, did enter into an agreement with one or more of each other or with a general purpose political committee known as Texans for a Republican Majority PAC that one or more of them would engage in conduct that would constitute the offense of knowingly making a political contribution in violation of XYZ...
posted by Pollomacho at 1:13 PM on September 28, 2005


If Dreier votes as if he believes homosexuality is immoral, but has sex with men, then he's a hypocrite.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:06 PM PST on September 28


But you apparently can't recognize the fault with your argument.

Assume he professes that it is immoral and the believes he is immoral, then he wouldn't be a hypocrite, correct? By definition, he wouldn't.

You suggest that because he commits an act, then he is a hypocrite. There is a fault in your logic. If he commits the act that he says is immoral, that makes him immoral, not a hypocrite.

My point stands. He can entirely believe and profess a belief in something which is contrary to your understand how he should think. You have no evidence he doesn't believe what he professes.
posted by dios at 1:16 PM on September 28, 2005


In the United States, the slave holding class stood up and said "we should not own people to do our work for us." That is actively working against one's own best interests. I hardly would call abolitionists hypocrites.

You are aware that most of the prominent abolitionists never owned slaves, right? And besides, not being a slaveowner is in one's best interest, because I fail to see how anyone that vile could have slept at night. Check out Luke 9:25, because I think you need it.

A hypocrite is a person who says one thing and believes another.

No. I already told you, that to say something that you do not believe makes you a liar. To say something and then contradict yourself through your actions makes you a hypocrite.

If he wants to stand up in front of the nation and pretend that homosexuality is immoral, and not be called a hypocrite, all he has to do is stop having sex with men and find a nice Christian girl to marry.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:16 PM on September 28, 2005


Who cares if it's vindictive behavior based on thin evidence?

Well, the judge will. What Dios is trying to explain to you is that the case is presented in such a manner that it will not hold up in court. You don't gain victory by presenting a case against someone you don't like. You gain victory by winning a case against someone you don't like.
posted by unreason at 1:16 PM on September 28, 2005


To be fair, justgary, it's thisclose to being a sweet little haiku.
posted by Optimus Chyme


O.k. That was funny, and point taken.
posted by justgary at 1:17 PM on September 28, 2005


If he commits the act that he says is immoral, that makes him immoral, not a hypocrite.

He also condemns others for the same acts he commits. That is textbook hypocrisy, and you know it. But hey, if we want to conflate liars and hypocrites, that's fine with me because you'll defend them all just the same.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:20 PM on September 28, 2005


If he wants to stand up in front of the nation and pretend that homosexuality is immoral, and not be called a hypocrite, all he has to do is stop having sex with men and find a nice Christian girl to marry.

What if he just accepts that he is personally an immoral person? As long as he's willing to paint himself in the same immoral tones, then he's not a hypocrite at all.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:20 PM on September 28, 2005


Is my understanding correct that money went from Texas to national Republican Party, then back to Delay and others in Texas, in effect "laundered" from original (illegal) donors...? This is not contested, just whether DeLay was actively in on the deal or not. SO...is somebody at national Party not also indictable...? Or I am missing something. [Do I win anything for least coherent in thread?]
posted by zoinks at 1:22 PM on September 28, 2005


It has been available on-line.

For how long?


I saw it on-line towards the end of my lunch when my associate showed it to me. I don't know when it actually went up on-line.

And Pollomacho, you have to show something more than an assertion that they acted "with the intent a felony be committed." As that is classically the most difficult element to prove, the absence of anything other than the blanket assertion is hardly "pretty standard.
posted by dios at 1:22 PM on September 28, 2005


because dios gives the only comments/opinions worth discussing

No justgary, we disagree markedly here. I see dios' comments as noise and refuse to read them. He's an inflammatory member who intentionally stirs shit. He splits hairs for his own argument and dismisses other people's replies and responses out of hand.

Worth discussing? We've discussed his comments before, he got pissy and left, now he's come back to stamp his opinions all over the site again. dios is noise, I filter him out (and not by using a killfile).

The near haiku is more honest than dios has been.
posted by fenriq at 1:26 PM on September 28, 2005


dios is right, grand juries suck. I am sure the Republicans will now fully support an independent prosecutor to investigate this matter, no matter what the cost.
posted by terrapin at 1:27 PM on September 28, 2005


I'd be happier if I thought there were any chance that these charges will stick and Tom will be wearing an orange jumpsuit for a decent stretch. The absolute worst I can see happening however, is that he steps down permanently from his position and is immediately offered a six figure consultation fee. What galls me is that nobody ever takes a fall. Call it the safety net, call it the old boy network or what have you, as long as politicians of either party abuse each and every advantage of their position and get away with it, they will continue to do so. I'd happily serve the people of my country for half what Members of Parliament are paid and would freely decline any offers of financial assistance from those who would influence my vote. If you take money for influence your job should be forfeit, it's bribery and should have a defined punishment in place.

In short - they fucking work for you. Don't accept shoddy work.

p.s. glad to see you back dios ;)
posted by longbaugh at 1:27 PM on September 28, 2005


Optimus Chyme, as much as you are chasitising me for no using the proper definition, I am surprise you go from that to adding in an additional consideration of "action." You are arguing that if your actions don't comport with your beliefs that makes a person a hypocrite. And that is just definitionally wrong. One can believe one thing, profess it, and not live up to one's own ideals.

For instance, I believe that I shouldn't respond to you because you have been so rude to me and insulted me repeatedely through e-mails. I believe that and I profess it. But here I am, responding to you. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It just means I am not capable of living up to my ideals.
posted by dios at 1:27 PM on September 28, 2005


But hey, if we want to conflate liars and hypocrites, that's fine with me because you'll defend them all just the same.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:20 PM EST on September 28 [!]


Optimus nails it once again.
posted by Rothko at 1:28 PM on September 28, 2005


Quit weaseling around the ipse dixit "non-essential parts of the question," dios, and give me a straight answer. I'll even rephrase for you: What is the proper term for someone who legislates against equal rights for all when he, himself, is a member of an oppressed minority?

(I may have answered my own question, since "traitor" springs to mind.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:29 PM on September 28, 2005


I saw it on-line towards the end of my lunch when my associate showed it to me. I don't know when it actually went up on-line.

I was more amazed that it went up than dubious.

And Pollomacho, you have to show something more than an assertion that they acted "with the intent a felony be committed.

You have to do that in the criminal complaint, what was posted is a bill of indictment. That document is basically a receipt of sorts that says that the charges are filed. If you want the details see the complaint and the findings from the discovery phase as well as any transcripts.

somebody at national Party not also indictable...?

Maybe they have been in a separate document? Maybe they aren't indictable in a State Court?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:30 PM on September 28, 2005


He may be neither a hypocrite or immoral. He is, however, a total idiot for being a current republican and gay. I'll issue a tiny bit of respect to any Republican that breaks from the party because they cannot in good conscience vote alongside a party that cares so little for basic human rights.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:32 PM on September 28, 2005


For instance, I believe that I shouldn't respond to you because you have been so rude to me and insulted me repeatedely through e-mails. I believe that and I profess it. But here I am, responding to you. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Exactly. You know why? You haven't told anyone else not to respond to me for your stated reasons; ergo, you are not a hypocrite.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:33 PM on September 28, 2005


Vetinari writes "...assuming that Dreier was chosen because he's the second-best choice to DeLay by those metrics requires some suspension of disbelief. I'm calling Dreier weak because the Republican leadership is treating him as such."

Dreier's the chair of the Rules Committee, right? That's significant power. I'm not sure why you're calling him "weak"....
posted by mr_roboto at 1:33 PM on September 28, 2005


Faint of Butt, I didn't think I weaseled around your question. I answered it directly. You are looking for a term. My point was that I am not aware of a term that would be different merely because a person is a "oppressed miniority" and issue is "equal rights." What you are asking is what do you call someone who does something that is against one's own self-interest.

My response is, I don't know that there is a term that fits. But it certainly isn't hypocrite.

