From: "Rich Gauszka" 

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.ht
m
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. >> 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