January 18, 2006
Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."
Let me offer you a hint, you moron – Christian conservatives are not flying airplanes into buildings, strapping on suicide bombs, or killing your former comrades in the military (who it appears are lucky to be rid of you – you obviously got a Section 8 discharge).
Similarly, he declares most of his state’s voters to be un-American.
Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American."If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.
Well, Paul, it is clear that you are outside the mainstream of American values. But your goofy comments put you right in line with Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the moonbat wing of the Democrat Party. America rejects you – just as it has rejected your party.
Posted by: Greg at
01:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.
Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."
Let me offer you a hint, you moron – Christian conservatives are not flying airplanes into buildings, strapping on suicide bombs, or killing your former comrades in the military (who it appears are lucky to be rid of you – you obviously got a Section 8 discharge).
Similarly, he declares most of his stateÂ’s voters to be un-American.
Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American."If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.
Well, Paul, it is clear that you are outside the mainstream of American values. But your goofy comments put you right in line with Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the moonbat wing of the Democrat Party. America rejects you – just as it has rejected your party.
Posted by: Greg at
01:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.
The Community of Faith for Economic Empowerment "is right on the front lines providing crisis assistance to supplement rental payments for dislocated families and emergency food and clothing assistance," the recent CBCF statement issued sometime after Jan. 4, explained.However, COFFEE was established "to implement" the New Orleans "With Ownership Wealth Initiative" (WOW), according to the COFFEE website, and the WOW program was launched by Rep. Jefferson in 2002.
COFFEE's links to Jefferson are so close that the chairman of its board of directors, Rev. Zebadee Bridges, was at the center of a controversy involving Jefferson and the so-called separation of church and state in 1999. Bridges reportedly used his pulpit at the Asia Baptist Church in New Orleans to endorse Jefferson for Louisiana governor and to encourage congregants to contribute to Jefferson's campaign.
In heading both the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which claims to have distributed the $290,000 and the WOW program, which is closely connected with the group (COFFEE) that received the funds, Jefferson has opened himself up to accusations of conflict of interest.
And since one of his aides recently entered a guilty plea and implicated Jefferson in criminal activity in seeking bribes, I would not be surprised to find that the Democrat culture of corruption that exists in Louisiana isn’t at work here.
Posted by: Greg at
01:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
The Community of Faith for Economic Empowerment "is right on the front lines providing crisis assistance to supplement rental payments for dislocated families and emergency food and clothing assistance," the recent CBCF statement issued sometime after Jan. 4, explained.However, COFFEE was established "to implement" the New Orleans "With Ownership Wealth Initiative" (WOW), according to the COFFEE website, and the WOW program was launched by Rep. Jefferson in 2002.
COFFEE's links to Jefferson are so close that the chairman of its board of directors, Rev. Zebadee Bridges, was at the center of a controversy involving Jefferson and the so-called separation of church and state in 1999. Bridges reportedly used his pulpit at the Asia Baptist Church in New Orleans to endorse Jefferson for Louisiana governor and to encourage congregants to contribute to Jefferson's campaign.
In heading both the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which claims to have distributed the $290,000 and the WOW program, which is closely connected with the group (COFFEE) that received the funds, Jefferson has opened himself up to accusations of conflict of interest.
And since one of his aides recently entered a guilty plea and implicated Jefferson in criminal activity in seeking bribes, I would not be surprised to find that the Democrat culture of corruption that exists in Louisiana isnÂ’t at work here.
Posted by: Greg at
01:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.
January 17, 2006
The five year suspension that the former (thanks be to God) agreed to in lieu of prosecution for his perjurious statements will end this week.
After five years of banishment from the legal profession, President Clinton will be eligible this week to reclaim the law license he gave up as a consequence of the inaccurate responses he gave under oath to questions about his relationship with a White House intern.
Mr. Clinton's suspension from the Arkansas bar, which he formally agreed to a day before leaving office in 2001, expires on Thursday. It is unclear whether the former president will seek reinstatement to the bar, but officials in Arkansas have been preparing for such a request.
"There are people who have had this date marked on their calendar," the executive director of the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, Stark Ligon, told The New York Sun. He said court rules prevent him from confirming or denying whether Mr. Clinton has filed an application to be reinstated until the committee takes some action in the case.
However, Mr. Ligon said such applications are routinely approved. "The presumption fairly would be that reinstatement should be granted unless some good cause could be shown why it should not," he said. Mr. Ligon said any request from Mr. Clinton would be sent by fax or mail to a seven-member committee panel, which usually acts promptly. "We can generally get a turnaround within a week to 10 days," the bar official said.
But he might have a problem being admitted to the bar in other parts of the country.
While there appears to be little standing in the way of Mr. Clinton's reinstatement to the Arkansas bar, rules for admission in New York and Washington could pose a challenge to him quickly joining those bars. Admission by reciprocity to the New York bar requires that an applicant show that he or she has spent five of the last seven years working as a lawyer.A former official with the New York Board of Law Examiners, James Fuller, said the rule is enforced strictly. "I don't know what they'd say about the presidency - if that qualified. I'd doubt it," Mr. Fuller said.
A similar rule would appear to dictate a five-year delay in Mr. Clinton's admission to the bar in the nation's capital, chiefly because he took the bar examination so long ago.
Mr. Clinton, who graduated from Yale Law School in 1973, has spent only a few years practicing law. He served as attorney general of Arkansas from 1977 to 1979. He also worked at a Little Rock law firm from 1980 to 1982, between stints as governor.
Mr. Gillers noted that at any point Mr. Clinton could try to gain admission to the New York or Washington bars by taking the bar examination. Like other bar applicants, he would also have to demonstrate good moral character.
Well, that should be sufficient to stop him from practicing in either of those places. After all, adultery and perjury both demonstrate a lack of good moral character.
Posted by: Greg at
12:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.
Israel's Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition by Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen who spied for Israel, to be declared a Prisoner of Zion.The status Pollard requested would have required the Israeli government to do all it can to get him released. Pollard, 51, is incarcerated at a federal prison in Butner, N.C.
Israel, which has pressed the issue of releasing Pollard with the U.S. administration, has refused in the past to assign him that status, originally created for Jewish activists imprisoned in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s.
The Supreme Court rejected the petition on technical grounds, saying Pollard didn't qualify for that status under Israel's compensation law.Pollard was a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy when he copied and gave to his Israeli handlers enough classified documents to fill a walk-in closet.
He was caught in November 1985 and arrested after unsuccessfully seeking refuge at the Israeli Embassy. He was sentenced to life in prison, and has spent the past 20 years in a series of U.S. correctional facilities.
Pollard and his backers should be ashamed.
And Pollard should never take another breath of air as a free man.
Unfortunately, he is due for release in 2015.
Posted by: Greg at
12:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.
Israel's Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition by Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen who spied for Israel, to be declared a Prisoner of Zion.The status Pollard requested would have required the Israeli government to do all it can to get him released. Pollard, 51, is incarcerated at a federal prison in Butner, N.C.
Israel, which has pressed the issue of releasing Pollard with the U.S. administration, has refused in the past to assign him that status, originally created for Jewish activists imprisoned in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s.
The Supreme Court rejected the petition on technical grounds, saying Pollard didn't qualify for that status under Israel's compensation law.Pollard was a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy when he copied and gave to his Israeli handlers enough classified documents to fill a walk-in closet.
He was caught in November 1985 and arrested after unsuccessfully seeking refuge at the Israeli Embassy. He was sentenced to life in prison, and has spent the past 20 years in a series of U.S. correctional facilities.
Pollard and his backers should be ashamed.
And Pollard should never take another breath of air as a free man.