A gay man being against gay marriage is no different than a rick man being for higher taxes or a potential medical patient being for tort reform. Just because something make not make sense to you doesn't make the person a hypocrite. Perhaps they are stupid. Perhaps they are self-loathing. Or perhaps they are incredibly prinicipled. Perhaps they are someone who follow Kant's categorical imperative even to their own detriment.
posted by dios at 1:34 PM on September 28, 2005


Worth discussing? We've discussed his comments before, he got pissy and left, now he's come back to stamp his opinions all over the site again. dios is noise, I filter him out (and not by using a killfile).

Well, I'm referring to his comments on the legal system, something that I'm not as familiar with as dios is.

But each to his own.
posted by justgary at 1:35 PM on September 28, 2005


Republicans dump gay leader, pick House Whip Blunt
"After earlier reporting that Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) was expected to succeed House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) as majority leader, the decision has been reversed. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (D-MO) will instead take up DeLay's post.

Sources tell RAW STORY that Dreier -- who was a shoo-in for the position -- was nixed for various reasons, in part because his sexuality would raise ire within the party ranks. He is also out of favor because he is pro-choice.

A second reason cited is that it would have meant that Doc Hastings (R-FL) would have become Rules Chairman in Dreier's place, meaning the Ethics Committee would change hands midstream. This was seen by leadership as a bad move, sources say."
posted by ericb at 1:38 PM on September 28, 2005


Dreier fucks or is fucked by men. Dreier believes such behavior is immoral. Ergo, he is a hypocrite:



QED.
posted by Rothko at 1:39 PM on September 28, 2005


Congressman regularly voted against gay rights
"The 52-year-old single congressman voted for the Marriage Protection Act in July, a measure that would have stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing gay partnerships. Dreier did not vote on the latest amendment to constitutionally ban gay marriage, and said he was against it.

Dreier, a Christian Scientist, also voted for the original Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and a measure that banned gays from adopting in Washington, D.C. He has a 92 percent favorability rating from the Christian Coalition, and was elected with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Hustler sent Dreier a letter Sept. 7 asking to interview him about the 'intersection of human sexuality, national politics and the conservative agenda.' They have not received a response.

When asked if he was heterosexual on a Sirus Radio interview Aug. 31, Rep. Dreier refused to answer.

“I’m not going to talk about that issue,” Dreier said. 'That’s really not what I’m here about.'"
posted by ericb at 1:40 PM on September 28, 2005


"After earlier reporting that Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) was expected to succeed House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) as majority leader, the decision has been reversed. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (D-MO) will instead take up DeLay's post.

Goddamn it. I really wanted to see Hannity's head explode.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:40 PM on September 28, 2005


What is the proper term for someone who legislates against equal rights for all when he, himself, is a member of an oppressed minority?

A Schlafly?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:40 PM on September 28, 2005


This is really good news. Many more are corrupt, but this bastard really had it coming.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:47 PM on September 28, 2005


Opposition to gay marriage =/= hypocrite if you are gay.

It is entirely reasonable that he could be gay, have a partner, and be opposed to gay marriage. It doesn't make a person a hypocrite.

What is going on here is plainly obvious. People are assuming that because he is a gay man, he has to be for gay marriage. Because he is not, he is being accused of hypocrisy. But there is no evidence that he is a hypocrit on the topic. I am against polygamy, and I am a man. At one point before I met my wife, I was having sex with multiple women. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.
posted by dios at 1:47 PM on September 28, 2005


A gay man being against gay marriage is no different than a rick man being for higher taxes or a potential medical patient being for tort reform. Just because something make not make sense to you doesn't make the person a hypocrite. Perhaps they are stupid. Perhaps they are self-loathing.

A rich man being in favor of higher taxes or a medical patient being for tort reform can be explained in terms of a belief that it contributes to the greater good. If one believes that gay marriage is an equal rights issue, a closer analogy than those two is a slave being against abolition. The very idea seems so repulsive, so fundamentally wrong, that it's a struggle to find the right word for it. I think "self-loathing" often hits closer to the mark than "hypocrite", especially when you consider the influences of religion and conservative thought on many gay Republicans.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:48 PM on September 28, 2005


Is my understanding correct that money went from Texas to national Republican Party, then back to Delay and others in Texas, in effect "laundered" from original (illegal) donors...?

zoinks -- I have been trying to "wrap my head" around the situation. This helped me a bit to understand what's up:
"Earle has spent almost three years investigating whether Republican groups and their business allies violated the ban on spending corporate money in connection with political campaigns. The groups helped elect a Republican majority to the state Legislature which, in turn, drew new Congressional districts that benefited Republican candidates.

Over the past year, Travis County grand jurors have indicted three DeLay associates — John Colyandro, Jim Ellis and Warren Robold — as well as eight corporate donors, the Texas Association of Business and DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority. Colyandro and Ellis were re-indicted this morning as part of the conspiracy indictment.

DeLay had appeared to escape criminal scrutiny as early as last year when Travis County prosecutors concluded they did not have the jurisdiction to pursue election code violations against him. Under the law, only DeLay's local district attorney, a Republican, had jurisdiction, and he expressed no interest in the case.

But a conspiracy charge falls under the criminal code, not the election statute that bans corporate money from being spent on a campaign. And Earle has the jurisdiction to prosecute DeLay for conspiring with others to circumvent state law.

In recent days, the broad-based investigation has focused on one particular transaction during the 2002 campaign.

In late September 2002, Colyandro, the executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority, sent a blank check to Ellis, who is DeLay's primary fundraiser in Washington.

According to the money-laundering indictment returned against those two last year, Ellis was accused of having the Republican National Committee launder $190,000 of corporate donations into noncorporate money that was sent to to seven Texas House candidates, including Austinites Jack Stick and Todd Baxter." [Austin American Statesman | September 28, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:48 PM on September 28, 2005


Austin American Statesman link.
posted by ericb at 1:49 PM on September 28, 2005


House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (D-MO) will instead take up DeLay's post.

That should be (R-MO), of course.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:49 PM on September 28, 2005


In the United States, the slave holding class stood up and said "we should not own people to do our work for us."

I'd love to see more details of your timeline, especially post-1860. In my timeline (July 20 1969, Neil Armstrong, Eagle), the slave holding class stood up and said to the invading army that had killed hundreds of thousands of their countrymen, burned their cities, houses, plantations, and fields, and laid waste to what infrastructure they'd had, "Please stop killing us ten thousand at a whack, and burning our cities and homes and plantations down, and taking our land, and wrecking our railroad tracks, and putting us in prison and prison camps, and sinking our shipping. We surrender, and we'll even let you free our slaves, because you're going to do it anyway after we're all dead and all our cities are burned down and we're all even more starving."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:49 PM on September 28, 2005


It is entirely reasonable that he could be gay, have a partner, and be opposed to gay marriage. It doesn't make a person a hypocrite.

And it is possible to be black and not be against slavery, I guess.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:50 PM on September 28, 2005


after all our soldiers are dead, rather.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:51 PM on September 28, 2005


WB, dios, it's good to have the voice of reason here at MeFi again. Whatever would we do without you?

Drier is more appropriately compared to a former slave who is pro-slavery. You can take it further and say that he is a former slave, elected to the House, who is representing the interests of his slave-owning constituents.
posted by mullingitover at 1:54 PM on September 28, 2005


dios, thank you for answering my question.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:56 PM on September 28, 2005


Persecution of Jews =/= hypocrite if you are a Jew.

You can do better than that, dios.
posted by Balisong at 1:57 PM on September 28, 2005


Opposition to gay marriage =/= hypocrite if you are gay.

Except that Dreier is opposed to gay behavior as a whole, not just gay marriage. Ergo, he is a hypocrite, because he is a gay man who sleeps with other gay men, despite his public and political opposition to the right to act on his sexual desires.
posted by Rothko at 1:58 PM on September 28, 2005


ROU, the point I was making was that the fight against slavery was by the slave-holding class. There is a good book about this, and I apologize for not recalling it off the top of my head here at work. But it is shown that the class of people who fought against slavery were people who could have availed themselves of it. That fact is unique. People who could, if they chose, own slaves fought against it. If you look at other incidences of slavery, it was frequently abolished by conquest of a country who freed the slaves or by my a revolt of the slave class.

