More trouble for DeLay

DrewDad wrote:

I think Newt Gingrich is posting on A2K under the screen name of oralloy....

I'm flattered, but no.

DrewDad wrote:

Any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share with us?

Your idea about my ID was enough of a conspiracy theory for me, thanks.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'll call for pursuing both DeLay and the staffer for possible violations, when the DNC publicly admits that Newt did nothing wrong, and repays him the $5 million that their witch hunts cost him, and then publicly admits that Clinton committed perjury and obstruction, and should have been removed from office like Nixon.

Your reality must be very lonely.
Newt admitted he violated the ethics of Congress and agreed to pay the fine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011997.htm

Quote:

In his final opportunity to defend his client Friday night before the House ethics committee, an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made "glaringly inconsistent" statements to the panel's investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds.

The concession was among the most dramatic of any Gingrich representative. The speaker in December admitted to having provided inaccurate information to the ethics panel. The full ethics committee on Friday voted 7 to 1, just two hours after the comments by Gingrich attorney J. Randolph Evans, to recommend a $300,000 penalty and a formal reprimand of the Georgia Republican,

How weak are the Republicans that they can be bamboozled by the Dems when the GOP controls the house?

Or did Newt commit perjury when he did the following?:

Quote:

Respondent's Answer To Statement Of Alleged Violation:
I, Newt Gingrich, admit to the Statement of Alleged Violation dated December 21, 1996.

[Signature]
Rep. Newt Gingrich
Respondent

[Signature]
J. Randolph Evans, Esq.
Attorney for Rep. Gingrich

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 21 l996.

[Signature]

Rep. Newt Gingrich

0 Replies

parados wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011997.htm

Quote:
In his final opportunity to defend his client Friday night before the House ethics committee, an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made "glaringly inconsistent" statements to the panel's investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds.

The concession was among the most dramatic of any Gingrich representative. The speaker in December admitted to having provided inaccurate information to the ethics panel. The full ethics committee on Friday voted 7 to 1, just two hours after the comments by Gingrich attorney J. Randolph Evans, to recommend a $300,000 penalty and a formal reprimand of the Georgia Republican,

In other words, the Democrats claimed that Newt's college course was not tax exempt, even though it really was, and insisted that he start paying taxes he didn't owe.

In the paperwork that he submitted to the Democratic witch hunt over the issue, he accidentally listed his course as still tax exempt on one of the papers (although on the rest of the papers he gave in to the DNC lie).

The Democrats then blew a huge amount of taxpayer money investigating the discrepancy, and eventually, to make the endless witch hunting stop, Newt agreed that it was his fault that there was a discrepancy (how dare he tell the truth when the Democrats insisted on lies), and he agreed to pay the cost of the DNC witch hunting.

Sorry, not interested in hearing any of the bogus charges the DNC are fabricating against DeLay.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
I'll call for pursuing both DeLay and the staffer for possible violations, when the DNC publicly admits that Newt did nothing wrong, and repays him the $5 million that their witch hunts cost him, and then publicly admits that Clinton committed perjury and obstruction, and should have been removed from office like Nixon.

Your reality must be very lonely.

The only company I require is that of the truth.

parados wrote:

Newt admitted he violated the ethics of Congress and agreed to pay the fine.

The fact that he decided to accept a penalty he didn't deserve in order to make the witch hunt go away, doesn't really justify the witch hunt.

parados wrote:

How weak are the Republicans that they can be bamboozled by the Dems when the GOP controls the house?

I don't think any Republicans were bamboozled. Maybe some of the liberal Republicans.

For the most part, they just did the politically expedient thing after Newt fell on his sword for them.

parados wrote:

Or did Newt commit perjury when he did the following?:

I don't think a perjury charge would stick given that it is a case of an innocent person copping a plea when faced with witch-hunting persecution.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

The Democrats then blew a huge amount of taxpayer money investigating the discrepancy

Depends on how you define waste.... I'd say it was well spent.

