0
   

Should DeLay resign

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2005 08:41 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
I can't contest your wit and wisdom Finn, I still claim to be an honest man.


No doubt you are dys, but it is rarely the honesty of the village idiot that is questioned.

"Finn d'Abuzz" false advertising?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2005 09:11 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
parados wrote:
Another indictment of Delay today for money laundering by a different grand jury. Seems 24 people think he likely committed a crime.


How cogent. Why bother with trials? An indictment is as good as a guilty verdict.


2 juries of 12 people both brought an indictment. Read my statement Finn. I said they found it that he likely committed a crime which is the basic standard for an indictment. I didn't once mention the word guilty. Don't worry Finn, just trot out your straw man and ride him til the straw turns to dust.

I'm not questioning you honesty Finn, just your reading comprehension. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2005 09:15 pm
Haven't been hearing from DeLay about this being another left-wing conspirary. Anybody know why?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2005 11:53 pm
Quote:
Baroness Thatcher has been questioned as part of a US corruption investigation into one of the Republican party's most senior congressmen, it emerged today.
She was contacted by the Metropolitan police at the request of US authorities investigating congressman Tom DeLay, who she met while he was on a trip to London in May 2000.

There is no suggestion Lady Thatcher has been accused of any wrongdoing.
Source
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2005 06:32 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Haven't been hearing from DeLay about this being another left-wing conspirary. Anybody know why?


Delay has said it is a "do over" by Earle. He is playing the same card, claiming he is a victim.

I love the fact that Delay claimed he was never asked to appear before the grand jury and the grand jury said they held off on the first indictment hoping he would come before them like they requested. Delay has an ax to grind. The GJ doesn't. It makes Delays protestations seem shrill.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 11:38 am
DeLay, Blunt Traded Secret Donations
DeLay, Blunt Traded Secret Donations
By JOHN SOLOMON and By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writers
10/5/05

Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess funds to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.

When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.

The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.

Blunt last week temporarily replaced DeLay as House majority leader, and Blunt's son, Matt, has now risen to Missouri's governor.

The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.

"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.

None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.

DeLay has temporarily stepped aside as majority leader after being indicted by a Texas prosecutor.

Spokesmen for the two Republican leaders say they disclosed what was required by law at the time and believe all their transactions were legal, though donors might not always have know where their money was headed.

"It illustrates what others have said, that money gets transferred all the time. This was disclosed to the extent required to be disclosed by applicable law," said Don McGahn, a lawyer for DeLay. "It just shows that donors don't control funds once they're given."

Blunt and DeLay planned all along to raise more money than was needed for the convention parties and then route some of that to other causes, such as supporting state candidates, said longtime Blunt aide Gregg Hartley.

"We put together a budget for what we thought we would raise and spend on the convention and whatever was left over we were going to use to support candidates," said Hartley, Blunt's former chief of staff who answered AP's questions on behalf of Blunt.

Hartley said he saw no similarity to the Texas case. The fact that DeLay's charity, Christine DeLay's consulting firm and Blunt's son were beneficiaries was a coincidence, Hartley said.

Much of the money ?- including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a "sweatshop" garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands ?- changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.

During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.

Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.

Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.

"You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest," he said. "And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.

"All of these transactions may have strings attached to them. ... I think you would want to look, if you aren't already looking, at the question of a quid pro quo," Noble said.

Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House.

The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny.

DeLay's convention fundraising arm, part of his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC), collected large corporate donations to help wine and dine Republican VIPs during the presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia in late summer 2000. DeLay's group has declined to identify any of the donors.

Blunt's group, a nonfederal wing of his Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, eventually registered its activities in Missouri but paid a $3,000 fine for improperly concealing its fundraising in 1999 and spring 2000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records.

Both groups ?- DeLay's and Blunt's ?- were simultaneously paying Ellis, the longtime DeLay fundraiser who was indicted along with his boss in Texas in the alleged money laundering scheme.

The DeLay group began transferring money to Blunt's group in two checks totaling $150,000 in the spring of 2000, well before Republicans actually met in Philadelphia for the convention. The transfers accounted for most of money Blunt's group received during that period.

DeLay's convention arm sent $50,000 on March 31, 2000. Eight days later, the Blunt group made a $10,000 donation to DeLay's private charity for children on April 7, 2000, and began the first of several payments totaling $40,000 to a northern Virginia-based political consulting firm formed by DeLay's former chief of staff, Ed Buckham.

That consulting firm at the time also employed DeLay's wife, Christine, according to DeLay's ethics disclosure report to Congress.

Hartley said Blunt was unaware that Mrs. DeLay worked at the firm when he made the payments, and that she had nothing to do with Blunt's group.

On April 14, 2000, Concorde Garment Manufacturing, based in the Northern Marianas Islands that was part of Abramoff's lobbying coalition, contributed $3,000 to Blunt's group.

Hartley said the donation was delivered during a weekend of fundraising activities by Blunt and DeLay but his boss did not know who solicited it.

Concorde, derided for years in lawsuits as a Pacific island sweatshop, paid a $9 million penalty to the U.S. government in the 1990s for failing to pay workers' overtime. The company was visited by DeLay.

The company was a key member of the Marianas garment industry that the islands' government was trying to protect when it hired Abramoff to lobby DeLay, Blunt and others to keep Congress from imposing tougher wage and tax standards on the islands.

After the November 2000 election, Abramoff's firm billed its Mariana Islands clients for at least one meeting with Blunt and three meetings with Blunt's staff, billing records show. Abramoff's team also reported several meetings with DeLay and his staff on the issue, including one during the presidential convention.

On May 24, 2000 ?- just before DeLay left with Abramoff for the Scottish golfing trip ?- DeLay's convention fundraising group transferred $100,000 more to Blunt's group. Within three weeks, Blunt turned around and donated the same amount to the Missouri Republican Party.

The next month, the state GOP began spending large amounts of money to help Blunt's son, Matt, in his successful campaign to become Missouri secretary of state. On July 25, 2000, the state GOP made its first expenditure for the younger Blunt, totaling just over $11,000. By election day, that figure had grown to more than $160,000.

Hartley said Blunt always liked to help the state party and the fact that his son got party help after his donation was a coincidence. "They are unrelated activities," he said.

Exchanges of donations occurred again in the fall. Just a few days before the November election, DeLay's ARMPAC gave $50,000 to the Missouri GOP. A month later, the Missouri GOP sent $50,000 to DeLay's group.
-----------------------------------------------

Associated Press Writer David Lieb in Missouri contributed to this story.

Documents for this story are available at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/delay/index.html
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 10:43 am
DeLay statements raise new questions
Oct. 6, 2005, 11:11PM
DeLay statements raise new questions
His assertions, and his lawyer's, have apparently changed this week
By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Statements by U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and his lawyer, as well as documents in a civil lawsuit, raise questions about when he knew a Texas political committee he founded sent $190,000 in corporate money to the Republican National Committee.


The donation is at the center of indictments returned against DeLay on Monday accusing him of conspiracy to violate state election laws, money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. DeLay says nothing about the transaction was illegal.

A key point in the case revolves around what DeLay learned at an Oct. 2, 2002, meeting with his political director, Jim Ellis, and what DeLay told Travis County prosecutors this past August.

The indictments allege that the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority sent corporate money that could not be spent in Texas campaigns to the RNC in exchange for $190,000 in noncorporate donations for seven legislative candidates.

The transaction allegedly was arranged by Ellis, director of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, who also has been indicted.

TRMPAC sent the check on Sept. 13, 2002. DeLay met with Ellis in Washington on Oct. 2, 2002.

But DeLay and his lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, have changed their stories this week about what DeLay knew about the money and when.

DeLay told talk show host Rush Limbaugh that in August, he mistakenly told prosecutors he knew about the TRMPAC check before it was sent to the Republican National Committee. He said Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle would not allow him to change his statement.

"I misspoke one sentence ?- one sentence ?- and they have based all of this on one sentence," DeLay said during a radio interview with Limbaugh on Tuesday. "They think that before the (TRMPAC) check was cut and sent to the national committee that I approved this check. I didn't know this went on until well after it happened."

On the same day, DeGuerin told the Houston Chronicle that DeLay likely found out about the check at an 10:15 a.m. Oct. 2, 2002, meeting with Ellis. DeGuerin said what DeLay learned was informational and did not put him into a decision-making process.

"The bottom line is DeLay didn't have any decision to make, and he didn't make any decision. He might have been informed about it, but it was kind of as, 'Hey, I got this done,' and he might have said, 'Sure, that's great,' " DeGuerin said.

But on Thursday, DeGuerin told the Chronicle that Ellis and DeLay did not talk about the TRMPAC donation to the RNC during that meeting. He said DeLay remembers Ellis telling him about it at a later meeting. DeGuerin said he clarified what happened after talking to DeLay and Ellis' lawyer.