Anyone else familiar with this book? Grr... its going to bug me.
posted by dios at 1:59 PM on September 28, 2005


Except that Dreier is opposed to gay behavior as a whole, posted by Rothko at 1:58 PM PST on September 28
Evidence?
posted by dios at 2:00 PM on September 28, 2005


But it is shown that the class of people who fought against slavery were people who could have availed themselves of it. That fact is unique.

How is that different from the abolition of slavery in Great Britain, where it was abolished by an act of Parliament (and without requiring a civil war)?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:03 PM on September 28, 2005


Evidence? Like his 24-year record of voting against anything even remotely connected to improving the lot of gay men and women, gay marriage notwithstanding (and a very recent issue, I might add). Like his stonewalling on questions about his record on these issues?
posted by Rothko at 2:06 PM on September 28, 2005


FWIW, kos says Dreir isn't a sure thing--Blunt may be more likely.

That said, if this was an indicment out of the blue, diosmkII would have a point. But this is the tip of the proverbial shitberg in many ways. I wouldn't bet money that Delay will do any suffering, but it sure won't look good for him. This is going to take months to work out, probably into his next campaign, and those of many Republicans he helped get elected. This is hopefully another piece of the rotten house of cards.
posted by bardic at 2:07 PM on September 28, 2005


/great FPP title BTW.
posted by bardic at 2:07 PM on September 28, 2005


Evidence? Like his 24-year record of voting against anything even remotely connected to improving the lot of gay men and women, gay marriage notwithstanding (and a very recent issue, I might add)? Like his stonewalling on questions about his record on these issues?
posted by Rothko at 2:07 PM on September 28, 2005


How is that different from the abolition of slavery in Great Britain, where it was abolished by an act of Parliament (and without requiring a civil war)?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:03 PM PST on September 28


Good point. That is my bad. The argument was about Western civilization, not specifically the United States. God, I wish I could remember the book!!!
posted by dios at 2:09 PM on September 28, 2005


Evidence? Like his 24-year record of voting against anything even remotely connected to improving the lot of gay men and women, gay marriage notwithstanding (and a very recent issue, I might add)? Like his stonewalling on questions about his record on these issues?
posted by Rothko at 2:07 PM PST on September 28


Please.

You made a specific claim that he "is opposed to gay behavior." Nothing you said that backs it up.

Being opposed to pro-gay policies is not the same as being opposed to gay behavior. Perhaps he is against all policies intended to favor particular groups. And which particular policies are you referring to you "gay marriage notwithstanding." My guess is that we will find that you are just making stuff up.

And not answering questions about his sexuality and personal life is considered being "opposed to gay behavior" and hypocritcal? What bullshit.

Again, either provide evidence of what you said, or admit that you are making crap up.
posted by dios at 2:12 PM on September 28, 2005


Again, either provide evidence of what you said, or admit that you are making crap up.
posted by dios at 5:12 PM EST on September 28


Induction is an accepted logical process.

Further, I suggest that a position on a subject matter can be reliably induced from the pattern of behavior undertaken as a response to that subject matter.

Dreier's recent voting record:

2004: Voted for the Marriage Protection Act.
2001: Supported legislation allowing federally funded charities to discriminate against gays and lesbians, despite local laws.
1999: Opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
1998: Voted to prohibit gays and lesbians in the District of Columbia from adopting children (D.C. is 3,000 miles from Dreier’s own district)
1998: Opposed restoration of funding to the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program.
1997: Opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
1997: Opposed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act; opposed increases in state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs.
1996: Opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
1996: Voted for the Defense of Marriage Act
1996: Opposed the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS program.

My guess is we will find, as with child molestation, you don't really care what stand you take, even if is contrary to reality.
posted by Rothko at 2:25 PM on September 28, 2005


Again, you have no evidence that "he is opposed to gay behavior."

You just have evidence that he opposed certain policies. And despite your own belief that there is no rational reason to be opposed to policies, his opposition to them does not make him a hypocrite. You probably know this, which is why you made up the line about him being opposed to gay behavior.

You were just making shit up. Go figure.
posted by dios at 2:27 PM on September 28, 2005


One of the great facts about America is that when it got rid of slavery, it was an action by the slave-holding class.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in a long while. Lincoln had slaves?
posted by bardic at 2:28 PM on September 28, 2005


You are intellectually dishonest, sir.
posted by Rothko at 2:29 PM on September 28, 2005


Making shit up? Like a book you yourself don't even remember? Jesus Christ.
posted by bardic at 2:30 PM on September 28, 2005


(My previous comment was not directed at bardic.)
posted by Rothko at 2:32 PM on September 28, 2005


Apologies if this has already been answered - I'm halfway through the thread - but what exactly is the point of a grand jury?

If the prosecutor has evidence, why not charge and go to a single trial, saving the state lots of money?

It's an odd system.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:34 PM on September 28, 2005


I dunno, those voting stats are pretty clear I think. Why did he oppse those policies? They do have a common thread to them.

I think you may be wrong on this dios.
posted by edgeways at 2:35 PM on September 28, 2005


Lincoln had slaves?
posted by bardic at 2:28 PM PST on September 28


Lincoln was in the slave-holding class. That is, he was a white male.

Don't be so quick with your insults.
posted by dios at 2:35 PM on September 28, 2005


but what exactly is the point of a grand jury?

From what I've been reading today about grand juries I found this helpful:
"A grand jury can compel witnesses to testify. During the proceeding, the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present. The grand jury's decision is either "true bill" or "no true bill." Where they exist, grand juries are part of the system of checks and balances that prevents a case from going to trial without an impartial panel of citizens first deciding whether there exists reasonable cause or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

Britain abandoned grand juries in the 1930s, and today fewer than half of the states in the U.S. employ them. Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed. However, grand juries are still used in a number of US jurisdictions.

...Charges involving 'capital or infamous crimes' under federal jurisdiction must be presented to a grand jury, under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This has been interpreted to permit bypass of the grand jury for misdemeanor offenses, which can be charged by prosecutor's information.

Unlike many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has ruled that this requirement does not pertain to the state courts, and states are therefore free to abolish grand juries." [source]
Thus, it appears that since this is a federal charge of wrongdoing, a 'grand jury' is required to determine if there is cause enough to make an indictment. It's now obvious that this jury felt there is reasonable or probable cause that a crime was committed.
posted by ericb at 2:40 PM on September 28, 2005


who is getting the billable hours invoice for all of dios' contributions? who, i ask you?

dios must be the least-busy lawyer i've ever come across, except maybe that guy who fell asleep during his client's death penalty case.

or was that, in fact, dios?

surely someone less important than a lawyer can type repub talking points onto metafilter? right?a data entry clerk or someone?
posted by Hat Maui at 2:41 PM on September 28, 2005


I dunno, those voting stats are pretty clear I think. Why did he oppose those policies?
posted by edgeways at 2:35 PM PST on September 28


Why should he support them?

There is an issue here that we are failing to overcome. Some of you use assume that the policies were good, therefore opposition to them must be for improper motives or because he is a hypocrite, but if you assume the policies were bad from the outset, then you don't call him a hypocrite. You cannot tell me why if he opposes pro-gay polices, it makes him a hypocrite. Maybe he opposes all polices designed to give special treatment to a class of people. We don't know. And yet here we are judging.

There is another consideration here. A representative represents his constituency, not himself. Perhaps he believed those votes were demanded by his constituency, or in their best interest, while personally supporting the legislation.

My point is simple. We don't know.

The complaint against Dreier is obvious. Some of the people here think that all other gay people must think alike. It is intellectual fascism. The assumption being that unless Dreier supports all the policies that the Alex Reynolds of the world support, then he must be a hypocrite or hate gays. That argument is bad form and it smacks of demonization of someone who doesn't follow the party line. Dreier may well be an apostate, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite. So tone down the rhetoric.
posted by dios at 2:45 PM on September 28, 2005


Maybe he opposes all polices designed to give special treatment to a class of people.

Anti-discrimination policies aren't special treatment. By definition, they're the opposite. Does this still need to be pointed out in 2005?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:50 PM on September 28, 2005


So tone down the rhetoric.

That made me laugh. Thanks.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:51 PM on September 28, 2005


But there is no evidence that he is a hypocrit on the topic. I am against polygamy, and I am a man. At one point before I met my wife, I was having sex with multiple women. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Having sex with multiple women isn't polygamy. Being married to multiple women is polygamy. Jesus, every example of yours falls apart after even the most cursory glance. This is the worst analogy you've posted in this thread and that's saying something. Also, uh, gross.

1998: Voted to prohibit gays and lesbians in the District of Columbia from adopting children (D.C. is 3,000 miles from Dreier’s own district)

The only reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to adopt is because one believes homosexuals will be poor parents, right? And why do we believe that? Because we believe homosexuality is immoral.

If you can think of any other reason Dreier would vote this way, dios, I'd love to hear it. Because we're not asking for special rights for homosexuals in this case; we're asking for the same rights.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:54 PM on September 28, 2005


A lawyer's job is to take any position, no matter how indefensible, and go down with the sinking ship. Commendable, if puzzling. The larger question, however, is if Dios is taking this to a pathological extreme?

The assumption being that unless Dreier supports all the policies that the Alex Reynolds of the world support, then he must be a hypocrite or hate gays.
posted by dios at 5:45 PM EST on September 28


Man, you are either dumb as paint or so intellectually dishonest it brings tears to the eyes.

The decisions he makes in his life are entirely his responsibility.

He's a hypocrite because he sees no inconsistency in having sex with members of the same gender and his voting consistently against the rights of a community of people that have sex with members of the same gender.

Once again:



Dreier's behavior is the very definition of hypocrisy, and whether I agree or disagree with his decisions has nothing to do with his hypocritical behavior.
posted by Rothko at 2:55 PM on September 28, 2005


A lawyer's job is to take any position, no matter how indefensible, and go down with the sinking ship.

No, actually it's not. The lawyer is an officer of the court and has a duty of candor. Indeed, he can be sanctioned and held professionally liable for frivolous arguments.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:57 PM on September 28, 2005


Blunt to replace DeLay
posted by the_bone at 3:00 PM on September 28, 2005


As a gay man, I find it abhorrent when (closeted) gay politicians and their advisors seek measures and policies that prevent equitable treatment of gays and lesbians. Dreier is right up there with Arthur Finkelstein (previously discussed here) -- the political consultant who advised/es Jesse Helms and other conservatives to run on platforms primarily focused on anti-gay (including marriage and gay adoption). agendas.

Well, as we now know Finkelstein married his male partner earlier this year -- and they have two adopted children. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

An October 1996 Boston Magazine story on Mr. Finkelstein "outed" him as living with his gay partner and sharing custody of two adopted children. In the article ("The Secret Life of Arthur J. Finkelstein") journalist Stephen Rodrick reported: "He has become a millionaire by working for politicians whose policies attack a very important and intimate part of his life," Rodrick writes, "Specifically, four of Finkelstein's clients in the Senate - Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Don Nickles of Oklahoma and North Carolina's Lauch Faircloth - form the core opposition to nearly all gay issues before Congress."

In response to the article Finkelstein issued a statement: "I keep my private life separate from my business life-something my friends and clients understand, appreciate and respect."
posted by ericb at 3:01 PM on September 28, 2005


Indeed, he can be sanctioned and held professionally liable for frivolous arguments.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:57 PM EST on September 28 [!]


If only that were true outside the courtroom.
posted by Rothko at 3:03 PM on September 28, 2005


Lincoln was in the slave-holding class. That is, he was a white male.

There's a category error here. "White male" is not an economic class. The slaveholding class was primarily the landowning class in the South. It was opposed by the then-emerging capitalist class in the North, with whose interests Lincoln was identified. If we're talking classes, it was the capitalist bourgeoisie who liberated the slaves at the expense of the landowning bourgeoisie. Such a clash was inevitable wherever capitalism spread, since the needs of the capitalist class for cheap labor came into conflict with the needs of the big landowners. (As a side note, this is why Marx considered the capitalist bourgeoisie the most progressive class ever: they liberated the serfs and the slaves.)

(As a second side note, I just wanted to clarify some things about the class based, i.e., Marxist view of history in this tangent. We will now return you to the regularly scheduled bickering.)
posted by graymouser at 3:04 PM on September 28, 2005


"I keep my private life separate from my business life-something my friends and clients understand, appreciate and respect."

"But my buddies and I sure like to get into the private lives of others!"

Barf.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:05 PM on September 28, 2005


Indeed, he can be sanctioned and held professionally liable for frivolous arguments.
If only MeFi could start fining people for that. Matt could then buy an island with a castle on it and retire forever!
posted by sixdifferentways at 3:08 PM on September 28, 2005


"Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

...Some of Mr. Finkelstein's associates said they were startled to learn that this prominent American conservative had married a man, given his history with the party, especially at a time when many Republican leaders, including President Bush, have campaigned against same-sex marriage and proposed amending the Constitution to ban it. Mr. Finkelstein has been allied over the years with Republicans who have fiercely opposed gay rights measures, including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy. He was identified as gay in a Boston Magazine article in 1996." [source]
posted by ericb at 3:09 PM on September 28, 2005


Despite the hypocrisy hairsplitting later on, Dios' analysis at the start of the thread was informative. Thanks a ton - I learned something from your posts here.
posted by Ryvar at 3:10 PM on September 28, 2005


The allegations of hypocrisy seem to hinge upon which dictionary you use, some support actions contrary to stated beliefs as a basis for its determination, others require stated beliefs at odds with actual ones.

That said, I can find no record of him ever actually saying homosex was immoral (which would be necessary in the former case) nor saying that he himself was a moral man, which would be necessary in the latter. Forthcoming evidence notwithstanding, I am forced to agree with Dios, in that while he may be cutting off his nose to spite his face, and thus either an poorly rewarded idiot or a well paid traitor, he is not, definitionally, a hypocrit. :-/
posted by Sparx at 3:10 PM on September 28, 2005


Where does he claim to have moral standards which he does not keep? Sure, he fucks/is fucked by men but whereabouts does he decry this behaviour in others? He might actually represent people who dislike "the gay" and therefore vote how they would like - which would make him possibly the only politician who actually does represent the people who voted for him (misguided and reprehensible as they may be).

I think you're reading "posted by dios" and automatically attempting to naysay it, which is a shame since dios is actually a lawyer, and you're not. He probably has more useful info to bring to the table in this case than yourself.
posted by longbaugh at 3:13 PM on September 28, 2005


"The quantum of proof necessary to get an indictment is laughable, which is why grand juries are abolished in most places."

Unless you're fishing for something to impeach a sitting President, of course.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:15 PM on September 28, 2005


Don't you mean "a sitting Democratic President?"
posted by the_bone at 3:17 PM on September 28, 2005


He probably has more useful info to bring to the table in this case than yourself.
posted by longbaugh at 6:13 PM EST on September 28 [!]


Such as evidence?
posted by Rothko at 3:21 PM on September 28, 2005


dios-I understand your position on Dreier, but I don't think you're right. It might be possible for a gay politician to be against, say, gay marriage without being a hypocrite, but his long history of voting against the rights of gay people indicates to me that there is a level of hypocrisy at work. It might be different if he never had sex, if her were so self-loathing as to be abstinent, but what appears to be the case is that his own actions don't inform his political viewpoint. Which makes him hypocritcal.
posted by OmieWise at 3:21 PM on September 28, 2005


dios:
Hypothetical case: If a vote to recriminalise gay behaviour came up, do you think Dreier would vote to recriminalise or not? In your opinion - as a political observer - not as a practising lawyer, if he should vote for recriminalisation, would that then make him a hypocrite?