If you're looking for gov't waste, then I have two words: Kenneth Starr.

oralloy wrote:

, and eventually, to make the endless witch hunting stop, Newt agreed that it was his fault that there was a discrepancy (how dare he tell the truth when the Democrats insisted on lies), and he agreed to pay the cost of the DNC witch hunting.

I'd have thought he'd fight to the bitter end against smearing his good name. That's what I'd do, that's what I'd expect an innocent man to do, that is not what good ol' Newt did. Makes one think, doesn't it?

oralloy wrote:

Sorry, not interested in hearing any of the bogus charges the DNC are fabricating against DeLay.

You seem to assume that any charges against your idols are automatically bogus. Perhaps you should be demonstrating outside the Michael Jackson trial? He's been fighting "trumped up charges" for a while now, too.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Depends on how you define waste.... I'd say it was well spent.

I don't regard hounding people for crimes they're innocent of as a good use of public money.

DrewDad wrote:

If you're looking for gov't waste, then I have two words: Kenneth Starr.

Dean Starr (he got the gig as head of Pepperdine Law School) didn't uncover wrongdoing in every single investigation, but he did uncover perjury and obstruction, meriting Clinton's removal from office.

He also uncovered wrongdoing regarding Whitewater, leading to a few convictions (although as I recall, a judge let Susan McDougal out a couple months into her sentence "because she had a bad back"). He also uncovered enough unethical behavior on the part of Hillary in Whitewater to warrant disbarment.

If we were to apply the same standard that was applied to Newt, then the bill for all the investigations that didn't uncover anything should have been paid by Clinton.

DrewDad wrote:

I'd have thought he'd fight to the bitter end against smearing his good name. That's what I'd do, that's what I'd expect an innocent man to do, that is not what good ol' Newt did. Makes one think, doesn't it?

There have been many cases where innocent people admit guilt when faced with unscrupulous prosecution.

DrewDad wrote:

You seem to assume that any charges against your idols are automatically bogus. Perhaps you should be demonstrating outside the Michael Jackson trial? He's been fighting "trumped up charges" for a while now, too.

I wouldn't call DeLay an idol of mine. I am grateful for the good work he does in preventing the DNC from taking away everyone's guns.

What I do is assume that every charge made by a Democratic politician is bogus.

I've no idea if Michael Jackson is guilty or innocent. It would be terrible both if he got away with it and if he were wrongly convicted. I hope the jury gets it right, whatever the truth is.

0 Replies

Quote:

The fact that he decided to accept a penalty he didn't deserve in order to make the witch hunt go away, doesn't really justify the witch hunt.

Oh.. so your argument is Newt was innocent but committed PERJURY when he claimed he was guilty and signed the paper stating such. OK.. Thanks for clarifying that.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Oh.. so your argument is Newt was innocent but committed PERJURY when he claimed he was guilty and signed the paper stating such. OK.. Thanks for clarifying that.

oralloy wrote:

I don't think a perjury charge would stick given that it is a case of an innocent person copping a plea when faced with witch-hunting persecution.

EDIT: I should add that while I found the whole witch hunt against Newt to be somewhat reminiscent of McCarthyism, I find the notion of using perjury against an innocent person who was bullied into confessing to be something that even McCarthy would be ashamed of.

"A vote for Republicans is a vote against McCarthyism."

0 Replies

if delay had an once of integrity he would take a shotgun and disconnect his brain

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

if delay had an once of integrity he would take a shotgun and disconnect his brain

I can't speak to DeLay's integrity.

But I know that charges that originate from House Democrats are completely bogus.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
if delay had an once of integrity he would take a shotgun and disconnect his brain

I can't speak to DeLay's integrity.

Of course you can't. That's why Tom DeLay is being investigated.

If these charges are so ridiculously bogus, then why has DeLay started a defense fund and is collecting whopping amounts of money? Didn't he say how utterly ridiculous these charges were, despite the fact that he's already been rebuked three times by his own colleagues? Obviously demonizing the Democrat who investigates these ethics violations isn't working because out of all the Congressmen who HAVE been investigated, MOST have been DEMOCRATS. And so you people must then demonize the entire Democratic party.

