Republicans reverse themselves on ethics rules

[Newsjock]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/01/03/national1956EST0651.DTL

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstating a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury.

The surprise dual decisions were made by Speaker Dennis Hastert and by DeLay -- who asked GOP colleagues to undo the extreme act of loyalty they handed him in November. Then, Republicans changed a party rule, so DeLay could have retained his leadership post if indicted by the grand jury in Austin that charged three of the Texas Republican's associates.

When Republicans began their closed-door meeting Monday night, leaders were considering a rules change that would have made it tougher to rebuke a House member for misconduct. The proposal would have required a more specific finding of ethical violations than is now required.

Republicans gave no indication before the meeting that the indictment rule would be changed. Even more surprising was DeLay's decision to make the proposal himself.

more

[Mr_Spock]

1. Huh?

What's that all about?

[Mr.Green93]

4. Means Delay will

not be indicted.

[Mr_Spock]

12. Yeah, that thought immediately crossed my mind

They're getting rather transparent these days aren't they?

[jdj]

47. did you have to pee on my rainbow so soon?

couldn't I have a five-second "Yay!" before the truth sinks in?

[spotbird]

13. My thought exactly.

Delay has inside information that he's off the hook.

[rainbow4321]

42. DailyDelay webpage gives frequent updates

Maybe the reversal is related to the two companies that have had charges dropped against them in return for helping with Travis County's case?? Sears did so this past week..I forget the other company but they did the same a few weeks ago.
If things are starting to turn against Delay then maybe the repukes are ready to cut him loose?? Here is a webpage that seems to give frequent updates on the Delay case....

http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/

[merh]

69. My thoughts exactly.

We shall see.

[mistertrickster]

76. Right, it either means that Delay is doomed and knows it, or that he

is sprung and he knows it.

Either way, it had nothing to do with actual ethics. Heh.

[Demeter]

88. I Wouldn't Bet the Farm

Occasionally, a Republican does bite the bullet, take the bullet, and go down (to be resurrected in the Cabinet, or the Federal bench, or some other, less vulnerable spot). Consider John Ashcroft, defeated by a dead man in Missouri, of all places!

[Maestro]

71. That was my first thought too

This is not anyting noble or honorable. It's DeLay playing and repukes playing the system.

[Not_Giving_Up]

92. Actually, it means that he can be indicted

And still keep his job.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. Deleted on edit

[goodboy]

3. I'm confused. So, if he's indicted he's gone?

[sabbat hunter]

6. if indicted

he has to step down from his leadership postion. doenst mean he wont be a puppet master ruling from behind the scenes

david

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. And if he is aquitted

he can try to get his old job back.

[pa28]

5. Delay must be off the hook. n/t

[short bus president]

7. I thought they were gonna do it.

Guy on NPR this afternoon (Broder, I think?) seemed to think it was a done deal.

[hraka]

96. What, like the accuracy of the exit polls?

[stevedeshazer]

8. Flip-floppers!

[SemperEadem]

17. exactly!!!

that's what I said when I read it, too...

Those involved should hear about it when it comes time for their re-elections. Not a one should be able to skate away from not 'staying the course, no matter what the issue is'. Changing one's mind is called flip-flopping--the rethugs made that abundantly clear during the presidential campaign.

[Califooyah Operative]

91. Amen. and isn't republican ethics an oxymoron? nt

[Not_Giving_Up]

94. They didn't flip flop

They're still covering his ass, just in a different way!!!!

[Solly Mack]

9. Means a deal was struck (somewhere/somehow)and Delay won't be indicted

[elfin]

10. Either they know they have squelched

the prosecutor and there will be no indictments - or Reps turned on him and told Hastert they wouldn't support the changes. I know I wrote my rep - Sensenbrenner. Usually I get a pro forma response, but this time am still waiting.

[mountainvue]

11. Can we indict DeLay now? n/t

[goforit]

14. I smell a rat!!!

Watch out America.

[Nikepallas]

15. Guess they are giving themselves the get out of jail free monoply card

They can now break laws and because they are in Congress they are untouchable. Now we are going to see the death of the founding fathers' dream

[salin]

16. Perhaps they finally realized how awful they were starting to look

awful to their "morality"-based base. I would think this was all this is about if they were just reversing their plan to completely relax the rules... but also reversing the DeLay rule - with HIS support... I am guessing means that there is something brewing behind the scenes that DeLay knows and we don't.

But the backing off of the whole new package (relaxing the so-called "sleeze rule") is possibly important... in that it may be a sign that even they realize that there are boundaries per how far they push even though they control everything.