(I am persuaded by your technical definition of the word hypocrite, though I also believe that in fact his behaviour is indistinguishable from the popularly accepted meaning, which is that he finds it politic to vote against equal rights for his, and my, class*)

* If indeed he is, as seems likely, gay

I also think that it is conceivable that a gay man may not support equality for gay men. I have seen such odd opinions on other web boards, such as OUT. I don't understand that position, but it does exist.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:24 PM on September 28, 2005


What a surprise! Looks like Dreier is out(ed)... and Blunt is in.

As Time reports:
DeLay is acting as if this is a battle he can still win, declaring his intention to step aside only temporarily in order to exonerate himself. But the timing could hardly be worse for him. A very public rift between DeLay and fiscal hawks led by Indiana Rep. Mike Pence over how to finance Katrina reconstruction had left DeLay's erstwhile conservative base on the Hill angry and rebellious. . . House Speaker Dennis Hastert found out just how deep that unease ran when he attempted to name a temporary replacement, chairman of the Rules Committee and leadership player David Dreier. Party conservatives rebelled over Dreier's moderate positions on gay marriage, stem cells and other issues, forcing Hastert to roll out a compromise power sharing arrangement between Dreier and the GOP whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri.

Moderate positions? Dreier regularly voted against gay rights and has a has a 92 percent favorability rating from the Christian Coalition!

Nope... the reason they axed him is that his Republican collegues think that he's gay and that the Christian conservatives would recoil in horror once the truth came out.

(This cowardly behavior, btw, is called sexual discrimination, and is generally considered illegal in most any other workplace.)

What a shame that Dreier, who has worked so tirelessly to betray and dodge his own sexual orientation for the sake of his political career, has now hit the invisible glass ceiling. Some things are just not acceptable to the Republican powers that be, and one of them is apparently a closeted gay Speaker of the House.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:31 PM on September 28, 2005


Some things are just not acceptable to the Republican powers that be, and one of them is apparently a closeted gay Speaker of the House.

I don't think the "closeted" term really means much to the GOP. They're happy to take your votes, just don't get too uppity and ask for more than a tax cut or two.
posted by Rothko at 3:36 PM on September 28, 2005


I'm hoping he'll kill himself in a moment of self-pity and shame. I'm just sayin'.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:47 PM on September 28, 2005


In my timeline (July 20 1969, Neil Armstrong, Eagle)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:49 PM EST on September 28 [!]


Give yourself some valuable bonus points for that Heinlein reference.
posted by darkmatter at 3:49 PM on September 28, 2005


He would have likely stepped down completely if the charges had merit.


Right. Just like OJ is still looking for the killer.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:51 PM on September 28, 2005


Dios:
My post was in response to the claim that Dreier is anti-gay. I am not arguing the hypocrisy angle.

Many of those votes had little to do with assigning special rights. I do not consider equal rights special. The hate crime bill/s may be an exception to that. I recognize that some people object to this from a standpoint I can respect, if not totally agree with. But specially voting to disallow a set of people some form of rights enjoyed by other sets of people over a number of times indicates to me that the fellow is anti-gay (wether or not he is gay himself).

You are right in a slim way, we can not know what lies in the hearts of others. But, we have to look at the actions and words of others to deduce what they believe in. To me Dreiers consistent voting record indicates a particular mind set that seems obvious.
posted by edgeways at 3:55 PM on September 28, 2005


Such as evidence?

Um, yeah, that's certianly relevant to talking about DeLay.
posted by Snyder at 3:58 PM on September 28, 2005


"I don't think the "closeted" term really means much to the GOP. They're happy to take your votes, just don't get too uppity and ask for more than a tax cut or two."

But do you think that they would've considered an openly gay Republican as Speaker of the House for even half a day?
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:07 PM on September 28, 2005


Louis Ironson: Well, oh boy. A gay Republican.
Joe Pitt: Excuse me?
Louis Ironson: Nothing.
Joe Pitt: Oh, I'm not... no, forget it.
Louis Ironson: Not... Republican? Not Republican?
Joe Pitt: What?
Louis Ironson: What.
Joe Pitt: Not gay. I'm not gay.
Louis Ironson: Oh. Sorry. It's just that sometimes you can tell by the way a person sounds. I mean, you sound...
Joe Pitt: No, I don't. Like what?
Louis Ironson: Like a Republican.
Joe Pitt: Do I sound like a...?
Louis Ironson: What? Like a Republican? Or do I?
Joe Pitt: Do you what?
Louis Ironson: Sound like a...
Joe Pitt: Yeah. Like a... I'm confused.
Louis Ironson: Yes. My name is Louis but all my friends call me Louise. I work in word processing. Thanks for the toilet paper.

--Angels in America
posted by paperpete at 4:33 PM on September 28, 2005


"Don't you mean 'a sitting Democratic President?'"

Good point.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:35 PM on September 28, 2005


What Dios is forgetting is that Earle has been at this investigation for awhile. He can't indict DeLay on anything other than conspiracy because of jurisdictional issues, not evidentiary ones.

However, he has flipped people. He most likely has eyewitness testimony that DeLay knew damn well TRMPAC, his political action committee, was violating Texas law by laundering corporate money through the RNC and then back to local elections, which is illegal.

As far as I know, Dios is full of it when he says this should be recommended to the FEC, as this is a matter of state law in Texas. I think he's being way too quick to assume this has no chance of sticking. It might not, but it's way too early to know.

But most importantly: whether or not DeLay can be held accountable legally, one thing is obvious to anyone but a small child: DeLay was very much involved in an illegal campaign money laundering ring. Too many people around him have fallen, and there is too much evidence to believe that DeLay's own TRMPAC was doing all of this without his knowledge.

So unless the people of Texas have absolutely no sense of ethics, DeLay is through in congress. He should be shown the door.

And unless Republican leaders are REALLY fuckin' stupid, they will show DeLay the door. He's radioactive. All it will take is a semi-decent Democratic campaign, and DeLay could bring down the entire ruling structure of their party if they stick by the mafia boss DeLay.

Add to this Karl Rove being under a cloud, and Frist looking like an inside trader, Republicans better tread very, very carefully. This is the kind of stuff that can lose them the house and senate.
posted by teece at 4:58 PM on September 28, 2005


Just want to pop out of my usual place in the leftie Mefi circle-jerk and say I agree with Dios more than Rothko here.

Government policy is somewhat orthogonal to private morality.

Teh gay, and its potential/rightful place in society, is a bigger question on who-bones-whom, and how.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:10 PM on September 28, 2005


Is anyone else enjoying the delicious irony that Drier will be past over specifically because he is gay? Welcome to the reality based community, Davey-boy.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:52 PM on September 28, 2005


Longbaugh, your faith in lawyers is sad.
posted by bardic at 6:03 PM on September 28, 2005


Lincoln was in the slave-holding class. That is, he was a white male.

Them damn white slave owners.....
posted by rough ashlar at 6:10 PM on September 28, 2005


And now a few words from Tom Lehrer:

Don't say that he's
Hypocritical
Say rather that he's
Apolitical
"Once the rockets are up,
Who cares where they come down?
That's not my department."
Says Wernher Von Braun.

Wernher Von Braun
(1965)
posted by rdone at 6:39 PM on September 28, 2005


All of my neighbors are all up in arms
About something they saw on TV
Seems some politician got busted for something
That won’t make any difference to me
Now I’m sure it’s all true and I’m tired of this too
But I can’t pray for some guy to fall
I say let all the people do what people do
I’m just happy to be here at all
Happy to be here to vote randomly
On who ought to take the next dive
Eager to see what the downfall will be
And all the hilarity on Saturday Night Live
Mostly it’s all scandal TV these days
That’s where the real money must fall
Down from the smog of some Hollywood haze
I’m just happy to be here at all
I’m happy to be here
Happy to be
Happy
Happy to be here to see how it goes
When everything blows into space
I’ve been walking my tennis shoes right through my toes
Trying to keep up with the rest of the race
Mostly I stare out my window these days
Watching my dog chase her ball
I’ll do my job here whatever it pays
I’m just happy to be here at all
Just happy to be here at all

- Todd Snider
posted by jonmc at 6:49 PM on September 28, 2005


Um, yeah, that's certianly relevant to talking about DeLay.
posted by Snyder at 6:58 PM EST on September 28 [!]


