Jump to content

House Repigs Change Rules to Shield Kommandant Delay


BewareofNick
This topic is 6586 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

House GOP change rules to shield DeLay[/font size]

 

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 Posted: 1:33 PM EST (1833 GMT)

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans approved a party rules change Wednesday that could allow Majority leader Tom DeLay to retain his leadership post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury on state political corruption charges.

 

By a voice vote, and with a handful of lawmakers voicing opposition, the House Republican Conference decided that a party committee of several dozen members would review any felony indictment of a party leader and recommend at that time whether the leader should step aside.

 

The current party rule in this area requires House Republican leaders and the heads of the various committees to relinquish their positions if indicted for a crime that could bring a prison term of at least two years.

 

It makes no distinction between a federal and state indictment.

 

Three of DeLay's political associates already have been indicted by that Texas grand jury.

 

Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, said that under the change embraced Wednesday, the House Republican Steering Committee would have 30 legislative days to review a felony indictment and recommend to all House Republicans whether a lawmaker who is charged could remain as a committee chairman or leader.

 

There is no indication that DeLay will be indicted in connection with a Travis County, Texas, campaign finance investigation.

 

But the majority leader has called the probe a partisan attack on him.

 

Bonilla said there was no vote count taken in the closed meeting but said the proposal passed overwhelmingly.

 

"This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" party leaders and make a name for himself, Bonilla said.

 

Lawmakers said that DeLay did not publicly push for the change and did not participate in the closed-door debate which lasted several hours.

 

Bonilla said the leader would not have to step aside while fellow party members considered whether an indictment was frivolous.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/17/delay.ap/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I want rid of DeLay, and it is an extemely lot that I do, I have to agree with one point he made this morning on the TV. In the USA, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Since indicting is merely the bringing of charges - I think, Correct me if I'm wrong - then this rule change might have some validity. Now we can all start praying that he'll be actually convicted of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had this been a Democratic majority leader, and the Democrats proposed changing the rules, the Repigs would be having a field day with this all over the radio. This is what facism is all about: changing the rules as you go. That's why they want to change the rules in the Senate to require only 51 votes to override a filibuster. Power corrupts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Since indicting is merely the bringing of charges - I think,

>Correct me if I'm wrong - then this rule change might have

>some validity. Now we can all start praying that he'll be

>actually convicted of something.

 

That won't matter; they'll create a new rule that says you can be convicted of a felony and still be Majority Leader or President or whatever. And as for DeLay "merely" being indicted, it was DeLay who'd created the very rule they just changed...back in 1993, to oust a Democrat (Dan Rostenkowski, then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee) who had been "merely" indicted. It's sheer hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Much as I want rid of DeLay, and it is an extemely lot that I

>do, I have to agree with one point he made this morning on the

>TV. In the USA, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

>Since indicting is merely the bringing of charges - I think,

>Correct me if I'm wrong - then this rule change might have

>some validity. Now we can all start praying that he'll be

>actually convicted of something.

 

I agree with the "person is innocent until proven guilty". However, the history of this bill sheds a different light on it. This law was enacted 10 years ago, by Republicans, when a Democrat (I forget who) was under indictment. So, it's OK for Dems to not hold a power position when indicted, but, for Republicans, the rule is "innocent until proven guilty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's sheer hypocrisy."

 

Is that the same as "hypoChristsy"? :(

 

Can we take a moment to assess the actions since the election?

 

The only, at least imo, honest, trustworthy, intelligent person in the GWB cabinet, Colin Powell has resigned. Of course, he has been the most ineffectual Secy of State, ever, since he voiced the only dissenting vote against GWB'S "preemptive strike stance" in the war against terrorism by illegally invading Iraq. If he was white, GWB would have fired him 3 years ago, but I can't fathom why Powell hung in there for the full 4 years of GWB, unless, perhaps, he thought GWB was going to lose the '04 election.

 

Not to mention the backstabbing war going on at the CIA! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...