The tactics are predictable and boring. Perhaps Karl Rove has another trick up his sleeve. In either case, DeLay will be investigated. If neoconservative idiots were willing to spend close to $70 million to investigate Clinton's BJ, then I see no reason to actually investigate a scum of the earth maggot like Tom DeLay.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't think a perjury charge would stick given that it is a case of an innocent person copping a plea when faced with witch-hunting persecution.

You may not take this seriously but the court does. There are only 2 choices. Newt was guilty or Newt committed perjury. There is no choice of he was not guilty and didn't commit perjury. They are mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

You may not take this seriously but the court does.

Preposterous!

No court on the planet is Orwellian enough to charge someone with perjury because he was bullied into confessing to something he didn't do.

Not even McCarthy would sink this low.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

That's why Tom DeLay is being investigated.

He is???

Dookiestix wrote:

If these charges are so ridiculously bogus, then why has DeLay started a defense fund and is collecting whopping amounts of money?

You really have to ask why an innocent person would plan a defense against a witch hunt that was targeting him?

Dookiestix wrote:

In either case, DeLay will be investigated.

Maybe. Maybe not.

If he is, it will be a partisan witch hunt, and the charges will be bogus.

Dookiestix wrote:

If neoconservative idiots were willing to spend close to $70 million to investigate Clinton's BJ,

No one spent $70 million to investigate Clinton's sex life.

Attorney General Janet Reno did have Dean Starr investigate whether Clinton committed perjury and obstruction though (and it turned out that he had).

0 Replies

Quote:

Attorney General Janet Reno did have Dean Starr investigate whether Clinton committed perjury and obstruction though (and it turned out that he had).

Um, that would be "Ken" Starr. Clinton lied (about a BJ), and the Republican no-policy morons tried to remove him from office for it.

If you care to have a better command of the "facts," then I suggest you start by getting the names right first.

Speaking of facts, do you read the news? My guess is you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking questions regarding Ken Lay's ongoing investigation, the amount of money spent investigating Clinton, the fact that the guy (a Democrat) investigating DeLay has perforrmed more "witchhunts" against Democrats than Republicans, and, you probably wouldn't sound so much like an ignorant fool in feigning ignorance. I guess three rebukes from DeLay's own colleagues isn't enough to convince you that there might be something up. No. Perhaps it has to take a few more rebukes, or perhaps a complete distraction from DeLay's problems by putting him front and center in the Shiavo fiasco.

Truly amazing. And truly pathetic.

0 Replies

orallay,
You seem to have some problems understanding simple things. Newt did not cop a plea in court. He signed a paper under penalty of perjury. It was NOT a court case at all. Newt said in that paper that he committed an act that violated the ethics rules of congress. If Newt signed that paper, it was of his own free will. He was not under any threat of imprisonment or a legal proceeding that could convict him of a crime. The court takes very seriously anything signed under penalty of perjury that is proven to be untrue. What do you think the fraud statutes are all about?

If you bothered to go read the entire statement, Newt admitted it only after he was shown the evidence that contradicted his own testimony.

Courts take the plea system very seriously as well which is entirely seperate from the perjury you are claiming Newt commited. http://www.courttv.com/trials/soliah/110601_ap.html Sara Jane Olson was dragged back into court to reconfirm her guilty plea after she publically claimed her innocence after pleading guilty.

By the way, Ken (not Dean) Starr was not originally appointed to investigate claims of perjury or obstruction. He was appointed to investigate the Whitewater incident. Clinton was never found to have committed a crime in that. The charges of perjury were after the fact and more obscure than the Newt ethic charges.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Um, that would be "Ken" Starr.

I am aware of Dean Starr's first name.

Dookiestix wrote:

Clinton lied (about a BJ),

Not only that, he committed perjury and obstruction too.

Dookiestix wrote:

If you care to have a better command of the "facts," then I suggest you start by getting the names right first.