As relevant as your comment is to Dreier, which was Dios' topic of discussion post-DeLay.
posted by Rothko at 8:38 PM on September 28, 2005


I think we need to focus our ire here: furtive has defiled something pure and good, Beck's ODELAY album, with something vile and beneath contempt, Tom DeLay. Shame on you furtive.
posted by caddis at 8:39 PM on September 28, 2005


Interesting reading about the depth of Tom Delay's involvement with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority ) PAC at the center of the current indictment...it was his idea; he was "creator, advisor and fundraiser" for TRMPAC; TRMPAC literature names DeLay as the organization's "leader" -- and -- he was personally involved in collecting corporate donations, not to mention his active participation in TRMPAC Finance Committee proceedings.

But on 'Hardball' tonight DeLay made this claim:
"That’s TRMPAC. That’s not me…I was simply, along with four other elected officials, on an advisory board. They used my name as headliners for fundraisers and I had no idea what they were doing."
Not looking good at first glance, Tommy.
posted by ericb at 8:52 PM on September 28, 2005


Just want to pop out of my usual place in the leftie Mefi circle-jerk and say I agree with Dios more than Rothko here.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:10 PM EST on September 28 [!]


Feel free to stay in your circle jerk if you want, but correctly identifying Dreier a hypocrite has nothing to do with my personal politics, whether left or right (or, yes, independent).

Privately, he is happy to sleep with the same people he is happy to fuck over publicly. His behavior is therefore, by definition, hypocritical. He is therefore, by definition, a hypocrite. Dictionaries are not political.

Ironically, it is comments like those above and elsewhere that attempt to redefine or magically explain away his hypocrisy which are political in nature, to make a defense for his voting record by calling people who point out his hypocrisy "fascists". It's an all too familiar rhetorical device.

Dreier can vote however damn well he pleases. However, if his voting record is inconsistent with his personal behavior, that is a moral inconsistency that can't just be spirited away just because someone with a political agenda says otherwise.
posted by Rothko at 8:53 PM on September 28, 2005


You've got in right, ericb. TRMPAC is corrupt to the core. DeLay is TRMPAC.

To pretend that it is even remotely likely that he had no involvement is naive. Sure, he deserves his trial, and the law will presume him innocent.

But he ain't.
posted by teece at 9:06 PM on September 28, 2005


wach kossacks bash Dreier as a "closet hetrosexual" to see just how nasty 'liberals' can be.

Not that I'm bitter they banned me or anything...
posted by delmoi at 9:09 PM on September 28, 2005


This is interesting --

Blunt hired consultant who's also indicted"
"The political committee of Rep. Roy Blunt, who is temporarily replacing Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader, has paid roughly $88,000 in fees since 2003 to a consultant under indictment in Texas with DeLay, according to federal records.

Keri Ann Hayes, executive director of the Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, said the organization has been satisfied with the work done by Jim Ellis, but has not discussed whether he will be retained.

'We haven't had that conversation,' she said. So far, she added, Ellis' indictment had no impact on his work.'

Records on file with the Federal Election Commission show the fund linked to Blunt retains Ellis' firm, J.W. Ellis Co., and has made periodic payments for services. Political Money Line, a nonpartisan Internet tracking service, places the total at about $88,000.

Ellis is one of three political associates of DeLay, R-Texas, who have been indicted in an alleged scheme to use corporate political donations illegally to support candidates in state elections. Ellis also runs DeLay's national political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority." [Associated Press | September 28, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:10 PM on September 28, 2005


DeLay Must Appear in Austin on Charge
"The next step in the criminal proceedings against Republican leader Tom DeLay is a trip to Austin to be fingerprinted and photographed....It was not immediately clear whether DeLay would have to go through booking after responding to the summons for arraignment, said his attorney Bill White. [Associated Press | September 28, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:15 PM on September 28, 2005


Washington Post: Attempt to Pick Successor Is Foiled -- Blunt Temporarily Takes Reins as Conservatives Reject Dreier.
posted by ericb at 9:17 PM on September 28, 2005


Dios is not a Lawyer. please.
posted by delmoi at 9:20 PM on September 28, 2005


More interesting background info on Roy Blunt.
posted by ericb at 9:21 PM on September 28, 2005


Dios is most likely a lawyer.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and then claims to be a duck - it's a lawyer.
posted by caddis at 9:30 PM on September 28, 2005


Privately, he is happy to sleep with the same people he is happy to fuck over publicly. His behavior is therefore, by definition, hypocritical. He is therefore, by definition, a hypocrite. Dictionaries are not political.

I think most republicans are willing to live with "freedom for me and not (necessarily) for thee" when freedom is defined as the liberty that obtains from wealth.

It's part of their "ownership society". If you really wanna be free, ya gotta bank a million or two.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:50 PM on September 28, 2005


Are you people actually equivocating human slavery with preventing gay marriage?

Have you people lost your minds? Why not just compare him to a pro-holocaust Jew?

Jesus, lets put this into perspective here. The richest 1% who want their taxes raised, There are few slaves who support slavery. There is a sliding scale here. There is a big difference between John Kerry and a brainwashed Saudi Slave.
posted by delmoi at 10:17 PM on September 28, 2005


Also, I can't believe you guys spent so much time discussing the definition of hypocrite. But since you have, I thought I'd throw in my 2¢.

Taking actions (like voting and butt-fucking) that may be in conflict does not make one a hypocrite. The question is the difference between actions and statements. If you want to show this guy is hypocrite then point out statements where he claimed buggery is immoral.

Posting a list 'o votes can be incredibly misleading, especially if you only show the votes that support your view of a person. Drier opposed the Gay marriage amendment, for example.


Dios is most likely a lawyer.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and then claims to be a duck - it's a lawyer.


There is a difference between "lawyer" and "legalistic asshole." And Dios had a web design course at his high school. There is no way he could have made it through law school yet. He also makes arguments that betray some ignorance of the law, in my opinion.

Of course Dios could never prove that he is actually a lawyer, without outing himself, so I'll just go on assuming that he is not, since IMO the evidence suggests he is not.

Hopefully three <sub> will keep this thread from being derailed any more then it has been.

posted by delmoi at 10:42 PM on September 28, 2005


dios is a lawyer. I won't out him, but I can vouch for that.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:02 PM on September 28, 2005


Taking actions (like voting and butt-fucking) that may be in conflict does not make one a hypocrite. The question is the difference between actions and statements.

Three of his public "statements" about people who "butt-fuck" privately:


posted by Rothko at 11:09 PM on September 28, 2005


dios: I provided evidence: most states and Britain got rid of them because they are worthless. Do even cursory research on them.

dios, I apologize if I missed your link to your evidence, but my cursory research (i.e., the first hit on Google) came up with this, which is on the University of Dayton Law School website. Note the second sentence: "Indeed, every state uses the grand jury for at least some purpose...".

The link on that page titled Size of Grand Jury lists the size of the grand jury plus the relevant rule, statute, or case setting that size of every US state plus the District of Columbia. This page provides links to information about 45 states' grand juries.

How does that jibe with your statement (made twice) that most states have gotten rid of grand juries?
posted by forrest at 11:28 PM on September 28, 2005


bardic - I don't have faith in lawyers or justice. I have seen too many obviously guilty people set free due to mistakes in the system. That doesn't mean that I don't respect a lawyer's position on the law. Who would you ask to design a bridge? I'd wager you'd choose an engineer if you have sense. By the same token, if I want legal advice, I will ask a lawyer (take heed ye who ask questions on AskMe).

Alex - That is Dreier's history of voting. Where has he made a statement in public along the lines of "Ooooh - I hate gay people, they fuck me right off"? He hasn't, has he. His voting history is entirely consistent with representing the Republican party position. Perhaps he feels that despite their (mindless and wrong) objection to homosexuality they better represent his standards or the standards of those who put him in a position of responsibility.

