Senate Doors Closed - Page 2

Brwn_eyes0511 · #16 11-01-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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?

Will you stop with that already...

I'm staying out of this now!

I'm already confused as it is...

stargazer99 · #17 11-01-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

It's about f*cking time.

You literally took the words right out of my mouth!

stargazer99 · #18 11-01-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

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!

I find it quite comical that the R's keep spinning this as a partisan witch hunt, when Earle has prosecuted many more D's than R's:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in678234.shtml

[snippet]

Quote:

"A good district attorney can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to, and Mr. Earle understands that," says Carter. "The accusations harm as much as the convictions. … Because all you have right now is accusations, and we're having an interview on a national television show about accusations. So they're obviously harmful or it wouldn't be news."

Is he saying that Earle is deliberately doing this? "I don't know whether he's doing – if he does it or not. I just know," says Carter. "I just know that you've seen a history that seems that way."

Carter is alluding to the charge made by DeLay and other Republicans that Earle’s motives are partisan, and he points to Earle’s unsuccessful attempt to prosecute Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on ethics charges.

Hutchinson said: "I know he prosecutes for political purposes. He did it to me."

"I'm not surprised that she would say that," says Earle. "That's pretty much what other politicians that I've prosecuted have said."

But does he believe that example casts a shadow over this case, and these indictments?

"That was one case. There have been somewhere around 15 cases involving elected officials, that my office has prosecuted," says Earle. "Of the 15, 12 were Democrats; three were Republican. But now, he’s dealing with one of the most powerful politicians in the country."

Nixxxed · #19 11-01-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer99

I find it quite comical that the R's keep spinning this as a partisan witch hunt, when Earle has prosecuted many more D's than R's:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in678234.shtml

[snippet]

Even more comical is what they say when you remind them of this fact. They say the reason he's prosecuted more Ds than Rs is because TX used to be a D state, and "there was no such thing as an R in TX."

So, his party was in power, and he could have had anything he wanted (politically, maybe even personally), yet he still prosecuted them when they were bad, and not just because it was his job. Yeah, that says something really negative about him.

Jyqm · #20 11-01-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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.

So DeLay prances around doing the same things he's been doing for years, only now he doesn't "officially" have the title. Sorry. That's not terribly ethically sound.

Take even a cursory glance at the rampant deception and corruption and cronyism that has been the backbone of this Republican administration. Can you really say with a straight face that the Republican party today is more ethically sound than anyone?

Brwn_eyes0511 · #21 11-01-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

I find it quite comical that the R's keep spinning this as a partisan witch hunt, when Earle has prosecuted many more D's than R's:

That doesn't mean anything! If anything it shows that Democrats are MORE corrupt!

We aren't saying that he doesn't prosecute D's...if you are a D who is guilty of the crime you will be prosecuted. But the fact that this guy had a docu. team following him around while he makes accusations about getting "Delay"...I mean COME ON! And the fact that this is the same man who stormed through Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office and turned up with NOTHING! I mean even the judge said basically that you can't go around making charges unless you have something to back it up with!

strandinthewind · #22 11-01-2005, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

. . .
We aren't saying that he doesn't prosecute D's...if you are a D who is guilty of the crime you will be prosecuted. But the fact that this guy had a docu. team following him around while he makes accusations about getting "Delay"...I mean COME ON! And the fact that this is the same man who stormed through Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office and turned up with NOTHING! I mean even the judge said basically that you can't go around making charges unless you have something to back it up with!

First you use "we" and include yourself with those who despise your very being and want you in jail - it time to move on before you look even more pathetic.

Second - the facts are very much agains Delay, which is why he took this to trial. The man did not earn a 94% conviction rate by being stupid.

Third, his case agains Kay B H was lost due to a bad ruling by a judge, which happens and sadly so because she was clearly guilty. BTW do you even know the facts of that case before you assert the incorrect statements you just did - here they are:

Shortly after the special election victory, Travis County authorities, led by district attorney Ronnie Earle, raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury looking for proof of allegations that Hutchison used state equipment and employees on state time to help with her campaign. She was indicted by a grand jury in September, 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. She was acquitted of all charges. Earle tried to withdraw the charges before the trial started due to concerns of what the judge would admit as evidence. However, the judge refused the withdrawal, swore in the jury and made the jury return a "not guilty" verdict so that Hutchison could not be tried again for the same charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Bailey_Hutchinson

gldstwmn · #23 11-01-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

It's about f*cking time.

Can I get an amen?

This is starting to get fun now.

strandinthewind · #24 11-01-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Can I get an amen?

This is starting to get fun now.

Watching the wolves kill the weakened fox always is - then comes the feast.

Nixxxed · #25 11-01-2005, 07:51 PM

Was it just me or did Frist look like he was about to cry when he called the Senate back into session?

gldstwmn · #26 11-01-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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 honorable thing to do is to step down before you are indicted.

Merf · #27 11-01-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Can I get an amen?

This is starting to get fun now.

I'll bring the smores! Whee!

strandinthewind · #28 11-01-2005, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

The honorable thing to do is to step down before you are indicted.

Or - how about this, find out who in your administration did a criminal act and weed them out on your own instead of wasting everyone's time with an Ind. Counsel.

dissention · #29 11-01-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Or - how about this, find out who in your administration did a criminal act and weed them out on your own instead of wasting everyone's time with an Ind. Counsel.

Who would want that when the heads of the administration are as deeply involved as the those on the lower rung of the ladder? Not me.

strandinthewind · #30 11-01-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Who would want that when the heads of the administration are as deeply involved as the those on the lower rung of the ladder? Not me.

True - but I referred to them as well. In other words, if Cheney disclosed it - get rid of him, which of course would never happen despite these bozos touting themselves as the party restoring honor to the White House.