OT: Really hard to believe

Gunner Asch wrote:


http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/delay/delay92805ind.html
--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner Asch wrote:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/delay/delay92805ind.html
Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner Asch wrote:

Oh, he found it Gunner. I just got tired of doing your homework for you.

Why don't you tell him? He can then compare your post to the photo copy of the actual indictment. Also, it's crimes not crime. I find it interesting that DeLay is using the "Michael Jackson" defense.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Unfortunately we have a case of righty-stigmatism here. Gunner is incapable of even *imagining* that somebody like delay, entrusted with public responsibility, has violated that trust and broken the law.
<FX Robot Voice>
*Does*Not*Compute*
You could hold the actual indictment papers up in front of his eyes.
He could actually be there when Delay does the perp walk.
He could listen to the sentencing.
But at the end of that, he would still say, "But Tom's a republican. He'd never do anything wrong."
Gunner I am sorry indeed. As a realist I recognize that politics is a dirty game, and folks on both sides break the law all the time. Sometimes they get caught with their digits in the cookie jar, sometimes they go to jail. You however cannot see it happening to the folks on your side of the fence.
Astigmatism.
Myopia.
Retinitis Republicansis.
Call it what you will.
Folks like Delay, Libby, Abromoff, etc are skunks of the highest order and they have no place running our govenment. We are well shut of them.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim rozen wrote:

NewsMax.com Wires Friday, Sept. 30, 2005
Rep. Tom DeLay was summoned to appear in a Texas courtroom in three weeks, the initial legal step in his transition from the second-ranking House Republican to a criminal defendant. DeLay, meanwhile, provided new details Thursday about his behind-the scenes effort to try to convince the prosecuted he shouldn't be indicted.
DeLay contended that after he recently met voluntarily with prosecutors, he was led to believe "it was pretty much over" and he would be spared indictment in a state campaign finance investigation.
Two weeks ago, he said, the landscape suddenly changed because Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle buckled under pressure from fellow Democrats and the media and tried to blame the switch on a "runaway" grand jury.
Earle has consistently denied the investigation of DeLay and his associates was political and has pointed out he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans.
DeLay was charged Wednesday with conspiring with two political associates to use corporate donations to support Texas legislative candidates. State law only allows political committees to use corporate money for administrative expenses.
The Austin grand jury charged that the conspirators carried out the scheme by having the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee send corporate money to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back a like amount $190,000 to distribute to Texas candidates.
Criminal conspiracy is a Texas felony punishable by six months to two years in a state jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The potential two-year sentence forced DeLay to step down as majority leader under House Republican rules.
DeLay was summoned by a judge to appear in court in Austin on Oct. 21, but his lawyers are working to spare him the humiliation of being handcuffed, photographed and fingerprinted.
On the Defensive
DeLay went on the offensive Thursday in several broadcast interviews. The lawmaker said he thought he convinced prosecutors in a voluntary interview that he had little to do with operations of fundraising committee, known as TRMPAC.
"I got the impression from his (Earle's) chief prosecutor that they knew I had nothing to do with the day-to-day operation, that there was no conspiracy as far as I'm concerned," he said.
"In the following days after that, it was pretty much over until two weeks ago and Ronnie Earle made the statement that I was never part of this investigation publicly," he said.
DeLay said everything changed because Democrats put pressure on Earle and the local newspaper, the Austin American-Statesman, wrote an editorial critical of Earle because the majority leader had not been indicted.
The grand jury has indicted three of DeLay's political associates, a Texas business association, several corporations and TRMPAC.
DeLay said Earle explained the change in thinking by telling DeLay's lawyers "that he has a runaway grand jury, the sixth grand jury he has impaneled and they're going to indict me."
DeLay said the change surprised him, because "we went to work and we were under the impression that he probably wasn't (going to indict), or he would have ... called me to testify before the grand jury. I have not testified before the grand jury to present my side of the case, and they indicted me."
The former leader also said Earle was working with Democratic leaders in Washington to have him indicted.
"There is very good evidence that they announced the strategy publicly, they put it on their Web site and their strategy is in their fundraising letters," he said, adding he was referring to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
"The evidence is coming," he said, but did not immediately offer any.
The Associated Press learned Thursday that one witness before the grand jury was a former political director of the Republican National Committee, Terry Nelson, according to an official familiar with the grand jury deliberations who did not want to be identified speaking about grand jury matters.
The indictment said Nelson received a check for $190,000 in September 2002 that contained corporate donations given to a DeLay-founded Texas political committee. Ellis, the DeLay associate, gave Nelson the check and also the names of Texas state House candidates who were to receive contributions from the donations, according to the indictment.
Court documents in the case also show that DeLay's daughter, political consultant Danielle Ferro, was subpoenaed in early 2004 to appear before the grand jury and bring records of work she did for TRMPAC.
DeLay was indicted Wednesday on the last day of the grand jury's term.
However, he waived his right to waive an initial deadline for indicting him in 2004, about the time Ferro was subpoenaed by the grand jury.
2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Wow, you must really be worked up here. *Three* replies to a singe post of mine.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I simply left you up on the screen and used you as the vector. Dont get a swelled head.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim rozen wrote:

