Well lookee here! Not just a Delay deal

Jack Dawson · Apr 13, 2005

:lol: Lawmakers with relatives on their congressional or campaign staffs include:

_ House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas: Wife and daughter were paid more than $500,000 since 2001 for working for DeLay's campaign and political action committees.

_ Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman: Son Matthew received about $34,000 and daughter Rebecca about $36,000 for working on the senator's 2004 presidential campaign.

_ Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.: Nephew Todd Reichert was paid $3,000 last year, plus several hundred dollars for mileage, for serving as driver.

_ California Democratic Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark: Wife Deborah earns $2,400 a month for serving as campaign consultant.

_ Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.: Wife Arlene Willis serves as congressional chief of staff at a salary of nearly $111,000.

_ Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.: Wife Laurie Stupak earned about $36,000 annually the past two years as the finance director for her husband's campaign.

_ Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio: Wife Elizabeth was paid about $1,730 a month during his 2004 campaign. She has worked as a campaign consultant for him since the 2001 election cycle.

_ Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif.: Cousin Ken Costa made about $45,000 for serving as a co-campaign manager last year.

_ Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah: Three college-age children worked on his campaign last year. Emily was paid $5,425, Jane $9,508 and Laura $17,766.

_ Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn.: Sister-in-law Sharon Davis has been his campaign treasurer since 1994,and daughter Libby Davis was his campaign coordinator in the last half of 2004. Libby Davis was paid about $2,334 a month; Sharon Davis was paid about $1,000 a month for bookkeeping last year.

_ Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, employs his wife, Kathy, as his campaign manager. She was paid $21,791 over four months, including a $7,500 bonus last November.

_ New York Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop: Daughter Molly was paid $46,995 as his 2004 campaign's finance director.

_ California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Wife Rhonda Carmony makes $40,000 a year as his campaign manager.

Squawker · Apr 16, 2005

:2bump:

Strange how the truth gets ignored in this forum. :smoking:

ShamMol · Apr 16, 2005

everyone should face the same scrutiny and face the same consequences for their actions, i have always said this

26 X World Champs · Apr 16, 2005

Squawker said:
:2bump:

Strange how the truth gets ignored in this forum. :smoking:

How many of those other politicians were reprimanded even once by the Congress for ethics violations, no less THREE times like Delay.

How many of them took money from foreign interests, i.e. Koreans?

I do not know the answer to my own questions, perhaps someone can enlighten me? Oh, and answer this one too, please:

Is there anyone on that list who has more ethics and/or legal questions around them as Delay? Anyone close?

BTW - If any member of Congress has committed a crime or ethics violation, they should be treated exactly the same way as Delay!

Oh, one more question?

How many people on the Ethics Committee in the House were fired by these other politicians when they subjected scrutiny to Delay? And, how many members of the same Ethics Committee were appointed by these other members, and how many of those contributed to Delay's defense fund?

Delay is dirty, he oozes slime, and he will be brought down by Republicans as well as Democrats, just like the slimey Newt and even like Jim Wright (a Democrat).

ShamMol · Apr 16, 2005

26 X World Champs said:
BTW - If any member of Congress has committed a crime or ethics violation, they should be treated exactly the same way

I couldn't agree more. Everyone should face the same scrutiny when they are a senator or rep.

Squawker · Apr 16, 2005

Hey there Champ, don't ya think there needs to be some proof first?

How many people on the Ethics Committee in the House were fired by these other politicians when they subjected scrutiny to Delay? And, how many members of the same Ethics Committee were appointed by these other members, and how many of those contributed to Delay's defense fund?

Delay is dirty, he oozes slime, and he will be brought down by Republicans as well as Democrats, just like the slimey Newt and even like Jim Wright (a Democrat).

You need to go into the house painting business, that brush could do some good.

Fantasea · Apr 16, 2005

Perhaps someone will be kind enough to cite, specifically, what the ethics violations were and which laws were broken.

aquapub · Apr 18, 2005

When Bill Clinton railroaded a retard to execution so that he could appear less liberal during an election year, liberals said nothing. When Bill Clinton was accused (credibly) of rape, Democrats blew it off (and this was just after portraying proven liar, Anita Hill as a saint for FALSELY accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment). When Bill Clinton was accused repeatedly of sexual harassment, the left attacked each and every one of his accusers, one by one. When Bill Clinton committed perjury, liberals scoffed every time Republicans mentioned “the letter of the law,” and called it a “vast right wing conspiracy.” When Bill Clinton got caught in Whitewater, Democrats rationalized it away. When Bill Clinton had his IRS audit Paula Jones (who was way beneath the tax bracket the IRS ever investigates) Democrats called it a coincidence. When Bill Clinton took campaign contributions from China’s communist government, instead of admitting his (and the left’s) long history of sleaze and treason, Democrats downplayed it. Furthermore, when JFK stole a presidential election, Democrats lied for him. When LBJ stole a Senate race by paying off a judge, Democrats lied for him too.

Now, Democrats cannot stop accusing Republicans of stealing elections (even though it is now a matter of record that the media cost Bush around 10,000 votes in Florida and that Gore was the only one trying to steal anything) and they have the audacity to act outraged over Delay’s non-offenses (none of which are uncommon or illegal) after defending a career-felon like Bill Clinton for nearly a decade. Spare us the sudden and phony concern about corruption. Democrats are redefining hypocrisy with this latest hysterical witch hunt.

shuamort · Apr 18, 2005

Fantasea said:
Perhaps someone will be kind enough to cite, specifically, what the ethics violations were and which laws were broken.

The DeLay Scandals:

TRMPAC.

In 2001, Tom DeLay helped to set up an organization called TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) aimed at helping the Texas GOP gain control of the state Legislature. His goal was to force a redistricting of Texas' congressional districts that would increase the Republican majority in Washington.

DeLay succeeded in sending five more Republicans to Congress. But his tactics created two problems. First, Texas has very strict laws forbidding the use of money raised from corporations in state races, and TRMPAC raised a lot of corporate money. Second, it made for one very shady deal. On Sept. 20, 2002, the director of TRMPAC sent $190,000, including money raised by corporations, to the Republican National State Elections Committee. Exactly two weeks later, that committee sent exactly $190,000 to state candidates favored by TRMPAC. Each transaction, taken alone, appears legal. Bundled together, they look like an effort to funnel corporate money into a race from which it was banned.

DeLay's defense is that he didn't know the details of what was happening in the organization, that the matching numbers of the $190,000 transfers were just a coincidence, and that the money raised from corporations was spent on administrative office expenses, which is legal in Texas legislative races. But all of those arguments have major weak spots that the experienced prosecutor on the case, Ronnie Earle, could expose. Grand juries have been secretly investigating the allegations of illegal campaign financing, and Earle has already indicted three of DeLay's associates and eight corporate donors. DeLay hasn't been indicted yet, but he could be. And if there's a trial, his indicted associates might choose to squawk about the congressman's misdeeds in exchange for less or no jail time.

Here's a link to the Campaign Finance Reform laws that he was "ignorant" of.

Frequent Flying. .

House ethics rules prevent members from taking trips abroad funded by lobbyists or by "foreign agents," groups or individuals registered to do political work for foreign organizations or governments. DeLay, however, has reportedly taken at least three such trips. In 1997, he went to Russia on the dime of a peculiar company based in the Bahamas and connected to Russian oil interests. In 2000, he went to Britain, his lavish journey paid for in part by a lobbyist. In 2001, he went to South Korea, funded by a recently registered foreign agent.

DeLay faces little danger because of these trips. Other congressmen, including Democrats, have taken similar trips and the House Ethics Committee, which has chief responsibility for policing such disciplinary infractions, is currently shuttered. After the committee admonished the Texas congressman for three infractions this fall, three Republican members were forced out and replaced with DeLay allies. The committee has not met this year because Democrats are protesting the new rules the committee has to operate under, which (surprise) make it much harder to initiate investigations.

The risk for DeLay here is that more reporters will unearth more trips, and they'll perhaps find evidence that the funders happened to do particularly well when legislation they favored came before Congress. Worse, perhaps, the trips connect DeLay to the seedy world of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Here's a link to the House Ethics rules in regards to travel.

The Abramoff Muck.

DeLay and Abramoff are old friends and allies. Now Abramoff is one of the most toxic men in Washington. John McCain is investigating him, as is the Department of Justice for allegedly bilking Native American tribes out of tens of millions of dollars while working for them as a lobbyist. (Read this Slate "Assessment" for more about Abramoff and his penchant for referring to his patrons as "troglodytes.") It's almost certain that some of the documents subpoenaed will cause trouble for DeLay. There's even speculation in Washington that McCain is leading the investigation partly to get DeLay and thereby spare the Republican Party his hard-edged tactics and policies.

Here's a link about how Jack Abramoff has "bought" congress.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay once referred to Abramoff as "one of his closest and dearest friends." This is no surprise given the $40,000 Abramoff and his wife have personally donated to DeLay and his PAC, not to mention the multiple overseas expense paid trips that Abramoff set up for DeLay and his top staffers to Russia, Saipan and Britain over the years. Funding for these trips has been closely tied to Indian gaming tribes, Russian business tycoons and overseas sweatshop operators.

Jack Abramoff is currently under investigation by the Justice Department, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the IRS, the Department of the Interior, and the FBI. Don't you think it's time for the House Ethics Committee to look into Tom DeLay's role in these unscrupulous deals? Email Representative Doc Hastings today and tell him you want the House Ethics Committee to investigate this web of corruption

The Ethics Committee's Docket.

Before the House Ethics Committee was waylaid, it admonished Tom DeLay on three different fronts last year. The first was for appearing to offer a bribe to fellow Republican Rep. Nick Smith to win his support for the closely contested Medicare reform bill. The second was for soliciting donations from a company called Westar Energy just as the House considered a bill of crucial import to the company. The third was for using a federal agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, to track down Democratic members of the Texas Legislature who were fleeing the state to block a vote regarding redistricting (see No. 1 above).

Each of these infractions was serious enough that the then-somnolent, now-comatose Ethics Committee was willing to act. At this point, however, the cases are probably finished. The Justice Department could investigate any of them, and it might already be quietly doing so. But, most likely, DeLay got away with a slap on the wrist.

Here's the ethics report on Nick SmithThe House Ethics Committee finally released its report about allegations by Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., that the House leadership tried to win his support for the Medicare drug bill last November by offering a $100,000 bribe. (In the end, Smith voted no.) The big news is that Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, admitted that he offered to endorse Smith's son Brad, who was running for Congress at the time, in exchange for Smith's "yea" vote on the Medicare bill. According to the Ethics Committee—more precisely, its investigative subcommittee—this is a violation of House rules and warrants "public admonishment." But it may warrant a good deal more.

Family Circus.

As revealed in Wednesday's New York Times—to DeLay's fury, as he expressed today—his wife and daughter have long been on the payroll of several of the political organizations he controls. Friends and family of congressmen have done this kind of work for a long time, but they don't normally rake in the sums that Christine DeLay and Danielle DeLay Ferro did: $500,000 in four years.

The payments sound suspicious, but the story will as likely as not blow over. It allows DeLay to play the victim while defending his family's honor; most important, the key issue is whether the two women received a fair day's pay for a fair day's work—which they probably did. Ferro and Christine DeLay clearly put in long hours for their man; they play a major role in what is known in Washington as DeLay, Inc. They will probably go down only if the whole organization goes down.

And that, of course, is the real danger for Tom DeLay. It's possible that one known bad act, particularly TRMPAC, could do him in. It's also possible that he'll be felled by a misdeed that hasn't been uncovered yet—for example, dirt could come out of DeLay's nonprofit foundation for orphans, which critics charge serves as a backdoor for unregulated donations to him. The much greater risk, though, is that the parade of scandals in its entirety will lead his colleagues to vaporize him one night. DeLay can ask Sen. Trent Lott what that feels like.

See Campaign Reform Laws link about his violations.

ShamMol · Apr 18, 2005

aquapub said:
Now, Democrats cannot stop accusing Republicans of stealing elections (even though it is now a matter of record that the media cost Bush around 10,000 votes in Florida and that Gore was the only one trying to steal anything) and they have the audacity to act outraged over Delay’s non-offenses (none of which are uncommon or illegal) after defending a career-felon like Bill Clinton for nearly a decade. Spare us the sudden and phony concern about corruption. Democrats are redefining hypocrisy with this latest hysterical witch hunt.

First off, felon he is not. A felony is something that lands you in prison for a year or more.

Second, lets see some evidence, but hey, Ill give you some about that nice little BUSH WON FLORIDA thing when he clearly different. Look to the bottom for the information for the article that was deleted from washingtonpost.com.

Third, is it not right to want equal treatment for all? That is all I am asking for and you don't know me, so don't judge what I thought about the Bill Clinton scandal just because I am a liberal (you don't know me and frankly i was into pokemon probably at the time or playing sports). How do you know it phony concern on my part? It was not the democrats who gutted the house ethics com when one of their members got in trouble, maybe you mean that i shouldn't be concerned with that?

Here is the info and i had to use source to get it because it was apparently deleted from washingtonpost.com.

"Full Review Favors Gore," the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots * punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

This core finding of Gore's Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the "butterfly ballot" and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots.

The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed * but not completed * in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December.

The new articles make much of Gore's decision to seek recounts in only four counties and the Florida Supreme Court's decision to examine only "undervotes," those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election.

"Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear suggestion that Gore was hypocritical as well as foolish.

The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture."

RightinNYC · Apr 18, 2005

Three things:

The liberal icon, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), in this week's Time:

One of the criticisms has been that Delay had some family members on his payroll. Your son's firm was paid more than 130,000 over 4 years by your PAC. Is that fair?

I believe that the most important thing for us is to have the best people running our campaigns and PAC's. If we're just putting family on the payroll to get them money, that's unethical. But if they are truly doing the work and they are very qualified - in my own case, my son is a lawyer, and I'm very fortunate that he's willing to do this and does a great job at it.

Notice how she deliberately avoids the question, implies that Delay's family is stupid, and also manages to avoid stating what her son actually did for her. What a great example of hypocricy.

Secondly: The questions around Delay are,so far, just that. Questions.

Thirdly: The trip to Britain was NOT paid for by a lobbyist.

ShamMol · Apr 18, 2005

RightatNYU said:
Three things:

The liberal icon, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), in this week's Time:

One of the criticisms has been that Delay had some family members on his payroll. Your son's firm was paid more than 130,000 over 4 years by your PAC. Is that fair?

I believe that the most important thing for us is to have the best people running our campaigns and PAC's. If we're just putting family on the payroll to get them money, that's unethical. But if they are truly doing the work and they are very qualified - in my own case, my son is a lawyer, and I'm very fortunate that he's willing to do this and does a great job at it.

Notice how she deliberately avoids the question, implies that Delay's family is stupid, and also manages to avoid stating what her son actually did for her. What a great example of hypocricy.

Secondly: The questions around Delay are,so far, just that. Questions.

Thirdly: The trip to Britain was NOT paid for by a lobbyist.

Exactly, they are questions that must be answered by a House Ethics Committee that actually has some teeth. He should face the same punishment as any other person, but instead of allowing that, the rules for the comittee were gutted and now if the two main people disagree on what to do, the matter is dropped. Don't you think that he should face the same scrutiny and ultimately the same punishment as anyone?

And on another note, I have nothing but respect for Boxer because of the help she gave to judges who were held up by the Republicans while Clinton was in office. The support and help she gave to them and their families was tremendous. Though, I don't think that having people on your payroll who work full-time and do a lot of stuff is bad, i question boxer on this one. I'll have to look this one up.

RightinNYC · Apr 18, 2005

ShamMol said:
Exactly, they are questions that must be answered by a House Ethics Committee that actually has some teeth. He should face the same punishment as any other person, but instead of allowing that, the rules for the comittee were gutted and now if the two main people disagree on what to do, the matter is dropped. Don't you think that he should face the same scrutiny and ultimately the same punishment as anyone?

Unless I'm mistaken, the new committee rules don't contain a special provision for Republicans or Delay, they simply make it a more trying process to accuse a house member of ethics violations. Whether or not this is a good move is up for debate, but whether or not Delay did this for his own personal benefit doesn't change that it will affect both sides equally. He WILL face the same scrutiny and punishment as anyone else. In fact, he has already received more scrutiny and punishment than anyone else.

Pacridge · Apr 18, 2005

I don't care that the man had his family working on campaign or in his office. I think they all do that. I think if I were in Washington I might want someone in my family handling my stuff. Might trust them more then someone else. It's the alleged illegal activity that bothers me. Taking money from illegal sources etc...These things need to be looked into by the appropriate agencies, not the press.

ShamMol · Apr 18, 2005

RightatNYU said:
Unless I'm mistaken, the new committee rules don't contain a special provision for Republicans or Delay, they simply make it a more trying process to accuse a house member of ethics violations. Whether or not this is a good move is up for debate, but whether or not Delay did this for his own personal benefit doesn't change that it will affect both sides equally. He WILL face the same scrutiny and punishment as anyone else. In fact, he has already received more scrutiny and punishment than anyone else.

Can you say it with a straight face that this was not done to protect DeLay? It is pretty obvious it was done for that reason. And he has received more scrutiny and punishment because he has broken the rules. These new rules make it near impossible, not just harder, near impossible, to make sure that he will get the punishment, if found to be in the wrong, that he could deserve.

Yes, it affects both the Democrats and the Republicans, but I have always seen it as everyone should be punished for what he or she does with the proper punishment and proper scrutiny. Delay has received both so far and I just want for that to continue. Don't you? Fair punishment for all?

RightinNYC · Apr 18, 2005

ShamMol said:
Can you say it with a straight face that this was not done to protect DeLay? It is pretty obvious it was done for that reason. And he has received more scrutiny and punishment because he has broken the rules. These new rules make it near impossible, not just harder, near impossible, to make sure that he will get the punishment, if found to be in the wrong, that he could deserve.

Yes, it affects both the Democrats and the Republicans, but I have always seen it as everyone should be punished for what he or she does with the proper punishment and proper scrutiny. Delay has received both so far and I just want for that to continue. Don't you? Fair punishment for all?

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. The rules were changed, most likely, to protect Delay. HOWEVER, they don't simply protect him and him alone. They also protect every one of the other house members on that list, and all the other house members who were involved in shady dealings. The point is that even though his punishment may be limited, everyone elses will be too, regardless of party. That, although it may not be satisfying, is fair punishment for all.

Can you honestly say that Delay hasn't received enough scrutiny and punishment? The changing of the rules didn't abate that at all, as you pointed out.

ShamMol · Apr 18, 2005

RightatNYU said:
I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. The rules were changed, most likely, to protect Delay. HOWEVER, they don't simply protect him and him alone. They also protect every one of the other house members on that list, and all the other house members who were involved in shady dealings. The point is that even though his punishment may be limited, everyone elses will be too, regardless of party. That, although it may not be satisfying, is fair punishment for all.

Can you honestly say that Delay hasn't received enough scrutiny and punishment? The changing of the rules didn't abate that at all, as you pointed out.

Yes, I can honestly say that. If he continued to do bad things after bad things after bad things, I think he should be, as anyone should, punished for all those bad things. I know the new rules don't protect him alone, but you can't deny (and didn't) that they were put in place to protect him. I think it is bullcrap to protect anyone who does not deserve to be protected. Nobody should be protected from what they did. Its fair for all, excpet those who will now get off scot free, its great for them, lol.

Squawker · Apr 18, 2005

When the Democrats went after Newt, they charged him with over 50 ethics violations. None of them panned out. This is just dirty politics , by sore losers. Treat Delay the same as they do everyone else. Fine him for something to save face, and move on. :roll:

Pacridge · Apr 18, 2005

Squawker said:
When the Democrats went after Newt, they charged him with over 50 ethics violations. None of them panned out. This is just dirty politics , by sore losers. Treat Delay the same as they do everyone else. Fine him for something to save face, and move on. :roll:

None of Newt's ethics violations panned out?
I agree- treat Delay the same as everyone else. But I don't get "Fine him for something to save face, and move on" If he's actually done serious wrong doing he should face serious consequences. Fines for wealthy politicians seem rather meaningless.

I think there needs to be some serious house cleaning all around. It seems to me that both sides are willing to put up with all kinds of horse **** just to make sure they don’t lose a seat. During this last election here in Oregon one of our Rep’s Dem. David Wu it was disclosed had previously sexually assaulted a young lady when he was attending Stanford. He beat his Reb. challenger in a landside. The Dems and the Left claimed “Well he was young and we all make mistakes when we’re young.” Excuse me? I was young (really I was) I can assure you I never sexually assaulted anyone. Now I'm not saying Delay assaulted anyone. But the right seems to be willing to defend his BS just as the left as defended the BS by elected officials on their side all to make sure they don’t lose any amount of power they might have. BS is BS no matter which side is doing it.

Squawker · Apr 18, 2005

I agree about the BS Pac.
Pelosi is still leading the charge against Delay. This is the “holier than thou” crowd who use “allegations” to ruin people. Pelosi got fined for her violations, but that didn’t interfere with her position as the minority leader in the House.

NLPC Says Pelosi Attacks on DeLay Are Hypocritical; Cites Pelosi’s Own “Ethical Cloud”

Date: October 12, 2002
Contact: Ken Boehm 703-237-1970
Website: www.nlpc.org

Ken Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), today criticized House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as a hypocrite for her recent attacks on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).

On October 7, Pelosi said, "Republicans must answer - do they want an ethically unfit person to be their majority leader, or do they want to remove the ethical cloud that hangs over the Capitol?"

Boehm pointed to NLPC’s successful complaint against Pelosi’s leadership PACs earlier this year. He said, “No other member of Congress has ever set up a second leadership PAC to evade contribution limits. Pelosi’s PACs were caught violating the clearest and most basic campaign finance law of all, the limits on contributions.”

He continued, “These are not vague or unsubstantiated allegations. These are actual and proven violations of the law. Given the level of Pelosi’s hypocrisy as a champion of what’s called campaign finance reform, they are more serious than anything alleged against DeLay.”

Source

Squawker · Apr 18, 2005

None of Newt's ethics violations panned out?

Will save you some time checking it out. According to one site Source there were 75 claims against Newt, and the media kept the drum beat going until he gave up. Here is report you might trust.

Gingrich began the course in 1993, before Republicans won control of the House and made him speaker. Gingrich's lectures were videotaped and widely distributed.
Democrats said it was a campaign gimmick and filed ethics complaints accusing him of illegal use of tax-exempt funds for political purposes. A tax expert hired by the House Ethics Committee said the course violated tax laws, and in 1997 Gingrich agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics panel and failing to seek better legal advice before using tax-exempt money for the course.
As it turned out, the course was legal after all. The IRS found that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, "did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich" or Republican organizations.

Source

Pacridge · Apr 18, 2005

Squawker said:
I agree about the BS Pac.
Pelosi is still leading the charge against Delay. This is the “holier than thou” crowd who use “allegations” to ruin people. Pelosi got fined for her violations, but that didn’t interfere with her position as the minority leader in the House.

Source

I haven’t heard this before. But when these people do crap like this they should be held accountable, period. Voters let elected officials get away with too much BS. And I think it’s the voters fault in the end. They/we keep re-electing these lying dirt bags. And my point was and is it seems that people are more then willing to make excuses and or look the other way as long as he’s/she’s one of your “own.” It’s almost like “well yeah, Delay may have done some thing wrong, but at least he’s not a democrat” or “yeah Delay may have done some illegal things but they, look here, these democrats also did the same thing- so it’s okay.” The last one, it seems to me, is what this whole threads beginning was based on- wasn’t it? I’d say it’s not ok when any of these sleaze balls do it and we’re fools for putting up with it.

RightinNYC · Apr 18, 2005

Pacridge said:
I haven’t heard this before. But when these people do crap like this they should be held accountable, period. Voters let elected officials get away with too much BS. And I think it’s the voters fault in the end. They/we keep re-electing these lying dirt bags. And my point was and is it seems that people are more then willing to make excuses and or look the other way as long as he’s/she’s one of your “own.” It’s almost like “well yeah, Delay may have done some thing wrong, but at least he’s not a democrat” or “yeah Delay may have done some illegal things but they, look here, these democrats also did the same thing- so it’s okay.” The last one, it seems to me, is what this whole threads beginning was based on- wasn’t it? I’d say it’s not ok when any of these sleaze balls do it and we’re fools for putting up with it.

I see the mentality developing this way because we're conditioned to go much easier on the politicians we like.

We decry the pork barrel spending in Congress, but every year, every Congressman runs on the platform of how many jobs he's brought to our area, how much money he got for us, etc... We're trained to be angry at waste and impropriety, but to love it when it benefits us.

Tammany Hall was responsible for some of the best loved mayors in NYC, despite the incredible corruption.

If you think about it, most of the best loved politicians are that way because of their ability to schmooze, and get what they want through methods that wouldn't necessarily be acceptable to the general public if presented.

Squawker · Apr 18, 2005

Pacridge said:
I haven’t heard this before. But when these people do crap like this they should be held accountable, period. Voters let elected officials get away with too much BS. And I think it’s the voters fault in the end. They/we keep re-electing these lying dirt bags. And my point was and is it seems that people are more then willing to make excuses and or look the other way as long as he’s/she’s one of your “own.” It’s almost like “well yeah, Delay may have done some thing wrong, but at least he’s not a democrat” or “yeah Delay may have done some illegal things but they, look here, these democrats also did the same thing- so it’s okay.” The last one, it seems to me, is what this whole threads beginning was based on- wasn’t it? I’d say it’s not ok when any of these sleaze balls do it and we’re fools for putting up with it.

It is only the Democrats who rally around their scum bags and don't hold them to the same standard as Republicans. Just as they have done in the past, Republicans are starting to cave into pressure about Delay, so it is more like "we know Delay hasn't been charged with anything yet, but we aren't going to overlook it like Democrats do". :roll:

aquapub · Apr 18, 2005

SHAMOL:

"First off, felon he is not. A felony is something that lands you in prison for a year or more.

Second, lets see some evidence, but hey, Ill give you some about that nice little BUSH WON FLORIDA thing when he clearly different. Look to the bottom for the information for the article that was deleted from washingtonpost.com.

Third, is it not right to want equal treatment for all? That is all I am asking for and you don't know me, so don't judge what I thought about the Bill Clinton scandal just because I am a liberal (you don't know me and frankly i was into pokemon probably at the time or playing sports). How do you know it phony concern on my part? It was not the democrats who gutted the house ethics com when one of their members got in trouble, maybe you mean that i shouldn't be concerned with that?"

AQUAPUB:

1) You do not have to be convicted to be a felon-duh! And Clinton was disbarred for perjury, so he was caught anyway.

2) Evidence? The media recounted the votes every way imagineable and Gore lost by more each time! And when the media called Florida EARLY and INCORRECTLY for Gore, the rigidly conservative panhandle was still voting for over an hour. There was an unusual drop-off of between 10,000 and 32,000 votes cast in the panhandle. Do the math. The media created the debacle. It was never even close. Bush had Gore from go.

3) Democrats are not asking for equal treatment. Persecuting one guy (who happens to be the first Republican Congressional leader to so effectively and consistently kick the crap out of Democrats issue by issue, election by election- must just be a coincidence that they are gunning for him and only him) for something everyone else is doing is not fair treatment.

Well lookee here! Not just a Delay deal

Member

Professor

Only Way Round is Through

Only Way Round is Through

Professor

Pundit-licious

Only Way Round is Through

Girthless

Only Way Round is Through

Girthless

Only Way Round is Through

Girthless

Only Way Round is Through

Professor

Professor

Professor

Girthless

Professor

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency