Buh Bye Delay...

Well, at least you backhandedly referred to him as an "offender". Actually, the whole matter of him lying in front of a civil jury was probably the least of his offenses. I particularly liked the part where he stared square into the cameras, jutted out that Arkansas jaw, wagged his sanctimonious finger in front of America, and said with a straight face: "Now you listen to me: I did not have sex with that woman..." Not exactly a crime, but probably the lowest single point of the U.S. Presidency since Nixon.

Can it really be that our President was getting a you-know-what in a closet just off the Oval Office with an intern girl a few years older than his own daughter?

Can it really be that said president would put his country in such danger by making himself blackmail bait in such a manner?

Can we really be so certain that he did not succumb to such blackmail threats on at least one occasion, perhaps regarding national secrets? Apparently, a few bucks in campaign contributions were enough to let a few nuclear secrets tip the way of China.

Hoo boy, thank goodness he's gone.

 

You're confusing sentencing and conviction. If someone is convicted of a felony, they are a convicted felon, regardless of what type of sentence they receive. They could get no time in prison, but the fact remains they are a convicted felon.

So, you honestly think that a US President can only be impeached for Treason and misdemeanors? Felonies don't count?

 

I am watching CNN and just foud out that Mr. Delay endictement has been modified to add money laundering to the charges. Can anyone explain this to me. I thought this could only be done by a grand jury in Texas.

Thanks!

 

But....

What you forget about Clinton is that he is commader in chief of the military and military members are routinely railroaded for adultery. And before you say Clinton wasn't a soldier, remember he tried to use the Soldier's and Sailor's Relief Act to avoid answering his civil lawsuit.

 

It wasn't modified.....

It was just added onto to keep the story in the news. It never made sense he was indicted for conspiracy but there wasn't the actual act. Either way, it is still week. This bit of news doesn't make the case stronger just more obviously political....

 

An absolute joke....

That DA has to be absolutely incompetent. His first indictment was based on a law which went into effect one year after the events took place. I guess he missed the class that described ex-post facto. What an idiot......

 

My wife (also a former criminal prosecutor and defense attorney) and I found this slip up to be very disturbing.

 

Re: But....

I think you are misunderstanding the constitution. The Commander in Chief is a civilian job - not a military leader position. They are not subject to the same standards. And really - do you think any President micromanages the armed services to the point where they "railroad" the military for adultry? That is a military justice deal -- I doubt any President gets involved to that level unless it is a high level General/Admiral.

I could be wrong, but I beleive that use of the Sailors and Soldiers releif act was merely a legal manuevour at best - something that most good attorneys would use for their client (if their client was the President)


I am not confusing a conviction with sentencing. You can arrest for a felony until you are blue in the face. If the DA doesn't charge it as such, then it is not a felony.

Hey - GW and his entire staff got in front of god and country and stated "Iraq has WMDs" (not I think they do) -- and "there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11". How many reports do you have to read that shows the President lied about this until you believe it? I would rather have a President lie 100 times about a hummer in the Oval Office than send our soliders to war on an out and out lie. History will show GW as a disgrace to the oval office -- mark my words.

 

Re: An absolute joke....

humm - is this really true? If so, where are the checks and balances? This DA has shown to be pretty competent in the past - can you justify this statement?

 

As I understand from NPR this morning, DeLay's lawyer filed a motion to quash the first indictment on ex post facto grounds.

The second indictment was obtained to keep the case alive.

I haven't read the new indictment yet, but recall that the first indictment was possible only because DeLay waived the statute of limitation for "all other felonies".

I will be interested to see if money laundering has the same three year SOL and, if so, whether DeLay waived this one, too.

If it does and he didn't, the DA is in a fix.

 

Re: Re: But....

I don't misunderstand the Constitution at all. I understand civilian leadership. I lived it for many, many years.

However, it is a mark of a weasel when you say that I am a civilian therefore the UCMJ doesn't apply to me and then use a protection designed for deployed soldiers as a shield from civil prosecution.

That is a hallmark of a weasel. I say that as someone who voted for the weasel.....

 

Re: Re: An absolute joke....

Are you kidding me? The man obtained an indictment on a law which went in effect in 2003. The acts allegedly occurred in 2002. It is in just about every paper. Look it up, it has already been justified. Then when the defense motion to dismiss was filed the idiot realized his mistake and rushed a panel together so he could get the second indictment. Just doesn't pass the smell test. And no, he hasn't been proven competent most of his political cases were lost.....

 

Re: Re: But....

So you believe these people knowingly lied about the WMD so they could get approval to invade, all the while knowing that the invasion would reveal them all to be liars? Doesn't make sense to most people. I am saddened if it does to you as I had higher expectations of you at least.

I think you need to look up the definition of a lie. Believing something to be a fact when it isn't is a mistake, not a lie. As a lawyer you should know that....

 

Re: Re: Re: But....

bite your tongue - I am not a lawyer - I work for a living buster!

Based on the reports provided, and of course my opinion, any eveidence of WMD was manufactured by the CIA and doctored by the oval office. GW wanted to go to war with Iraq well before 9/11 (this is well documented) - 9/11 just gave him the excuse. The Senate/House, IMHO, was provided with doctored and false information by the White House. There was also manipulation of the press (the ole "UnAmerican rhetoric that GW has been touting for years) which made it even tougher for the house to vote against the initiative. The only person with enough balls to go against the establishment was a local Congresswomen. Look what happened to her -- basically she is doing nothing because the powers that be put her out to pasture.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: But....

Is that the opposite of those who work for dead busters?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: But....

Manufacturing evidence to support a lie that you know will be discovered once you invade still does not make sense. Period, if you coldly look at the event without the benefit of your political bias you know the "lie" theory doesn't make sense. Maybe wanted to believe, but lie no. Actually, planning to invade Iraq started under Clinton. It bacame US policy under Clinton to remove him from office. Removing the like of Hussein from office was a good thing. I am saddedned that many in my country would not consider it worthy until they were faced with the believe that he could harm them personally. His murdering 100's of thousands wasn't enough......

 

Re: Re: But....

Would you like for me to present you the quotes from the various and sundry stars of the Democratic party who, relying upon the same data, said the same thing?

I can say many things based upon the best information or that which I think is best, and this information may ultimately turn out to be wrong. But that does not make me a liar (like William Jefferson Clinton) because the information upon which I based my opinion turns out to be false (that is, assuming there weren't actually WMDs, as Clinton, Gore, Kennedy--and Bush--all said, but that they were hustled out of the country to sympathetic terrorist states as we wrangled endlessly with the UN and telegraphed our punch for months on end).

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: But....

Hey, lawyers work, some of those ambulances drive pretty fast and it is hard work to catch-em.....

(sorry in advance to the lawyers on this board but I couldn't let a good lawyer slam go by)

 

Delay may or may not be a nice guy, he may or may not be good for the republican party specifically or the republic generally, but you're quite right, the exploding cigar is about to blacken the face of the DA. I think it was just a brazen act of partisanship. Delay has a right to be a partisan hack--and he is--but the DA should not be playing fast-and-loose with the system of justice like this.

I've read the indictment myself, the DA has little or nothing; Delay's name mentioned at the start, then...nothing. Pure hubris. This is a fishing expedition. Having gone on a couple myself and dropped a case or two in the past ingloriously, I know a little something about them--unfortunately. Live and learn.

This case is a perfect parallel to the hurricane coverage. Startling initial headlines: "10,000 dead!"; "Gang Rape in the Superdome!"; "25,000 body bags!", followed up by embarrassed retractions on page 42 and stumbling explanations. Only problem is that Delay's not quite a white glove gentleman, he'll drop the hammer on the DA and any democrat who dared to bluster before they checked the facts or spent five minutes scanning the paltry indictment.

Watch out, Ms Pelosi.

 

Which indictment? The second one?