Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:40 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:Yeah, he just managed to clip everyone around Clinton. Friends, business associates etc.

Suuuure Bubba wasn't up to anything illegal or unethical. Good thing for him he had the powers of the Presidency available to him and his wife. It sure made it easy to ignore subpoenas, stonewall the investigation and dig up dirt on political enemies.

To say this was just about a blow job is beyond even your accustomed imbecility and intellectual dishonesty.
After 50 million dollars and years of digging, the only thing Starr could pin on Clinton was that he is a serial horn dog.

Which means if his name were Arnold Schwarzenegger, you would have voted for him.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:51 pm
by DrDetroit
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:No alleged wrongdoing vs. Lying to a grand jury
Not sure if you are aware of this, but when a DA gets a grand jury to hand down an indictment, that pretty much means there is an alllegation of wrongdoing.

Fuckin tard.
Uh, no, 'tard. An indictment simply is a notification to an individual of what he/she is being charged with.

What have we heard about indicting a ham?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:53 pm
by DrDetroit
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Lying about a blowjob

:roll:
Starr's investigations resulted in 14 felony convictions including the Governor of Arkansas.

That must have been quite a blowjob...
Funny, the conviction of Jim Guy Tucker had nothing to do with Whitewater or Bill Clinton.

You're giving Starr credit for catching a mess of Perch in a Bass fishing tournament.
But while Abramhoff is linked to DeLay, there is no such reported connection to Pelosi... :?

This Abramhoff stuff has nothing to do with DeLay, yet, DeLay's name keeps being associated with Abramhoff's while Pelosi is not?

Eat a dick.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:55 pm
by DrDetroit
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:Yeah, he just managed to clip everyone around Clinton. Friends, business associates etc.

Suuuure Bubba wasn't up to anything illegal or unethical. Good thing for him he had the powers of the Presidency available to him and his wife. It sure made it easy to ignore subpoenas, stonewall the investigation and dig up dirt on political enemies.

To say this was just about a blow job is beyond even your accustomed imbecility and intellectual dishonesty.
After 50 million dollars and years of digging, the only thing Starr could pin on Clinton was that he is a serial horn dog.

Which means if his name were Arnold Schwarzenegger, you would have voted for him.
Just keep in mind that it was Clinton's own AG who authorized the independent investigation and every expansion of that investigation.

So, don't be crying about how that was a Republican with hunt. It was Reno, on advice from her DoJ staff that felt that the investigation should proceed at every step.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:58 pm
by BSmack
DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:No alleged wrongdoing vs. Lying to a grand jury
Not sure if you are aware of this, but when a DA gets a grand jury to hand down an indictment, that pretty much means there is an alllegation of wrongdoing.

Fuckin tard.
Uh, no, 'tard. An indictment simply is a notification to an individual of what he/she is being charged with.

What have we heard about indicting a ham?
I swear to Christ you're a fucking retard. He has been accused of wrongdoing. An indictment is a notification of that accusation.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:36 pm
by Mikey
Indictment......accusation

Sorry one starts with an i and one starts with an a.
Not the same thing by a long shot.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:32 pm
by Diogenes
Mikey wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:For some reason, the fact that DeLay and his minions are labeling Earle a partisan fanatic brings pots and kettles to mind.
And what does the fact that the same clowns who demonized Ken Starr for doing his job gloss over the track record of political prosecutions by this partsan hack bring to mind?
12 of the 15 prosecutions Earl has brought against public officials have been against Democrats who were opponents of Ann Richards.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:54 pm
by Mikey
She ran against 12 people all at once?
Imagine that.

So where's the "track record of political prosecutions" showing to be a partisan hack?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:34 pm
by Diogenes
Ask Ann Richards and Jim Maddox.

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:41 pm
by Mikey
I'm asking you.
But you obviously, as usual, have nothing.
So never mind.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:34 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Just in case anyone missed it, DeLay has now been indicted a second time. And the stakes are a bit higher for him now -- whereas the first Indictment carried a maximum penalty of two years of incarceration, the latest Indictment contains a charge carrying a maximum sentence of life.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051004/ap_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:40 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Diogenes wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:For some reason, the fact that DeLay and his minions are labeling Earle a partisan fanatic brings pots and kettles to mind.
And what does the fact that the same clowns who demonized Ken Starr for doing his job gloss over the track record of political prosecutions by this partsan hack bring to mind?
Not even close to being comparable.

Earle, in his career, has indicted 11 Democrats and only 4 Republicans. Hell, he even indicted himself once. http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/con ... igate.html

What part of that don't you get?

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:41 pm
by DrDetroit
Terry, I expect a lot better from you than this.
Just in case anyone missed it, DeLay has now been indicted a second time.


Yeah, because the first indictment would have been imeediately dismised as that alleged violation was not illegal at the time it was alleged to have happened.
And the stakes are a bit higher for him now -- whereas the first Indictment carried a maximum penalty of two years of incarceration, the latest Indictment contains a charge carrying a maximum sentence of life.


I'd be concerned if the indictment had any weight to it. How can you "launder" money that is not illegal in the first instance?

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:48 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Earle, in his career, has indicted 11 Democrats and only 4 Republicans.
You think the fact that he has indicted Dems makes him non-partisan?

Yeah...I can't imagine any circumstances under which a partisan hack would ever indict his competi...err fellow Democrats.

:roll:
Two points:

1. Could be wrong about this one, but I don't think he's ever run for anything other than Travis County DA. Considering that one of the people he indicted was a US Congressman, I don't think that guy was out for Earle's job. :roll:

2. He indicted himself once.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:16 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:1. Could be wrong about this one, but I don't think he's ever run for anything other than Travis County DA. Considering that one of the people he indicted was a US Congressman, I don't think that guy was out for Earle's job.
Why do you assume it was his job we're talking about? How about his idiotic indictment of Kay Bailey Hutchison?
Again, AFAIK, he has never run for anything other than Travis County DA. If he wanted to move up, he would have at least tried to do so by now. Do you have any information to the contrary?
2. He indicted himself once.
A pretty solid indication of an attention whoring lunatic.
Not necessarily. Could be that he's trying to immunize himself against precisely the same sort of attacks being leveled against him on this thread.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:35 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:the latest Indictment contains a charge carrying a maximum sentence of life.
Since when are political donations "proceeds of criminal activity"?

Can you say MSJ?
Actually, a Motion for Summary Judgment applies only in civil cases. DeLay could make a Motion for a Dismissal, however.

Of course, judges are sometimes reluctant to grant those in criminal cases, even where they're fairly well grounded in law. One reason is that they often trust juries to reach the same conclusion. And while the prosecution can appeal the granting of a Motion to Dismiss, it cannot appeal an acquittal.

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:55 pm
by Risa
so... this is perfectly legal?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_ ... MlJVRPUCUl



DeLay, Successor Blunt Swapped Donations

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers
Thu Oct 6, 7:48 AM ET



WASHINGTON - Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.

When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.

The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.

Blunt last week temporarily replaced DeLay as House majority leader, and Blunt's son, Matt, has now risen to Missouri's governor.

The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.

"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.

None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.

DeLay has temporarily stepped aside as majority leader after being indicted by a Texas prosecutor.

Spokesmen for the two Republican leaders say they disclosed what was required by law at the time and believe all their transactions were legal, though donors might not always have know where their money was headed.

"It illustrates what others have said, that money gets transferred all the time. This was disclosed to the extent required to be disclosed by applicable law," said Don McGahn, a lawyer for DeLay. "It just shows that donors don't control funds once they're given."

Blunt and DeLay planned all along to raise more money than was needed for the convention parties and then route some of that to other causes, such as supporting state candidates, said longtime Blunt aide Gregg Hartley.

"We put together a budget for what we thought we would raise and spend on the convention and whatever was left over we were going to use to support candidates," said Hartley, Blunt's former chief of staff who answered AP's questions on behalf of Blunt.

Hartley said he saw no similarity to the Texas case. The fact that DeLay's charity, Christine DeLay's consulting firm and Blunt's son were beneficiaries was a coincidence, Hartley said.

Much of the money — including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a "sweatshop" garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands — changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.

During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.

Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.

Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.

"You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest," he said. "And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.

"All of these transactions may have strings attached to them. ... I think you would want to look, if you aren't already looking, at the question of a quid pro quo," Noble said.

Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House.

The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny.

DeLay's convention fundraising arm, part of his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC), collected large corporate donations to help wine and dine Republican VIPs during the presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia in late summer 2000. DeLay's group has declined to identify any of the donors.

Blunt's group, a nonfederal wing of his Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, eventually registered its activities in Missouri but paid a $3,000 fine for improperly concealing its fundraising in 1999 and spring 2000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records.

Both groups — DeLay's and Blunt's — were simultaneously paying Ellis, the longtime DeLay fundraiser who was indicted along with his boss in Texas in the alleged money laundering scheme.

The DeLay group began transferring money to Blunt's group in two checks totaling $150,000 in the spring of 2000, well before Republicans actually met in Philadelphia for the convention. The transfers accounted for most of money Blunt's group received during that period.

DeLay's convention arm sent $50,000 on March 31, 2000. Eight days later, the Blunt group made a $10,000 donation to DeLay's private charity for children on April 7, 2000, and began the first of several payments totaling $40,000 to a northern Virginia-based political consulting firm formed by DeLay's former chief of staff, Ed Buckham.

That consulting firm at the time also employed DeLay's wife, Christine, according to DeLay's ethics disclosure report to Congress.