"He has a recollection ... as he was leaving the scheduling meeting of Ellis simply saying, 'We've sent $190,000 up from TRMPAC.' And that was it," DeGuerin said.

Whether DeLay knew about the money on Oct. 2 could be significant for prosecutors in his case because he is accused of participating in a conspiracy.

The date comes after TRMPAC made a donation to the RNC on Sept. 13 but is the same day that RNC officials ordered noncorporate checks totaling $190,000 cut for seven Texas House candidates "ASAP," as soon as possible. The checks were cut and sent to the candidates on Oct. 4, 2002.

Documents in a civil lawsuit tried earlier this year in Travis County contain evidence that a TRMPAC financial report was being prepared in September 2002 for DeLay that would have included the donation to the RNC.

Ellis knew about the transaction because he had delivered the check to the Republican National Committee, according to the indictment and e-mails entered into evidence in the civil trial.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 11:04 am
BBB, There's still that big question about whether all this will actually hang DeLay.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 11:12 am
DeLay Team Asks Court to Dismiss Indictments

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: October 8, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - Defense lawyers for Representative Tom DeLay asked a court to dismiss the indictments against him on Friday, claiming that the prosecutor in the Texas case had taken "extraordinarily irregular" steps in trying to bring charges against the former House majority leader.

The two-page motion, filed just before the close of business in district court in Travis County, asserted that Ronnie Earle, the district attorney, had "attempted to browbeat and coerce" jurors into bringing a second indictment against Mr. DeLay after the validity of an earlier indictment was called into question. The motion accused him of prosecutorial misconduct.

"It's one of those things that really needs to be seriously investigated," said Bill White, an Austin lawyer who is participating in Mr. DeLay's defense. "In all fairness, it doesn't sound good, but let's air it out, let's see how serious it is and what's really there. It's certainly confusing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/politics/08delay.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1128791317-qNpy4OnJX1AlTXinyLOcNg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 11:15 am
At this point, it would seem that the $190,000 illegal transfers would look like pocket money compared to the legal expenses necessary to protect DeLay from prison.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 11:27 am
Waiting for the House to appropriate a "defense fund" for DeLay. Actually not, what I expect is that the House will never allow DeLay to return to his former position, too many others are vying for positions and he is an embarrassment to the party.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 11:28 am
Dys
dyslexia wrote:
Waiting for the House to appropriate a "defense fund" for DeLay. Actually not, what I expect is that the House will never allow DeLay to return to his former position, too many others are vying for positions and he is an embarrassment to the party.


I agree. Party loyalty only goes as far as personal power ambition allows.

BBB
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 12:54 pm
And then there is Blunt...
Quote:
For instance, Blunt has been implicated in several scandals involving members of his family, and as David Goldstein and Matt Stearns reported in late September, "Blunt was criticized in 2003 for slipping into Homeland Security legislation a provision that would have cracked down on illegal and Internet-based cigarette sales," which "would have been a huge boon to Altria, parent of cigarette maker Philip Morris." At the time, Blunt's soon-to-be wife and one of his sons were lobbyists for Altria, while "various Blunt campaign committees had received about $150,000 from Philip Morris and affiliated companies in the two years preceding the legislation."

What's more, in echoes of the DeLay fundraising scandal, the Springfield (Missouri) News-Leader ran a piece back in August of 2003 that implicates Blunt's other son, Matt - who is currently the governor of Missouri - in some rather dubious dealings. The News-Leader reported on a "series of transactions in which a campaign committee controlled by [Blunt] had contributed $50,000 to a state 7th District Congressional Republican Committee, which then gave $40,000 to Matt Blunt's campaign eight days later." In another ethically suspect fundraising scheme, the paper also reported that yet another committee controlled by the congressman gave money to a local congressional Republican committee, and was "eventually fined $3,000 for improperly giving money to state candidates."

The AP is reporting that "Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes. When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money." What's more, another AP piece of September 28?-which doesn't appear to have been widely picked up?-informs us that Blunt's political committee has shelled out about $88,000 in fees since 2003 to a consultant currently under indictment in Texas along with DeLay. Together these two stories offer a conveniently holistic view of the scandal in which the entire Republican leadership, including Blunt, have their hands in the till.

In other words, everything's bigger in Texas, including the scandals. Why, therefore, are the media being so shy about drilling what will surely be a gusher-sized fount of corruption once the right wells are tapped?
link
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 01:58 pm
Why indeed! But we are all aware that the media of today are all chicken-littles with little guts the size of a turkey's brain. The majority of media in this country is no better than what they have in China.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 11:12 am
DeLay Launches Media Blitz
DeLay Launches Media Blitz
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
Published: October 11, 2005 10:17 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AP)

Long before his criminal case gets a hearing in a court of law, Rep. Tom DeLay is fighting in the court of public opinion. With his trademark zeal, he assails the prosecutor in one sentence and portrays himself as a victim in the next. And the media -- often distrusted by fellow conservatives -- is his bullhorn.

"I know when you stand up for what you believe in, this kind of thing is going to happen," DeLay boasted on a Houston radio show. "It's part of the fight. I know Democrats hate me and they hate what I believe in and they hate the amazing things we've been able to accomplish ever since we've been in the majority."

Setting aside his own aversion to the media, DeLay has waged a blitz on radio, on TV and in print as he tries to shore up support in his suburban Houston congressional district while assuring fellow Republicans he plans to return to power.

Grand juries in Texas have indicted DeLay on charges of conspiracy and money laundering, forcing him to give up the No. 2 post in the House while the charges are pending.

His lawyers have challenged the indictments in court, raising questions about the law and the prosecutor's motive.

But their filings in court -- which formally accuse prosecutor Ronnie Earle of misconduct -- pale in comparison to the verbal barrage DeLay launches every time Earle's name comes up in an interview. DeLay already has made more than 20 radio and TV appearances since the first indictment Sept. 28.

Prosecutors accuse DeLay of engaging with colleagues in a conspiracy to launder corporate donations -- that are forbidden by Texas law -- through the Republican National Committee in Washington, sending them back to Texas state candidates.

The transactions occurred during the crucial 2002 election, which gave Republicans full control of the Texas Legislature.

DeLay argues the prosecutor, a Democrat who over the years has prosecuted members of both parties, is misrepresenting the facts and misapplying the law.

Earle answered DeLay's complaints by saying, "They often accuse others of doing what they themselves do." Put on the defensive, Earle has retreated to the secrecy of the grand jury.

The back and forth may be confusing to constituents in the short term.

Kathleen Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said DeLay has adopted a standard public relations strategy of proclaiming innocence and shoring up his base.

"If you are Tom DeLay, you don't want your constituency to believe the indictments," Jamieson said. "You are reassuring them that this is bogus and you are innocent and you are being hunted by people with partisan objectives."

She said DeLay is helped in his strategy by the larger presence of conservative talk radio and TV, where listeners are sympathetic. Keeping them from losing faith is critical, she said.

"Historically, when people on your side decide you need to go, you go," Jamieson said. "At that point, you can't argue you are innocent."

DeLay hasn't been known for media openness. He's not one to linger in Capitol hallways to chat with reporters. He isn't a regular on the Sunday news show circuit, although he did appear on "Fox News Sunday" the weekend after the indictment. Washington reporters competed to question DeLay at the weekly briefings he held as House majority leader.

His media machine kicked into gear in similar fashion last year after he was admonished by the House Ethics Committee on a complaint brought by former Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas.

The ethics committee found DeLay created an appearance of impropriety by meeting with members of an energy company while legislation they were interested was pending. DeLay also was accused of offering to back the campaign of a lawmaker's son in exchange for his vote for the Medicare bill and using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down Democratic Texas state legislators who had fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum on a redistricting bill DeLay supported.

DeLay, fellow Republican lawmakers and his supporters claimed victory, saying the committee exonerated him, even though the committee actually admonished DeLay and warned him in a letter to "temper your future actions."
------------------------------------------------------

On the Net:
Rep. Tom DeLay: http://tomdelay.house.gov/
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 10:17 am
Abramoff Used DeLay Aide to Defeat Anti-Gambling Bill
How a Lobbyist Stacked the Deck
Abramoff Used DeLay Aide, Attacks On Allies to Defeat Anti-Gambling Bill
By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 16, 2005; Page A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his team were beginning to panic.

An anti-gambling bill had cleared the Senate and appeared on its way to passage by an overwhelming margin in the House of Representatives. If that happened, Abramoff's client, a company that wanted to sell state lottery tickets online, would be out of business.

But on July 17, 2000, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act went down to defeat, to the astonishment of supporters who included many anti-gambling groups and Christian conservatives.

A senior aide to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) helped scuttle the bill in the House. The aide, Tony C. Rudy, 39, e-mailed Abramoff internal congressional communications and advice, according to documents and the lobbyist's former associates.

Rudy received favors from Abramoff. He went on two luxury trips with the lobbyist that summer, including one partly paid for by Abramoff's client, eLottery Inc. Abramoff also arranged for eLottery to pay $25,000 to a Jewish foundation that hired Rudy's wife as a consultant, according to documents and interviews. Months later, Rudy himself was hired as a lobbyist by Abramoff.

The vote that day in July was just one part of an extraordinary yearlong effort by Abramoff on behalf of eLottery, a small gambling services company based in Connecticut. Details of that campaign, reconstructed from dozens of interviews as well as from e-mails and financial records obtained by The Washington Post, provide the most complete account yet of how one of Washington's most powerful lobbyists leveraged his client's money to influence Congress.

The work Abramoff did for eLottery is one focus of a wide-ranging federal corruption investigation into his dealings with members of Congress and government agencies. Abramoff is under indictment in another case in connection with an allegedly fraudulent Florida business deal.

Abramoff had deep roots in the conservative movement and rose to prominence by helping Republicans tap traditionally Democratic K Street lobbyists for campaign dollars. But in the eLottery fight, he employed a win-at-any-cost strategy that went so far as to launch direct-mail attacks on vulnerable House conservatives.

Abramoff quietly arranged for eLottery to pay conservative, anti-gambling activists to help in the firm's $2 million pro-gambling campaign, including Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Both kept in close contact with Abramoff about the arrangement, e-mails show. Abramoff also turned to prominent anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist, arranging to route some of eLottery's money for Reed through Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform.

At one point, eLottery's backers even circulated a forged letter of support from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R).

Rudy declined to comment for this report. A spokesman for Reed -- now a candidate for lieutenant governor of Georgia -- said that he and his associates are unaware that any money they received came from gambling activities. Sheldon said that he could not remember receiving eLottery money and that he was unaware that Abramoff was involved in the campaign to defeat the bill. Norquist's group would say only that it had opposed the gambling ban on libertarian grounds.

Abramoff's lawyer declined requests for a comment.

Long article continued)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501539.html
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 04:04 pm
How good to see that my Liberal friends apply the notion of innocent until proven guilty to powerful Republicans as well as disadvantaged minorities.

Prediction (which you can throw back in my face if it is wrong): Delay will not be convicted of any crimes. In fact, I would bet (albeit not predict) that the case will be thrown out before it reaches trial.

When Delay's legal entanglements are resolved will, largely, determine whether or not he resumes his leadership position.

We can rest assured that he is not, currently, sulking in the shadows. While he may not wield the same heft of hammer as before the indictment, he has not gone out to pasture.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 09:55 am
DeLay Ex-Aide to Plead Guilty in Lobby Case




By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: November 19, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - Michael Scanlon, a former top official for Representative Tom DeLay and onetime partner of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, has agreed to plead guilty in a deal with federal prosecutors, according to his lawyer. The deal reveals a broadening corruption investigation involving top members of Congress.

Criminal papers filed in federal court outlined a conspiracy that not only named Mr. Scanlon but also mentioned a congressman, identified only as Representative No. 1, as part of the exchange of favors from clients funneled to lobbyists and officials.

This was the first time that a member of Congress, identified by lawyers in the case as Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, has been implicated in criminal papers as part of the inquiry, which has sprawled from Indian casinos to the lucrative lobbying firms of Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon and then reached to the Republican leadership.

Federal prosecutors announced a single conspiracy charge against Mr. Scanlon on Friday, in advance of a Monday court hearing at which he is expected to plead guilty in exchange for his cooperation. Investigators accused Mr. Scanlon of conspiring to defraud Indian tribes of millions of dollars as part of a lobbying and corruption scheme.

Mr. Scanlon, 35, is a former spokesman for Mr. DeLay. News of his cooperation with law enforcement officials sent a jolt through the Republican majority in Congress

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/politics/19lobby.html?th&emc=th
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 09:58 am
Damnit! was literally going to post that same article.

This is really, really big news, folks; Scanlon is a big player in the Kstreet-DeLay racket.

It is intersting to note that Scanlon supposedly agreed to testify against a whole range of people; expect there to be large fallout from this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 10:30 am
The wheels are falling off DeLay's cart as well as some of the other political prostitutes in congress.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should DeLay resign
  3. » Page 30
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 01:20:26