These charges have no basis in the facts or the law. This is just another example of Ronnie Earle misusing his office for partisan vendettas. Despite the clearly political agenda of this prosecutor, Congressman DeLay has cooperated with officials throughout the entire process. Even in the last two weeks, Ronnie Earle himself had acknowledged publicly that Mr. DeLay was not a target of his investigation. However, as with many of Ronnie Earles previous partisan investigations, Ronnie Earle refused to let the facts or the law get in the way of his partisan desire to indict a political foe.
This purely political investigation has been marked by illegal grand jury leaks, a fundraising speech by Ronnie Earle for Texas Democrats that inappropriately focused on the investigation, misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and extortion of money for Earles pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them. Ronnie Earles previous misuse of his office has resulted in failed prosecutions and we trust his partisan grandstanding will strike out again, as it should.
Ronnie Earles 1994 indictment against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was quickly dismissed and his charges in the 1980s against former Attorney General Jim Mattox-another political foe of Earle-fell apart at trial.
We regret the people of Texas will once again have their taxpayer dollars wasted on Ronnie Earles pursuit of headlines and political paybacks. Ronnie Earle began this investigation in 2002, after the Democrat Party lost the Texas state legislature to Republicans. For three years and through numerous grand juries, Ronnie Earle has tried to manufacture charges against Republicans involved in winning those elections using arcane statutes never before utilized in a case in the state. This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

You gotta lighten up, my friend. He got his ass in a crack, he might wiggle his way out or maybe not. But it's not worth loosing sleep over.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So you believe in guilty before proof of innocence?
Isnt that what you ranted against the Right over?
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim rozen wrote:

