Boards > Current Events > NEWS: Congress Protects Its Own

YAWG

Victoria, BC

November 2003

NOV 19, 2004 05:12 PM

Personally, I think a politician should do the honorable thing and step down on their own accord. If you're indicted the prosecution must feel it's got a pretty strong case against you and that in itself would cause people to question your innocence. If you get cleared of all wrong doing, no harm done and you can go back to work.
This, dare I say, flip flop sure is a little suspicious but really not suprising given that it's happened through out history the world over.

FermatsEnigma

USA

August 2004

NOV 19, 2004 05:16 PM

s5 said:
you're not making your point very clearly. so he lost his law license. so what, exactly? clinton received his due process, he was cleared of the charges, and life went on.

in any case, do you have something to say in defense of tom delay, or are you just going to distract the issue by talking about clinton? because if so, we can also turn this into a thread about joey buttafuoco.

If you say Bill Clinton lying about the BJ is no big deal you are infact saying that Paula Jones is not entitled to her day in court or her due process and that some people are above the the law. He lied in a depostion that ultimately led to summary dismmisal. He wasn't cleared of charges. That is attested to by the finding of fact. He was never tried.

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

NOV 19, 2004 05:18 PM

Tannhauser said:
If you say Bill Clinton lying about the BJ is no big deal you are infact saying that Paula Jones is not entitled to her day in court or her due process and that some people are above the the law. He lied in a depostion that ultimately led to summary dismmisal. He wasn't cleared of charges. That is attested to by the finding of fact. He was never tried.

which has absolutely nothing to do with this:

You are missing the point. The Democrats didnt attempt to change the rules after the during Clintons scandal. The Republicans are trying to change the ethics rule that would force DeLay to resign his leadership position if he is indicted. A rule that was created to force Democrat Dan Rostenkowskis resignation in 1993. Wanna guess who led the charge to put that rule in place? Tom DeLay. So this issue just isnt his severe ethical (and likely criminal conduct) but also the duplicity of DeLay and GOP to change the rules when they might not favor them.

Lit_the_Filter

Tacoma, WA

August 2004

NOV 19, 2004 07:54 PM

So a felon can't vote, but he could serve in Congress?

Interesting system we got.

And yes, I understand - DeLay hasn't been convicted.

Lit_the_Filter

Tacoma, WA

August 2004

NOV 19, 2004 07:56 PM

So a felon can't vote, but he could serve in Congress?

Interesting system we got.

And yes, I understand - DeLay hasn't been convicted.

Lit_the_Filter

Tacoma, WA

August 2004

NOV 19, 2004 07:59 PM

So a felon can't vote, but he could serve in Congress?

Interesting system we got.

And yes, I understand - DeLay hasn't been convicted.

mattthegoon

Virginia Beach, VA

July 2002

NOV 20, 2004 03:44 AM

TRIPLE POST---ROCK!!!

FermatsEnigma

USA

August 2004

NOV 20, 2004 05:12 AM

Lit_the_Filter said:
So a felon can't vote, but he could serve in Congress?

Interesting system we got.

And yes, I understand - DeLay hasn't been convicted.

Can you say echo?

FermatsEnigma

USA

August 2004

NOV 20, 2004 05:14 AM

s5 said:

Tannhauser said:
If you say Bill Clinton lying about the BJ is no big deal you are infact saying that Paula Jones is not entitled to her day in court or her due process and that some people are above the the law. He lied in a depostion that ultimately led to summary dismmisal. He wasn't cleared of charges. That is attested to by the finding of fact. He was never tried.

which has absolutely nothing to do with this:

You are missing the point. The Democrats didnt attempt to change the rules after the during Clintons scandal. The Republicans are trying to change the ethics rule that would force DeLay to resign his leadership position if he is indicted. A rule that was created to force Democrat Dan Rostenkowskis resignation in 1993. Wanna guess who led the charge to put that rule in place? Tom DeLay. So this issue just isnt his severe ethical (and likely criminal conduct) but also the duplicity of DeLay and GOP to change the rules when they might not favor them.

The democrats controlled the house until the 94 election

St_Expedite

New Orleans, LA

January 2004

NOV 20, 2004 05:49 AM

Tannhauser said:

s5 said:

Tannhauser said:
If you say Bill Clinton lying about the BJ is no big deal you are infact saying that Paula Jones is not entitled to her day in court or her due process and that some people are above the the law. He lied in a depostion that ultimately led to summary dismmisal. He wasn't cleared of charges. That is attested to by the finding of fact. He was never tried.

which has absolutely nothing to do with this:

You are missing the point. The Democrats didnt attempt to change the rules after the during Clintons scandal. The Republicans are trying to change the ethics rule that would force DeLay to resign his leadership position if he is indicted. A rule that was created to force Democrat Dan Rostenkowskis resignation in 1993. Wanna guess who led the charge to put that rule in place? Tom DeLay. So this issue just isnt his severe ethical (and likely criminal conduct) but also the duplicity of DeLay and GOP to change the rules when they might not favor them.

The democrats controlled the house until the 94 election

You do realize that if the entire Democratic house caucus was caught smoking crack in the rotunda, that wouldn't make this rule-changing any less hypocritical, don't you?

You also don't understand how the House Rules work. Each party caucus makes their own rules governing that party in the house-- in other words, the democratic caucus can't use their rules to force DeLay to resign. The Great Gazoo could have controlled the house at the time but each party still gets to make the rules to govern themselves, regardless of how many seats they hold.

The GOP adopted this rule within their own caucus in 1993 so they could claim that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as Rostenkowski. Tom DeLay led the charge for adopting this rule within his own party so the Republicans could say, "Look at how honest, law-abiding and upstanding we are." And now, well, it looks like they're not. So rather than abide by the rule that they thought was so important to have in the first place, they're changing it because it's going to make one of their leaders look bad.

[Edited on Nov 20, 2004 by Lemonnier]

rottenart

Norman, OK

February 2004

NOV 21, 2004 12:44 AM

Lemonnier said:

Tannhauser said:

s5 said:

Tannhauser said:
If you say Bill Clinton lying about the BJ is no big deal you are infact saying that Paula Jones is not entitled to her day in court or her due process and that some people are above the the law. He lied in a depostion that ultimately led to summary dismmisal. He wasn't cleared of charges. That is attested to by the finding of fact. He was never tried.

which has absolutely nothing to do with this:

You are missing the point. The Democrats didnt attempt to change the rules after the during Clintons scandal. The Republicans are trying to change the ethics rule that would force DeLay to resign his leadership position if he is indicted. A rule that was created to force Democrat Dan Rostenkowskis resignation in 1993. Wanna guess who led the charge to put that rule in place? Tom DeLay. So this issue just isnt his severe ethical (and likely criminal conduct) but also the duplicity of DeLay and GOP to change the rules when they might not favor them.

The democrats controlled the house until the 94 election

You do realize that if the entire Democratic house caucus was caught smoking crack in the rotunda, that wouldn't make this rule-changing any less hypocritical, don't you?

You also don't understand how the House Rules work. Each party caucus makes their own rules governing that party in the house-- in other words, the democratic caucus can't use their rules to force DeLay to resign. The Great Gazoo could have controlled the house at the time but each party still gets to make the rules to govern themselves, regardless of how many seats they hold.

The GOP adopted this rule within their own caucus in 1993 so they could claim that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as Rostenkowski. Tom DeLay led the charge for adopting this rule within his own party so the Republicans could say, "Look at how honest, law-abiding and upstanding we are." And now, well, it looks like they're not. So rather than abide by the rule that they thought was so important to have in the first place, they're changing it because it's going to make one of their leaders look bad.

[Edited on Nov 20, 2004 by Lemonnier]

ding, i say...DING!

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

Victoria, BC

November 2003

NOV 19, 2004 05:12 PM

USA

August 2004

NOV 19, 2004 05:16 PM

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

NOV 19, 2004 05:18 PM

Tacoma, WA

August 2004

NOV 19, 2004 07:54 PM

Tacoma, WA

August 2004

NOV 19, 2004 07:56 PM

Tacoma, WA

August 2004

NOV 19, 2004 07:59 PM

Virginia Beach, VA

July 2002

NOV 20, 2004 03:44 AM

USA

August 2004

NOV 20, 2004 05:12 AM

USA

August 2004

NOV 20, 2004 05:14 AM

New Orleans, LA

January 2004

NOV 20, 2004 05:49 AM

Norman, OK

February 2004

NOV 21, 2004 12:44 AM