Is It Prejudicial for Bush to Profess Belief in Delay's Innocence on Texas Charges? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 12-15-2005, 04:04 AM

At the least, by declaing a belief in Tom Delay's innocence and by vouching for Karl Rove, Bush is interfering with "due process" in Delay's criminal prosecution by Texas authorities, and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal investigation, that is incompatible with Bush's role as the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

If Robert Novak's recent comments are true, Bush is also intentionally concealing evidence of a crime from Fitzgerald.

Bush may be setting the stage to legitmize pardons that may become necessary in the future, but he is also tying his own reputation with Delay's. Rove's, Rumsfeld's, and Cheney's. I predict that his recently stated support
of these four will come back to haunt him as soon as in the next year.

Do you think that Bush knows what he is doing, in making these statements?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121402119.html
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 15, 2005; A07

President Bush said yesterday he is confident that former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of money-laundering charges, as he offered strong support for several top Republicans who have been battered by investigations or by rumors of fading clout inside the White House. In an interview with Fox News, Bush said he hopes DeLay will be cleared of charges that he illegally steered corporate money into campaigns for the Texas legislature and will reclaim his powerful leadership position in Congress.

"I hope that he will, 'cause I like him, and plus, when he's over there, we get our votes through the House," Bush told Fox News's Brit Hume. DeLay was forced to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in the fundraising case, and he is seeking a quick trial in hopes of returning to power early next year.

Bush has refused to speak about the CIA leak investigation or the impending trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former vice presidential chief of staff who was indicted in the case. But the president said he believes that DeLay is not guilty -- weeks before his trial is expected to begin.

It is highly unusual for a president to express an opinion on a pending legal case. Richard M. Nixon, for instance, was widely criticized for declaring Charles Manson "guilty, directly or indirectly" of murder while Manson's trial was ongoing.

In the wide-ranging interview, Bush defended the Republican Party against charges of pervasive unethical behavior after the resignation of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) for taking bribes and the unfolding money-for-favors scandal centered on former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"Well, first of all, I feel Duke Cunningham was wrong and should be punished for what he did," Bush said. "And I think that anybody who does what he did should be punished, Republican or Democrat. Secondly, the Abramoff -- I'm not, frankly, all that familiar with a lot that's going on over at Capitol Hill, but it seems like to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties." According to campaign finance reports, Abramoff and his clients contributed money to Democrats but substantially more to Republicans.

Bush also defended three of the most powerful men in the White House, all of whom have been the subject of speculation that they are losing clout with the president: Vice President Cheney, senior adviser Karl Rove and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Bush said his relationship with Cheney is better than ever, despite Libby's recent indictment and criticism of the Iraq and terrorism policies that were championed by the vice president. "The truth of the matter is that our relationship hasn't changed hardly at all," the president said. "I'd say the relationship -- it's only gotten better. We didn't know each other that well when we first came to Washington, D.C., and my respect for him has grown immensely."

The same goes for Rove, Bush said. Rove remains under investigation in the CIA leak case, and some aides have complained he lied to Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan about his role. "We're still as close as we've ever been," the president said. "You know, when we look back at the presidency and my time in politics, no question that Karl had a lot to do with me getting here, and I value his friendship. We're very close."

Bush dismissed rumors that Rumsfeld will leave his post early next year. Asked if Rumsfeld will stay through the second term, Bush said: "Well, end of my term is a long time, but I tell you, he's done a heck of a good job and I have no intention of changing him."

Quote:

www.newsobserver.com/102/story/377675.html&cid=0
Under the Dome
Published: Dec 14, 2005 12:30 AM
Modified: Dec 14, 2005 08:07 PM

Bush can settle CIA leak riddle, Novak says

Rob Christensen, Barbara Barrett, Jane Stancill and Dan Kane, Staff Writers
Newspaper columnist Robert Novak is still not naming his source in the Valerie Plame affair, but he says he is pretty sure the name is no mystery to President Bush.

"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."