September 29, 2005 DeLays Prosecutor Offered Dollars for Dismissals I posted this last June but it's far more germane today:
Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor who has indicted associates of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in an ongoing campaign-finance investigation, dropped felony charges against several corporations indicted in the probe in return for the corporations' agreement to make five- and six-figure contributions to one of Earle's pet causes. A grand jury in Travis County, Texas, last September indicted eight corporations in connection with the DeLay investigation. All were charged with making illegal contributions (Texas law forbids corporate giving to political campaigns). Since then, however, Earle has agreed to dismiss charges against four of the companies retail giant Sears, the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, the Internet company Questerra, and the collection company Diversified Collection Services after the companies pledged to contribute to a program designed to publicize Earle's belief that corporate involvement in politics is harmful to American democracy.
Some legal observers called the arrangement an unusual resolution to a criminal case, at least in Texas, where the matter is being prosecuted. "I don't think you're going to find anybody who will say it's a common practice," says Jack Strickland, a Fort Worth lawyer who serves as vice-chairman of the criminal-justice section of the Texas State Bar. Earle himself told National Review Online that he has never settled a case in a similar fashion during his years as Travis County district attorney. And allies of DeLay, who has accused Earle of conducting a politically motivated investigation, called Earle's actions "dollars for dismissals."
YOU'VE BEEN A BAD, BAD CORPORATION On September 21, 2004, a grand jury in Travis County indicted three associates of DeLay John Colyandro, the head of DeLay's political-action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), Jim Ellis, a DeLay aide and officer of the committee, and Warren Rebold, a Washington fundraiser. The indictments received front-page coverage, with a number of commentators suggesting that Earle was moving toward ultimately indicting DeLay. Receiving less attention was the grand jury's decision to indict the eight companies for making allegedly illegal contributions to TRMPAC. In addition to Sears, Cracker Barrel, Questerra, and Diversified Collection Services, the group of indicted companies included Bacardi USA, Westar Energy, Williams Companies, and the trade group Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care. Under Texas law, corporations are not allowed to contribute directly to political campaigns, but are allowed to fund the administrative expenses of a political committee.
After the indictment, Earle announced that his prosecutors had uncovered "the outline of an effort to use corporate contributions to control representative democracy in Texas."
The companies denied wrongdoing. Two sources with extensive knowledge of the case involving one of those companies, Sears, spoke at length to NRO and say that Sears executives were convinced the company had done nothing illegal when it contributed $25,000 to TRMPAC. Given that, according to the sources, Sears lawyers were not interested in a plea bargain to end the case. "We were pretty confident that we would win," one source says.
When the company's representatives spoke to Earle, they discovered that the prosecutor was not as adamant about prosecuting them as his public words might have suggested. Indeed, the sources say Earle was willing to drop the charges, providing Sears met a few of his conditions.
First among those, according to the sources, was that Sears make a significant contribution to an organization known as the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University. The Center is devoted to something called "deliberative polling," which was developed by a Stanford professor (and Earle acquaintance) named James S. Fishkin.
Deliberative polling, according to Fishkin, is designed to measure public opinion on issues about which many members of the public are essentially uninformed. According to the Center's website, it works like this:
Deliberative Polling is an attempt to use television and public opinion research in a new and constructive way. A random, representative sample is first polled on the targeted issues. After this baseline poll, members of the sample are invited to gather at a single place for a weekend in order to discuss the issues. Carefully balanced briefing materials are sent to the participants and are also made publicly available. The participants engage in dialogue with competing experts and political leaders based on questions they develop in small group discussions with trained moderators. Parts of the weekend events are broadcast on television, either live or in taped and edited form. After the deliberations, the sample is again asked the original questions. The resulting changes in opinion represent the conclusions the public would reach, if people had opportunity to become more informed and more engaged by the issues.
Earle and Fishkin know each other. Earle told NRO that he became aware of Fishkin's work a few years ago and had become "casually acquainted" with Fishkin when Fishkin was a professor at the University of Texas in Austin, before moving to Stanford. Fishkin, who told NRO that "I don't know [Earle] really well, but I know him slightly," says he once sent Earle a tape of a deliberative-polling production done in Britain, and that Earle "has talked to me vaguely about doing some kind of project."
Earle says a program based on deliberative polling would be a good way to "educate" Americans about the threat that he believes corporate political activity poses to the country's political system. Such a program's influence, he says, would extend far beyond Texas, which is one of 18 states that ban corporate giving. To be most effective, the program would be televised nationally; Fishkin has in the past done polls in conjunction with MacNeill-Lehrer Productions, the company that produces >The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS.
"My concern has been that there needed to be a conversation about the role of corporations in American democracy," Earle told NRO. "How do you do that? I think it is vitally important to the future of the country that there be a discussion of this concept."
THE $1 MILLION POLITICAL LESSON That's where the indicted corporations came in. According to the sources with knowledge of the Sears case, Earle told company representatives that he wanted Sears to contribute to the Deliberative Democracy group at Stanford, and that a program devoted to the dangers posed by corporate political money might cost as much as $1 million.
"They asked for an outrageous amount of money," says one Sears source, noting that the maximum penalty the company would have been forced to pay if it had gone to trial and lost would have been $20,000. "All the defendants would pay in similar amounts to a fund that would fund a symposium or seminar or event that would be produced in conjunction with PBS, and it would be televised, and the goal of it would be to explore the evils of corporate money in politics and why that is a bad thing."
Sears representatives balked at the offer. Not only was the dollar figure too high, but they believed that the resulting program would be devoted solely to bashing the political activities of corporations, while leaving untouched those of labor unions and other interest groups like trial lawyers. The two sides agreed to talk again later.
Sears was not dead set against paying some money into some sort of project, but company officials were determined that it not go to Stanford, which, Sears believed, would produce an anti-corporation project. When Sears raised its objections, Earle was adamant that Stanford get the money. In response, Sears suggested an alternative, saying it might be interested in contributing some amount of money to the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. Even though the university was in his own back yard, Earle still wanted Stanford.
The two sides agreed to talk yet again. The impasse was resolved when, a short time later, Earle changed his mind and agreed that the money the final figure would be $100,000 could go to the University of Texas. (As it turned out, a top protg of Fishkin, professor Robert Luskin, does deliberative polling work at the University of Texas.) The final agreement says that, "The defendant, after discussions with the district attorney, has decided to financially support a nonpartisan, balanced and publicly informative program or series of programs relating to the role of corporations in American democracy, which shall include a program conducted through the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas."
The agreement contained a number of other conditions. First, Sears agreed to "modify [its] website to provide for public access to and disclosure of corporate contributions made by the company." Second, Sears agreed to "not make any illegal corporate political contributions," either in Texas or any other state where such contributions are illegal. Third, Sears agreed to "cooperate with the State of Texas in its prosecution and investigation of any other person for any offense related to the corporate contribution made by defendant." And fourth, Sears agreed to a statement defining its political activity as a danger to the country. "The defendant further acknowledges that the historical basis for the Texas prohibition against corporate political contributions is that they constitute a genuine threat to democracy," the agreement said.
In return, Earle stipulated that the alleged offense charged in the indictment "appears to be restricted to a single incident within the State of Texas and does not constitute a continuing course of conduct." Earle also conceded that Sears had no intent to break the law and "has a history of good citizenship and high ethical standards." Earle noted that Sears had hired a compliance officer, and "has already begun a thorough review of the company's contributions policies and practices." Finally, the agreement said Earle believed that dropping the charges "will serve to cause corporations to more closely monitor and evaluate their political contributions in Texas and throughout the United States."
Earle made similar deals with Cracker Barrel, Questerra, and Diversified Collections Systems. (Cracker Barrel agreed to pay $50,000, and the amount paid by the other two could not be determined by press time.) Cracker Barrel included the text of its agreement with Earle in a filing with the Security and Exchange Commission, where it can be viewed on the SEC's "Edgar" database.
FLIPPED? Earle's deals with the corporations received relatively little press coverage in light of reporters' continuing interest in the DeLay angle of the story. What coverage there was, was not entirely accurate, according to the Sears sources.
On January 12 of this year, the Los Angeles Times reported that the corporations had "flipped," that is, agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Citing unnamed sources, the paper reported that "information gleaned from the companies could be used as leverage to pressure remaining defendants and, potentially, to target more powerful members of the Republican Party in Texas and Washington."
The "flipped" reference rankled insiders. "That was absolutely not true," says one Sears source. "There was no shred of truth to it." Sears officials, the sources say, had already cooperated fully, telling Earle everything they knew about Sears' lone contribution to TRMPAC. In addition, the sources say, Sears had no knowledge of any illegal activity on the part of anyone else. The implication that Sears had turned state's evidence and might finger other companies involved in similarly illegal acts which, of course, Sears denied it had committed was, the sources contend, simply wrong.
In any event, the agreements between Earle and the corporations struck some outside observers as not only unusual but also indicative of the highly political nature of the case. "What does funding think tanks and polling organizations have to do with a violation of the criminal law?" asks former United States Attorney Joseph DiGenova, who has publicly supported DeLay. "This is an extortionate use of the indictment power." One close ally of DeLay calls it a "dollars for dismissals" scheme.
Making the situation worse, say DeLay allies, is what they believe is Earle's political motivation in pursuing DeLay. As an example, they point to Earle's attendance at a Democratic fundraiser in Dallas on May 12, in which Earle publicly discussed DeLay. For his part, Earle, an elected Democrat, has denied having any partisan purpose in the investigation. Whatever the case, Earle's dismissal of the charges against Sears, Cracker Barrel, and the other corporations has at least raised the question of whether his allegations were very strong in the first place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

They always do - couldn't you have put all this into *one* reply to to me? If you edited it down it would have condensed a lot and still made your point.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

background is important Jim. Now you have proof that they WERE guilty? If so..then it would appear that Earle committed malfeasence in letting them slide.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, gunner, this is how the criminal justice system works in the country, for you, me, and even Tom. The prosectutor determines there's probably cause to charge, they do so, and then there's a TRIAL where proof is presented and the accused have a chance to present a defense.
We can't declare him innocent or guilty at this point.
You're jumping the gun.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There is even another possibility. The Texas law could be declared unconstitutional. It seems to me that limiting political contributions has been found to be limiting free speech. Dan
jim rozen wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually Jim...Im not the one claiming he is guilty. I suggest you read the names of those that are.
Gunner
Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, but you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. READ what I wrote - "innocent or guilty" is what it says right there in front of you.
Probable cause -> indictment -> trial -> verdict.
We're still at the second one. You're just gonna have to deal with the uncertainty until 'ol Tom gets to meet his jury.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course Jim, of course. Now tell that to those who are convinced he is guilty. btw..how is OJ doing these days?
Gunner
Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gunner, is this really the gold standard you want to adopt for the folks running YOUR country?
That they should look in the mirror in the morning, and say, "I have not yet been *convicted* of a crime, therefore I am a worthy person to receive the public's trust."
If this is the case I strongly suggest you set aside your partisanship and re-evaluate your position. Seriously.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Is this the gold standard that you want for your country..All Republicans are guilty until proven innocent?
If this is the case, I strongly suggest you set aside your partisanship and re-evaluate your position. Seriously
Gunner
Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.