CNN is reporting that AP is reporting that the judge has thrown out the conspiracy charges against Tom DeLay and his co-defendants. The charges related to misappropriation of funds are still in force, so he's still under indictment.
[ December 13, 2005, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Your dark gods can't protect you forever, Tom Delay!
*shakes fist*
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Political friends might be able to though...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or, hell, he might be innocent.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wait, I'm a conservative...scratch that. The whole indictment thing certainly appears to be motivated by political reasons. Earle did it to Kay Bailey Hutchinson as well. DeLay may have done things to embarrass the Republicans, but getting indicted by some hack prosecutor in Austin isn't one of them.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Interesting take on the prosecutor in Austin...he's well respected there and not viewed as partisan.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
In Houston, I've heard little but that he's very partisan. How do you account for his similar crusade against Kay Bailey Hutchinson, or the multiple grand juries that he empaneled in order to finally get indictments? Or the fact that despite habeas corpus, he indicted DeLay on failure to obey a law that hadn't been passed at the time of the alleged transgression?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Is the judge partisan, too?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: he indicted DeLay on failure to obey a law that hadn't been passed at the time of the alleged transgression?
On this one, at least, the judge agrees with you, that his attempt to do so didn't wash. His contention was that there was a conspiracy law on the TX books already and that the '03 law merely extended it to political conspiracy of the sort that DeLay engaged in. Ultimately, the judge decided that the previously-existing law didn't apply.
I wouldn't agree automatically that this prosecutor is biased because he hit the defendant with as many charges as he could think of. It seems to be a fairly common practice.
regarding Kay Bailey Hutchinson, just 'cuz you call it a "crusade" doesn't make it one. If she had been tried in a fair trial, do you think she'd be anywhere but in jail today?
As it was, the jury never heard the evidence against her. And isn't it interesting that Karl Rove was her spin-meister?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, tern, what's your source for the "hack prosecutor" bit?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
The original judge was partisan, and excused himeself, if I remember correctly.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The original judge once donated money to a Democratic campaign. Since Judges in Texas are elected, they usually try to make friends by donating to both sides. However, Delay's legal team insisted that this campaign contribution proved he was partisan so had to go.
For a while it seemed that the only people Delay would let judge him were judges he helped put in office.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wouldn't agree automatically that this prosecutor is biased because he hit the defendant with as many charges as he could think of. It seems to be a fairly common practice.
There's very strong evidence this prosecutor is biased, including a speech he gave to a democratic organization talking about how he was going to get DeLay. Ethical rules constrain how much a prosecutor can talk about investigations - naming names is usually a no-no. So at minimum we have evidence that he violated an ethical rule in a partisan manner. Not conviction-strength evidence, but not minimal evidence, either.
But his being biased tells us nothing about whether the charges are real, and I have no information other than what's been in the paper. Right now, I know the indictment is facially valid according to a judge, and a grand jury has passed on it. That's good enough for me to say there's probable cause DeLay did it, nothing more.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Paints a picture of someone much more dangerous than a partisan zealot. He's an idealist zealot.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You have a source for any of that Dag?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
At one time, but I'm not going to dig it up now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And by "any of that," I assume you mean the speech only. The ethical constraints on how much a prosecutor can say are well-documented.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I (as well as many other people, I'm willing to bet) am not well versed on the intricacies of legal ethics. From my ignorant perspective, I don't quite understand how the prosecutor in this case would be breaking an ethical rule by saying "I'm the lead on the Tom Delay case." So I was hoping that you could source that or perhaps explain it.
The speech you're claiming he gave doesn't sound like the guy profiled in what Bob posted or in the other little tidbits I've picked up, but there is lots of room for ambiguity or misunderstanding. It'd be nice to get at least a secondary source to see what was actually said.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You don't understand adam, reality is liberally biased.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The speech you're claiming he gave doesn't sound like the guy profiled in what Bob posted or in the other little tidbits I've picked up, but there is lots of room for ambiguity or misunderstanding. It'd be nice to get at least a secondary source to see what was actually said.
quote:Terry Keel, a Republican state representative from Austin who once was an assistant to Mr. Earle, said yesterday he "wouldn't propose to second-guess" his ex-boss. But, he agreed, "it's a little out of character for him."
Here's what he said:
quote:"This case is not just about Tom DeLay," said Mr. Earle, district attorney of Travis County, which includes Austin. "If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one -- just like one bully replaces the one before. This is a structural problem involving the combination of money and power. Money brings power and power corrupts."
The problem is he mentioned a specific defendant, and implied that he was definitely guilty. I don't have time to do a full description of the rules on the ethics of public statements by prosecutors, but they are not allowed to call someone corrupt. (Note: I've seen a larger section with this quotation that definitely links the mention of DeLay to corruption, but I can't find it.)
Here's some commentary concerning John Ashcroft's improper statements:
quote:Moreover, Mr. Ashcroft's statements have often included bold criticisms of the defendants and highly charged language.
...
When prosecutors make unfairly harmful comments about the accused to the public, from which jurors must be chosen, those rights are violated. Such comments may result in jurors' becoming biased, and even in their potentially learning evidence that the trial judge will exclude.
Speaking at a public event that will be reported isn't quite as bad as actually calling the press conference, but it is still a situation covered by the rules.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You don't understand adam, reality is liberally biased.
I'll just reiterate what I said above: I do not think the bias of the prosecutor makes the charges against DeLay either more or less valid.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
errr...What he said doesn't sound bad to me. It definitely doesn't sound biased, which is what you claimed. Am I supposed to be upset that he thinks that the person he is prosecuting is guilty? Is that what you mean by bias? I'd be worried if that wasn't the case.
As far as I can tell, the jury was already empanelled when he made those statements. How does what you linked apply? Also, I don't know, linking to cases where the Attorney General is said to have broken ethical rules but has had nothing done about it makes these rules sound like ones that aren't taken seriously.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:errr...What he said doesn't sound bad to me. It definitely doesn't sound biased, which is what you claimed. Am I supposed to be upset that he thinks that the person he is prosecuting is guilty? I'd be worried if that wasn't the case.
quote:(b) A lawyer ordinarily will violate paragraph (a), and the likelihood of a violation increases if the adjudication is ongoing or imminent, by making an extrajudicial statement of the type referred to in that paragraph when the statement refers to:
(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness; or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense; the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect; or that persons refusal or failure to make a statement;
(3) the performance, refusal to perform, or results of any examination or test; the refusal or failure of a person to allow or submit to an examination or test; or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;
(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; or
(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.
Note that the second bolded rule specifically states that yes, you should be upset that he stated he thought he was guilty.
There's a good chance that allegations that DeLay is part of an in-place corrupt system will not be admissible in trial, bringing the last bolded rule into play.
quote:As far as I can tell, the jury was already empanelled when he made those statements. How does what you linked apply?
The Grand Jury was empaneled. What I linked speaks of the "Sixth Amendment right of the accused to have a fair trial," which means the petit jury. Even now no petit jury has been empaneled in this case.
quote:Also, I don't know, linking to cases where the Attorney General is said to have broken ethical rules but has had nothing done about it makes these rules sound like ones that aren't taken seriously.
It's the ethical breach at a democratic fundraiser that raises the specter of bias here. Not just the breach.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It definitely doesn't sound biased, which is what you claimed.
This needs further clarification. I did NOT say that the words of the speech were biased. I said that the fact that he either breached or flirted dangerously with the line of ethical rules in a partisan setting were strong evidence of his bias.
BTW, the rules I quoted are for lawyers in geenral. It is generally accepted that a prosecutor gets far less leeway on this rule than non-prosecutor lawyers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see them as strong evidence of his bias, although you've definitely made a good case for him being in violation of those ethical rules. Of course, as per your Ashcroft example, it doesn't look like these rules are taken all that seriously.
To expand on the "It's not strong evidence of bias" idea, let me bring up a statement that Donald Rumsfeld made. He was being interviewed about and Abu Gharib and he said something to the effect of "Well, we let hundreds of them go and (I think it was 7) showed up fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq." with the idea that they therefor must have been guilty. I found this to be pretty stupid for obvious reasons.
I think this could very likely fit into a similar mold. He's fighting corruption in government, in this specific instance, a large bit of corruption perpetrated by the Republican party. Who else is he going to go to to help him fight this case of corruption? And that's not taking into account the sleazy and personal attacks Tom Delay and his people have been making on the guy. Is it any wonder that he's trying to help out the people who, if sucessful, would remove them from office?
I don't see this as strong evidence for partisan or prosecutorial bias.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Clearly it was a dumb thing to do. Whenever there is ethical boundary, politicians and public servants would do well to steer WELL CLEAR of it, not flirt with it.
The very fact that we can debate his conduct means that he went too far, IMHO.
Especially when the benefits of doing so are so weak, and the potential harm (to his case) is so far-reaching.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And clearly, Tom Delay's public attack on the prosecuter, as if he were a political opponent to be smeared out of office, is of a much lower ethical standing. Delay's first defense is not, "I didn't do it." or "What I did was morally right." It is, "I'm not guilty because that guy is just out to get me."
Of course, from a Democratic point of view, having Tom Delay free get off of these charges may not be entirely bad. He then would demand his place as leader of the house back. The current leader, who took the spot despite Delay's demands that one of his toady's get it, will not easily let him have it. The Republican civil war will be quite a show.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
For what it's worth, when this story first broke, I heard on NPR that Earle had been known for going after whoever happened to be in power at the time (during the 90s, I understand he "went after" quite a large number of democrats). I do not have the links to back this up, because I heard it months ago. Some of this was hinted at in the article that Bob linked, though.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, much has been made of his record of indicting public figures (including himself on misdemeanor charges) regardless of party affiliation. The picture that emerges from his past is certainly one of an aggressive zealot, but not a party loyalist.
Seen in that light, his remarks at the Democratic fund raiser may even be interpreted as a warning, rather than crowing about some partisan coup.
That doesn't make his statement more acceptable, though. If he screws up his own case in a feeble attempt at ???what???, that seems wasteful of public money and would certainly disappoint those of us who believe Tom DeLay has acted outside the law and deserves to pay the price.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Oh, I agree, his statement was definitely out of line, and I will definitely be irked if the case goes under because of it. I was responding more to the folks up-thread crying liberal bias.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ah...I agree with you. This is not necessarily evidence of a liberal bias.
I'm worried that people close to him say it is out of character though. That can't be good.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I hadn't heard that, but yes, it's troubling. I know he's at the end of his career, on the verge of retirement, and part of me wonders if this isn't him trying to go out "with a bang," so to speak.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: The original judge was partisan, and excused himeself, if I remember correctly.
tern, isn't that what we want them to do? How does that affect the CURRENT judge at all?
Judges are suppose to recuse themselves if there is even a hint of impropriety, even if there isn't a real bias, to avoid the appearance of favoritism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Judges are suppose to recuse themselves if there is even a hint of impropriety, even if there isn't a real bias, to avoid the appearance of favoritism.
So are prosecutors.
quote:Of course, as per your Ashcroft example, it doesn't look like these rules are taken all that seriously.
You're jumping from one example to "these rules aren't taken all that seriously." I expect better from you.
These rules are taken very seriously. One of the big criticisms of Ashcroft is that he was partisan. And he felt free to ignore these rules, too.
quote:And that's not taking into account the sleazy and personal attacks Tom Delay and his people have been making on the guy. Is it any wonder that he's trying to help out the people who, if sucessful, would remove them from office?
Exactly. He wants to remove them from office, with the possibility of a personal motive (response to sleazy attacks). The prosecution of DeLay will help achieve this goal. During the course of an appearance to give this assistance, he broke ethical rules.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, desiring to remove sleazy politicians from office after they've broken the law makes someone potentially too biased to trust with the attempt? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No. Violating ethical rules while fundraising for those who will gain personally from the removal makes someone potentially too biased to trust with the attempt.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Exactly. He wants to remove them from office, with the possibility of a personal motive (response to sleazy attacks). The prosecution of DeLay will help achieve this goal. During the course of an appearance to give this assistance, he broke ethical rules.
I still don't see how that's strong evidence of bias, other than his alreadly well documented zeal against political corruption. He appears to be biased against crooked politicians, not for or against any one political party. Being biased aginst corruption and thinking that the people you are prosecuting are guilty are, for me, positive qualities to have in the prosecutor of a political corruption case.
I pretty much agree that he was wrong in at the least skating along an ethical line, but could you explain why these biases would make him a bad prosecutor?
---
Your one example involved the highest and most visible prosecutor in the nation flaglarantly violating these ethical rules and having absolutely nothing done about it. This is not merely one data point, but a case where the person in the most prominent position, the one who theoretically should be held to the highest standard, visibly breaks these rules without any censure. So yeah, it makes it look to me as if this is not something that people take all that seriously.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: pretty much agree that he was wrong in at the least skating along an ethical line, but could you explain why these biases would make him a bad prosecutor?
He violated ethical rules aimed specifically at preserving a defendant's fifth and sixth amendment rights to raise money for the political opponents of the defendant. Prima facie case of bias. Not irrefutable, but I've seen no refutation.
quote:Your one example involved the highest and most visible prosecutor in the nation flaglarantly violating these ethical rules and having absolutely nothing done about it. This is not merely one data point, but a case where the person in the most prominent position, the one who theoretically should be held to the highest standard, visibly breaks these rules without any censure. So yeah, it makes it look to me as if this is not something that people take all that seriously.
He's actually not a line prosecutor and hasn't practiced as one in years (if he did, I can't recall). Further, it was made an issue of, especially in the legal press. The defendants apparently decided not to pursue, for whatever reason. Nor did this have the obvious bias implications.
Does it look like DeLay isn't taking it all that seriously?
quote:So yeah, it makes it look to me as if this is not something that people take all that seriously.
Does this mean you'll stop complaining about people bringing up opposite party wrongdoing to defend their own party's wrongdoing? Because that's the essence of the arguments that you seem to complain about so often: "If you didn't complain when Clinton did it, it must not be a big deal."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Does it look like DeLay isn't taking it all that seriously?
Yeah. At least he's trying very hard to make that impression.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On April 18, Attorney General John Ashcroft was reprimanded by a federal judge for his failure to comply with a "gag order" - a standing court order requiring attorneys not to make public comments about the case.
Ashcroft's making a statement in contravention of the gag order is disappointing. But what is particularly upsetting is that this is not the first time. In cases in which defendants are charged with terrorism-related offenses, Ashcroft and other Justice Department prosecutors have repeatedly flouted both gag orders and state ethics rules requiring prosecutors not to make prejudicial out-of court statements about a defendant.
This time, the case at issue was the trial of four Detroit men accused of operating a terrorist cell. But the violations have also occurred in at least two prior cases, those of John Walker Lindh and Lynne Stewart. There seems little question that Ashcroft has consciously adopted a strategy of trying cases in the press so that he can make sure he doesn't lose them in the courtroom.
I get 10 google pages with the search [prosecutor public statements ethics ashcroft]. (Don't include the brackets.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I agreed that breaking the ethical rule is wrong. However, if this is not a rule that is considered particularly important, then it speaks prety directly to whether or not there is evidence to his bias. If it was this super-sancrosant rule that he broke, that would be one thing. If it's one of those rules that are there and you are supposd to follow, but many people don't and there's really not much in the way of censure if you break it, it's a different thing. That Ashcroft treated this rule with contempt and nothing bad happened to him doesn't excuse anyone else from follwoing the rule, but it does speak to whether or not this guy thought what he was doing was wrong or serious, which is something you need for the strong evidence of bias claim.
Also, bias can mean so many things. Delay and his vast right wing conspiriacy is trying to give out that the prosecutor is biased aginst Republicans. As I've said, it looks to me more like he's biased against corrupt politicans. That's the sort of bias I want someone is his position to have, although preferably without the ethical lapses. Why do you disagree?