Unfortunately, he is due for release in 2015.
Posted by: Greg at
12:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.
January 16, 2006
Last night the state of California delivered justice to a white man. Only 200 protesters showed -- and not one of them a celebrity from Hollywood.
California executed its oldest death row inmate early Tuesday despite arguments from prisoner advocates that condemning a blind and wheelchair-bound inmate in his 70s violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.Clarence Ray Allen, whose 76th birthday was Monday, was pronounced dead at 12:38 a.m. at San Quentin State Prison. He became the second-oldest inmate put to death nationally since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.
Allen, who was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row, was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers and lifted out of his wheelchair.
His lawyers had raised two claims never before endorsed by the high court: that executing a frail old man would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 23 years he spent on death row were unconstitutionally cruel as well.
The high court rejected his requests for a stay of execution about 10 hours before he was to be put to death. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen clemency Friday.
Allen went to prison for having his teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend murdered for fear she would tell police about a grocery-store burglary. While behind bars, he tried to have witnesses in the case wiped out, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders.
"Allen deserves capital punishment because he was already serving a life sentence for murder when he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system," state prosecutor Ward Campbell said.
Agreed -- and his age is irrelevant, given his abuse of the judicial system to outlive extend his life longer than the lifespan of his 17-year-old victim.
And where wre the celebrities?
At the Golden Globes
I guess the execution of a white guy doesn't offend their PC sensibilities enough to stop the party.
Posted by: Greg at
11:35 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.
So when faced with the Democrats backing out of a deal on a vote on Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, what happens? Leahy lies and Specter folds like a house of cards.
The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee reached an agreement yesterday evening to wait until next Tuesday to vote on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.The agreement alters the schedule announced Friday, during the final moments of Alito's week-long confirmation hearings, by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who said he would conduct the panel's vote today. His announcement sparked a quarrel with the panel's ranking Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who said he would seek a delay. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) vowed that a vote in the full Senate, which has final say over all judicial candidates chosen by the president, would take place by the end of the week.
In the end, Specter and Frist essentially acknowledged the prerogative Democrats have under Senate rules to postpone any committee decision for one week. GOP leaders grumbled that Democrats had reneged on an earlier agreement about when the Alito vote would take place -- an agreement that Democrats denied ever existed.
Why the delay? because the Democrats are seeking partisan advantage in advance of the State of the Union address.
Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year.
Add to that the need to kowtow to the liberal interest groups to which the Democrats are beholden.
Democrats said they wanted to give senators time to observe a three-day holiday weekend without coming back to face an immediate vote. At the same time, they came under pressure from outside interest groups that want as much time as possible to try to rally public opposition to the nomination.
Like I said the other day -- an agreement with Democrats is not worth a fart in a hurricane.
Posted by: Greg at
08:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.
Nope -- only the Washington Times noticed.
But Michael Steele does lead both Kweisi Mfume and Ben Cardin in polling on the race to replace retiring Democrat fossil Paul Sarbanes in the US Senate.
Maryland is proving to be another state to watch in an election year many have predicted will see nationwide gains for Democrats.In November, Rasmussen Reports observed that just two months after Hurricane Katrina and in the midst of welling controversy over Iraq, the GOP was at a political low point. We also duly noted the good news for the party: the election was still a year away. Now, in blue-state Maryland, the Republicans are making progress in the contests for both governor and senator.
The Senate race got interesting as soon as Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes announced his retirement last March. It soon seemed Democrats had the edge. By July, Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin led Lt. Governor Michael Steele by five points in our poll. Steele, however, was seven points ahead of former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume.
By November, Steele was neck-and-neck with Mfume, but Cardin had widened his lead over Steele to 49% to 41%. Yet since that time, the number of voters with an unfavorable opinion of Steele has fallen from 33% to 25% and the Republican candidate has pulled ahead of both Democrats. He now leads Cardin 45% to 40% and Mfume 45% to 38%.
Steele has increased his support among black voters in a square-off with Mfume. While the latter still wins most of the African-American vote, Steele's share has jumped from 17% in November to 31%.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of all voters now view Mfume favorably, a five-point decline.
It is unusual for a Republican to be so competitive in such a solidly "Blue" state such as Maryland. Election 2004 confirmed that geography rules in contests for the U.S. Senate.
Eight Senate seats changed from one party to the other. Six of the eight were Republican victories in Red States. One was a Democratic victory in the very Blue State of Illinois. The exception that proves the rule was Colorado where Attorney General Ken Salazar narrowly defeated Republican businessman Pete Coors.
A Republican victory in Maryland would be even more of a surprise. Adding to the intensity of the race, the election of 46 year old Steele could have lasting impact on the balance of power in the Senate.
The poll has some good news for Maryland Democrats, though: the election is still almost ten months away.
Clear progress by Steele over his rivals is a major story, given the Democrat dirty tricks and racist rhetoric that has accompanied this race. But somehow the story seems to have slipped through the cracks here.
Why am I not surprised?
MORE AT GOPBloggers
, Powerline, Hedgehog Report (twice), Blue State Conservatives, Richie I, The Political Teen, Matty N's Blog, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, Going to the Mat
PAST COVERAGE OF MARYLAND SENATE RACE:
Washington Post Tries To Silence Discussion Of Racism
Dean WonÂ’t Condemn Racism
Black Dems Call Racial Abuse of Blacks Acceptable – If They Are Republicans
Racists Alter Photos Of Prominent Black Republicans -- Race Hos Silent
Steele For Senate
Racist Congressman Slurs White Voters
Steele For Maryland!
Sarbanes Retiring -- Who Will Replace Him?
Posted by: Greg at
02:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 5 kb.
January 15, 2006
In Monday's edition of the NEW YORK SUN, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., break the first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett, whose investigation lasted 10 year and cost taxpayers $23 million.The SUN outlines the report's details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involving former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.
The Sun reveals that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration hindered investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington, as well as the investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel's evidence.
The full report, more than 400 pages line, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am.
Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day.
As I've said before, we paid for it, we should see it all. Surely the Democrats don't feel they have anything to lose if we find out what went on during the Clinton Administration, do they?
UPDATE: HERE'S THE ARTICLE.
MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Six24, Stuck On Stupid, Scottish Right, Macsmind, Bujutsu Blogger, Evil Conservative, Generation WHY?, Right from the Right, Pelican Post, Hot Talk, Kellino.
Posted by: Greg at
05:13 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 3 kb.
January 14, 2006
Honor the greatest president of the twentieth century on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his inauguration. It may seem like yesterday, but this Friday marks a quarter-century since that momentous event that changed the world.
I'm joining in -- will you?
Posted by: Greg at
02:18 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.
We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.
We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.
But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.
As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.
Signed,
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Powerline
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!
Greg, Rhymes With Right
Posted by: Greg at
02:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 3 kb.
The Washington Times is reporting that Leahy says the delay is needed because members are going places to participate in Martin Luther King Day events.
Senate Democrats yesterday moved to stall the increasingly inevitable confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., despite a good-faith understanding not to do so.Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said panel Democrats did not want to vote Tuesday, as per a November agreement with Republicans, citing Monday's Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday.
"I have been told that a number of our members are going to be home for Martin Luther King events this weekend, will not be back on time on Tuesday, and so they will exercise their rights," Mr. Leahy said yesterday.
Mr. Leahy did not mention any "extraordinary" circumstances that under the agreement he reached with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, would have allowed a vote schedule change. The deal also calls for a full Senate vote on the nominee Friday.
Excuse me, but wasn't this holiday already on the calendar at the time the vote was scheduled? Didn't everyone know about it and plan accordingly?
