BillsNYC Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I was just forwarded this by a liberal...is this true? >Dear Jeanhee, > >Yesterday afternoon, House Republicans did something truly appalling. >They >knocked down an ethics rule that banned House members from holding >leadership positions if they've been indicted on felony charges. > >Why did they strike it down? Because House Majority Leader Tom Delay >(R-TX) >might be indicted by a grand jury for felony violations involving >fundraising scandals. > >A number of DeLay's associates have already been indicted by a Texas >grand >jury and he's expected to take the hit too in the near future. So his >Republican congressional colleagues yanked the rule that THEY put in place >back in 1993 when they said they were trying to clean up Congress. > >Please take a minute right now to contact your local newspaper, TV or >radio >station and ask them to shine their spotlights on House Republicans' >disgraceful ethical flip-flop. > >http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=2626557&l=67897'>http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=2626557&l=67897'>http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=2626557&l=67897 > >Some have already called the Republicans hypocritical. But, what they >did >is no mere act of hypocrisy. Nor is it just a "Beltway" issue that's only >relevant in Washington. This is a national moral lapse that cuts to the >heart of our government. It's an outrage, and we need to shine the media >spotlight on the lawmakers who put partisan politics ahead of fighting >corruption. > >http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=2626557&l=67897 > >Tom DeLay has already been rebuked four times by the House Ethics >Committee, and has a notorious reputation for his strong-arm tactics. And >now this! It shows complete contempt for everyone who plays by the rules, >pays the taxes that provide Tom DeLay's salary, and believes that values >like decency and integrity are important. > >Please contact your local newspapers, TV and radio stations today and >tell >them that you expect them to speak out and editorialize against the >Republicans' dirty move. > >http://action.ourfuture.org/ctt.asp?u=2626557&l=67897 > >We, the people, are ultimately the caretakers of our democracy. When >politicians fail to govern with dignity, we must marshal other powerful >forces -- like the media -- to stand up, speak out and hold them >accountable. > >Thank you. > >Adam Luna, Policy Director >Campaign for America's Future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 It's true. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/17/...ain656140.shtml This was the easiest for me to find. They were talking about this on NPR last night. While not indicted yet, he would be soon after the next round. The prosecutor, according to the report I heard (I don't have an audible link, sorry), is treating this like the Enron case, where they will indict from the bottom up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 It was all over the news yesterday. They even had some fun with it on the Daily Show last night. Their defense is that with that rule still there, any DA in any county in the nation could force a congressional leader to step down just by filing an indictment. Thing is, a DA can't just file indictments on a whim, he has to go before a Grand Jury, show them what evidence he has and see if they will return an indictment. Further, their objection in this regard was just as applicable as it was when they passed it as a way to show how much more moral and responsible they were as compared to the democrats when it was the democrats that had leaders under indictment. Now that it is their head on the block, suddenly the rule doesn't seem so smart. You can't hardly beat this one for the most blatant act of hypocrisy in Washington lately. Gee, do you think it was just a coinkydink that this little bit of corruption didn't get done until after the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Politicians playing politics. Shocking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 It was all over the news yesterday. They even had some fun with it on the Daily Show last night. Their defense is that with that rule still there, any DA in any county in the nation could force a congressional leader to step down just by filing an indictment. Thing is, a DA can't just file indictments on a whim, he has to go before a Grand Jury, show them what evidence he has and see if they will return an indictment. Further, their objection in this regard was just as applicable as it was when they passed it as a way to show how much more moral and responsible they were as compared to the democrats when it was the democrats that had leaders under indictment. Now that it is their head on the block, suddenly the rule doesn't seem so smart. You can't hardly beat this one for the most blatant act of hypocrisy in Washington lately. Gee, do you think it was just a coinkydink that this little bit of corruption didn't get done until after the election? 125170[/snapback] Personally (and non-partisanly), I never liked the rule to begin with, simply because an indictment is not a conviction. Correct me if I'm wrong...but someone indicted on felony charges is still presumed innocent until conviction, correct? So in essence...the rule punishes the innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 repubs keep making stupid decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Personally (and non-partisanly), I never liked the rule to begin with, simply because an indictment is not a conviction. Correct me if I'm wrong...but someone indicted on felony charges is still presumed innocent until conviction, correct? So in essence...the rule punishes the innocent. 125214[/snapback] No doubt, but the timing is somewhat curious nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 No doubt, but the timing is somewhat curious nonetheless. 125281[/snapback] Why? 90% of all problems that are addressed are done so only in response to them creating a potential issue. Remember, if it weren't for the last minute, nothing would ever get done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Personally (and non-partisanly), I never liked the rule to begin with, simply because an indictment is not a conviction. Correct me if I'm wrong...but someone indicted on felony charges is still presumed innocent until conviction, correct? So in essence...the rule punishes the innocent. 125214[/snapback] That is certainly true but they were the ones who passed the rule to demonstrate their moral superiority. They set the standard, they oughta stick to it. This way, they get the benefit of strutting their holier than thou stuff and now get to jettison their "high falutin" ways now that it is no longer convenient. You can't reclaim lost virginity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Why would anyone be shocked by this? It is disgusting, yes, but double standards are the standard, particularly as of late. Next, we will see Arnold in the White House, before an African American, before a woman. Bush and his cronies are entreanched. I know this always happens, but under this current administration, things that might have been once at least questioned under standards of ethics, are now scauffed off wiht moral indignation. Two weeks have passed since the the Republicans took their "mandate". I feel worse about it now than I did the days immediately after. A little political pandering for AD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 That is certainly true but they were the ones who passed the rule to demonstrate their moral superiority. They set the standard, they oughta stick to it. This way, they get the benefit of strutting their holier than thou stuff and now get to jettison their "high falutin" ways now that it is no longer convenient. You can't reclaim lost virginity. 125644[/snapback] Yeah...it's hypocracy. Absolutely scandalous that that would happen in government... My point, though, was that the rule was pretty damned stupid to begin with, and deserves to be changed or even eliminated. That the very people who are bitching about it now are the same ones that created it as a partisan tool is not lost on me...nor, despite my principled opinion, is the practical hypocracy evidenced by the Republican leadership on this subject. And if Delay WERE convicted...I wouldn't necessarily consider it a bad thing. And not for the first time in the past few weeks, I find myself thinking "Why the hell couldn't we have a Democrat-controlled Congress?" I favor Republican foreign policy over the Democrat's...but I wish to God that there was a way of reigning in the Republican legislative nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 repubs keep making stupid decisions. 125255[/snapback] Yep... so right!!! That must be why they increased their majorities in the senate & congress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts