Senate Doors Closed

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Rule 21 Invoked by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid; Dems Seek to Investigate Pre-War Intelligence, Libby Indictment; Frist: 'The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership'...

Democrats Force Closed Meeting on Iraq

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that led to the Iraq war and deriding a lack of congressional inquiry.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.



Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

Reid's move shone a spotlight on the continuing controversy over intelligence that President Bush cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information that was in their possession.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons _ the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/01/D8DJSVUO0.html

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

'The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership'...

It's about f*cking time.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Coincidentally, the Republican leadership doesn't have any convictions, either, but we're hoping to change that soon. First up: DeLay and Libby...

Seriously, though, the gall of this Republican party to deride others for not having principles. I'd love to know what exactly this party stands for besides deceit, corruption, and staying in power at any cost.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

Incredible the way they try to downplay the importance of this investigation.

"Who's that negro fella over there on the mall?"
"Oh, him? Oh, that's just Martin Luther King, making some sort of stink about civil rights..."

[Nixxxed]

They just showed a Frist clip where he said it was nothing but a Dem "scare tactic".

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Coincidentally, the Republican leadership doesn't have any convictions, either, but we're hoping to change that soon. First up: DeLay and Libby...

Seriously, though, the gall of this Republican party to deride others for not having principles. I'd love to know what exactly this party stands for besides deceit, corruption, and staying in power at any cost.

Well I know I said I was going to stay away from politics for a while. But...This it will take some time...

I can give you one example of why the Republican party is more ethically sound that the democratic...

It is a Republican rule that you can not be in leadership once you have been indicted...the Democrats never had that rule.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Well I know I said I was going to stay away from politics for a while. But...This it will take some time...

I can give you one example of why the Republican party is more ethically sound that the democratic...

It is a Republican rule that you can not be in leadership once you have been indicted...the Democrats never had that rule.

LOL - exactly which D's have been indicted lately and refused to step down?

On the other habd, the R's pushed to change the rules for Delay for that very purpose - to wit:

GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01


House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay's associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups blasted the Republicans' proposal last night.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."

House Republicans recognize that DeLay fought fiercely to widen their majority, and they are eager to protect him from an Austin-based investigation they view as baseless and partisan, said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the GOP's chief deputy whip.

"That's why this [proposed rule change] is going to pass, assuming it's submitted, because there is a tremendous recognition that Tom DeLay led on the issue to produce five more seats" for the Republicans, Cantor said after emerging from a meeting in which the Republican Conference welcomed new members and reelected Hastert and DeLay as its top leaders.

Other Republicans agreed the conference is likely to change the rule if given the chance. An indictment is simply an unproven allegation that should not require a party leader to step aside, said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), a former trial judge, said it makes sense to differentiate between federal and state indictments in shaping party rules because state grand juries often are led by partisan, elected prosecutors who may carry political grudges against lawmakers.

Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.

"Congressman Bonilla's rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the process while preserving the original ethical principles of the rule," Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said.

Hastert and DeLay, meanwhile, are publicly taking a hands-off posture. Hastert told reporters the decision was up to the conference, adding, "we'll see what happens." DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said his boss "believes we should allow members of the conference to come to their own conclusions and let the conference work its will without him exerting undue influence one way or the other."

A Texas grand jury in September indicted three of DeLay's political associates on charges of using a political action committee to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel them to Texas legislative races. The group, Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, is closely associated with DeLay. DeLay says he has not acted improperly and has no reason to believe he is a target of the grand jury, which continues to look into the TRMPAC matter.

The House ethics committee on Oct. 6 admonished DeLay for asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved in the highly contentious 2003 redistricting battle, and for conduct that suggested political donations might influence legislative action. The ethics panel deferred action on a complaint related to TRMPAC, noting that the grand jury has not finished its work.

The Texas investigation is headed by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat who has been bitterly criticized by DeLay supporters. Yesterday, Cantor called Earle's efforts "a witch hunt."

"It's a totally a partisan exercise," Cantor said. "It's coincidental with what's going on up here [in the Capitol], where they are trying every avenue to go after Tom DeLay because they can't beat him" on the House floor or in congressional elections. Changing the rule is not a sign that lawmakers think DeLay will be indicted, Cantor said, but rather a public rebuke of an investigation they feel is wholly unwarranted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Well I know I said I was going to stay away from politics for a while. But...This it will take some time...

I can give you one example of why the Republican party is more ethically sound that the democratic...

It is a Republican rule that you can not be in leadership once you have been indicted...the Democrats never had that rule.

Ummm...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

LOL - exactly which D's have been indicted lately and refused to step down?

On the other habd, the R's pushed to change the rules for Delay for that very purpose - to wit:

GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01

Ack, you beat me to it.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

LOL - exactly which D's have been idicted lately and refused to step down?

On the other habd, the R's pushed to change the rules for Delay for that very purpose - to wit:

GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01


House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay's associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups blasted the Republicans' proposal last night.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."

House Republicans recognize that DeLay fought fiercely to widen their majority, and they are eager to protect him from an Austin-based investigation they view as baseless and partisan, said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the GOP's chief deputy whip.

"That's why this [proposed rule change] is going to pass, assuming it's submitted, because there is a tremendous recognition that Tom DeLay led on the issue to produce five more seats" for the Republicans, Cantor said after emerging from a meeting in which the Republican Conference welcomed new members and reelected Hastert and DeLay as its top leaders.

Other Republicans agreed the conference is likely to change the rule if given the chance. An indictment is simply an unproven allegation that should not require a party leader to step aside, said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), a former trial judge, said it makes sense to differentiate between federal and state indictments in shaping party rules because state grand juries often are led by partisan, elected prosecutors who may carry political grudges against lawmakers.

Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.

"Congressman Bonilla's rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the process while preserving the original ethical principles of the rule," Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said.

Hastert and DeLay, meanwhile, are publicly taking a hands-off posture. Hastert told reporters the decision was up to the conference, adding, "we'll see what happens." DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said his boss "believes we should allow members of the conference to come to their own conclusions and let the conference work its will without him exerting undue influence one way or the other."

A Texas grand jury in September indicted three of DeLay's political associates on charges of using a political action committee to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel them to Texas legislative races. The group, Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, is closely associated with DeLay. DeLay says he has not acted improperly and has no reason to believe he is a target of the grand jury, which continues to look into the TRMPAC matter.

The House ethics committee on Oct. 6 admonished DeLay for asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved in the highly contentious 2003 redistricting battle, and for conduct that suggested political donations might influence legislative action. The ethics panel deferred action on a complaint related to TRMPAC, noting that the grand jury has not finished its work.

The Texas investigation is headed by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat who has been bitterly criticized by DeLay supporters. Yesterday, Cantor called Earle's efforts "a witch hunt."

"It's a totally a partisan exercise," Cantor said. "It's coincidental with what's going on up here [in the Capitol], where they are trying every avenue to go after Tom DeLay because they can't beat him" on the House floor or in congressional elections. Changing the rule is not a sign that lawmakers think DeLay will be indicted, Cantor said, but rather a public rebuke of an investigation they feel is wholly unwarranted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Yes he pushed to change it! BUT FOR OBVIOUS REASONS!

He is being the victim of this political prosecution by Earle. Earle has the power to remove the Republican leadership by a phony political indictment. So, yes they considered it but they did not! The important point is the Democrats NEVER HAD THAT RULE!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Yes he pushed to change it! BUT FOR OBVIOUS REASONS!

He is being the victim of this political prosecution by Earle. Earle has the power to remove the Republican leadership by a phony political indictment. So, yes they considered it but they did not! The important point is the Democrats NEVER HAD THAT RULE!

You mean Earle with the 94% conviction rate

Also, you cannot seriously say that Delay did not use the RNC to skirt the Texas rules when it is so painfully obvious he did just that. But, when one's source is bias, as your's is, facts just get in the way.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You mean Earle with the 94% conviction rate

Also, you cannot seriously say that Delay did not use the RNC to skirt the Texas rules when it is so painfully obvious he did just that. But, when one'sa source is bias, as your's is, facts just get in the way.

BTW - the D's apparently did not need that rule now did they

Why didn't the democrats have that rule?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Ack, you beat me to it.

Yet, all our little neophyte can focus on is the totally irrelevance of the the 1993 change lead by the R's, which he does in a classic Fox News method of talking the fcous off of the R's changing their own rules when it suits them as they did with Delay.

Not to mention Delay wants all practicing homos in jail.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Why didn't the democrats have that rule?

Who give a ****te - the point is the R's made the rule to get the D's and then when they were in trouble, they tried to get rid of it.

Do you ever make a logical argument?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Who give a ****te - the point is the R's made the rule to get the D's and then when they were in trouble, they tried to get rid of it.

Do you ever make a logical argument?

Yes I'm asking you. Im trying to make a point here...if the D's care more about ethics then why didn't they ever have that rule? Why was that a Republican rule?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Yes I'm asking you. Im trying to make a point here...if the D's care more about ethics then why didn't they ever have that rule? Why was that a Republican rule?

Again, the D's never had the rule. So what, the point is the R's made the rule to get the D's and then when it appeared the rule was going to be used against the R's they scurried to rid themselves of it. Thus, they are FAR more sleazy and hypocritical then the D's in this instance because they refuse to be held to the standard they applied to others. This is not that complicated

Also, why are your defending Delay who despite being guilty on the facts, wants you imprisoned for having gay sex?