The real reason for the delay can be found here.
Democrats say they won't be ready Tuesday to vote on his nomination, since Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has called on party members to hold off making a decision until after a Wednesday meeting.
Notice that, despite the agreement made months ago, the Democrat leadership scheduled this new meeting AFTER the scheduled vote, forcing a delay. The goal is clearly to prevent the president from noting that he has gotten two superlative legal minds confirmed to the Supreme Court.
I guess this is definitive proof that agreements with Democrats aren't worth a fart in a hurricane.
MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers, The Young Conservatives, Musing Minds
Posted by: Greg at
02:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.
Or at least that is the goal of San Francisco abortion advocates, who are seeking to limit supporters of the dignity of human life to nothing more than "the right to remain silent".
Bay Area abortion-rights activists say a Roman Catholic group's advertisements on hundreds of BART trains and in scores of stations -- attacking the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision and asking "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" -- have gone too far in a region known for its progressive politics.Many of the ads have been torn down or defaced since the campaign began three weeks ago.
"I think every woman has noticed them,'' said Suzanne "Sam" Joi, a member of Code Pink, a social justice and anti-war group. "I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''
Well, you ignorant baby-killing leftist, it could be because the First Amendment applies to words and viewpoints that don't meet with your approval. If you have a right to run ads advocating your pro-terrorist, anti-American agenda, then the Respect Life Ministry of the Diocese of Oakland can run its ads questioning whether the current state of the law on abortion is outside of the mainstream.
Linton Johnson, a spokesperson for BART, puts it very well.
"We're not in the business of censorship and don't believe a government agency should be in the business of censorship,'' Johnson said. "It shouldn't be up to a government official to determine whose opinion is right and whose is wrong.''
What is so offensive about the ads? Are they offensive at all? You decide.
The campaign features two ads, each slickly produced and featuring a blurry photograph of a woman against a turquoise background. One ad, headlined "9 months" in large letters, features nine months of a calendar and reads: "Because of Roe vs. Wade, this is the amount of time the Supreme Court says it's legal to have an abortion."The other contains the message: "The Supreme Court says you can choose: after the heart starts beating, after its arms and legs appear, after all organs are present, after the sex is apparent, after it sucks its thumb, after it responds to sounds, after it could survive outside the womb.''
Both ads conclude with the tagline "Abortion: Have we gone too far?'' and the name and Web site address (www.secondlookproject.org) for the Second Look Project, an effort sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which created the campaign and unveiled it on Washington's Metro subway system a year ago.
In other words, we are not talking about pictures of dismembered fetuses here. We are talking about very mild political speech.
The rhgetoric of opponents is shrill, heated, and hysterical.
Abortion-rights activists are responding differently, calling the ads misleading, manipulative and part of an effort to undermine the pro-choice movement in the Bay Area."They're calling for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, which will lead to the slaughter of women,'' said Elizabeth Creely of the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights, referring to fears of unsafe, back-alley abortions if the procedure were illegal. "The Catholic Church is very strong here and is working hard to erode reproductive rights.''
Actually, it will lead to states and Congress to pass laws regulating or restricting abortion, but likely not outlawing it in most places. And as far as the "slaughter of women" you are bleating about, Ms. Creely, the number will be quite small compared to the number of babies slaughtered annually in the name of "choice".
But thank you for clarifying matters for us, ladies -- you want a right explicitly protected by the Constitution to be sacrificed in the name of one that was alien to that document before a group of rogue judges created it in 1973.
MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Phoblographer, Intergalactic Jester, GeMatt's Place, Paul's Word, W.C. Varones Blog, Cvstos Fidei, Vern Beachy's Raves, Say Anything, Right Side Redux, Beachhouse, Beetle Beat.
Posted by: Greg at
09:51 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 6 kb.
A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.“Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,” says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
“The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.”
The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada.
Expect this to become a mainstream Leftist cause in this country within about six months -- the logical extension of the demand for court-imposed homosexual marriage.
Posted by: Greg at
07:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
With regard to Murtha's injuries, Marine Corps records indicate the following.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 12, 2002, reported that "Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in 'hostile' actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967, and May 7, 1967."In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation," the Post-Gazette reported.
On the other hand, Murtha has told the story a bit differently at different times.
But an Oct. 26, 1994, article in the Herald-Standard quoted Murtha as describing two different injuries."I was wounded in the arm with shrapnel from a bullet that hit the motor mount of a helicopter. In the other, my knee was banged up and my arm was banged up when a helicopter was shot down from a very few feet," Murtha told the Herald-Standard.
A June 1, 1967 report in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat quoted a letter that the newspaper indicated was sent by Murtha to his wife that same year. The letter apparently detailed yet another version of how Murtha qualified for one of his Purple Hearts. According to the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Murtha's injuries involved his being "struck in the ankle" by a "shot that ricocheted off the helicopter."
So which is it? Was Murtha actually wounded. or was he part of the John Kerry "Bactine and BandAid Brigade"? The actions of Murtha's own congressman in 1968 -- who Murtha replaced after his death in 1973 -- seem to indicate that the injuries were not severe.
However, another source, World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox's boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor's office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds. Murtha later challenged Saylor for his House seat in 1968 and lost. Fox said he personally viewed Murtha's military records in 1968 as Saylor's aide.
Given that congressional offices are usuall more than willing to go to bat for constituents in such cases, it strikes me that the questions raised are certainly legitimate ones. And please notice that those who are questioning Murtha's veracity here are veterans themselves who also served with distinction.
Which leads us to the other question -- was Murtha dirty in the Abscam case, in which he was an unindicted coconspirator?
As for the Abscam case, consider this response to the offer of a $50,000 bribe.
But, a videotape of a Jan. 7, 1980 Abscam-related meeting involving Murtha shows that the congressman's rejection of the offered bribe was less than definite. "I'm not interested. I'm sorry," Murtha told the FBI agent, but added that he meant "at this point."You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," Murtha said on the FBI videotape.
In other wors, Murtha did not reject the bribe, he just deferred it.
So how did he avoid prosecution and censure? By cutting a deal.
Interestingly enough, it appears that the decision not to have Murth face ethics charges caused dissension within the committee staff, and resulted in at least one resignation.
A July 30, 1981, article in the Washington Post quoted a committee source as saying that several allegations of misconduct against Murtha were rejected on a "near party-line vote." Since the panel was made up of six Democrats and six Republicans, seven votes were needed to file any charges.***
Just hours after the July 1981 House Ethic Committee vote sparing Murtha from charges, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., special counsel for the panel's Abscam investigation, abruptly resigned. At the time, Prettyman refused to discuss with the press his reasons for stepping down.
When contacted by Cybercast News Service regarding the investigation, Prettyman called the Murtha situation "very interesting," but declined further comment, citing the need to maintain attorney-client privilege.
Similarly, when Prettyman was interviewed by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 1990, the former special counsel declined to comment on why he had resigned. But when pressed on whether the resignation was due to the Ethics Committee's vote on Murtha, Prettyman said that would be "a logical conclusion."
In other words, the lead investigator felt that charges were warranted, and that the evidence was such that he should resign in the face of the committee's decision not to hold Murtha accountable for his involvement in the Abscam corruption.
One member of the committee at the time even recognizes that he was wrong to support Murtha at the time.
So, why doesn't the media cover Murtha's dirty record? Could it be bias?
And why do they attack the messenger instead?
UPDATE -- 1/16/06: CNSNews editor-in-chief David Thibault responds to liberal whiners.