Hartley said Blunt was unaware that Mrs. DeLay worked at the firm when he made the payments, and that she had nothing to do with Blunt's group.

On April 14, 2000, Concorde Garment Manufacturing, based in the Northern Marianas Islands that was part of Abramoff's lobbying coalition, contributed $3,000 to Blunt's group.

Hartley said the donation was delivered during a weekend of fundraising activities by Blunt and DeLay but his boss did not know who solicited it.

Concorde, derided for years in lawsuits as a Pacific island sweatshop, paid a $9 million penalty to the U.S. government in the 1990s for failing to pay workers' overtime. The company was visited by DeLay.

The company was a key member of the Marianas garment industry that the islands' government was trying to protect when it hired Abramoff to lobby DeLay, Blunt and others to keep Congress from imposing tougher wage and tax standards on the islands.

After the November 2000 election, Abramoff's firm billed its Mariana Islands clients for at least one meeting with Blunt and three meetings with Blunt's staff, billing records show. Abramoff's team also reported several meetings with DeLay and his staff on the issue, including one during the presidential convention.

On May 24, 2000 — just before DeLay left with Abramoff for the Scottish golfing trip — DeLay's convention fundraising group transferred $100,000 more to Blunt's group. Within three weeks, Blunt turned around and donated the same amount to the Missouri Republican Party.

The next month, the state GOP began spending large amounts of money to help Blunt's son, Matt, in his successful campaign to become Missouri secretary of state. On July 25, 2000, the state GOP made its first expenditure for the younger Blunt, totaling just over $11,000. By election day, that figure had grown to more than $160,000.

Hartley said Blunt always liked to help the state party and the fact that his son got party help after his donation was a coincidence. "They are unrelated activities," he said.

Exchanges of donations occurred again in the fall. Just a few days before the November election, DeLay's ARMPAC gave $50,000 to the Missouri GOP. A month later, the Missouri GOP sent $50,000 to DeLay's group.

___

Associated Press Writer David Lieb in Missouri contributed to this story.

On the Net:

Documents for this story are available at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/delay/index.html


didn't the red cross get in trouble for taking money that was earmarked for 9/11 issues and spreading the wealth to other programs, particularly those overseas, without telling donors that was what was going to be done with the money?

I don't know, man. I'd feel bamboozled if some dude was fundraising, I sent him money -- and then he used the money for other purposes, without telling me, the donor he was doing so.


why not just fundraise legitimately for second dude?

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:29 pm
by See You Next Wednesday
mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Of course, judges are sometimes reluctant to grant those in criminal cases, even where they're fairly well grounded in law.
I doubt it will be a problem in this case seeing as how the indictments are not "fairly well grounded in law".

The second indictment came down because the first is already on the way into the garbage can.
It is both political and DeLayis guilty. It is political because all politicians do this crap and DeLay was caught and probably investigated because he is a high-profile Repub. But make no mistake, he is guilty guilty guilty.

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:07 pm
by Risa
mvscal wrote:If you say so....

:roll:
This doesn't mean anything?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01903.html
DeLay Meeting, RNC Actions Coincided
Financial Transactions Began on Day Texan Met With Fundraiser

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; Page A05

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) met for at least 30 minutes with the top fundraiser of his Texas political action committee on Oct. 2, 2002, the same day that the Republican National Committee in Washington set in motion a series of financial transactions at the heart of the money-laundering and conspiracy case against DeLay.

During the meeting at his Capitol office, DeLay conferred with James W. Ellis, the head of his principal fundraising committee in Washington and his chief fundraiser in Texas. Ellis had earlier given the Republican National Committee a check for $190,000 drawn mostly from corporate contributions. The same day as the meeting, the RNC ordered $190,000 worth of checks sent to seven Republican legislative candidates in Texas.

In the past two weeks, two separate Texas grand juries have returned indictments against DeLay, Ellis and a political associate alleging that these transactions amounted to money laundering intended to circumvent a Texas campaign law barring the use of corporate funds for state election purposes. The aim of the alleged scheme was to ensure that Republicans gain control of the Texas House, and thus reorder the state's congressional districts in a manner favoring the election of more Republicans to Congress.

The prosecutor who brought the indictment, Ronnie Earle, has not described the evidence he presented to the grand jury linking DeLay to the $190,000 transactions. But the fact that DeLay and his alleged co-conspirator, fundraiser Ellis, conferred on the same day the checks were ordered has attracted the attention of lawyers involved in the case because of speculation that the two men shared important information that day.

To prove that DeLay participated in money laundering or in a conspiracy to conduct it -- the two allegations in the felony indictment brought against DeLay on Monday morning -- Earle will have to prove two things, according to lawyers who are closely following the case: The transactions involving the $190,000 were illegal, and DeLay played some critical role, by approving them or by helping to carry them out.

DeLay and Ellis have so far given slightly different accounts of the substance of their discussion. Ellis's attorney, Jonathan D. Pauerstein, said that Ellis recalls that their Oct. 2 discussion did not concern or involve Texas or Texas candidates. But DeLay, interviewed last weekend on "Fox News Sunday," said that during a "scheduling meeting" with Ellis in October, Ellis said while they were leaving his office that "by the way, we sent money" to Washington.

DeLay's lead attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said in an interview this week that "there is no question that at some point Ellis told him," but that DeLay does not recall the precise timing. DeGuerin said "it could have been that day" -- Oct. 2, the day the same arm of the RNC began to process the seven checks for printing two days later, on Oct. 4.

But DeGuerin said that this does not mean DeLay was "the one who made those decisions" about collecting the funds, sending them to Washington and returning the same total amount to candidates in Texas. "It wasn't his role or his authority" because DeLay was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the committee.

Ellis, who still directs DeLay's Washington-based Americans for a Republican Majority political action committee (ARMPAC), "is the kind of guy who would say, 'I did this, how about that?' " according to DeGuerin. DeLay may have responded, DeGuerin said, by saying, "Hey, that's great," but "that does not make him a part of the agreement to do that."

In the indictment, the grand jury accused DeLay, Ellis and John Colyandro -- then the director of Texans for a Republican Majority, an ARMPAC offshoot -- of agreeing with the Republican National Committee to conduct the offense of money laundering and set forth a sequence of key events that began on Sept. 11, 2002. It alleges that Ellis "did request and propose" on that day that an arm of the RNC make the payments to Texas Republicans once it had received the check from Texas.

The next day, according to the indictment, Ellis delivered the check to the Republican National State Elections Committee, an arm of the RNC, and also provided it "with a document that contained the names of several candidates." He also "requested and proposed" how much each candidate should receive, the indictment said.

Earle has never disclosed the evidence behind these allegations, and Ellis, through his lawyer Pauerstein, denies this account. Pauerstein says that Ellis did not discuss donations to candidates while delivering the check, and that he did not "deliver the list, if there was a list," of the candidates that should receive checks.

According to documents disclosed earlier this year in a civil trial related to the same transactions, a staff member in the office of then-RNC Chairman Marc Racicot requested on Oct. 2 that checks be sent to the Texas Republicans. The next day, Racicot arrived in Texas to appear at a series of fundraising events organized by Texans for a Republican Majority, including a dinner with Gov. Rick Perry, a DeLay ally. With the approval of the RNC's lawyers and political directors, the checks were written and sent to Texas on Oct. 4.

The RNC has denied any wrongdoing and has asserted that all the transactions were legal.

Although the indictment alleges that DeLay and his two aides "conducted, supervised, and facilitated" the transactions, DeLay said last weekend, about the $190,000 sent from Texas to Washington, that "there was no way that I knew before this event happened that it would happen." Earle would need to prove otherwise to sustain his case.

DeLay, one of the most powerful politicians in Washington, was forced under House GOP rules to step down as majority leader on Sept. 28 after his first indictment.

Is this legal or not?

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:14 pm
by Risa
edited wrong post above, before figuring out it was the wrong post. my apologies.

the site i copped the article from is

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/7/24725/7441

How baseless are those charges now, Tom?
by kos
Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 23:47:25 PDT

Earle has himself a heck of a case.

Jesus, they didn't even bother to try to hide it well. This kind of hubris is mind-boggling. To be clear -- Texas law prohibits donations from corporations. So DeLay and company sent the corporate cash to the RNC, which then cut a check for those candidates in Texas. The texbook definition of money laundering.

And DeLay is going to talk about "baseless" accusations, and an out-of-control prosecutor? While Earle still has to prove that DeLay had a role in the transaction, his heavy involvement in TRMPAC affairs, as shown by these memos, will obviously be part of the evidence. If DeLay is obsessing over the guest list at the PACs events, and taking possession of corporate contributions (as shown in these memos), it's not a stretch that he'd have a role in a $190,000 transaction going through the national Republican Party in DC. Especially since he just happened to meet with his PAC's top money guy that very same day.

Earle may still have a tough case to prove, but talk about a "weak case" and "baseless" and "witch hunt" and the other stuff is now clearly bunk. Money laundering clearly took place. People will likely go to jail. The case against DeLay is legit. Enough to send him to jail? We'll see. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high standard to meet, and DeLay will have the best lawyers money can buy to suggest all manners of "doubt" to the jurors. But the case is definitely legit.

::

so is kos talking out of his ass on this one, still, mvscal? also, the link for 'these memos' pulls up a .pdf file, with 7 pages worth of images purporting to be official memos and emails.

is this still a case of making a mountain out of molehill? :?