From: "Robert G Lewis" 

I can see some logic to it . A person who is activity involved in his own
defense will be er distracted from his role as a Party Leader. However a
hard and fast rule strikes me as overkill also .



"Mark"  wrote in message
news:433b6478$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Oh, I agree that they can't change the rule now in midstream of its
> invocation. I meant that they never should have passed it in the first
> place. I agree too, that they only did so originally to show how honest
> they were , but it was still a poor method of conveying that message.
>  lack of impropriety, the action indicates an admission of guilt before the
> fact>
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:433b627d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I think the dems require it for committee positions , not the political
>>leadership.
>>
>> Personally I think the Republicans made the rule so let them live by it,
>> After this is over if they want to change it fine Delay was elected to
>> his position while this rule was in effect. Shoot I think he really push
>> for some of the tight ethics rules at one point.  To change it now would
>> say that he ( or Mt Smith ) was above the rules. Not an appropriate
>> message for our country imho.
>>
>> IIRC the rule was a reaction to Dan Rostenkowski , who should have been
>> removed by the House.
>>
>> Bob Lewis
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:433b600d{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>I maintain that they should have changed the rules. Forget Delay,
>>>substitute "Smith." IOW, I mean that it shouldn't be
that way for anyone.
>>>The way it is now, anyone, anywhere could lodge a complaint against any
>>>member of congress and if a DA gets an indictment, they have to give up
>>>any leadership position they hold while it's resolved. >>do, I'm not sure the Dems abide by that same rule>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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