This does not according to any example you have posted make him a hyprocrite. I support the Democrat position but I don't support stupid gun control laws and I personally dislike abortion. I'm still pro-choice though. Am I a hypocrite because I have chosen to affiliate myself with a party that does not 100% represent my beliefs?

Your definition stated "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behaviour does not conform; pretense." I don't think his voting record is a claim of moral standards or a belief, you are certainly welcome to dispute that however.
posted by longbaugh at 11:54 PM on September 28, 2005


Perhaps he feels that despite their (mindless and wrong) objection to homosexuality they better represent his standards or the standards of those who put him in a position of responsibility.

Then he is still a hypocrite, and more clearly so, for though he may have no private objection to homosexuality he still conducts his public behavior as though he does, as reflected by the decisions he makes as a public official.

Once he is elected, he is under no obligation whatsoever to vote one way or another. He is a free-thinking person and as such is entirely responsible for the choices he makes.

For example, when people go up for war crimes, we don't put the people of a country up on the stands -- politicians are held solely responsible for the decisions they made.

(For that matter, we have a representative democracy, and if the public were suddenly capable of holding representatives to the strict wording of campaign speeches you might have a point.)

I don't think his voting record is a claim of moral standards or a belief, you are certainly welcome to dispute that however.

Would you agree that a person is defined by his or her actions and words or expressed thoughts? In fact, how else do we know people but in how they act and in what they say?

In that light, his private life is incongruent with the history of his public life, regardless of what pressures he may be under from his constituency or party.

As a public official, how he votes one way or another is exactly what he "says" -- and he speaks entirely for himself. For him to continue this incongruity while presenting a facade of heterosexuality is hypocritical.

Again, none of this analysis has anything to do with your political views (or mine). It has to do with clearly identifying the opposing contrasts in his behavior as mutually inconsistent.
posted by Rothko at 12:33 AM on September 29, 2005


wach kossacks bash Dreier as a "closet hetrosexual" to see just how nasty 'liberals' can be.


Right. Because 'conservatives' are NEVER nasty.

They are nice, happy, shiney people.

Right?
posted by rough ashlar at 4:06 AM on September 29, 2005


Dreier ... The 52-year-old single congressman voted for the Marriage Protection Act in July, a measure that would have stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing gay partnerships.

Dreier also voted for the original Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and a measure that banned gays from adopting in Washington, D.C. ...

posted by amberglow at 6:25 AM on September 29, 2005


I can think of one possible way that Dreier wouldn't be a hypocrite: What if he hates himself?
posted by fungible at 6:26 AM on September 29, 2005


You guys are from the moon. There is no reason to vote to deny homosexuals equal rights unless you believe homosexuality is immoral or wish to be perceived as one who believes that. That's it. I asked before if anyone had any other possible reasons for voting this way and all I heard were crickets.

If we can't use voting records as evidence of a congressperson's beliefs, where the fuck were all of you when Kerry was getting hammered left and right?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:12 AM on September 29, 2005


How does that jibe with your statement (made twice) that most states have gotten rid of grand juries?
posted by forrest at 1:28 AM CST on September 29


Well, just from going to the evidence in this thread alone which confirms the statements I made, one can see the following statement:

Britain abandoned grand juries in the 1930s, and today fewer than half of the states in the U.S. employ them. Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries

I think he's being way too quick to assume this has no chance of sticking. It might not, but it's way too early to know.
posted by teece at 6:58 PM CST on September 28


I would agree with your statement. I should have been clearer earlier. I don't think this will likely be fruitful for a number of reasons, including what I know about Earle, the difficulty in getting this indictment, how flimsy the indictment is, and the difficulty of proving conspiracy at trial beyond a reasonable doubt (and my beliefs were compounded after hearing DeLay on television last night tip his hand as to what his defense is). I do not take the position that it is an absolute certainty that this will fail; I do not take the position that there is no way DeLay will be found guilty. He might be guilty. But as an observer, and if I was a betting man, there is no doubt in my mind that I would bet on the position that there will not be a successful prosecution.

But you are correct: it is too early to know for a certainty, but we can deal in probabiities.

He should be shown the door.

I agree on a personal level. I am not so sure on a political level.

As for the rest of this discussion about Dreier, I think it has become too far afield. Too the extent I share blame for that, I apologize. Nevertheless, I think I made my position known, and I'm not going to sit here and spin tires any longer. And as for the discussion relating to me personally, I will not take part in such irrelevant pettiness.
posted by dios at 7:38 AM on September 29, 2005


I didn't want to get involved in the catfight, but this is too much to ignore. Dios, you're saying that your source given above, namely wikipedia, trumps forrest's source, namely the University of Dayton Law School site? Or am I misreading this? Or is it out of date? Please explain.

Like the federal system, the states also use grand juries. Indeed, every state uses the grand jury for at least some purpose, with many using grand juries both to bring criminal charges and to investigate civil and/or criminal matters.
posted by soyjoy at 8:26 AM on September 29, 2005


Who really cares about whether there are grand juries or not? Any prosecutor worth his salt can find a way to bring felony charges with a minimal level of evidence of wrong doing. It is a one sided affair, grand jury or no. Things get interesting when the other side presents their case. Further, who cares about Dreier anymore? Blunt got the nod. This train has gone completely off the rails.

The more interesting issues of what evidence they actually have and what effect this case will have on national politics have been ignored. Please stop arguing with dios over meaningless crap. Pretty please, with sugar on top.

Dios, what do you think would be the best strategy right now for the Republican leadership to improve their image as regards honesty, integrity and competence in the party?
posted by caddis at 8:40 AM on September 29, 2005


Further, who cares about Dreier anymore?

I care (obviously) when clearly defined words get reinvented by people with a political axe to grind. If Dreier's gay and sets up policy that negatively impacts upon gay Americans, there should be no shame or reluctance in pointing out the obvious inconsistencies.

The attitude of some here reminds me of Clinton's shady redefinition of "is", frankly, and is disappointing.
posted by Rothko at 9:09 AM on September 29, 2005


Who really cares about whether there are grand juries or not?

Not me. I only care that in order to attack the basic story, i.e. the legitimacy of DeLay's indictment, Dios has made a sweeping statement about whether states use grand juries. That statement seems to be contradicted by the facts. If it isn't, I want to understand how. If it is, though, it calls into question that whole angle of argument.
posted by soyjoy at 9:29 AM on September 29, 2005


Alas, diosmkII has left the bulding as usual and he won't come back do to his own display of cognitive dissonance. Move along.
posted by bardic at 10:18 AM on September 29, 2005


what effect this case will have on national politics

Yes -- this is the question in which I am most interested. Having listened to On Point's segment 'The Fall of Tom Delay" this morning -- and reading reports such as:
"Now, with the administration struggling to overcome complaints about its response to Hurricane Katrina and the declining support for the war in Iraq, Bush needs DeLay more than ever. But DeLay, waylaid by yesterday's indictment, won't be there.

Instead, there will be the taint of another ethics investigation in the Republican Party at the same time that Senate majority leader Bill Frist answers questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission about his sale of stock in a company that family members founded; as Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, faces grand jury scrutiny over whether he leaked the identity of a CIA officer; and as a Senate committee looks at the relationships between scandal-ridden lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a host of Republican leaders.

The combined loss of DeLay's leadership in the House, where he was the main enforcer of the Republican agenda, and the shift of political focus to another alleged ethics misstep, is a double blow to the president at a time when he cannot easily bounce back from it, political observers said yesterday.

'I think all that voters will hear is "Republican scandal," ' said Daron Shaw, a University of Texas political scientist who worked on Bush's 2000 campaign.

DeLay's foibles could take an immediate toll on the Republican agenda, which during the Bush years has tended to originate in the House with DeLay-enforced party-line votes.

