More trouble for DeLay

Tom DeLay's Transgressions: A Pattern of Misbehavior

Unprecedented 4 Admonishments by unanimous votes of the bipartisan Ethics Committee

K Street Project (1999) - Admonished for threatening Electronic Industries Alliance for not hiring a Republican as its president. The ethics committee initiated this investigation. Source: "Ethics Panel Chastises DeLay For Threatening Trade Group." The Washington Post, 5/14/99


Westar Energy (2004) - Admonished for organizing a fundraiser at the Homestead resort for energy company executives, including Westar Energy company officials, just as a conference committee was to meet on an energy bill (H.R. 6). The committee said this created "at a minimum" the appearance of trading favors for influence on legislation. Source: Ethics Committee memorandum.


Texas Redistricting (2004) - Admonished for using the Federal Aviation Administration in the 2003 Texas redistricting battle to track an airplane carrying Democrats out of the state. Source: Ethics Committee memorandum.


Medicare Bill (2004) - Offering both benefits (campaign contributions for son's campaign) and threats (opposition to son's campaign) to Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) on the House floor during a November 2003 vote on Medicare/prescription drug bill. Source: Ethics Committee Medicare report.


Pending case

Illegal Campaign Contributions (2005) - The House ethics committee last year was asked to investigate Rep. DeLay for using his political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), to launder corporate money to Texas state campaigns in 2002, a violation of state law. The committee decided not to take action on the complaint until after Travis County (Austin), Texas district attorney Ronnie Earle completes his investigation of TRMPAC activities and until indictments against DeLay associates in Texas are disposed of. Source: Ethics Committee memorandum.


Questionable Conduct (not publicly considered by ethics committee)


Celebrations for Children (CFC) - This charity, which counted DeLay political operatives among its officers, had planned to sell tee times to Long Island golf courses, as well as VIP tickets to Broadway plays, yacht cruises and other events that offered access to DeLay during the 2004 Republican convention in New York. The funds raised by CFC for those events would have been used to pay for convention expenses. In addition, the money would count as partially tax-deductible donations toward a foster home under construction in DeLay's district. After the charity's plan drew unfavorable attention from the House Ethics Committee, the charity backed away from its convention plans.


Cruise Ship in NYC - DeLay proposed anchoring a cruise liner in New York harbor during the convention as an exclusive hotel for lawmakers, lobbyists and special guests. That plan was scrapped after unfavorable publicity and New York officials' objected because of lost hotel and hospitality-related revenue.


Legal Defense Fund Contributions - DeLay was forced to return contributions to his legal defense fund from registered lobbyists because those contributions violated House ethics rules. ("DeLay and Company," Time, March 21, 2005 - premium content)


The Latest Ethics Allegations Against Tom DeLay

Accepting illegal gifts of travel, lodging and golfing outing in the British Islands from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. [need new source]


Taking trip to South Korea with other House Members and staff funded by a registered foreign agents. [need new source -add NJ article]


Protecting Delay: Changing Ethics Rules


Attempting to change House ethics rules to eliminate the broad rule that Members should conduct themselves in a manner that reflects creditably on the House. This had been the basis for sanctions by the ethics committee and the House.

The House Republican conference changes its internal rules, rescinding a provision that if indicted, a leadership member must step down from post. (This rule change is itself later rescinded after adverse publicity.)

Changed House ethics rules to let a complaint die if the ethics committee cannot decide whether it should be investigated within 45 days.

Changed House rules to allow either party to block an ethics investigation by voting along party lines, thus denying a majority vote to allow it to proceed.

Attempting to change ethics rule that no outsider could help a member write a complaint.


Protecting Delay: Ethics Committee Purge


Speaker Dennis Hastert removed Rep. Joel Hefley (D-CO) as ethics chair -- who oversaw three admonishments of DeLay in 2004.


Speaker Hastert removed two Republicans from the ethics committee who admonished DeLay and voted against the Republican Conference rule changes.


Replaced the three members of the Ethics Committee with Republican loyalists who have contributed to DeLay's legal defense fund.


Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), the new ethics committee chairman, purges two committee senior staff.


Protecting Delay: Intimidate Accusers


Ethics committee in November 2004, along with admonishment of Delay, warns Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX), who filed complaints against Delay, for "excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated charges " and threatened disciplinary action against Members who filed complaints the committee considered excessive or inflammatory. This action serves to discourage the already rare Member-filed complaint to the ethics committee.

Retaliation against Ronnie Earle, the Texas district attorney who is investigating possible violations by DeLay. Specifically, legislation introduced in the GOP-dominated state Texas state legislature to halt Earle's high-profile grand jury probe. The legislation would have taken authority over campaign finance violations from the district attorney and given it to a special office in the Texas Ethics Commission that would have the power to stop district attorneys from prosecuting election code violations.

Unprecedented 4 Admonishments by unanimous votes of the bipartisan Ethics Committee

Of course the confession was forced... who would admit to wrong doing unless they were forced? The fact that it was forced does not make it false.

I'll say it again: if the charges were false, then he should have fought them tooth and nail. He didn't. He folded like an accordion.

Sorry, I think that one is a bit of a stretch. You don't think that Newt had some damn fine lawyers? That he wouldn't jump at the chance to humiliate some "democratic witch hunters?"

The "Hammer" is about to get nailed.

Quote:

Unprecedented 4 Admonishments by unanimous votes of the bipartisan Ethics Committee

Yeah, it must be a witch hunt. Unanimous votes have to be evidence of that some way. C'mon oralloy, tell us HOW every GOPer on the Ethics committee was threatened by the minority party.

It comes from the demagogy the Democrats use. If the Republicans stand up for what is right and reject the false charges, the Democrats will demonize them to the voters, claiming they are covering up for some supposed crime.

I get it now. Newt only admitted to it so YOU could demagogue this issue to death.

The funniest part of the whole thing is you actually think you have facts.

The truth is funny?

oralloy wrote:

The truth is funny?

No, your fiction is. :wink:

Dookiestix wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The truth is funny?

No, your fiction is. :wink:

Nothing I've said is fiction.

oralloy wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The truth is funny?

No, your fiction is. :wink:

Nothing I've said is fiction.

You're right. I meant to say "science fiction..."

Will you start another thread to talk about Newt plz?

I'd like to hear you respond to the fact that he was admonished by a unanimous vote before bipartisan committee no less than four times,

It comes from the demagogy the Democrats use. If the Republicans stand up for what is right and reject the false charges, the Democrats will demonize them to the voters, claiming they are covering up for some supposed crime.

and I'd like to hear your explanation as to why that constitutes a 'Democrat smear job.'

Tom Delay has committed several acts that are not only ethically and morally wrong but they are possibly illegal.

I find it interesting that the GOP felt they had to change the rules to protect one of their leaders if indicted and then were so proud of their action that they refused to say which way they voted.