Redstate

I note, however, the absence of any statement meaningfully disputing any factual charges.  Not that, were I DeLay's lawyer, I'd be eager to lay out my defense at this stage, but we at home really don't have any factual basis on which to say that the indictment is bogus.

...how Tom DeLay wants our help after completely turning his back on fiscal conservatives who want deep spending federal spending cuts on programs that the federal government has no business being involved in. And now...the people like me who would be his biggest supporters really couldn't care less what happens to him - even though I think he's completely innocent and the charges are totally bogus.

How about Majority Leader Pence?

CNN relates that Speaker Hastert will recommend David Dreier take over DeLay's duties.  (I assume Blunt will want some.)

Blunt has been a truly awful Whip.  His latest move to align himself with RSC is a stunt and we shouldn't be fooled by it.

He shouldn't be Whip, and certainly shouldn't get promoted upwards.

An ad hominem response?

On the one hand, you don't want to try the case in the media, but this is probably worse than saying nothing at all.

...except that I think I read that he term-limited himself and he appears to be sticking to it. So, he's only got a year left.

That's why I say Jeff Flake for Majority Leader - or anyone instrumental in the Republican Study Committee leadership.

Let's be very clear about the reason why Delay needs to go.  We don't need another Trent Lott situation where an ineffective leader was removed because of a trumped-up charge of "racism" any more than we should feel compelled to circle the wagons around him because Ronnie Earle is a grade-D scumbag.

Delay's recent comments defending the pork-laden federal budget, his role in ramming through a $749 Billion Medicare monstrosity how shown him to not only be ineffective in trying to reign in federal spending but also a liability to regaining any sense of fiscal responsibility at the federal level.  

We should take him out now before he rises to the level of Speaker of the House and replace both him and Hastert with more effective leadership that considers fiscal conservatism and smaller government to be guiding principle rather than just punch lines.

Probably the most common slander on Earle is that he's doing this for partisan purposes -- "This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat."  

He actually has a pretty nonpartisan record.  Over his career he's prosecuted 12 Democrats and 4 Republicans.  Democrats controlled the Texas State Legislature for much of his career, and he tends to go after powerful people because that's where the corruption tends to be.  His attack on DeLay, as far as I can see, stems from a tendency to go after big powerful corrupt people rather than a tendency to go after Republicans.  

It is a stupid rule that has just been taken advantage of by a local, partisan hack to disrupt the duly elected leadership of Congress. The GOP should call it as such, waive the rule and stand and fight. Otherwise, this nonsense, like the Trent Lott noise will just keep happening.

That's his ratio.

I treasurer several organizations. The question here is whether this is "issue advocacy" or contributions.

I'm not sure what Texas law is on campaign finance or issue advocacy, so I can't comment on it other than speculation.

Michigan law and Federal law prohibits corporate money from being spent on campaigns (although corporate money is allowed to be spent on ballot question committees.)

If the mailings used magic words like "For, against, support, oppose, defeat, or elect", it probably broke the law. If it instead said something like "Call John Doe, and thank him for standing up for freedom", then it most likely would have been legal, unless Texas laws are stricter than most.

My guess is that this is a case of "gotcha" or a "Hail Mary" pass by the dems (especially considering Earle's past), since I do not expect Tom DeLay to sign off on something like this without experts crossing every I and dotting every T. He knows there's a target on his back.

...but I'll be glad that he did if we can get a real fiscal conservative to permanently replace him.

Ronnie Earle is a partisan hack and joke.

He will not fare well in this.

The concern about political motivation in Earle's case comes from his politically inspired attack against Kay Bailey Hutchison.  IIRC, the case against her was so fundamentally flawed a first year law student could have defended her.  In that case he behaved very unprofessionally and it became clear that he had a partisan agenda against her.

In his Ahabesqe quest to get DeLay, he hasn't covered himself in non-partisan glory and seems to lap up the media attention as much as humanly possible.  Is it really appropriate for him to talk about an investigation at Democratic fundraisers?