That you are too uninformed to know what is meant by "Dean" (odd considering that I explained it earlier in the thread -- but I guess you don't have much in the way of reading comprehension), is perhaps excusable. But you should lay off the hypocrisy with your false allegations that I have a similar degree of ignorance.

Dookiestix wrote:

Speaking of facts, do you read the news? My guess is you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking questions regarding Ken Lay's ongoing investigation,

My guess is you can't show where Ken Lay is being investigated.

Dookiestix wrote:

the amount of money spent investigating Clinton,

I don't recall asking about how much money was spent investigating Clinton.

Dookiestix wrote:

the fact that the guy (a Democrat) investigating DeLay has perforrmed more "witchhunts" against Democrats than Republicans,

Don't recall asking about that either.

I suggest that you are unethical as well as ignorant, and are making up false charges against me to obfuscate the fact that the Democrats are making up false charges against DeLay.

Dookiestix wrote:

and, you probably wouldn't sound so much like an ignorant fool in feigning ignorance.

Dookiestix wrote:

truly pathetic.

You are pretty good at trying to denigrate people.

I guess it fits in well with your hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

parados wrote:

orallay,
You seem to have some problems understanding simple things.

Not at all. I understand your Orwellian idea about how to abuse perjury statutes.

I just reject it as the most horrifyingly Orwellian concept I have ever heard (and I've heard some pretty outlandish proposals before).

parados wrote:

the perjury you are claiming Newt commited.

I am claiming the exact opposite.

parados wrote:

If you bothered to go read the entire statement, Newt admitted it only after he was shown the evidence that contradicted his own testimony.

Newt signed a statement telling the truth (against the will of the Democrats) that his college course was tax exempt. He also signed statements conforming to the DNC lies that his college course was not tax exempt. When the Democrats found the conflicting statements, they spent a lot of money investigating, finding nothing.

All Newt admitted to was that he was responsible for the discrepancy in his signed statements.

parados wrote:

By the way, Ken (not Dean) Starr was not originally appointed to investigate claims of perjury or obstruction.

Ken Starr is the head of Pepperdine Law School whether you like it or not.

Of what relevance is the fact that he was not originally appointed to investigate Clinton's perjury and obstruction?

parados wrote:

He was appointed to investigate the Whitewater incident. Clinton was never found to have committed a crime in that.

True, though others were.

And Hillary should have been disbarred for her unethical conduct in the matter.

parados wrote:

The charges of perjury were after the fact and more obscure than the Newt ethic charges.

More obscure, perhaps. But the charges were at least legitimate, which was not the case with the charges against Newt.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:
Speaking of facts, do you read the news? My guess is you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking questions regarding Ken Lay's ongoing investigation,

My guess is you can't show where Ken Lay is being investigated.

Ken Lay??? I just realized that you said that and not DeLay.

Ken Lay may be under investigation. I don't recall asking a question about it though. My guess is that you can't show where I asked such a question.

DeLay, who was the person previously being discussed, is not under investigation at the moment.

0 Replies

Ken Lay, Tom DeLay, my bad. Boy, it's hard to keep track of all the corrupt neocons who are currently screwing up this country.

Dean Starr? Oh, my, it's pretty much impossible to imagine someone with that title who not that long ago was fixated on Clinton's penis. But I'll apologize anyway for that one.

Quote:

I suggest that you are unethical as well as ignorant, and are making up false charges against me to obfuscate the fact that the Democrats are making up false charges against DeLay.

Yeah, and I'm sure they made up those three rebukes from DeLay's colleagues. Did they also make up the fact that three of DeLay's closest aides in Texas are standing trial for criminal campaign-finance violations? Laughing

Let's see, what did Ronnie Earle say about all of this? "The rules you apply to yourself are the true test of your moral values." If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Earle is following the Republican's rules regarding ethics violations in Congress. Did you also forget that they then tried to change those rules?

To paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson, Tom DeLay is beginning to look like a farmer with terminal cancer trying to borrow money on next year's crop.

0 Replies

More trouble for DeLay

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know