"So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.' "

It was Novak who first revealed that Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Wilson had angered the Bush administration when he accused it of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat before the war.

Newspaper columnist Robert Novak spoke Tuesday at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh. He was asked to comment on the "the Valerie Plame fiasco." Here is a transcript of his response:

"Well, as you know, I was the one who wrote the first story about Joe Wilson’s wife working for the CIA - one throwaway line in a long column, in the sixth paragraph of the story."

"The way it has snowballed out of all proportion is a result of a campaign by the left and the bad, extremely bad, management of the issue by - in my opinion - by the White House."

"Once you give an issue to a special prosecutor, you lose control of it. You do not know what is going to happen."

"Bob Woodward speculates that his source is the same as my source. He says that’s the case. He is not going to reveal this name, and certainly I am not either until such time as this person comes forward and says he wants his name to be revealed."

"I am confident the president knows who the source is. I would be amazed if he doesn't. So I think, don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodword. Bug the President as to whether he should reveal who the source is."

Disclosing the identity of a CIA agent is illegal; the disclosure set off a furor in Washington, resulting in an ongoing investigation by a special prosecutor and the indictment and resignation of Lewis Libby, the chief aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Woodward, a Washington Post editor, recently disclosed that he, too, had been told by an administration figure about Plame's secret identity -- probably, he said, by the same source who told Novak.

Novak said his role in the Plame affair "snowballed out of proportion" as a result of a "campaign by the left."

But he also blamed "extremely bad management of the issue by the White House. Once you give an issue to a special prosecutor, you lose control of it."..............

raveneye · 12-15-2005, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Do you think that Bush knows what he is doing, in making these statements?

Yes in the sense that he hopes his influence will make convictions less likely, and no in the sense that he doesn't realize the political price he will have to pay. He is very politically naive in some ways, which is one reason for his low approval ratings at the moment.

dksuddeth · 12-15-2005, 06:54 AM

just another shining example of partisan protection.

Has anyone noticed that in the last 5 years, we've had so many new political terms birthed in our society? 'junk science', 'non-story', 'judicial activism', and my favorite 'criminalization of conservative politics'.

At this point I believe that anyone that votes straight republican or democrat tickets is looking to split the nation apart and silently advocates another civil war or something.

/rant over.......for now.

Redlemon · 12-15-2005, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Has anyone noticed that in the last 5 years, we've had so many new political terms birthed in our society? 'junk science', 'non-story', 'judicial activism', and my favorite 'criminalization of conservative politics'.

Yes. I'm extraordinarily impressed with the conservative media's ability to create terms that stick and redefine the terms of the argument. I just heard an interview yesterday with the author of "Slam Dunks and No-Brainers : Language in Your Life, the Media, Business, Politics, and, Like, Whatever", which I hope shows up under the Christmas tree this year. She suggests that the use of catchphrases can "replace thought with preprogrammed verbal responses", and thus bring to an end an argument that still warrants discussion.

Ustwo · 12-15-2005, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

just another shining example of partisan protection.

Has anyone noticed that in the last 5 years, we've had so many new political terms birthed in our society? 'junk science', 'non-story', 'judicial activism', and my favorite 'criminalization of conservative politics'.

At this point I believe that anyone that votes straight republican or democrat tickets is looking to split the nation apart and silently advocates another civil war or something.

/rant over.......for now.

Just a note, the term judicial activism has been around for many many years, and can be found in # Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996), Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0877796041 for an example predating your assumption.

I'd also recomend www.junkscience.com

dksuddeth · 12-15-2005, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Just a note, the term judicial activism has been around for many many years, and can be found in # Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996), Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0877796041 for an example predating your assumption.

I'd also recomend www.junkscience.com

Thanks UsTwo, although I hadn't been seriously involved in politics before 1999, I was not that uninformed. I just haven't heard such use out of these 'phrases' until the 2000-2002 election cycle.

Lebell · 12-15-2005, 08:00 AM

I always thought it was ok to believe someone innocent until proven guilty.

Ustwo · 12-15-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Thanks UsTwo, although I hadn't been seriously involved in politics before 1999, I was not that uninformed. I just haven't heard such use out of these 'phrases' until the 2000-2002 election cycle.

I kinda thought that, and I'd ask you to look at what I'm saying with an open mind.

If you only got into politics in 1999, and you didn't start to hear such phrases until 2000, its most likely not a fair assumption that they are new, you may just never have heard them. I'm not saying there are not buzz phrases that are used more now than in the past, or new ones made up all together. From Bush's ultimately destructive 'compationate conservative' to the lefts attept to promote Al Gores 'gravitas' the pundits do often seem like they are getting marching orders to use phrases as much as possible.

host · 12-15-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I always thought it was ok to believe someone innocent until proven guilty.

In July, it was "best" "if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions," Bush said....

But now...."President Bush said yesterday he is confident that former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of money-laundering charges"

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/
Bush appears to shift course on CIA leak
President vows to fire anyone who committed a crime

Tuesday, July 19, 2005; Posted: 3:47 a.m. EDT (07:47 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush appeared to backtrack Monday from his 2004 pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

"I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions," Bush said at a joint news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.....

............That appeared to differ from a response Bush gave in June 2004, when he was asked whether he stood by his promise to fire whoever was found to have leaked Plame's name. "Yes," Bush said at the time....

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162485,00.html
Leak Amendments Fail in Senate
Friday, July 15, 2005

......Many Democrats are calling for Bush to make good on his vow to punish whoever had a hand in the leak. In recent days, the White House has refused to lay out decisive comment on the issue, which is normal for any ongoing investigation, but has voiced continued support for Rove and the probe........

It's about Bush's H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y..., the inconsistancy of his statements, and the statements of those who represent him (Scott McClellan) and about his increasing desperation.

ROVE AND WHITE HOUSE HAVE REPEATEDLY LIED ABOUT ROVE'S ROLE IN THE LEAK: Asked on 9/29/03 whether he had "any knowledge" of the leak or whether he leaked the name of the CIA agent, Rove answered "no."(1) He later said, "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name." (2) Also on 9/29/03, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, after having "spoken to Karl," asserted that "it is a ridiculous suggestion" (3) to say Rove was involved in the leak.

(1) http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/p...ote_Sep29.html

(2) http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...31/asb.00.html

(3) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030929-7.html

PRESIDENT BUSH SAID HE WOULD FIRE ANYONE INVOLVED: Asked on 6/10/04 whether he stood by his pledge to "fire anyone" involved in the leak case, Bush answered, "yes." (4) Bush has said, "When the President says something, he better mean it."(5)

(4) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040610-36.html
(5) http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...n+it.%22&hl=en

WHITE HOUSE SILENT NOW BUT HAS SPOKEN PREVIOUSLY WHILE THE INVESTIGATION WAS ONGOING: McClellan has said that while the investigation is ongoing, "the White House is not going to comment on it." (6) But on 10/1/03, McClellan also said, "There's an investigation going on" but spoke openly about Rove, saying "it's simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information."(7)

(6) http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...n+it.%22&hl=en
(7) http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...tion.%22&hl=en

dksuddeth · 12-15-2005, 12:26 PM

Joe wilson was a former ambassador to baghdad during the 91 gulf war. It should be obvious that Cheney knew him and being that he was SecDef at the time, most likely knew about his wife and her job. With Roves position in the white house now.........it should be common knowledge that something like wilsons wifes name and position was probably passed around there. Any one of the high level people could have divulged her name KNOWINGLY.

ratbastid · 12-15-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I kinda thought that, and I'd ask you to look at what I'm saying with an open mind.

If you only got into politics in 1999, and you didn't start to hear such phrases until 2000, its most likely not a fair assumption that they are new, you may just never have heard them. I'm not saying there are not buzz phrases that are used more now than in the past, or new ones made up all together. From Bush's ultimately destructive 'compationate conservative' to the lefts attept to promote Al Gores 'gravitas' the pundits do often seem like they are getting marching orders to use phrases as much as possible.

This is a mild threadjack, but since we're talking about it...

I've always thought it was fun to figure out what these buzz phrases are code for. Gore's "gravitas" is code for "wooden as a cedar chest". "Compassionate conservative" is code for "Panders to far-right voters who are nominally Christian."

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-15-2005, 01:44 PM

It's not prejudicial for Bush to say anything, he is the executive and in no way involved in this legal process.

host · 12-16-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I always thought it was ok to believe someone innocent until proven guilty.

More grist for the mill. Absurd, incoherent, double standard from the president's spokesman, Scott McClellan. This thread was prescient...if you compare the two quoted reports in the opening post, with this E&P article that was published a few hours after this thread was posted, in reaction to McClellan's attempt on thursday to mislead the press, and by extension, the American people.

Quote:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1001699441
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051215-4.html

White House Briefing: McClellan Battles Reporters Over Bush Backing DeLay

By E&P Staff

Published: December 15, 2005 4:45 PM ET

NEW YORK You could see these questions coming a mile away. After months of refusing to comment on the Plame/CIA probe, and the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- saying he did not want to "prejudge" an "ongoing investigation" -- President Bush on Wednesday night unabashedly told Fox News' Brit Hume that he believed Rep. Tom DeLay was not guilty of charges against him.

This sparked a storm of questioning at the daily briefing on Thursday by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, with NBCs David Gregory leading the way, accusing the administration of being "hypocritical” and "inconsistent" on this matter, "ad nauseum."

McClellan fired back, denying the charge and suggesting that the newsman was getting "all dramatic about it."

The relevant part of the transcript follows.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051215-4.html

Q Scott, the President told Brit Hume that he thought that Tom DeLay is not guilty, even though the prosecution is obviously ongoing. What does the President feel about Scooter Libby? Does he feel that Mr. Libby --

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. First of all, the President was asked a question and he responded to that question in the interview yesterday, and made very clear what his views were. We don't typically tend to get into discussing legal matters of that nature, but in this instance, the President chose to respond to it. Our policy regarding the Fitzgerald investigation and ongoing legal proceeding is well-known and it remains unchanged. And so I'm just not going to have anything further to say. But we've had a policy in place for a long time regarding the Fitzgerald investigation.

Q Why would that not apply to the same type of prosecution involving Congressman DeLay?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you we had a policy in place regarding this investigation, and you've heard me say before that we're not going to talk about it further while it's ongoing.

Q Well, if it's prejudging the Fitzgerald investigation, isn't it prejudging the Texas investigation with regard to Congressman DeLay?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered your question.

Q Can I follow up on that"? Is the President at all concerned that his opinion on this being expressed publicly could influence a potential jury pool, could influence public opinion on this in an improper way?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in this instance he was just responding to a question that was asked about Congressman DeLay, about Leader DeLay, and in terms of the issue that Peter brings up, I think that we've had a policy in place, going back to 2003, and that's a White House policy.

Q But that policy has been based in part, in the leak investigation and other things, on the idea that it is simply wrong for a President to prejudge a criminal matter, particularly when it's under indictment or trial stage. Why would he --

MR. McCLELLAN: And that's one -- this is an ongoing investigation regarding possible administration officials. So I think there are some differences here.

Q There are lots of times when you don't comment on any sort of legal --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are also legal matters that we have commented on, as well. And certainly there are legal matters when it goes to Saddam Hussein.

Q So the President is inconsistent?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, we put a policy in place regarding this investigation --

Q But it's hypocritical. You have a policy for some investigations and not others, when it's a political ally who you need to get work done?

MR. McCLELLAN: Call it presidential prerogative; he responded to that question. But the White House established a policy --

Q Doesn't it raise questions about his credibility that he's going to weigh in on some matters and not others, and we're just supposed to sit back and wait for him to decide what he wants to comment on and influence?

MR. McCLELLAN: Congressman DeLay's matter is an ongoing legal proceeding --

Q As is the Fitzgerald investigation --

MR. McCLELLAN: The Fitzgerald investigation is --

Q -- As you've told us ad nauseam from the podium.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an ongoing investigation, as well.

Q How can you not -- how can you say there's differences between the two, and we're supposed to buy that? There's no differences. The President decided to weigh in on one, and not the other.

MR. McCLELLAN: There are differences.

Q And the public is supposed to accept the fact that he's got no comment on the conduct of senior officials of the White House, but when it's a political ally over on the Hill who's got to help him get work done, then he's happy to try to influence that legal process.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all. Not at all. You can get all dramatic about it, but you know what our policy is.

Go ahead, Paula.

Q I do have a question about White House ethics guidelines --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the American people understand.

Q No, they don't. And the only thing that's dramatic is the inconsistency of the policy and you trying to defend it.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the policy has been in place since 2003.

Go ahead, Paula.

Q I have a question about White House ethics guidelines which is outside the scope of the Fitzgerald investigation. I'm not talking about criminal offense. Last week, Robert Novak, in a public speech, said that reporters should be asking the President who the anonymous source is because he believes he knows. And my question is, was it ethical to change the grounds of dismissal from "anyone involved" in the disclosure of classified information, to "anyone convicted" in the disclosure of classified information? And if the President did not take action privately, is it ethical for him not to have done anything?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I've indicated, our policy hasn't changed on this matter.

The following report seems to indicate that Scott McClellan is a liar. The facts are that there is no difference between the status of the Plame CIA Leak investigation and the related indictment of "Scooter Libby" vs. the Earle investigation and indictment of Tom Delay in Texas.

Charges have been brought in both instances, and both investigations are ongoing. If the white house hides behind the excuse that it is improper to respond to questions about Fitzgerald's CIA leak investigation and Libby's indictment, it is a contradiction of an oft stated policy for Bush to comment on Delay's "innocence". Bush's comments seem akin to jury tampering. They are intended to influence potential Delay jurors, spoken as they were from the POTUS's "bully" pulpit. Bush has betrayed the public trust, by proclaiming Delay's innocence in the face of a Texas judge's order that approves prosecution of a Delay in a Texas court on charges that Bush has now opined that Delay is "innocent" of.

Bush's statements are all the more shocking because he is a recent Texas governor; now using the power of the presidency to undermine a Texas judge and prosecutor. Bush's behavior seems to parallel his inconsistancy in statments that he made concerning his intent to "get to the bottom" of the Plame CIA leak, and to "fire" anyone on his staff who was involved. Rove has admitted involvement, and it is a matter of record that he misled Scott McClellan about his involvement. Scott took Rove at his word, in summer, 2003, and then mislead the press. Now, Bush and Rove have gagged McClellan by making him blurt out, so.....many....times....that the white house policy is clear....they do not comment on ongoing investigations !

Quote:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...1n14delay.html
Case vs. DeLay extends to Poway
Subpoenas issued to businessman
By Dean Calbreath
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

December 14, 2005

Texas authorities have issued subpoenas to Poway businessman Brent Wilkes, identified as a co-conspirator in the corruption case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, in connection with the investigation of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

In addition to Wilkes, subpoenas were issued for his longtime business associate, Max Gelwix, as well as ADCS Inc. and PerfectWave Technologies, Poway companies owned by Wilkes.

Wilkes has been identified as "co-conspirator No. 1" in the Cunningham case, accused of giving $630,000 in cash and favors to the former Rancho Santa Fe congressman. Cunningham sat on the influential House defense appropriations subcommittee, which helped create programs that resulted in at least $95 million in contracts for ADCS.

Cunningham pleaded guilty last month to tax evasion and conspiracy and resigned after admitting he had taken more than $2.4 million in bribes from Wilkes and three other co-conspirators – former Wilkes consultant Mitchell Wade, New York businessman Thomas Kontogiannis and Long Island financier John T. Michael.

Wilkes and his associates have a history of donating to influential politicians as they sought to gain government contracts for ADCS and its affiliated companies.

PerfectWave Technologies donated $15,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority, a group that DeLay founded in his campaign to redraw Texas congressional districts to create more seats for Republicans in the 2002 election.

DeLay was indicted in September over charges that he helped the organization evade the law by funneling contributions through his Americans for a Republican Majority PAC. In addition, eight corporations, from Sears to Bacardi USA, have been indicted in connection with their contributions to the Texas PAC. At least four, including Sears, are cooperating with prosecutors.

Under Texas law, corporations are banned from donating money to a political race. Although the law does not prohibit corporate donations to groups such as the Texas PAC, the donations may be deemed to violate the law if the donor knew the contribution would be used in an election.

Ronnie Earle, the state prosecutor in Austin, Texas, subpoenaed Wilkes and Gelwix on Monday for any information related to the PerfectWave check and for any correspondence with DeLay or his PAC, as well as DeLay's political aide Jim Ellis and fundraisers Warren RoBold and John Colyandro, who were indicted in September 2004.

Earle's office did respond to a request for comment.

Wilkes' attorney, Mike Lipman, said that neither he nor his client have received the subpoenas.

"I first heard about the subpoenas from the news media," Lipman said, who said he has tried, unsuccessfully, to contact Earle's office for more information.........

And....more signs that Earle's investigation of Delay is as "ongoing" as Fitzgerald's investigation of Libby, Rove, et al.

Quote:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...l/13417883.htm
Posted on Fri, Dec. 16, 2005
Blunt’s records part of investigation
By STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star

A Texas prosecutor investigating U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay last month requested 2000 campaign finance reports of Republican Matt Blunt, now the Missouri governor.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle’s office requested the records in a Nov. 28 letter to the Missouri Ethics Commission. A commission spokesman said the request was promptly fulfilled and more than 800 pages of documents were mailed to Earle.

Missouri Democrats said the development is significant.

“It’s not often that you see the culture of corruption that’s going on in Washington reach down to the state level,” said Democratic spokesman Jack Cardetti.

A spokesman for Blunt, however, pointed out that Blunt’s 2000 campaign records for his successful campaign for secretary of state have been public for five years. Spokesman Spence Jackson said he had no idea what information Earle’s office was seeking.

“All the contributions that Governor Blunt has received have been lawful and have been diligently reported and are open for any citizen to review,” Jackson said.

Earle’s actions in his case have been criticized by DeLay’s attorneys, who accuse Earle of a vendetta.

That Earle sought the Blunt documents was first reported by the political blog firedupmissouri.com.

Previous news accounts have reported that money DeLay raised in 2000 for the Republican convention ended up in DeLay’s private charity, in a consulting firm employing his wife, in Blunt’s campaign and in the leadership political action committee of his father, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt.

Last week, a Texas judge dismissed a conspiracy charge against DeLay, but refused to throw out money-laundering charges. DeLay was forced to relinquish his position as House majority leader until the court case is resolved.

Lebell, I want to remind you that you have not responded to my reply to your long post on the Cunningham thread here at TFP Politics. I showed you the courtesy, to respond to you.

Believe it or not, the "fuckpoints' that I post do have a small following of readers, who are among the most informed participants on this forum.
You have criticized me for "omitting" sections of articles that I post that do not inclued points that refute my arguments. When I post entire articles, I receive criticism for posting "too much" information.

In Elphaba's "DOD" thread, you took it upon yourself to remove the majority of the content of my last post because you decided that it was not relevant.
The lack of respect that you exhibit towards me is of great concern.

Consider that you removed material contained in my "DOD" thread post that some readers would have been interested in, and could see relevance asscociated with Elphaba's "CIFA" post. Tom Delay prosecutor Earle has subpoenaed Mr. Wilkes, one of two defense contractors who Randy Cunningham admitted to receiving bribes intended to influence his ability to steer defense contracts to their companies. The articles that you deleted in my DOD thread post included an interview with the reporter who "broke open" the sale of Cunningham's house to the other "briber", Mr. Wade of MZM, Inc.

Another deleted article was a report by WaPo's Walter Pincus that stated that CIFA contracted MZM, Inc. to facilitate it's intelligence gathering. Was this contract influenced by bribes Cunningham received from Mr. Wade of MZM, Inc? You also deleted the Nov. 2004, Pincus report that I posted, which covered the appointment of a new #3 at CIA, an undercover
operative nicknamed "Dusty".

That report set the context for two recent articles that you also deleted, which stated that "Dusty Foggo" was the new #3 at CIA, and he was best friends with Mr. Wilkes, the Cunningham briber!

You have admitted that you don't follow these events, which also include the activities of Jack Abramoff, to the extent that I do. I'm sure that Elphaba did not request that you delete material from my post, on the "DOD" thread that she initiated, so I have to wonder if you considered that you were making a choice to eliminate research that is of interest to the few readers who follow what I post, and who do "get it", before you decided what was "relevant". I'm getting the "message" here, Lebell, and you should consider that the "fuckpoints" that I post, are as detailed as they sometimes are because no referenced argument, no matter how well documented or "airtight" it might be, is ever "enough". Your continued defense of Victoria Toensing as a credible or reasonable authority, in our discussion on the Randy Cunningham thread, is a textbook example of the conditions that influence me to post in so much detail. My hope is to persuade any interested third party who comes along to read our exchanges, that Victoria Toensing, beyond a doubt, is not credible. I have no idea whether that "other" reader is moved towards your opinion of Toensing, but I'm not taking any chances, hence the "fuckpoints".

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 06:34 AM

the only real difference I see between the two investigations (plamegate and delay money laundering) is that plamegate is a national security/federal investigation while the money laundering is a state election campaign contribution issue. To me, that alone COULD justify making a comment about one and not the other.

ratbastid · 12-16-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The following report seems to indicate that Scott McClellan is a liar.

I really feel bad for Scott McClellan sometimes. He seems like such a nice little guy, you know? And then he has to go out make his psycho bosses seem reasonable and consistent in front of a pack of wolves. I've had jobs like that!

I don't really agree that McClellan is the liar. He's the mouthpiece. You can almost feel how embarassed he is about some of the nonsense he's forced to spew. My bet is he won't last another 3 months in that job.

Look: it was almost certainly inappropriate for Bush to comment on the DeLay matter. But he did. My guess is, it was because thinking on his feet isn't *cough* his strong suit. And now, in classic Administration Modus Operandi, McClellan is trotted out to explain how that wasn't a mistake and there's nothing improper or inconsistent about it.

Bush has done some things in the last week to earn a little bit of the public back for himself--admitting to bad war intel, for instance. The question now is if his position is so weakened that there's no recovering.

12-15-2005, 06:54 AM	#3 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	just another shining example of partisan protection. Has anyone noticed that in the last 5 years, we've had so many new political terms birthed in our society? 'junk science', 'non-story', 'judicial activism', and my favorite 'criminalization of conservative politics'. At this point I believe that anyone that votes straight republican or democrat tickets is looking to split the nation apart and silently advocates another civil war or something. /rant over.......for now. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-15-2005, 08:00 AM	#7 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I always thought it was ok to believe someone innocent until proven guilty. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-15-2005, 12:26 PM	#10 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Joe wilson was a former ambassador to baghdad during the 91 gulf war. It should be obvious that Cheney knew him and being that he was SecDef at the time, most likely knew about his wife and her job. With Roves position in the white house now.........it should be common knowledge that something like wilsons wifes name and position was probably passed around there. Any one of the high level people could have divulged her name KNOWINGLY. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-15-2005, 01:44 PM	#12 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's not prejudicial for Bush to say anything, he is the executive and in no way involved in this legal process. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-16-2005, 06:34 AM	#14 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	the only real difference I see between the two investigations (plamegate and delay money laundering) is that plamegate is a national security/federal investigation while the money laundering is a state election campaign contribution issue. To me, that alone COULD justify making a comment about one and not the other. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."