---
According to what you just posted, Ashcroft was reprimanded for not complying with a gag order, that is an active directive by the judge to not say anything about the case. Is there a gag order on the Delay case? If not, how is that relevant?
edit: And, incidentally, from your link:
quote:There seems little question that Ashcroft has consciously adopted a strategy of trying cases in the press so that he can make sure he doesn't lose them in the courtroom.
It is especially disturbing that it is the Attorney General himself who has violated court orders and ethics rules. He can hardly set a standard for his prosecutors when he himself is a law-violator. And his comments carry more weight than most: For many, when the highest law enforcement officer in the country speaks, his words have the imprimatur of truth.
This seems to me to support what I was saying. The person who should be held to the highest standard in the land routinely showed contempt for these rules and nothing came of it. That makes it sound like these rules are not taken seriously. If they were, I'd have to expect that there would have been reprecussions for the continual violation of them by the highest member of the Justice Department.
[ December 06, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: However, if this is not a rule that is considered particularly important, then it speaks prety directly to whether or not there is evidence to his bias. If it was this super-sancrosant rule that he broke, that would be one thing. If it's one of those rules that are there and you are supposd to follow, but many people don't and there's really not much in the way of censure if you break it, it's a different thing.
Squicky, I'm not sure you want to go this route. Because then the very laws that DeLay is supposed to have broken become rather optional.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Breaking the ethical rules is wrong, no matter how common it is. However, if it is common and these rules are not respected, then, even though it is still wrong, it is not strong evidence of bias but rather something most people wouldn't give much thought to.
If the Delay people were saying that he should answer for his possible ethical violations, I'd be agreeing. But they, and Dag, seem to be saying that "Oh, he did this so he's liberally biased and thus he shouldn't be trying this case." I don't see how that follows.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Here is NPR's report on the story.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I've said, it looks to me more like he's biased against corrupt politicans. That's the sort of bias I want someone is his position to have, although preferably without the ethical lapses. Why do you disagree?
Because he is clearly biased against DeLay. If it's true he's just biased against "corrupt politicians," then he has called DeLay corrupt. And DeLay hasn't yet had the fair trial that will determine if he is a corrupt politician. Not a problem, unless one happens to be the officer of the court responsible for representing the interests of justice (not simply convicting defendants) in this particular case.
Since you seem to be doing everything possible to avoid dealing with this point directly: This was a speech designed to raise money, some of which would be used to attempt to oust the defendant. Earle's desire to have a competitor elected could be served by the prosecution. This is a conflict of interest, and may be used to infer bias.
quote:But they, and Dag, seem to be saying that "Oh, he did this so he's liberally biased and thus he shouldn't be trying this case."
I haven't said once that the bias is liberal or against Republicans. I've said it's against DeLay.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So he thinks that DeLay is guilty. I don't see how that makes him a bad choice for prosecuting him, as I've said. Why do you?
---
quote:This was a speech designed to raise money, some of which would be used to attempt to oust the defendant.
Errr...how do you know what the speech was designed to do?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So he thinks that DeLay is guilty. I don't see how that makes him a bad choice for prosecuting him, as I've said. Why do you?
It's because he said DeLay was guilty in public. Not because he thinks he's guilty, but because he is violating rules DESIGNED TO PROTECT DELAY'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL.
We let murderers against whom we have the most rock-solid of evidence go because of violations of their rights. In cases like this, the proper remedy isn't that drastic. But this is still a serious matter.
quote:Errr...how do you know what the speech was designed to do?
Because I can read ("in his speech earlier this month at the Democrat fundraiser sponsored by the Texas Values in Action Coalition"), and because I know that speakers at fundraisers are generally there to help raise funds.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In cases like this, the proper remedy isn't that drastic. But this is still a serious matter.
So you've said. And yet, as you've also demonstrated, it was apparently not so serious when the head of the Justice Department went far beyond tis on a regular basis.
I agree that it appears he might be in technical violation of this rule and that this is a bad thing. I also don't see this as more than a technical violation. I don't see Tom DeLay's right to a fair trial as being affected by this.
---
quote:Because I can read ("in his speech earlier this month at the Democrat fundraiser sponsored by the Texas Values in Action Coalition"), and because I know that speakers at fundraisers are generally there to help raise funds.
See, I think it's entirely likely that he was supporting the Texas Values in Action Coalition, which sounds like something that he would support. I don't think you have any where near enough information to decide what he designed the speech to do. You're claiming he set out specifically to raise money for the Democratic party. I don't believe that this is a responsible judgement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see Tom DeLay's right to a fair trial as being affected by this.
Yet why don't you address the underlying constitutional issues that led to the adoption of this rule?
quote:See, I think it's entirely likely that he was supporting the Texas Values in Action Coalition, which sounds like something that he would support. I don't think you have any where near enough information to decide what he designed the speech to do. You're claiming he set out specifically to raise money for the Democratic party. I don't believe that this is a responsible judgement.
It was a democratic fundraiser sponsored by this coalition. All quotes below are from the TexVAC website.
The TexVAC's stated methodology is to "To achieve this mission, TEXVAC will develop and nurture officeholders throughout the North Texas region by strategically gathering and applying financial, staffing, and message resources in targeted races, creating viable and competitive Democratic candidates."
If he supported them, he supported "creating viable and competitive Democratic candidates."
What does it take to create such a candidate? Money: "To establish viability, candidates need EARLY financing. For Texas Legislative Candidates to win, that means spending upwards of $300,000. Successful candidate development groups start helping their candidates secure that financing early."
So, if, as you say, "it's entirely likely that he was supporting the Texas Values in Action Coalition," then it's also entirely likely he was supporting their fundraising goal. As the speaker at a fundraising event, this likelihood is increased. That's what speakers at fundraising events are for.
[ December 06, 2005, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
While I think it is possible for a high-profile person to be invited to speak at a fund-raising event even when that person doesn't necessarily adhere to all principles of the group sponsoring the event, I also think it's possible to temper one's remarks in such a setting so as to avoid problems or conflicts with one's actual job.
To actually violate (or come close to violating) an ethical rule at such a gathering is a mistake.
It may not be evidence of bias, but it is evidence of something less than we would hope for in the person prosecuting ANYONE, but especially someone prosecuting a public figure.
My suspicion is that he's letting it get personal. He has had a tendency to do so in the past, and he's not immune to enjoying a self-indulgent moment in the limelight (witness the "being called ugly by a toad" comment). Sadly, I think he's smart enough to have carefully crafted his comments to see how close to the line he could get and still get away with it. He's not a stupid man. But he's displaying some serious flaws related to, I think, an ego issue.
Being egotistical and being a high-profile politician probably go hand-in-hand, though. So is this really a BIG deal?
Only if he manages to screw up his own case.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I just think it is odd that only Tom Delay is being prosecuted for this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I just think it is odd that only Tom Delay is being prosecuted for this.
He's not the only one being prosecuted for this scandal, actually.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
This could get really interesting.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I just think it is odd that only Tom Delay is being prosecuted for this.
Take a look at the inquiry into the Duke Cunningham bribery case. Cunningham admitted to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. ($2.4 million worth of bribes)
Cunningham held spots on the House Approprations and Intelligence committees (and Defense Approprations subcommittee in particular) and appears to have used his influence to direct defense contracts to firms headed by the men who paid him bribes.
One of the men who paid Cunningham, Brent Wilkes, owns a network of companies that produce almost zero products and employ almost zero people. They are apparently cover businesses of some sort, but receive a lot of federal defense contracts. It is unclear where this money has gone. Most of the companies have the same address and fax number.
Wilkes' companies include: Group W Media, Group W Transportation, Al Dust Properties, Group W Holdings, Mailsafe Inc., Perfect Wave Technologies, and Pure Aqua Technologies. Few of them publish much information about what they do or how to contact them. Millions of dollars in taxpayer money went to these companies, and it is hard to say what that money bought. Wilkes provided air transportation to Cunningham, Delay, and Delay's replacement as Majority Leader Roy Blunt.
The other man named in Cunningham's bribery is Mitchell Wade. He owned a company called MZM Inc., which is a defense and intelligence firm that took part in a five-way $252 Million contract in 2003.
These companies have been linked to a very large number of political donations, each for small amounts, to Republican candidates or PACs.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)