The cobbled-together leadership team that is replacing DeLay as House majority leader may yet succeed in keeping the legislative pipeline moving." [Boston Globe | September 29, 2005]
It will be interesting to see the impact on President Bush's and Congress' ability to advance their policy initiatives forward -- or, not -- and the impact on the 2006 elections.
posted by ericb at 10:19 AM on September 29, 2005


Washington Post: Troubled Year Gets Worse for the GOP.
posted by ericb at 10:34 AM on September 29, 2005


This is very interesting --

Tom Delay will plea 'nolo contendere'
"DeLay will not plea nolo contendere at the arraingment. There will be a not guilty plea entered there, but he will eventually plea at least nolo contendere.

In about January when the hearings get started, I expect the plea to be changed to nolo contendere. This is because DeLay has most likely already entered into a plea bargain. My reasoning is because of timing and the indictment itself.

First of all, DeLay entered into a meeting with Ronnie Earle and the Public Integrity unit of the Travis County DA's office on August 17. This would be more than three years after most of the events surrounding the money laundering operation would have taken place and thus, the statute of limitations would have already run out on the conspiracy charge.

Second, look to the language in the indictment itself:
The Grand Jury further presents that, with the advise and consent of counsel, the defendent, Thomas Dale DeLay, did heretofore knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive application of Articles 12.01 and 12.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to the indictment presented herein. In particular, the Grand Jury present that with the advice and consent of counsel, the defendent, Thomas Dale DeLay, did knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the requirement that an indictment for the felony offense of criminal conspiracy, the object of which is felony other than those listed in Subdivisions (1) and (5) of Article 12.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, may be presented within three years from the date of commission of the offense, and not afterward, insofar as such requirement pertains to the indictment presented herein.'
Now comes the logic part. Why would his attorney advise him to waive the statute of limitations on a charge when the statute of limitations had already run out? The only logical answer is that there were far more serious charges with a much longer (or no) statute of limitations and he was entering into a plea bargain.

So basically, the current posturing about 'political prosecution' and a prosecutor who is a 'partisan fanatic' is just that, posturing. Anybody old enough to remember the Nixon era will also remember that Spiro Agnew did exactly the same thing! After all is said and done, he'll leave the Congress and still have a lucrative career as a paid lobbyist."
posted by ericb at 10:43 AM on September 29, 2005


New York Times: For G.O.P., DeLay Indictment Adds to a Sea of Troubles .
posted by ericb at 10:46 AM on September 29, 2005


Radioactive:
“New Hampshire Republican Congressman Jeb Bradley says he will return 15-thousand dollars in campaign funds from former House majority leader Tom DeLay’s political action committee....Bradley says that though the political action committee that gave him money is not under investigation he is returning the money to remove any question about the nature of the contribution.”
posted by ericb at 11:00 AM on September 29, 2005


About the statute of limitations waiver, comments on the Daily Kos entry quoted above suggest that the waiver could have been signed any time in the last three years.

One plausible rationale for signing:

If you don't sign we'll have to indict you immediately to stay ahead of the statute of limitations clock.

If you do sign, we'll simply continue our investigation as before, and you may yet end up not being a target.
posted by nobody at 11:14 AM on September 29, 2005


"An angry and defiant DeLay blamed the indictment, which temporarily cost him his leadership position, on partisan politics by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat. Coming from one of the most fanatical partisans in the country, that charge is risible.

DeLay also ignores the fact that the indictment came not from Earle but from a grand jury of 12 local citizens who investigated a complex political scheme. They sacrificed long hours for one of the most important duties of citizenship.

Even more difficult to digest was DeLay's assertion in his taped statement Wednesday that the 2003 Legislature's gerrymandered political map was 'fair.'

That politically inspired redistricting fractured Texas into a crazy patchwork of congressional districts that makes no sense whatsoever. Austin's 10th Congressional District was split into three parts — one reaching to the Houston suburbs and two others stretching to the border with Mexico. You can stand at the corner of West 38th and Ronson streets in Central Austin and spit into three different districts.

DeLay may accuse Earle of playing politics, but the district attorney would have failed in his duty had he not investigated allegations of campaign finance irregularities and money laundering. Earlier this month, the grand jury indicted the now-defunct Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee and the Texas Association of Business in that same fund-raising scheme." [Austin American-Statesman | September 29, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:58 PM on September 29, 2005


That was my take on the waiver nobody.

As for more bad news, the administration lost the case on the Abu Ghraib photos, although an appeal is sure to come. Delay is almost as good as refusal. With enough delay the anger is diffused even with the shocking new evidence. Unfortunately, new allegations seem to keep coming up. Diffusing the anger only works if you actually change the culture of torture.
posted by caddis at 2:02 PM on September 29, 2005


"When I use a word, " the Fat Controller said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Thomas, "how do communicate effectively without a common frame of reference?"

"The question is," said the Fat Controller, "Which of us is the Controller? That will be all, Thomas. Go play on the railway tracks."

Rev. Trainspotter
_Thomas The Tank Engine Pursues Meaning_


Rothko: You seriously need to look up the difference between 'partisan idiot' and hypocrit. Your lack of erudition merely makes you look like a twit. Again.
posted by Sparx at 3:03 PM on September 29, 2005


The Nation: DeLay Indictment: Beyond Damage Control?
posted by ericb at 3:09 PM on September 29, 2005


Rothko: You seriously need to look up the difference between 'partisan idiot' and hypocrit. Your lack of erudition merely makes you look like a twit. Again.
posted by Sparx at 6:03 PM EST on September 29 [!]


Keep grinding that axe.
posted by Rothko at 4:23 PM on September 29, 2005


Rothko: Ignore me, I'm hung over, and thus easily irritated. Which I just spelled ittitated, which amused me for mostly peurile reasons.

I still think your wrong, though. Someone who kills someone in a war isn't a soldier by definition, and someone who works against their best interest isn't a hypocrit by definition.
posted by Sparx at 6:25 PM on September 29, 2005


someone who works against their best interest isn't a hypocrit by definition.

No one claimed that one who works against their best interest is a hypocrite. There are about five thousand words in this thread that explain how Dreier engages in activities in his private life that he condemns in his public life, but I guess it's easier to respond to things no one has said.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:15 PM on September 29, 2005


Backgrounder On Roy Blunt (with tons of links--DeLay and Blunt are definitely 2 of a kind)
posted by amberglow at 6:18 AM on September 30, 2005


Alas, diosmkII has left the bulding as usual and he won't come back do to his own display of cognitive dissonance.

I feel like Charlie Brown missing the football again. I can't believe I actually thought, this time Dios isn't just trolling and will engage in some kind of rational discussion.

I apologize for feeding the troll. I've learned my lesson now, though. Promise!

posted by soyjoy at 7:10 AM on September 30, 2005


DeLay Grand Jury Foreman a Former Sherriff Who Praises DeLay
"...Ronnie Earle didn’t issue the indictment against Tom DeLay. A grand jury did. And as it turns out, the jury foreman William Gibson is a former sheriff’s deputy who praises DeLay specifically for his 'aggressiveness.'
'He did his duty and that bound him to look at Tom Delay as just another Texan accused of criminal conspiracy, [Gibson] said.

'I like his aggressiveness and everything, and I had nothing against the House majority man, but I felt that we had enough evidence, not only me, but the other grand jury members,' Gibson said.

The grand jury foreman also takes great exception to accusations that he and 11 other grand jury members followed the lead of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle instead of following the evidence
.

'It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us,' Gibson said. …

Gibson thinks there is enough evidence to convict Delay.

'We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed the man, if we didn’t feel there was sufficient evidence,' said Gibson." [News 8 Austin | September 29, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:35 AM on September 30, 2005


Texas grand jury indicts DeLay on new charge
"A Texas grand jury indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.

Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.

DeLay's earlier indictment charged that conspirators carried out a fund-raising scheme by having the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee send corporate money to the Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent back a like amount — $190,000 — to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.


Criminal conspiracy is a Texas felony punishable by six months to two years in a state jail and a fine of up to $10,000. DeLay was summoned by a judge to appear in court in Austin on Oct. 21. [The Associated Press | October 3, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:24 PM on October 3, 2005


« Older Tennis, anyone...?...  |  Politics, Theory & Photography... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments