Posted on 11/18/2004 5:03:34 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Washington -- House Republicans adopted a rule change Wednesday that would allow their powerful majority leader, Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, to keep his post if he is indicted on state corruption charges stemming from a fund-raising scandal that has already involved three of his associates.
Democrats led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco -- who was unanimously re-elected to her post Wednesday -- assailed the Republican action as hypocritical and arrogant.
The Republicans made the change after debating it for hours in a closed- door session Wednesday morning. Members said several GOP lawmakers objected to the change.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Is posting this over and over an obsession? He has not been convicted.
Of course it is. The rat scum must be countered and Defensive actions are necessary.
When they attack using ethics and goodness as the target it is mandatory to remove the deadly threat.
He hasn't even been indicted.
DeLay has always been a controversial figure, to say the least!
As per Barone on Fox last night he said this Democrat prosecutor is "rotten". Apparently this prosecutor is known for trumping up unsubstantiated charges against GOP pols.
And, yes, it's true that DeLay hasn't been convicted of anything (or even indicted). But that's not the point of this article. The point is, the House is changing ethics rules (in mid-stream) to shield DeLay in the event that he is indicted. That kind of stinks, don't you think?
Exactly.... remember the clinton defense" you can indict a ham sandwich" Ask Rush what happens when a demorat in the DA's office takes aim...he sure ain't ken starr I can tell you that. Big deal anyway, if convicted he'll be totally gone but this takes away the power of local demorat DAS to mess with national leaders.
I know. I am sick of seeing this.
No, I don't. I think it indicates that they recognize that indictments can be a political tool, and that some other standard should be used to define "unethical."
You state, "The unprincipled exercise of power often leads to unforeseen (and unfortunate) consequences. Is saving Tom DeLay's ass worth this compromise of principle?"
When the Democrats have similar rules for their congressmen and bow to every conservative lawyer with a grudge, then we'll be interested in their opinion on this particular change in the rules. What a bunch of hypocrits! The Democrats were more than ready to use this rule to get their lawyers and judges lined up to remove every Republican Conservative in a position of power in Congress from their leadership roles.
He is being protected until he is innocent or guilty. I don't have a problem with that at all.
PS. If it PO's Pelosi, it must be good!
No, considering the Travis County DA Ronnie Earle conducts political witch hunts against Republicans, none of which ever pan out.
The Republicans have the upper hand, for now. They've already started to spend like Emelda Marcos in a shoe store (as the Democrats always did). So now they're going to start strong-arming the rules, just like the Democrats used to do? I thought the Republicans wanted to do things right?
The problem is, when both sides have scruples, you can have rules like this and everything is cool. When one side...ala the Dems...try to wrestle the rules to an unfair advantage, and the other team...the Repubs...won't do the same dirty tactics, because they have principles, you have to remove the hindrance.
It's about time we start doing stuff to lessen the Dems' ability to obfuscate proper legislation.
this is precisely what swings party control back and forth
Its rotten
I hate to bother King Prout, after his tragedy yesterday, but could this be a RKBA situation?
My $.02. From what I understand, correct me if I’m wrong, they changed it so that a committee will determine if the charges are an orchestrated political attack to remove a leader. If so, they the leader stays (unless convicted). If not, the leader is out of there asap. Seems fair to me. Let’s also remember, when we hear the rats complain, that they have no such rule. This partisan prosecutor apparently has a reputation for these kind of attacks. I think you have to adjust to your enemies movements. When the enemy finds a weak spot, you have to react to it rather then just sitting back and watch them exploit it.
PS. If it PO's Pelosi, it must be good!
I'd agree, normally. But note that "several GOP lawmakers objected to the change". It's principle we're talking about here, not personalities.
Any procedures available to remove this "DA gone wild?" He went after Sen. Kay Hutchinson and others. Seems to be a pattern here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.