For now. Stay tuned.aps said:but allows the money-laundering charges to stand.
KCConservative said:For now. Stay tuned.
None, other than the history of all the other smear campaign charges that have been brought against him in the past and eventually dropped.aps said:Do you have some inside knowledge, KC?
LaMidRighter said:Next stop for Ronnie Earl, Prison. Why;
1 - obstruction of justice.
2 - abuse of office.
3 - Jury rigging
There are more that I just can't think of right now, but these are already being talked about in response to Earl's behavior, and wouldn't it be nice to see a smear attempt boomerang around and smack the very Democrats who tried to hurt Republicans.
aps said:but allows the money-laundering charges to stand. (Whew.)
This means that there is evidence that the jury will need to weigh (i.e., Earle's charges have possible validity).
Navy Pride said:For the time being.....Money laundering will be extremely hard to prove.....I think eveyone knows that this is just partisan politics on the part of the dems for the way Delay snookered them on the redistricting issue in Texas...........
Its going to be really hard on the dems if these are thrown out to because of lack of evidence........
Stay tuned...........
aps said:Hi Navy Pride. Tell me how the money laundering issue is hard to prove. Well, if "everyone" knows that this is partisan politics, why don't I know this? You might want to clarify your sentence to say that "every republican."
Seriously, as pointed out when the charges were first brought, Earle has indicted, I believe, 15 people--12 democrats and 3 republicans. Sorry, but I don't think you can say that he is all about partisan politics. You genuinely think that this is about DeLay's redistricting issue? I don't buy that for a minute. Has it ever occurred to you that DeLay is possibly a shady politician? I am hoping that he is implicated in the Abramoff case. That would make my day.....
Dude, wait, I thought you were better than this.LaMidRighter said:Next stop for Ronnie Earl, Prison. Why;
1 - obstruction of justice.
2 - abuse of office.
3 - Jury rigging
There are more that I just can't think of right now, but these are already being talked about in response to Earl's behavior, and wouldn't it be nice to see a smear attempt boomerang around and smack the very Democrats who tried to hurt Republicans.
galenrox said:Dude, wait, I thought you were better than this.
Ronnie Earl has indicted more democrats than republicans, and didn't he even indict himself once? Yeah, that sounds like a guy who's only doing partisan political attacks via the law.
Or maybe, perhaps, Tom Delay, universally known as one of the dirtiest players in the game, might've actually done something wrong, and those previous charges had some merit to them, but since he's extremely powerful and extremely rich (and thus has fantastic attorneys), he got off.
Come on dude, you're better than this, use your head man.
Its true that Earle prosecuted 12 dems and 3 republicans but what you fail to mention is those prosecutions were at a time when dems controlled the who state government and that the dems were conservatives........There were very few republicans from Texas in the state or federal government...........
Do you intend to prove this? Here, I'll give you a list of names, and you prove to me that they were all actually conservatives:Navy Pride said:Dude read this:
galenrox said:Do you intend to prove this? Here, I'll give you a list of names, and you prove to me that they were all actually conservatives:
State Representative Betty Denton
State Representative Lance Denton
State House Speaker Gib Lewis
Attorney General (I'm assuming state) Jim Mattox
State Treasurer Warren Harding
State Senator Gene Jones
Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough
(these are out of the 11 that About.com found)
And also, since you've accused him of repeatedly using his office for political purposes, then explain how come, out of these 11 only 2 got off?
If it's fact, show me legitamate sources.Navy Pride said:I don't have to prove it because its a fact........A lot of dems like Phil Grahn (not sure of the spelling) were dems and changed parties when the dem party in Texas stared moving to the left..............If you followed Texas Politics you would know that......
Earle is a partisan hack.He has even spoken at democratic fund raisers......
Navy Pride said:I don't have to prove it because its a fact........A lot of dems like Phil Grahn (not sure of the spelling) were dems and changed parties when the dem party in Texas stared moving to the left
Navy Pride said:.............If you followed Texas Politics you would know that......
BWG said:If there were a lot, can you name me one more Texas dem that changed parties along with Phil Gramm?
I'll give you a hint, it was 1983.
So, this would be an easy question for you to answer, right? :lol:
No way are you getting away by ignoring my message, you've made a claim here and haven't backed it up with anything other than showing that someone said it on this forum earlier. This is a major claim which your entire argument relies on, so you have to either prove it by showing a legitamate source, or retract it (thus leaving your entire argument ridiculous and unsubstantiated)Navy Pride said:No I don't know of any I just know that a lot of democrats in the eighties were very Conservative...............
You I don't hear any of you libs saying anything about Earle speaking a democratic dund raising events.....Would you not consider someone likt that a partisan politician?
galenrox said:No way are you getting away by ignoring my message, you've made a claim here and haven't backed it up with anything other than showing that someone said it on this forum earlier. This is a major claim which your entire argument relies on, so you have to either prove it by showing a legitamate source, or retract it (thus leaving your entire argument ridiculous and unsubstantiated)
KCConservative said:None, other than the history of all the other smear campaign charges that have been brought against him in the past and eventually dropped.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678234.shtml"Tom DeLay was rebuked on three separate matters by the House Ethics Committee in the last Congress, an extraordinary slap at the leader," says Ornstein. "But they left open pending a fourth issue, which was the Ronnie Earle case in Texas. So what did the House Republicans do? They fire the chairman of the Ethics Committee. They removed two members."
And two of the replacements had contributed to DeLay’s legal defense fund.
hipsterdufus said:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678234.shtml
I actually hope Delay stays around just long enough to lose in 06.
He still faces 2 felonies charges - hardly chump change.He got off on a technicality on the conspiracy charge.
Mark my words: Delay will never again be Speaker of The House. I'll give 10 to 1 odds if anyone is interested.:mrgreen:
The culture of corruption is unprecedented.
Navy Pride said:We shall see hips, your really going to be torqued out of shape if he gets off though...........I think that is what will happen.....we shall see..........
what? he's a democrat, of course he spoke at a fundraising event! Now if you're arguing that association with a political party means you are too partisan to do your job, then that might mean something, but right now you're just proving that a man who admits to being a democrat is a democrat. Way to go, I guess.Navy Pride said:No I don't know of any I just know that a lot of democrats in the eighties were very Conservative...............
You I don't hear any of you libs saying anything about Earle speaking a democratic dund raising events.....Would you not consider someone likt that a partisan politician?
What points haven't I responded t? please, lay them out here and I'll respond to them. Then you have to show me one single frickin source that shows that you aren't just making ridiculous claims because Tom Delay said them.Navy Pride said:You don't respond to my points why should I respond to yours?
galenrox said:what? he's a democrat, of course he spoke at a fundraising event! Now if you're arguing that association with a political party means you are too partisan to do your job, then that might mean something, but right now you're just proving that a man who admits to being a democrat is a democrat. Way to go, I guess.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?