The fact that he had to sink to a conspiracy indictment seems pretty telling that there's no there there, since conspiracy indictments are phenomenally easy to come by.  As they say, a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

If DeLay isn't able to follow KBH's model and get the indictment thrown out before December, then he's got some real issues and probably needs to think about resigning.  That is if he actually cares about the republican party and agenda.  But just because he got indicted doesn't mean he's actually guilty of anything.  (At least not of anything they've charged him with or that they can prove.)

He's elected by the wonderful folks of Austin Texas, which is an island of pink (or blue, if you want) in a sea of Red.

He's politicized the office of the Travis County DA's office and continues to make the far left circuit in Texas (granted, its a small circuit, and it doesn't take much time) so he's hardly what one could call non-partisan.

I'm not saying there's no truth in the allegations, not saying that there is truth in them, but the fact that Earl is bringing them throws the entire issue of what movitation does he have so to do so into question.

On this matter Earl will be able to grandstand and play partisan politics as much as he wants because he's bullet proof in the People's Republic of Austin.

State Rep. Mike Martin, R-Longview, 1982: Pleaded guilty to perjury after lying about having himself shot to gain publicity. Did not run for re-election.

If you check, I think you'll find KBH's case went to trial. Delay had a dispute with the judge over evidentiary rulings as soon as the case started, and the judge directed the jury to deliver a not guilty verdict. So not only did he waste a ton of taxpayer money, he blew it in such a way that he could never try to reindict due to double jeopardy.

Earle has been after Delay for THREE FREAKING YEARS for God's sake. In the meantime we've had episodes of things like actual criminals getting off due to mistakes made by his office. If he's not a partisan hack, at least it's fair to say his priorities are a bit out of whack. Chances of convictions are next to nil, and Lord only knows how much money has been wasted on this investigation.

But of course he's guaranteed a job in the People's Republic of Austin as long as he wants it since he's a Democrat.

Dangerous precedent

This is very dangerous precedent. I think there are plenty Republican DAs who can start to dig dirt on Democrats. This is typical for Russia now to use prosecutors to punish political opponents.

But the Republican Leadership dislikes him; he has no shot.

I don't particularly like or trust Delay, and am annoyed at disingenuousness of this statement. (Per my not liking or trusting Delay, I'd say that disingenuousness characterizes pretty much everything that Delay does).  Let's not lose our heads, however:  Delay has been indicted on a single conspiracy count.  So far as I can tell from the indictment, he has not been accused of actually doing anything wrong.  The sole accusation against him is that he purportedly agreed to have someone else do something wrong.*  Regardless of whether the charge has merit, that strikes me as a very difficult charge to prove.  

Delay is right to step down; indeed, he should've stepped down after he stated that he didn't think anything could be cut from the budget, revealing that he is completely out of touch with reality.  But I don't think we'll be seeing him behind bars.

von

*The essence of conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime, plus an overt act in furtherance of that crime by at least one co-conspirator. (The specifics vary somewhat jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, but I have no reason to believe that Texas follows a radically different rule.

He doesn't have to permanently leave.  To be the Majority Leader, you shouldn't have to be spending your time doing that and defending against a lawsuit.  Plus, in general, it's good for the party to not have some indicted as the leader.

More to the story than that quote. Where's the crime? I'm guessing there was an affidavit somewhere, which led to perjury, but that's a pretty far out action which lead to it.

Not that I am questioning what the meaning of "is" is, or something like that.

Gotta defend him for now, no evidence for his guilt, but are we sure this DA is partisan?

"U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, 1994: Acquitted of official misconduct and records tampering after Earle dropped the case during the trial.

Former state Rep. Betty Denton, D-Waco, 1995: Sentenced to six months probation and fined $2,000 for listing false loans and contributions on campaign finance reports.

Former state Rep. Lane Denton, D-Waco, 1995: Sentenced to 60 days in work-release program and six years probation, fined $6,000 and ordered to pay more than $67,000 restitution after being convicted of theft and misapplication of fiduciary property for funneling money from the Department of Public Safety Officers Association to a Denton company.

House Speaker Gib Lewis, D-Fort Worth, 1992: In plea bargain, Earle dropped more serious charges when Lewis pleaded no contest to failing to disclose a business investment. Lewis was fined $2,000, and the judge said he took into consideration that Lewis was retiring from public office.

Attorney General Jim Mattox, Democrat, 1985: Acquitted on felony bribery charges. Won re-election.

State Rep. Mike Martin, R-Longview, 1982: Pleaded guilty to perjury after lying about having himself shot to gain publicity. Did not run for re-election.

State Treasurer Warren Harding, Democrat, 1982: Pleaded no contest to official misconduct and dropped re-election bid.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough, Democrat, 1978: Sentenced to five years for lying to a grand jury and forgery. Gave up seat."

I see a couple dems on that list.

There is a whole lot going on out of sight, since so little is in sight.

I wonder if Delay and team aren't considering demanding a speedy trial - right now, right here, to forestall Earle's efforts to flip Ellis and Calyandro. The only fly in the ointment is the ability to change venue. It'd be nice to see the prosecutor delaying Delay. The role reversal would be entertaining.

Now this have to abide by it.

I don't feel up to defend DeLay, since he and the GOP can do an adequate job of it themselves.  Plus the GOP is

1. Left of me on immigration (Bush et alia)
   
   
2. left of me on embryonic stem cell research (Frist Drier)
   
   
3. left of me on Pork Barrel (see N'awlins, zero vetos by Bush.

"12 crooks and 4 victims" - Tbone

Nice to see the victim culture is alive and well in RedState.

...kneejerk Republican?

You got links for that or are you just blowing smoke?

They can point out that they hold themselves and their leaders to a much higher standard than the opposition party.

I say let them go at it. If a legitimate grand jury process returns indictments then let the chips fall where they may. There's no patent on corruption by either party and whoever dips his hand into the public till or sells his office should be held accountable for it. I don't know if Delay is guilty or innocent but I'm all for more not less oversight of politicians. I think our justice system works pretty good in these kinds of matters. To suggest otherwise should require evidence.

BTW: I think your suggestion that Texas is some sort of SSR is a little hysterical, IMHO.

a widely quoted statement, I predict.

Might there be a silver lining here--DeLay is certainly a pro around DC but he's a lightening rod and perhaps there could be someone more, say photogenic in there for the '06 season?

Just trying to look on the bright side.

He wasn't accused of skimming money or selling his office. It had to do with groups that were set up related to redistricting in Texas in 2002.

All this kind of stuff is so stupid. It gets down to things like having to use one phone or another depending on whether what you're doing is considered admistrative or campaign-related, or whether an ad is a "campaign" ad because it uses one of the seven words you can't say in a political ad.

And no one says Texas is a little SSR, but the city of Austin (Travis County in this case) certainly is.

I am not comparing Texas to SSR, but with convoluted campaign laws partisan prosecutor in one party dominant county can indict easily. In addition, I don't any doubts that you can find same dirt on Pelossi or Reid and with friendly grand jury; they will be indicted in no time.

I am not comparing Texas to SSR, but with convoluted campaign laws partisan prosecutor in one party dominant county can indict easily. In addition, I don't any doubts that you can find same dirt on Pelossi or Reid and with friendly grand jury; they will be indicted in no time.  

people on both sides were like you. I think partisanship is poisonous and blinds people's better judgment. I'm a member both here and at DailyKos and just roll my eyes at how many people have gotten so wrapped up in partisanship that they can't see the double standard they're putting on everything. Just look at some of the wording about big spending: Delay "allows" big spending bills but Dems "push for" them. I think the last 5 years should show people that it's not that simple afterall.

If Delay were a Dem, people here would jumping for joy rather than rationalizing his problems. Likewise for opposite at Kos.

What were the factual allegations against DeLay?

If there were any besides a vague unsubstantiated conspiracy allegation, maybe he could refute them.

Or at least, here's what a quick Googling reveals.  Apparently the crime is just that the guy lied about it under oath.  It's a pretty comical story, in any case.  

Mike Martin

Michael W. "Mike" Martin was a member of the Texas House of Representatives from 1981 to 1983. Martin was a member of the Republican Party.

Martin won his seat thanks in part to the victory of Ronald Reagan in his district which included Gregg County, Texas. As a legislator, Martin submitted a bill to teach Creationism in schools which also taught Evolution. At the end of the session in June 1981, Martin was named one of the 10 worst legislators by Texas Monthly magazine. The Democratic state senator in Martin's district was considering running for Governor in 1982. Martin decided that he should run for the seat.

On July 31, 1981 after a special session of the Texas House of Representatives, Martin was shot in the elbow outside his trailer in Austin, Texas. Soon after the shooting, various inconsistencies became known to the public, such as Martin having a list of people to call in case he was shot, which including his Public Relations spokesman, but not the police or an ambulance.

Martin soon revealed that the people who shot him were members of a Satanic cult called "The Guardian Angels of the Underworld" who claimed to control high-ranking officials in Texas Government. State authorities claimed they could find no trace of such a group and Martin eventually claimed that his shooting was due to "Gregg County Politics" and not a Satanic cult.

Martin failed to respond to several subpoenas looking into the shooting but soon afterwards, his first cousin admitted that he helped Martin stage the event to advance Martin's political career. Afterwards, Martin pledged guility to misdemeanor perjury charges relating to the shooting.

does the Republican leadership dislike him?

I just say, don't get too cocky.

Too true, that conspiracy allegations are easy to allege without much in the way of particulars.

This transmission from Leader DeLay is written in some sort of inscrutable code, but I think I'm close to deciphering it.  Something about ... "partisan" something or other.  

Yes, he's definitely trying to tell us something.  But what?

And Earle is the partisan hack?

"lack of a sense of humour". You guys are sooooo easy.

Well go back The Pile™

Tom is a party hero.  I don't want to hear any talk about anything but sticking beside him.  Don't talk about anything to do with the case and don't dare talk about letting him slip into some sham of a crack in the justice system opened temporarily by a communist in a black robe.  He will weather this out and become stronger for it.  Have you learned nothing about our elasticity?  Focus on the important facts, my friends.  Little Eugene is a partisan hack.  Plain and simple.  Some little whining liberal has to play partisan politics to try and throw a wrench in the order that we're so close to setting.  We're this close.  Close ranks and support our troops or you're as much a part of the problem as them!  I'm surprised we even let our outlets pick up on this in the first place, but be warned, it will go away.  Will you still be here when this blows over?

anymore.

Your answer is apparently yes. Sheesh.

Sounds like you're taking a very objective and scholarly approach to this case.  I applaud you, good man.

I'll admit, it's harder for me to spot fake conservatives than fake liberals (although dKos is making it tougher for me all the time)-- but this guy had me going for a second.

Sounds like a probate matter, not criminal.

"I don't want to hear any talk about anything but sticking beside him."

yep Just what this party needs, more winning at all cost, dam everything else, even if they turn out to be crooks and cronies, hale the GOP

unfortunately for you, he just got promoted

i can`t remember any indicted house member let

alone the leader ever coming back after a situation like this.can anyone else think of someone who  came back from something similar.

this case will drag on for a long time and it`s possible delay will get defeated in 2006.it may be best for him to go before he hurts the party next year.

I sometimes think that some of these people might be genuine as well.  Just call me a cynic, I guess.

The trash is deep in this thread.  We need to clean house.

Tbone,

As the old saying goes, "Don't quite your day job." Jerry Seinfeld, you are not.

If something is not obviously funny and no one laughs, one is hard pressed to argue that others simply lack a sense of humor. Perhaps it's possible that the original poster's statement just wasn't funny.

I love people who make a comment that is innocuous in nature, people respond to it at face value, and then the original poster says, "Come on guys. I was obviously kidding around. You just don't have a sense of humor and didn't get it."

I went back and read your quote "That's his ratio", and I'm trying to see what about that was funny. Or humorous. Or even witty. Maybe someone can explain to me how that is clever or funny or ironic or cheeky.

Seemed like more of a matter of fact statement.

Perhaps you could explain to the group what about your statement was funny or, more likely, intended to be funny.

Don't forget that Texas was a Dem state at the state level until recently. Earle is not a Southern Dem; these folks are intraparty foes.

The rest are just blowing hot air.

A lefty indeed, Thomas.  

In any case, I agree with your substantive claims about partisanship, ZTN.  I don't post on Kos very much anymore, because I'm generally more interested in learning how to tackle various policy issues than in hearing people make noise about the Bush Administration Scandal of the Day.  Or occasionally, making sure Republicans are aware of some fairly straightforward facts, as here.  

it goes like this. The setup is, "12 crooks, 4 victims". Implication, all the dims were obviously guilty, all the reps were obviously innocent victims of this partisan hack. This is a Republican site. All the Republicans go "hahaha, dims are crooks, we are all innocent, hahahah", appreciating the nonsense. Lefty trolls go all indignant and put up stupid posts. All the Republicans go "hahaha, look at the stupid posts, hahaha". I'm just the straightman. You guys provide the punch lines. If you possess a capacity for learning, or even programmed behavior, you won't let ol' Tbone fool you again, will you?

someone has already been flipped.

"All the Republicans go "hahaha, dims are crooks, we are all innocent, hahahah", appreciating the nonsense."

Is that what "all the Republicans" do? They laugh at that? I would hope you would give your fellow RedStaters a bit more credit for their senses of humor.

It kind of seems like you're trying to convince people you're funny. Not actually letting your "humor" speak for itself.

I'm more than happy to laugh at lefties and democrats. I could laugh at Cindy Sheehan's nonsense all day long, for instance. But your comment was was more like a <tapping the microphone> "is this thing on" moment.

But then again, as you describe it, you're the RedState comedian. The straightman. The guy who cracks the jokes and leaves everyone rolling. And with obvious punchlines like, (wait for it, wait for it) "That's the ratio", I don't know how you can miss.

actually read the indictment?

What's the frequency Kenneth?

Who?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#077834

Precisely.

http://crank.redstate.org/story/2005/9/28/1828/70291

You asked to have it explained. It's not my fault you're doing 90 in a 140 zone.

Sometimes it just doesn't work. Sometimes a joke or a line just ain't funny.

I asked, you did your best to explain what was supposed to be funny, and the explanation still wasn't all that funny. I see what you were going for, but it didn't work. At best, it was too plodding to be funny.

If something is supposed to be funny, and you have to explain it, it ain't funny.

Look, not every joke works. Even the great ones miss sometimes.

I look forward to your next foray into humor, and will give you a mulligan on this one.

Open mike night starts .... now. Tbone, is on the mike, folks.

Could you explain this to me?  Do DAs only deal with criminal matters and not probate matters?  (I don't even know what probate means.)

So we're not the Comedy Club.

I thought it was funny.  Loosen your corsets.

I'm not licensed in Texas, but probate court, in many states, is where you go to have a determination of mental incompetency which leads to an appointment of a guardian or custodian of their affairs.

A DA can be involved, but in many cases has minimal involvement - the court itself has broad powers to appoint independent counsel and investigators.

In short, I'm mystified as to the prosecutors point in this case, when more serious personal issues seem to have been involved. I suppose he did what had to be done.

There is nothing worse than a serious child with few gifts. He obviously requires bodily functions references in his humour.

Nope, just something that's, um, actually funny.

"That's the ratio"? Not so funny.

I wish I could say it's funny. I wish there were more than one person who thought it was funny.  Though "itrytobenice", that is very gracious of you to offer your support. I know Tbone appreciates it.

But, it's a mulligan for you, Mr. Tbone. Take another whack at the ball.

Honestly, Tbone, I believe you are funny. I really do. And will be looking for your next pass at it. You're the straightman, after al! You're the funny guy! The guy who makes everyone laugh!

Trust me, I want you to be funny. I'm pulling for you to be funny. I have confidence that you will be funny.

Get it done.

Gotta say, tbone, I didn't really see any funny going on.  (And I once got paid $250/article to write humorous parodies of stock market news!)

It's personal.

This guy just likes to get attention for himself the way other showboating prosecutors do, and there's no better way to do that than to harass big name politicians.

Lighten up, Francis!

Since Nancy Pelosi is the only senior leader in the House indicted and convicted and fined for a campaign finance violation, it is time we make sure that the free rides of democrats over campaign finance laws is over.

I hope right now that some very good eyes and keen minds are carefully reviewing in detail DNC actions and their relation to the law.

Whether Delay actually did something or not, it is clear that the DNC free ride needs to end.

The MSM, being unmasked more and more for an agenda driven incompotent institution, will not do the job.

seems not to be getting much of a mention in a couple of Lib sites,I wonder why?  Perhaps they know it's crap and for once in their forlorn lives don't want to go out on a limb.  Which raises the possibility they might be right, for once in their forlorn lives.

that as soon as you collect for the pizza you leave. Is there a similar method available here to trundle you off?

Glic is speculating that the evidence needed to prove a conspiracy charge against Delay (e.g., that Delay agreed to commit a felony) requires someone's testimony.  Surely, sometimes it does.  But agreement can also be proven by documentary evidence -- e.g., e-mails, memos, letters -- as well as circumstantial evidence of conduct.

Man, your Known Facts can beat up our Known Facts any day of the week.

If the prosecutor is serious about this, he must envision a dramatic "he said/he said/he said" courtroom confrontation and asking the jury to choose amongst the guilty. Without a friendly witness, this seems an extremely flimsy case - a series of wire transfers which the defense will paint, rightfully, as how business is done. A prosecutor relying on that is daring both the jury and appellate court to convict.

Look at the OJ trial or Michael Jackson cases and how defense counsel skewered witnesses during cross. Delay's counsel must salivate at the chance to plow through the evidence and get at whomever Earle flips.

I doubt he flips the other two indicted, since there's so little in it for them. The corporations have already bought/donated/succumbed to extortion and freed themselves so they're not testifying.

Who is the prosecution's lead witness?

I'm tempted to agree about the nonsense of this "Known Fact", except I was unaware of this episode:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/california/2004-02-11-
pelosi-pac-fined_x.htm

No indictment, no conviction, and it wasn't personally against Rep. Pelosi, but there was a fine in there. I wonder if she conspired to violate this law? Could she be an unindicted co-conspirator? Has the statute of limitations run? Would she agree to toll it and submit to a criminal defense?

20 seconds of google, and let your imagination run wild.

I hear the networks are bidding for Donald Sutherland to play DeLay in the movie of the week, since he's done such a good job as Nathan Templeton.

There's that humor again.  

I think you're implying that I'm a pizza delivery guy. And I think, though am not quite sure, the implication is meant as an insult.

Clever, as ever, Mr. Tbone. Clever, as ever.

You do seem to have a knack for this witty repartee. The old "you're a pizza delivery guy" line. It's a derivative of "you live in your mother's basement." Inspired stuff, Tbone.

PS - Compliments on the use of the word "trundle." I'm a big fan of that word. It's an underused and underapreciated word.

...or try turning off your porch light.    

the real setup for the pizza delivery guy gag is really useful for school rivalries. The line is "How to you get a graduate of the University of ___  off your porch? Pay him for the pizza."  Enjoy!

Why didn't they just go ahead and name him Mason Templeton,  or Scully McBones?

Pure gold.

But of course the standard a demohack is held to is so low that as long as dead women or live boys, so to speak, are not involved, no one expects much more.

I missed the part where you acknowledged your statement was incorrect.

Actually, the Pelosi case may be a harbinger of where Delay's case is headed.

Since this is an administrative action by the Federal Election Commission, and I don't think they have criminal enforcement powers, we can dismiss the technical use of the words "indict" and "convict". Technically, I guess this means hunter's statement was "incorrect".

That said, try to decipher this summary:

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040326murs.html

Then try to distinguish what happened there, with Delay is facing. Different amounts, but pretty much looks like the same activity.

What an hilarious crock! This is downright Rovian - first he gets rid of Lott, and now Delay. It's a mystery as to how long he'll be able to fend of the democrats and their "no new taxes" and "porkbusting" campaign platforms.

This is not my area, but I suspect the answer is that Pelosi's PACs violated federal election laws, which provide for administrative enforcement and fines, while DeLay's PAC violated state election law which provides for criminal penalties as well.

One important difference is that in an administrative proceeding, it really doesn't matter what your state of mind was, while in criminal proceedings, the prosecutor would have to show that DeLay had the requisite state of mind to violate the law.

I don't know if the wrongdoing in Pelosi's case was shady or just shoddy - maybe some of each.  I'm betting no one ran this idea of setting up 2 separate PACs by a lawyer, because I think they would have gotten some pretty clear advice not to do it.

Incidentally, you'll note the FEC complaint was filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a pretty right-wing group.  So it's a "partisan" complaint.  But I don't think it matters, because if you break the law, you break the law.  I'm not in favor of the "ethics truce" in the House even if it protects my party too, because what it really does is protect politicians of both parties from us, the voters who hired them.

I just posted a diary on this topic, where I reach the conclusion that these are practically indistinguishable. Of course, that invites just the comments you've made trying to distinguish them, which is the point, after all.

That said, it will be fascinating if what Delay has done in Texas is criminal, while what Pelosi (or anyone else, anywhere else) has done in California is either administratively forbidden, or downright legal.

From all I've seen about alleged campaign finance violations, they tend to end up as accounting controversies, or at most ethical questions of non-disclosure. Hardly felonious, and certainly not approaching fraud, bribery, bid-rigging or the like.

As for the GOP, deep down, I don't think this episode matters. The Abramoff activities seem dishonourable, and possibly criminal, and what Governor Ryan allegedly did is worthy of imprisonment. I just cannot see anyone making either of those folks into campaign issues that elect any specific candidate.

He was one of the 9 Nay's on that Bill.

What is not there.

Pelosi is the only leader in the House guilty of campaign law violations.

Too bad there are not any Republicans willing to be as sleazy as a typical demohack like Ronnie Earle.

And if we had an agenda driven press that was as radical conservative as the MSM is radical lefty, Pelosi would have been run out years ago.

But then, a conservative press would not be agenda driven and still be conservative.

It would simply be bad, like what we are stuck with now.

...let 'er rip. Pelosi's probably safe in Cali but surely a partisan can be found in Nevada to take down fightin' (ha) Harry Reid. He was gambling commissioner for pete's sake. He's got to be dirty.

All I'm saying is Delay's been out on thin ice for awhile now from what I gather after a few days of reading and I'm glad to see any crook and any crooked politican get caught.

Alls I'm sayin'

Sears, one of the corporate contributors, has been rumored to be cooperating. If they can prove Sears was told how the money would be used, that will be problematic for DeLay if they can prove he knew about it.