From: "Robert G Lewis" 

I think this is  actually a rule of the House Republicans. Not the House itself.

Bob Lewis


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:433b5aae{at}w3.nls.net...
> Those are the ethics rules of the House. DeLay tried to change those rules
> but couldn't get House Republicans to push the change.  The 'backwater'
> jurisdiction is where DeLay operated. How about the 'backwater' House
> Ethics Committee that has admonished DeLay  in the past?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/legislative/2005-04-11-delay-cover_x.
htm
> DeLay has been admonished more by the House Ethics Committee than any
> sitting member of Congress.
>
> Last year, the bipartisan panel - the only House committee with equal
> numbers of Republicans and Democrats - unanimously criticized DeLay for
> three things. It said a golf fundraiser with executives of an energy
> company created the appearance that he was giving donors special access.
> It said he improperly tried to have the Federal Aviation Administration
> find Texas legislators who were hiding in Oklahoma to thwart action on his
> plan to redraw the state's congressional districts. And it said he
> promised a retiring House Republican he would endorse the man's son to
> succeed him if he voted for Bush's Medicare drug plan.
>
> In 1999, the committee warned DeLay after he threatened the Electronic
> Industries Alliance, a trade group, for hiring a former Democratic
> congressman as its president. And it cautioned him in 1997 about creating
> the impression that campaign contributions would bring "official action or
> access."
>
> In addition, two investigations - one in Texas, the other in Washington -
> are targeting close DeLay allies.
>
>
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:433b575c{at}w3.nls.net...
>> My point is, it was merely on the return of the indictment that Delay had
>> to give up his leadership position in the House. The ability of a DA in
>> any backwater jurisdiction anywhere in the country to affect the
>> operation of the US Congress merely because of an indictment is not
>> right.
>>
>> Perhaps Delay deserves both that and an ouster from the House
>> altogether --  the trial, if it's ever brought forth, will ultimately
>> determine that. In the meantime, why does Delay have to act guilty?
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:433b55bb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> You lost me with "target of the indictment having to act
guilty".  Will
>>> DeLay not get his day in court?
>>>
>>> The press has a field day with scandals concerning the rich and powerful
>>> but the Clintons used that excuse so I guess DeLay can use the same
>>> tired refrain.
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:433b5219{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>>> Rich, I don't care if he prosecuted Dems at a 10:1 ratio
over Reps, I
>>>> take issue with the target of the indictment having to act guilty
>>>> before the indictment is proven. >>> recently the Dems were in control, so it's obvious that they'd be
>>>> indicted at a higher rate --  simply because they're politicians and
>>>> were in power --  and none of those should have had to act guilty
>>>> before the fact either>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:433b4cf4{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> The partisan DA has prosecuted 3 times more Democrats
for violating
>>>>> fundraising rules in Texas. Now Delay is blaming a newspaper for
>>>>> putting pressure on the prosecutor.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/12766399.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> AUSTIN - U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, in responding to the
conspiracy charge
>>>>> against him, blamed a newspaper for putting pressure on a Texas
>>>>> prosecutor to indict him.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It was this renewed political pressure in the
waning days of his
>>>>> hollow investigation that led this morning's
action," DeLay said
>>>>> Wednesday after a grand jury indicted him on a
criminal conspiracy
>>>>> charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> The indictment accuses DeLay of conspiring to violate political
>>>>> fundraising laws with two associates. DeLay
temporarily stepped aside
>>>>> as majority leader to fight the charge, which could
result in a state
>>>>> jail term of up to two years if he's convicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Austin American-Statesman, which published an
editorial Sept. 11
>>>>> questioning why Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's
>>>>> investigation had recently been resulting in indictments of
>>>>> organizations and not individuals, appears to be the
newspaper DeLay
>>>>> was criticizing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:433b42fd{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>I don't particularly care for Delay all that much,
but it disturbs me
>>>>>>in a general way that some partisan DA from
Anytown, USA can get use
>>>>>>an indictment to force a congressman out of his
position in the
>>>>>>house --  since when are you guilty when charged
and must act as if
>>>>>>you are guilty? That rule should be changed by the
GOP from indicted
>>>>>>to convicted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have little interest in exploring the merits of
the case, the
>>>>>> charges will be either be dismissed or a trial
will go forward with
>>>>>> the finding of the jury the ultimate arbiter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gary Wiltshire" 
wrote in message
>>>>>> news:op.sxua54veeipai0{at}news.barkto.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:38:36 -0400, Randy H
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, the irony of it all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge">
>>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:433adeec{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>> Oh joy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not so fast.  This prosecutor has a pretty
colorful history of his
>>>>>>> own:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Former DOJ official Barbara Comstock e-mails
this legal analysis:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ronnie Earle argues that Tom DeLay conspired
to make a contribution
>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>> political party in violation of the Texas
Election Code. There was
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> contribution to a political party in violation
of the Texas Election
>>>>>>> Code.
>>>>>>> There was no conspiracy. Ronnie Earle is wrong
on the facts. Ronnie
>>>>>>> Earle is
>>>>>>> wrong on the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to the indictment, the conspiracy
was to unlawfully make a
>>>>>>> political contribution of corporate funds to a
political party
>>>>>>> within 60
>>>>>>> days of an election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Texas Election Code clearly states that
"A corporation or labor
>>>>>>> organization may not knowingly make a
contribution [to a political
>>>>>>> party]
>>>>>>> during a period beginning on the 60th day
before the date of a
>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>> election for state and county officers and
continuing through the
>>>>>>> day of the
>>>>>>> election." Title 15, Texas Election Code,
$ 253.104. Texas law also
>>>>>>> states
>>>>>>> in part that "A person commits criminal
conspiracy if, with intent
>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>> felony be committed: (1) he agrees with one or
more persons that
>>>>>>> they or one
>>>>>>> or more of them engage in conduct that would
constitute the offense;
>>>>>>> and (2)
>>>>>>> he or one or more of them performs an overt
act in pursuance of the
>>>>>>> agreement."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Problems with Earle's case:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over
DeLay, Earle charges that
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> Congressman DeLay may have known about the
transaction before it
>>>>>>> occurred,
>>>>>>> he was then part of a conspiracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, Earle's office has sworn testimony
and other exculpatory
>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>> showing that Congressman DeLay did not have
knowledge of the
>>>>>>> transaction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In addition:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No corporation or labor organization was
indicted in this
>>>>>>> conspiracy.
>>>>>>> Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a
corporation or labor
>>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No corporation or labor organization made a
contribution during 60
>>>>>>> days of
>>>>>>> an election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What constitutes a contribution under the
Texas Election Code is not
>>>>>>> strictly defined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a
political party under Texas
>>>>>>> election
>>>>>>> law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corporations in Texas could have legally made
contributions to the
>>>>>>> RNC or
>>>>>>> RNSEC during the period in question under
Texas election law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no violation of the Texas Election
Code. There was no
>>>>>>> conspiracy.
>>>>>>> The underlying transaction was legal. Had
corporations sent money
>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>> to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be
legal. How could
>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> conspire to do indirectly what could legally
have been done
>>>>>>> directly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comstock adds:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ronnie Earle has a history of using his office
for attacks on his
>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>> and personal enemies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Travis County, Texas, prosecutor
investigating Mr. DeLay has a
>>>>>>> history
>>>>>>> of using his office for partisan
ends."(Congressional prerogative,
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> Washington Times, November 19, 2004)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Earle has demonstrated a past zeal for
indicting conservative
>>>>>>> figures and
>>>>>>> even liberals with whom he has personal or professional
>>>>>>> disagreements.
>>>>>>> (Target: DeLay, National Review, April 11, 2005)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Earle's partisan prosecutions - which have
frequently failed - are
>>>>>>> designed
>>>>>>> for political harm, not legal harm. Earle is
the same partisan
>>>>>>> prosecutor
>>>>>>> who politically indicted and failed to convict:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Conservative Democrat Bob Bullock (when he
was Comptroller - later
>>>>>>> he was
>>>>>>>   Lt. Governor)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ronnie Earle's three year political vendetta
against Rep. DeLay has
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> marked by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Illegal grand jury leaks, A fundraising speech
by Earle for the
>>>>>>> Texas
>>>>>>> Democrat party that inappropriately focused on
the investigation,
>>>>>>> Misuse of
>>>>>>> his office for partisan purposes, and
Extortion of money for Earle's
>>>>>>> pet
>>>>>>> projects from corporations in exchange for
dismissing indictments he
>>>>>>> brought
>>>>>>> against them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ronnie Earle has been frequently criticized
for his methods:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Dallas Morning News criticized Earle in
the Hutchison case:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "the impression of partisan unfairness
has certainly been reinforced
>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>> leaks and public comment about Hutchison's
case from the District
>>>>>>> Attorney's
>>>>>>> office throughout the summer. That the Grand
Jury investigation has
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> conducted with so much fanfare such as the
tip-offs to the new media
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> key records were seized from the former
treasurer's office has added
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> darker tone to the cloudy proceedings."
(Hutchison Probe; Fair and
>>>>>>> Speedy
>>>>>>> trial is essential, The Dallas Morning News,
September 28, 1993)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Houston Chronicle called into question
Earle's impartiality and
>>>>>>> judgment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The fact that Earle refuses to recognize
his blunder and would do
>>>>>>> it again
>>>>>>> calls into question whether he has the
necessary impartiality and
>>>>>>> judgment
>>>>>>> to conduct the investigation that to a great
extent will determine
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>> Texas election campaigns will be financed and
perhaps determined by
>>>>>>> corporations or by individuals."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's
poor judgment in speaking
>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>> Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended
boost for DeLay's
>>>>>>> defenders.,
>>>>>>> The Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2005)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Gary Wiltshire
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5