The amazing response from the Left to the two articles Cybercast News Service published on Friday, Jan. 13, regarding the military and political record of U.S. Rep. John Murtha leaves me wondering whether the Democratic Party and its liberal followers are paranoid or just plain mean.First, let me say to the Lefties out there who will read this -- it's unfair that the authors of the articles, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer Marc Morano and Staff Writer Randy Hall are being pounded so viciously on your liberal blogs. These two terrific journalists, who by the way can handle anything you can dish out, were assigned to the stories and did their jobs very well. But, don't blame them. Blame me. I assigned the stories. Nobody else suggested the idea. Nobody else twisted my arm.
If I read the blogs, and by now you know that I have, I'm amazed at the circle of friends and conspirators that I have suddenly developed over the last three days. Judging by the Left's paranoid rants, I'm about to get an invitation to a White House State Dinner, where I'll be able to regale my best bud Karl Rove about my latest journalistic efforts, before attending to my private chat with President Bush about who to target next for a "hit job."
But the problem -- well it's only a problem if you subscribe to this conspiratorial nonsense -- is that I've never met, spoken on the telephone or exchanged emails with Karl Rove. He doesn't know me from a hole in the wall. I haven't spoken with President Bush since he was the governor of Texas and I was a television reporter for the Republican National Committee following him around in Amarillo more than ten years ago. And I'm pretty sure the president doesn't remember me.
I am, however, impressed that our news organization has been recognized by the likes of U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, who labeled our articles on Murtha "despicable." This raises a crucial question for Ms. Pelosi and the Left, regarding our news coverage. They can take their best shot because we can take the hit. But can they say the same thing?
Posted by: Greg at
04:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1214 words, total size 8 kb.
A nonpartisan organization that reviews political ads for accuracy said Friday that a controversial commercial rejected by Houston TV stations after being labeled false by Rep. Tom DeLay's campaign is vaguely worded but contains nothing definitively false."We find that DeLay's lawyer mischaracterized what the ad said, and that the ad contains nothing that is strictly false," said Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "The worst we can say of the ad is that its ambiguous wording" could mislead viewers about the details of DeLay's interactions with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to corruption charges and is cooperating with a federal investigation of lawmakers and their aides.
The review came after a lawyer for DeLay's re-election campaign, Don McGahn, this week contacted four Houston television stations that had sold airtime for the ad. McGahn called the spot "reckless, malicious and false" and hinted that the stations could face legal trouble if they ran it. They didn't.
so what do the involved groups say?
With Factcheck.org's analysis in hand, the sponsoring groups are now encouraging Houston residents to contact the stations — KTRK (Channel 13), KRIV (Channel 26), KHOU (Channel 11) and KPRC (Channel 2) — and demand that they air the ad, which has appeared on cable stations in Houston and on the Internet.The spot "contains important information about what Tom DeLay does in Washington and we think people in Houston need to know," said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund. The stations either did not return calls seeking comment or, when reached, declined to speak about the ad on Friday.
Posted by: Greg at
03:59 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
However, hot rhetoric untethered by fact or untempered by reflection undermines debate.Fortunately, these hot words often burn the unfettered and ill-tempered tongue that utters them.
Take the Rev. Pat Robertson as a recent example of "failure to reflect." When Robertson said that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's tragic stroke might be a divine rebuke for "dividing God's land," a wave of deserved scorn and ridicule swamped the silly man. The White House and The New York Times blasted Robertson, a right-left political condemnation of a right-wing ayatollah.
Idiocy isn't illegal, nor is lying — at least, not if one lies in U.S. Senate hearings. Ted Kennedy provides the recent example of hot, emotion-stoking rhetoric untethered by truth.
On the opening day of Judge Samuel Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Kennedy opened up with a faith-based fire Robertson might envy: "Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging racial discrimination on the job. In 15 years, not one."
Kennedy's statement is completely false. Alito found for plaintiffs alleging racial discrimination on the job in several cases (for example, Zubi v. AT&T Corp. and Goosby v. Johnson & Johnson Medical).
Kennedy has avoided Robertson's mass condemnation. His snake dance and sanctimony is as poisonous as the Rev. Robertson's, however, and perhaps more venomous, since his fib slanders Judge Alito.
Ultimately, Kennedy's words are much more harmful to America than Robertson's. Kennedy's lies are a malignant slander that undermines the health of the body-politic, not merely an ill-considered and wrong-headed theological reflection.
Yet while Robertson's buffoonish attempt to explain Ariel Sharon's illness was shouted down, Kennedy's intentional falsehood -- a rhetorical attempt to do to Alito what Oswald and Sirhan did to the senator's brothers -- have barely been noted by the media or his ideological allies. Kennedy certainly have not been condemned for his misdeeds. That indicates that Kennedy and his allies are more concerned about petty partisan advantage than about the well-being of America.
Posted by: Greg at
03:44 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.
One gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota is giving a whole new meaning to the "dark side" of politics. A man who calls himself a satanic priest plans to run for governor on a 13-point platform that includes the public impaling of terrorists at the state Capitol building.Jonathon Sharkey, also known as "The Impaler", plans to launch his gubernatorial campaign on - when else? - Friday the 13th. He'll make the announcement in Princeton.
"I'm going to be totally open and honest," said the 41-year-old leader of the "Vampyres, Witches and Pagans Party."
"Unlike other candidates, I'm not going to hide my evil side," he said.
In Minnesota, anyone who pays the $300 filing fee can get on the gubernatorial ballot and it seems that every year a few eccentric candidates make the rounds.
Sharkey raises the bar. For one thing, he told the Star Tribune in an e-mail that he drinks blood.
Including the impaling of terrorists, rapists, drug dealers and other criminals, Sharkey's platform includes emphasis on education, tax breaks for farmers and better benefits for veterans.
You know, I think I could go for most of those "points" (I hesitate to use that word around a guy called "the Impaler"). After all, he's clearly tough on crime, pro-education, and pro-veteran. And I've always supported helping family farmers stay in the business -- they are the origingal small businessmen.
On the other hand, he is also the perfect candicate for your average Leftist -- especially the ACLU and separation of church and state crowd.
Sharkey said he worships Lucifer and, while he says he has nothing against Christians, he calls the "Christian God the Father" his "mortal enemy."
You know, maybe this explains Jesse Ventura.
Posted by: Greg at
03:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.
January 12, 2006
Such is this story of political corruption in Congress.
A former aide to Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court and has agreed to cooperate with an investigation into an alleged conspiracy to funnel money to the eight-term congressman and members of his family.Brett Pfeffer, 37, told U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III that a congressman, identified in court only as "Representative A," lobbied high-ranking officials in Nigeria and Ghana to use technology developed by a small U.S.-based telecommunication company and pressed the Export-Import Bank of the United States to approve loan guarantees. In exchange, Pfeffer said, the congressman demanded a share of the new company created to facilitate the deal.
Unless I've gone deaf, I've missed the uproar over this case. I mean, after all, we have a sitting lawmaker, indictments and guilty pleas, spectacular accusations of criminality. This should be a lead story and be producing claims about a culture of corruption within the lawmaker's party -- expecially given other actions taken by the guy to cover his tracks.
Oh.
That's right.
That is a "D" in the party slot.
He's a Democrat.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
It just isn't news to the MSM.
Posted by: Greg at
11:20 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.
The Right—joined by free-speech defenders from across the political spectrum—needs to defeat the liberal regulatory threat before it does real damage to Americans’ rights to express their political views. President Bush should strongly back Hensarling’s Online Freedom of Speech Act, whose sponsors may reintroduce it soon in the House under regular rules, which require only a simple majority to pass it. Showing that he gets it, the president has just nominated three reportedly liberty-minded lawyers to fill FEC vacancies, including Robert Lenhard, part of the legal team that challenged McCain-Feingold’s constitutionality. One campaign-finance reform group described the Lenhard pick as “beyond disappointing”: excellent news for free-speech fans.In deciding two campaign-finance reform cases in the months ahead, the Roberts Court, one hopes, will show greater enthusiasm for First Amendment protection of political speech than did its predecessor, which should have shot down McCain-Feingold. If neither Congress nor the Supreme Court repeals this unconstitutional, un-American travesty, we can expect election regulations, in the grim words of Justice Antonin Scalia’s McConnell dissent, “to grow more voluminous, more detailed, and more complex in the years to come—and always, always, with the objective of reducing the excessive amount of speech.” Thus will our most effective real protection against “the actuality and appearance of corruption”—the First Amendment itself—be nullified.
Lovers of liberty should expose calls to restore the Fairness Doctrine for the fraudulent power-grab that they plainly are. And the Right, in particular, needs to understand how much it has benefited from a deregulated media universe. It should be confident that it has the right ideas, and that when it gets the chance to present them directly to the American people—as the new media have allowed it to do—it will win the debate.
Probably the most important article I've read in months -- READ IT!
Posted by: Greg at
02:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.
Kate Michelman, The Public Face Of a Woman's Right to Privacy
They even include a nicely posed picture.
But so concerned are they about the "right to privacy" that they forget the real face of "reproductive choice".
I guess the focus on privacy makes it possible to ignore the consequences of choice.
No jury will ever convict Michelman for her crimes against the lives of the innocent -- but there is a Judge waiting to give sentence. And there will be no appeal to the Supreme COurt or reliance on Roe v. Wade as precedent.
Posted by: Greg at
12:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
But then what do I know? I'm only a GOP precinct chair in the district.
U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, who lost his leadership post because of his ties to a disgraced lobbyist and faces felony charges in his home state, now has another worry: an unprecedented four-way primary for the seat he's held comfortably for 22 years.While two of DeLay's challengers aren't considered to have much credibility _ one is making his fourth attempt to unseat DeLay and the other has lived overseas much of her adult life _ lawyer Tom Campbell of Sugar Land holds an impressive Republican resume.
Campbell worked on the presidential campaigns of Bob Dole and the elder George Bush, whose administration appointed him general counsel to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A former Harris County Republican Party official runs Campbell's campaign.
Well, that depends upon how you define "former Harris County Republican party Official" and how seriously you take that designation. Besides, that "former official" is better known for being the wife of former DeLay business partner who has been a thorn in Delay's side for years.
I think Fort Bend County GOP Chair puts it best.
"Tom Campbell at least has Republican credentials," Fort Bend County GOP chairman Eric Thode said. "Having said that, it doesn't translate into one iota of support or money. He is 100 percent absolutely unknown in this county."
And not well-known in Harris County circles, either.
What we have here, my friends, is nothing but a puff piece on a minor candidate with a slightly ,ore impressive than usual resume.
Posted by: Greg at
12:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.
January 11, 2006
The drama of the hearings' third day nearly overshadowed the significance of the position Alito staked out on the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade . Senators also branched into new territory: Alito's record from 15 years on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on cases involving religion, immigrants seeking to prevent deportation, and criminals' rights.Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as "settled law" that "can't be reexamined." In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.
Yesterday, Alito said that Roe must be treated with respect because it has been reaffirmed by the high court several times in the past three decades.
But when Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) peppered Alito with questions about whether the ruling is "the settled law of the land," the nominee responded: "If 'settled' means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect . . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis." Stare decisis is a legal principle that, in Latin, means "to stand by that which is decided."
Alito's position is one which seems disingenuous to some, but is probably among the most intellectually honest and rational positions that one could stake out on the issue. It is that no decision is beyond reexamination, though precedent is entitled to respect.
It is, after all, the role of the courts to apply the law and the Constitution in the particular cases before them. That process involves, among other things, looking at prior precedents and holdings and engaging in analogy, either likening one case to another or disinguishing them from one another. Old decisions are looked at in a new light cast by new facts. And sometimes an older principle is seen as not being workable in light of other principles or developments in law and society. At such times, it is necessary and proper to overturn a prior precedent, even if it is a venerable one.
In 1954, for example, Brown v. Board of Education was handed down by a unanimous Supreme Court. It overruled the holding in Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that government-imposed regimes of "separate but equal" treatment of individuals based upon race were acceptable and constitutional. For six decades, courts had struggled with the application of the Plessy precedent, analogizing and distinguishing in cases decided afterwards. Doing so showed that the Plessy decision was essentially unworkable and ithat the results were inconsistent with the Constitution, and so the Supreme Court struck down the older decision in the seminal civil rights decision of the twentieth century. As we look back, it is clear that this was a wise and courageous decision on the part of the Warren Court.
Which brings me back to Roe. Spme thirty years ago, the Burger Court expanded the notion of privacy to include the right of a woman to take the life of her unborn child with no restrictions in the first trimester and with gradually increasing restrictions later on in pregnancy. The reasoning was so fractured that no one opinion could garner five votes. Indeed, later cases have both expanded that right to limit permissible restrictions and limited that right by upholding others. Subsequent decisions have relied on Roe, while others have shown its flaws and weaknesses. One decison even argues that the correctness of the decision is irrelevant simply because the precedent is precedent and has been relied upon in subsequent cases.
But that begs teh question. What if the facts of a case and an examination of outcomes lead a justice to conclude that Roe is, in whole or in part, unworkable or wrong? Must that justice ignore that conclusion because of precedent. Or should that justice attempt to forge a new consensus around the conclusion he has reached? I would argue the latter, just as was done in the Brown.
And I ould argue that is true in the case of any precedent, inot just Roe. Even teh grandaddy of them all -- Marbury v. Madison. Precedent should not be jettisoned lightly or for transient political reasons. But it is proper.
After all, the reexamination of principles and opinions is a healthy process for an individual. It is no less so for society as a whole. And sometimes such reexamination leads to bright shining moments in the lives of individuals and or nations.
Interesting comments on the hearings at Jawa Report. Related reflections at Blogs for Bush.
Posted by: Greg at
11:45 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 856 words, total size 5 kb.
This scandal is big -- no questions about that. But by what measure is this story so huge and historic? How does it compare to the House Bank scandal of 1992, which resulted in a number of congressional careers ended? How does Abramoff compare to the related mess at the House Post Office, which led to the eventual conviction of House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski?There was no glee in the newsrooms then, when it was Democrats.
When Speaker Jim Wright was forced out in 1989 for dozens upon dozens of ethical violations? "Mindless cannibalism," Wright called it, and they agreed. When Majority Whip Tony Coelho scooted away behind Wright, the media mourned America's loss.
How does Casino-gate, or whatever we're going to call this one, compare to the Asian fundraising scandal of 1996? No one mentioned that, either. Investor's Business Daily published a very informative graphic showing that 22 foreign figures and Democrat activists plugging away for Clinton-Gore and Democratic candidates were convicted by the federal probe of that scandal. (And that figure does not include the people that fled the country rather than testify.) How is the Abramoff plea already bigger than that?
As expected, Democrats and their gaggle of supportive bloggers are claiming it's outrageous for anyone to suggest that Jack Abramoff could be connected to Democrats. They argue that because Abramoff was Republican and the majority of his funding went to Republicans, the discussion should end there. After all, the GOP is the Party of Corruption, is it not?
But the coverage of another fundraising scandal has been much more subdued -- indeed, the press has been absolutely comatose. That is the Hillary Clinton fundraising scandal, which resulted in an FEC fine.
How was Hillary's Hollywood-party fine covered? On Jan. 6, The Washington Post just carried the 325-word AP dispatch inside the paper. The New York Times gave it little more than 100 words on page B-4 in a "Metro Briefs" section. It was buried even further still as story number six in that column. Nothing emerged on ABC. Or CBS. Or NBC. Or NPR. (CNN mentioned it briefly on "American Morning," right before its brief item on the "Bubble Gum Bandit.") USA Today, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News? Nothing.Dave Pierre at Newsbusters.org had some fun exploring the bias by omission at the Los Angeles Times. This paper had no Hillary story, but on Jan. 6, it did carry 2,315 words in two articles on NBC's liberal "Book of Daniel" premiere, 1,431 words on liberal Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars, 182 words on Pat Robertson's bizarre Ariel Sharon remarks, and another 1,477 words (starting on Page One) on the decline in the popularity of tennis. Pierre was especially wincing over this factoid: The offending Hillary fundraiser was held in Hollywood, smack-dab on the paper's stomping grounds.
But let it not be said that the Los Angeles Times doesn't cover corruption. The day before, the front page carried a big, long Abramoff story with a tiny mention of Hillary Clinton's Abramoff connection.
So it seems that the MSM does not want to gve this important story any coverage -- even when it happens in their own backyard.
But then again, it is just one more corrupt Democrat. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary.
Posted by: Greg at
02:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.
January 09, 2006
And the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has decided to delay justice for Congressman Tom DeLay, despite state and federal constitutional guarantees of a right to a speedy trial.
AUSTIN, Texas -- The state's highest criminal court on Monday denied Rep. Tom DeLay's request that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the requests with no written order two days after he announced he was stepping down as House majority leader. DeLay had been forced to temporarily relinquish the Republican leadership post after he was indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges in September.
DeLay, who denies wrongdoing, had been trying to rush to trial in Texas in hopes of clearing his name and regaining the position.
One has to wonder, though, if DeLay's resignation from that leadership position on Saturday might have led the court to find the vindication of the congressman's rights to be less compelling.
DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said his client's announcement might have prompted the court's action."I'm sure the events of the weekend have something to do with it," DeGuerin said. "There's not the time crunch there was."
Now that DeLay is no longer trying to reclaim the leadership post before Congress convenes Jan. 31, his trial is likely to be postponed for weeks, if not months.
However, DeGuerin said that DeLay, facing re-election opponents in the March primary and, if he wins that, the November general election, would prefer to be tried before the primary.
"We'd like to have it resolved by then," he said.
Dut given the dilatory pace of the Ronnie Earle-led investigation, I doubt that there will be a trial by March. After all, he has been sending out subpoena's to groups that criticize him, as well as to anyone even tangentially connected to the Abramoff case, seeking additional charges against the former majority leader. A short trial date would necessarily force Earle to stop searching for a real crime and start focusing on the charges he grand jury-shopped for last fall.
So for now, no one knows when there will be a trial -- or if it will at all conform to constitutional notions of "speed".
Barring outright dismissal of the charges by that court, however, a trial could be postponed until later this year because of the lawyers' schedules and several outstanding pretrial fights, including whether the defendants would be tried in Travis County or some other Texas community.Asked when he thought DeLay might actually be tried, DeGuerin said, "I've stopped guessing."
A DeLay spokesman blamed Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle for fighting DeLay's attempt to receive a quick trial.
"Ronnie Earle has gamed the justice system in Texas in a way that has kept Mr. DeLay's eventual exoneration in a holding pattern," Kevin Madden said. "He will eventually be cleared, but it's a terrible thing that Ronnie Earle has sought to deny that full exoneration for as long as possible."
Earle declined to comment.
In the appellate briefs, Earle said DeLay was asking for special treatment by demanding that his trial be in January.
I guess Earle doesn't find the constitutional rights of defendant's to be particularly compelling -- especially when he is granting access to movie crews to document the case, using his case as a partisan fundraising gambit, and restructuring the lcongressional leadership of the other party.
And then there is this.
The state is appealing the dismissal of a related indictment against DeLay accusing him of conspiracy to violate the state's election laws. Earle said the state has a right to have its appeal heard before prosecutors decide upon which charge to try DeLay.
What is this -- was the indictment merely a tactic to avoid the statute of limitations? Is Earle conceding that he does not really have a case against DeLay, merely charges that lack sufficient credibility to go to trial in a timely fashion? Especially since the remaining charges carry heavier sentences than the otiginal charge brought, which was dismissed for not being on the books at the time of the alleged offense. This is beginning to look like another case of Earle's -- the one against Kay Bailey Hutchison over a decade ago, which was dismissed with prejudice because the prosecution could not proceed when the trial was scheduled due to lack of substantive evidence.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
DeLay Withdraws From Leadership Position
More Opportunistic Subpoenas From Ronnie Earle
Ronnie Earle's Strategy -- Delay DeLay! Delay DeLay!
Another Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?
Posted by: Greg at
11:30 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 877 words, total size 7 kb.
Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."Scholastic Inc. will release the book in May.
"I am very excited about the opportunity to create a book for young readers and their families that will deepen their understanding of how our American government works," Kennedy said in a statement Monday issued by Scholastic.
According to Scholastic, Kennedy's book "not only takes readers through a full day in the Senator's life, but also explains how a bill becomes a law." Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, was inspired to write the book from his work with a Washington-based reading program, "Everybody Wins!"
Kennedy's net proceeds will be donated to charity.
No doubt to some charity caring for trust-fund babies with cirrhosis of the liver.
And we wonÂ’t even get into the horribly inappropriate name for the books canine hero. In light of his abandonment of Mary Jo after driving off the Chappaquidick Bridge, I would have hoped that he had more decency than to name his dog Splash.
But then again, he is a Kennedy, so why should we expect decency?
Posted by: Greg at
10:46 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.
January 08, 2006
The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday and attended his television and radio broadcast on Sunday.
"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people Â… support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast.
Yeah, Harry, The US is such an oppressive state that you will be permitted to fly home, take a limo to your mansion, and appear on all the talk shows wearing your Rolex and Gucci clothes to tell us that we live in a dictatorship.
If a dissident from Venezuela (or Cuba, the other left-wing dictatorship you love so dearly) were to go abroad and make such statements, tehy would face arrest if allowed to return to their homeland .
Somight I suggest that you, Danny, and Cornel get your effin' heads out of your effin' @sses and realize that the fact that the government doesn't conform to your socialist policies does not make the President of the United States a terrorist or a dictator.
And by the way -- I hope one of you idiots (or a close loved one) is a victim of the NEXT attack by real terrorists. Maybe then you'll understand what a terrorist really is.
MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Six24 Blog Aggregator, Wikistan, Sensible Mom, RightWinged, Flynn Files, Independent Sources, FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog, Macmind, Martin's Musings, Preaching Politics, The Violence Worker, The Lunch Counter, 4thelittle guy, Blogs for Bush
Posted by: Greg at
01:42 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.
Rebecca knows she made a big mistake in leaving her purse with a loaded gun at a public place. Her lapse was a potentially dangerous one; it should not be minimized. But how do we balance her mistake against the danger she faces every day from a violent man who left her crushed and fearful, whose beatings and threats drove her into hiding?The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense. But so many women every year are killed by their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Restraining orders, as we know, can't stop them. The police often can't stop them. I don't know what the solution is. But something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal.
Actually, Joan, your entire piece prior to this point proves that laws banning the concealed carrying of firearms are wrong from any moral or ethical perspective -- unless one believes that victims have an obligation to place themselves at the complete mercy of those who seek to commit acts of violence against them.
The solution is obvious to those who are not blinded by anti-gun ideology -- free people should not be prohibitted from possessing the means to defend themselves from predators.
Posted by: Greg at
12:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.
January 07, 2006
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) today abandoned his bid to remain House majority leader, bowing to pressure from a growing number of fellow House Republicans who wanted a permanent leadership change because of his indictment on campaign finance charges.
DeLay had stepped aside on a temporary basis after his indictment by a politically-motivated partisan hack prosecutor in Texas for breaking a law that was not on the books at the time of the alleged crime.
Congressman DeLay sent the following two letters to explain his decision.
The first went to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Dear Mr. Speaker:I am writing to inform you of my decision to permanently step aside as majority leader, and of my belief that the best interests of the conference would be served by the election of a new leader as soon as possible.
The job of majority leader and the mandate of the Republican majority are too important to be hamstrung, even for a few months, by personal distractions.
I will continue to serve my constituents and seek re-election to a 12th term representing Texas' 22nd district while I work to clear my name of the baseless charges leveled against me. I will also be reclaiming my seat on the Appropriations Committee when the second session of the 109th Congress convenes later this month.
Sincerely,
Tom DeLay
The second was to his fellow Republicans in the House.
Dear Colleague,Today, I have asked Speaker Hastert to convene our conference for the purpose of electing a new majority leader, the position I have been honored to fill these past three years through the trust and confidence of our colleagues.
During my time in Congress, I have always acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land. I am fully confident time will bear this out.
However, we live in serious times and the United States House of Representatives must be focused on the job of protecting our nation and meeting the daily challenges facing the American people. History has proven that when House Republicans are united and focused, success follows.
While we wage these important battles, I cannot allow our adversaries to divide and distract our attention. I will continue to stand up for the issues I care so deeply about and work with you all on these priorities. I am constantly thankful for the support of my constituents in recent days as well as over the years they have allowed me to serve them. I will continue to work every day to fulfill their trust, and yours.
Regards,
Tom DeLay
Please note -- these are not the words of a quitter. Rather, they are the words of a man who is willing to place higher principles above his own ego and self-interest.
The President concurs in the decision -- though I think the cynical tone of the article does not accurately reflect the words of the White House.
After repeatedly maintaining that President Bush continued to support DeLay, the White House pivoted abruptly on Saturday, issuing a statement that endorsed DeLay's move. "We respect Congressman DeLay's decision to put the interests of the American people, the House of Representatives and the Republican Party first," said Erin Healy, a spokeswoman for Bush.
As you might imagine, the moonbats are appropriately batty of er this move.
Personally, I view this as the right move for the the GOP, for the House, and for the country. The leadership questions that existed while Tom DeLay was "on leave" from his leadership position while under indictment (something Democrats do require of their leaders, for all they protested a GOP attempt to change this internal causus rule) hrmed the ability of the president and the GOP majority to move forward on the business of the American people.
Thank you, Congressman DeLay.
GREAT COVERAGE FROM Chris Elam at Safety for Dummies, the foremost political blog of Fort Bend County.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
More Opportunistic Subpoenas From Ronnie Earle
Ronnie Earle's Strategy -- Delay DeLay! Delay DeLay!
Another Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?
Posted by: Greg at
09:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 826 words, total size 7 kb.
January 06, 2006
Look at what Ronnie Earle is up to now.
The Texas prosecutor who secured an indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on money-laundering charges broadened the scope of his inquiry into election spending yesterday, demanding documents related to funds that passed through a nonprofit organization, the U.S. Family Network.The group, which was founded in 1996 by DeLay's then-chief of staff, Edwin A. Buckham, received $500,000 in 1999 from the National Republican Congressional Committee and used some of the money to finance radio ads attacking Democrats. The Federal Election Commission fined the party in 2004 for its role in the funding.
The prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, sent subpoenas yesterday to Buckham; the group's former president, Christopher Geeslin; the NRCC; and the treasurer of DeLay's leadership political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority.
The subpoenas asked for all documents related to the $500,000 contribution, including any correspondence involving DeLay or Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe public officials and other crimes this week. The Washington Post reported Saturday that the largest donors to the U.S. Family Network were all associated with Abramoff. They contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the group before it folded in 2001.
Earle, an elected district attorney in Travis County, Tex., did not reveal in the subpoenas why he believes he has jurisdiction over the campaign spending. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the NRCC, told the Associated Press, "I'm going to call Roswell and warn them that Ronnie Earle is on the witch hunt for the Martians they have there," referring to the New Mexico city famous for an alleged UFO landing.
And that is precisely the problem with his actionsin this case -- Ronnie Earle is making it up as he goes along, just as he did with his original charges brought as part of his five days of grand jury shopping.
DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, has this to say.
DeLay's lead attorney, Dick DeGuerin, called Thursday's subpoenas "more opportunism" by Earle."He's just following the news," said DeGuerin. "What does it have to do with whether money that came to candidates in Texas was corporate or individually donated?"
Its all part of Earle's strategy to destroy Tom DeLay by any means available. I suspect the next step will be to demand that the trial be delayed until he gets the records and has time to thoroughly examine them -- right to a speedy trial be damned.
And remember -- this is the same prosecutor who subpoenaed membership and donation lists from groups that engaged in constitutionally protected political speech criticizing his conduct in the DeLay case. Ronnie Earle is simply a power-drunk partisan hack.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
Ronnie Earle's Strategy -- Delay DeLay! Delay DeLay!
Another Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?
Posted by: Greg at
07:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 6 kb.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco complained on Thursday that Louisiana is not getting its fair share of hurricane aid from the federal government.Blanco said that Louisiana suffered 70 percent of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina but that it is not getting an equivalent amount in aid.
"We are all American citizens, we cannot allow ourselves to be treated like second-class citizens," the governor said during an update on rebuilding to the New Orleans city council.
Sam Jones, Blanco's deputy director of community programs, pointed out that Louisiana got only $6.2 billion out of $11.5 billion in Community Development Block Grants that were recently approved by Congress and President Bush.
By my math, that is 54% of the funds going to Louisiana. But since Gov. Blank-stare and her clleagues in Louisiana have done 90% of the complaining, I think that everything averages out just fine.
She also shows why the future federal response to disasters should be "Hope you have insurance -- y'all are on your own."
Posted by: Greg at
06:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.
January 05, 2006
I was wrong to have done so. While so many other offices require a majority to win, that office does not. The Chronicle points this out in an editorial today
The truth is that no one knows how Strayhorn's candidacy will shape the race. Strayhorn's entry means that any candidate with a plurality will win the election; no runoff is needed.
I acknowledge my mistake – and wonder how wild and woolly a ride we are going to have between now and November.
Posted by: Greg at
11:09 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
January 04, 2006
A fund-raising committee for Senator Clinton's 2000 campaign has agreed to pay a $35,000 civil penalty and to concede that reports it made to the federal government understated by more than $700,000 donations to a California celebrity gala held to benefit her Senate bid.The agreement between the committee, New York Senate 2000, and the Federal Election Commission ends the campaign finance regulation agency's inquiry into a complaint filed in 2001 by an entrepreneur who financed the fund-raising concert, Peter Paul.
"The civil payment assessed to New York Senate 2000 resolves the question of underreported in-kind contributions, and there will be no further action on this matter," an attorney for the fundraising committee, Marc Elias, said.
The conciliation agreement, ap proved at a Federal Election Commission meeting last month, has not yet been made public. However, three sources with knowledge of the terms outlined the deal to The New York Sun.
Under the agreement, the committee will amend its public reports to show that Paul's in-kind gifts to the fund-raising concert were understated by $721,895. The committee and its treasurer, Andrew Grossman, agreed that there was probable cause to believe that the filings violated federal campaign finance law. However, the committee claimed that it relied on "reasonable processes" to verify the data it filed.
And to think we kept hearing that there was noting to the Peter Paul scandal.
Not that we're going to hear a word from the MSM about the misconduct -- or from the leadership of the Democrats -- about campaign corruption.
Posted by: Greg at
11:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.
One of the most controversial figures on the world stage, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, has suffered a massive stroke and is undergoing surgery to deal with a cerebral hemorrhage.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a "significant" stroke with "massive bleeding" in his brain late Wednesday night, according to an official at Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem and Sharon's authority has been transferred to Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.Sharon was rushed to the hospital shortly before 11 P.M. Wednesday night after complaining of chest pains, less than three weeks after suffering a mild stroke and the day before he had been set to undergo a heart procedure.
In a brief statement outside the Jerusalem hospital Wednesday night, Dr. Shlomo Mor-Yosef said Sharon had suffered "a significant stroke," adding that he was "under anesthetic and receiving breathing assistance."
A few minutes later, Mor-Yosef emerged to say that initial tests showed Sharon had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage, or bleeding inside his brain. Addressing reporters in English, Mor-Yosef said Sharon had "massive bleeding and was being transferred to an operating theater."
Channel 2 television said Sharon was suffering from paralysis in his lower body. Analysts on local television stations speculated that his life could be in danger.
According to one senior doctor, who based his diagnosis on the information released by Sharon's doctors, the prime minister's chances to return to full functioning are not high.
The doctor said that in many similar cases, a cerebral hemorrhage means the patient's life is under significant threat.
Let us offer prayers for his recovery.
This article looks at the political implications.
Others commenting include GOPBloggers, Blogs for Bush, All Things Beautiful,. The Political Pitbull and Allison Kaplan Sommer of An Unsealed Room
UPDATE: When you see this headline, you know that things look really bleak.
Sharon Reportedly Alive After SurgeryPrime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive, life-threatening stroke Wednesday and underwent lengthy surgery to drain blood from his brain after falling ill at his ranch. Powers were transferred to his deputy, Ehud Olmert.
Israeli TV stations reported that Sharon was alive after an operation that lasted more than six hours. At daybreak, Army Radio reported that Sharon was undergoing a CT scan to determine if the bleeding in his brain had been stopped.
An ambulance brought Sharon to the Jerusalem hospital only hours before the hard-charging, overweight, 77-year-old Israeli leader had been scheduled to undergo a procedure to seal a hole in his heart that contributed to a mild stroke on Dec. 18.
Israel Radio quoted an unidentified Israeli health official as saying that Sharon's prospects of a full recovery were slim.
Posted by: Greg at
01:12 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 447 words, total size 4 kb.
According to a Dec. 25 report in the Boston Globe, the Democratic Party is joining forces with the activist group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to place initiatives on state ballots this fall to raise the minimum wage. The idea is to energize the poor to vote for Democratic candidates, as well as the initiative.
ACORN's involvement in this campaign is amusing because a few years ago the group sued the state of California in order to be exempted from its minimum wage requirement, which was higher than the federal government's. In its appellate brief, ACORN acknowledged that the more it had to pay each worker, the fewer such workers it would be able to hire. Of course, the same thing is true for businesses, as well -- something minimum wage advocates refuse to admit.Furthermore, ACORN argued that paying its workers less than the minimum wage aided its organizing efforts. Said the brief, "A person paid limited sums of money will be in a better position to empathize with and relate to the low and moderate membership and constituency of ACORN." Somehow I doubt that a business catering to those with low incomes would get any sympathy from ACORN if it made the same argument.
Indeed, ACORN has a history of denying its workers rights that it demands from corporations. For example, its "People's Platform" says that all workers have the right to organize. Yet, when its own workers have tried to do so, ACORN strenuously fought them.
In 2001, all of the workers in ACORN's Seattle office signed cards stating a desire to join the Industrial Workers of the World, a labor union with a long history of radicalism. ACORN's management refused to recognize the union and locked out the workers. Eventually, ACORN relented and paid a $20,000 settlement. Afterward, an IWW organizer said, "This underscores further the doublespeak that causes their workers to unionize or resign in disgust, and it shows that (ACORN's leaders) have learned nothing about workers' rights."
That same year, ACORN intimidated and fired workers in its Dallas office for threatening to organize. In 2003, the National Labor Relations Board found that it had violated the law. Said the NLRB, "By interrogating employees about their union activities, by informing employees that other employees have been discharged because of the union, by threatening employees that selecting the union to represent them will be futile and by threatening employees with discharge, respondent has violated section 8(a) of the act."
But then again, we shouldnÂ’t be surprised. Liberals are best known for being generous with the money and property of other people, not their own.
Posted by: Greg at
12:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.
January 03, 2006
Props to Burnt Orange Report for breaking this unnoticed bit of news!
Posted by: Greg at
04:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is trying to bully his way through the court system to further his own political ambitions, prosecutors said Tuesday.Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said in court documents that the Republican is "attempting to leapfrog" over the usual court procedures by asking the state's highest criminal court to dismiss all charges against him or to order a trial right away.
DeLay was forced to step aside as majority leader after he was indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges in September.
He has been pressing the state's highest criminal court to address the charges quickly because he wants to regain his post before his colleagues call for new leadership elections later this month.
The case has been on hold while prosecutors appeal a judge's dismissal of some of the charges.
Uh, excuse me. Where does Ronnie Earle, the politically motivated partisan prosecutor with a history of going after political opponents, have any business criticizing anyone for being a bully who is using the courts to further their own political ambitions? That is the life story of Ronnie Earle summed up in one phrase!
And Dick DeGuerin is spot-on in his analysis of why the case needs to be expedited.
DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said the case affects voters in DeLay's Houston-area congressional district and Republican members of Congress who elected DeLay as majority leader."A county prosecutor has thrown a monkey wrench into the functioning of the United States Congress, and that's something that needs to be resolved," DeGuerin said.
Filing for the primary ended yesterday. Ronnie Earle is trying to keep a cloud over DeLay through March -- and though November, if possible -- in an effort to orchestrate the defeat of a political enemy.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
Anotther Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?
Posted by: Greg at
04:41 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 4 kb.
The prosecutor in the Texas money laundering case against Rep. Tom DeLay issued subpoenas today looking for links between lobbyist Jack Abramoff and fundraising by the former majority leader.District Attorney Ronnie Earle issued the subpoenas in Austin the same day that Abramoff pleaded guilty in Washington to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud.
What does he want?
In the Texas case, Earle sought records from Abramoff's former employers, legal firms Greenberg Traurig LLP and Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, LLP. He also subpoenaed records from a lawyer for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a former Abramoff client, and from a representative for the Barona Band of Mission Indians, a California tribe.
DeLay's attorney knows the score on this one.
DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said Earle "goes where the fish bite.""Ronnie Earle is an opportunist," DeGuerin said. "He issues subpoenas to try to make a connection between his case and the latest scandal, whatever it happens to be. The Abramoff thing is the latest he's doing. It has nothing to do with the case in Texas. Nothing. Zip."
Wanna bet he tries to use this new demand for evidence as a reason to abridge DeLay's constitutional right to a speedy trial?
PREVIOUS POSTS:
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?
Posted by: Greg at
02:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 4 kb.
70 queries taking 0.2994 seconds, 276 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