[Merlot]

18. Changing the rules like this was indefensible

even for repubs. What's more, the average person could now figure out what's going on. Article about it in the LAT today, how they were going to change the rules for the bugman. It was pretty obvious they were going to get flack for it.

But I also agree they woudn't have backtracked if there wasn't a deal struck so that bugman dosen't get indicted.

[librechik]

20. (sigh) if only...

I actually was thinking "Wha...are we getting our country back???" which was immediately doused with the coldwater common sense of all the "Delay won't get indicted" threads. Like a nice little dream popped out of existence in my brain.

:think:

[tsuki]

23. HaHaHaHa. Best laugh that I have had today. As if they cared

if they look awful to anyone.

More likely, the fix is in. His aides drank of the Kool Aid (I would say they fell on their swords, but that is an act of honor.)

[salin]

24. bit of both

the reversal of the bugman rule suggests that yes, the fix is in.

But don't you think if they could pass the other rule (and exlude themselves from future embarassment) that they would? Of course they would. The boundaries for them are much further out than they have been in my lifetime (what they can get away with without expecting any backlash) - but were there no bounds they would have gone forward as planned.... maybe backtracked on the DeLay rule (due to a fix being in) but giving each of themselves cover...

[baby_bear]

19. Don't you think it has to do with Pelosi? They want her head.

I was curious this weekend when I read both that the Repugs want to weaken the ethics rules to make it harder to initiate ethics investigations, while at the same time salivating over the prospect of nailing Pelosi on some campaign ethics accusation.

So, perhaps they realized they can't have it both ways at once, and will try to nail Pelosi, then change the rules.

That's my guess.

b_b

[Imalittleteapot]

22. My first thought also.

It occurred to me that they may have inside information that DeLay will not be indicted or that the procedure will be delayed. If so, they can go hard after Pelosi with DeLay leading the attact. Then, change the rules, just in case.

[dannynyc]

28. My first thought, also

How can they go after Pelosi if they've killed the ethics rules?

[cyberpj]

45. YES! AND LOOK WHO'S TALKING TRASH ABOUT PELOSI-

I think there was too much DeLay evidence so if he has to go they're taking someone with them. But look who's quoted here on ethics!

HA HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ..............

Republicans seek complaint against minority leader
By Alexander Bolton

A group of House Republican lawmakers, stewing over a Democratic ethics complaint filed against Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), is pressing for the GOP to file a reciprocal complaint against Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for violating campaign-finance law.

<clip>

“We have people in our conference who want to go after Nancy Pelosi, who has violated federal election law and has been fined,” said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who was a critic of the ethics committee and a strong defender of DeLay during the ethics controversy that embroiled him before the election.

“To the extent that she’s violated federal law, she’s brought into question the integrity of the House,” Feeney said. “We have members who would love to see us retaliate by going after Nancy Pelosi.” Feeney declined to name members who want to target Pelosi.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121504/ethics.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

64. Feeney and Delay are two very scary guys.

Well, after Rove & Cheney, of course.

My thoughts about this is that DeLay will get indicted, because, if he doesn't it will look worse. Means someone has been bought off in the investigation process. It would just be too flamboyantly arrogant to have both sets of circumstances: (1) Benefit from a deal that stops the indictment AND (2) personally be involved with an ethics reversal that allows them to get to Pelosi.

[aquart]

80. FEENEY????????????

Little hatchet boy will stick at nothing. God, what a corrupt and slimy toad he is.

[hraka]

98. The "integrity of the House"?

What a laugh!

[CAcyclist]

74. And if they get Pelosi, they also get Kevin Shelley and California

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/04/MNGQFAKROG1.DTL

"Soaries, who served a one-year term as chairman at the newly created agency, is being replaced by Hillman, a Democratic appointee, as part of a normal one-year rotation. Hillman's nomination was recommended by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco."

"Shelley got a vote of confidence from one powerful ally Monday, fellow San Franciscan Pelosi, who said she does not believe the state auditor general's report indicated a misuse of federal money."


The republicans are building a case against Kevin Shelley out of basically nothing, which is what you find if you read past the hype and hyperbole in these Chronicle stories and just sift out the facts. If they can smear Pelosi, then they can say that her support of Shelley is likewise suspect, which would be a total lie, but this is where I'm seeing them head with this. If the repubs succeed in getting rid of Shelley, then the no paper-trail Diebold machines will come back and California's votes will mysteriously turn republican.

[Dem2theMax]

21. Something is either

OR

[Fridays Child]

25. DeLay has dirt on everyone--he's a latter day J. Edgar Hoover.

He probably created the rule to protect himself just long enough to blackmail some prosecutors and Grand Jury members. Taking a bullet for the team, my ass.

[hraka]

99. Yeah, well Hoover wore dresses.

What's in DeLay's closet?

[AmerDem]

26. simple, the fix is in

The scum bag won't be indicted. A behind closed doors deal has been worked out and repukes wont lose face by lightening the rules to protect him. There is no other explanation.

[raysr]

27. They want to get

McDermott is why!

[AmerDem]

33. if they want to get to

McDermott or Pelosi they had to have assurance nothing was going to happen to cockroach DeLay. If they know DeLay will walk away they will focus on whoever it was they were shooting for. Whoever they try to go after it wont go easy and it won't be pretty. Many people in out party are at the breaking point with these fascist bastards.

[zann725]

52. A 'closed door' Repug meeting. Are Dem's included in anything?

Sad.

[piece sine]

56. Come on...

The Dems will be allowed to attend the State of Union Address after the Inaugural.

[peterh]

29. Personally….I think the only thing one can read into this…

Is that the new chair of the ethics committee is a Texas critter close to the bugman and it’s all about appearances….they’ll pursue violations on repugs with their knuckles dragging while cases like McDurmotts (sp?) will have a great deal of zeal to it….it’s all smoke and mirrors….something to let Faux pass on to the blind…

I also don’t think the bugman is free and clear yet…just a hunch….

[Liberty Belle]

30. They're doing it because they're going after Nancy Pelosi.

I saw something earlier about this in another thread. They can't nail her on ethical violations under the changed rule. I'll bet they got Delay off the hook for his indictment, so now they can change the rules, look like they're honest, when actually they just want to crucify the Democratic minority leader.

[sonias]

31. I agree with Mr.Green93 (post #4)

It absolutely means DeLay is not going to be indicted in the illegal corporate finance case in Austin, TX. It was going to be a stretch anyway to get DeLay. His other cronies may still be convicted, they're the ones that have been charged already. The main reason District Attorney Ronnie Earle could not file a charge against DeLay was that he does not have the jurisdiction over DeLay. The crimes he is trying can be proved to have occurred in Travis and each of the defendants charged have legal residences or leased apartments to give him that jurisdiction. It was always going to be tough to hang it on DeLay even if he is a crook. Earle just doesn't have jurisdiction on DeLay directly, he's not the State Attorney General and our State Attorney General is a repuke who wouldn't go after DeLay no matter what.

Justice will prevail some day, and DeLay will get his jail term sometime in our life time.

Sonia

[Mist]

53. Why can't Delay be prosecuted in Texas?

I read that the TX Rethugs were trying to change the law so that that Earle couldn't prosecute Delay, but didn't think that had actually been changed yet. If Delay broke the law in the county in which Earle has jurisdiction, why can't Earle prosecute? (I really want to believe -someone- can shut down Bugman!)

[Not_Giving_Up]

97. As far as I know, he still can

Maybe I missed something though. The question here is, when he gets indicted, does he get to keep his job?

[wicket]

32. FLIP FLOP! FLIP FLOP! FLIP FLOP!!!!

Bwahahahaahahaha!!!!

:kick:

[stevedeshazer]

39. See post #8

[wicket]

41. heh

:thumbsup:

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

34. Democracy in action? Calls placed to House Repubs re: ethics...

I was one of the people in PA who actually called my representative after I learned she was one of the secret voters in support of Delay. I told them that, as a Republican in a state that supported Kerry, I found the changing of the rules to protect one of their own 'hypocritical' and it showed a double-standard. The person I spoke to at the DC office was courteous and actually spent time with me on the phone seemingly concerned that I was a constituent who was knowledgeable about the Delay situation. I didn't tell them where I obtained my info.

I credit DU for keeping me informed and making me aware of the secret vote. Thanks DU.

[Kenergy]

35. Thank you Mod for being objective and fair n/t

[rodeodance]

36. get maybe they got a conscious? --Nooooo--I was just being silly!!

[two gun sid]

37. Headline should read...

DeLay Probe Ended

[jdj]

86. or Delay End Probed.

[Swamp Rat]

38. They are getting ready to hammer some Dems like McDermott and Pelosi.

The fix is in for DeLay and now they will try to destroy the Dems once and for all in the coming political blitzkrieg.

[chaumont58]

40. Its funny how many people think the fix is in!

The repukes move is so god damn transparant that if we had a trully independent press corpse, they would be on it like stink on Cheney.
As it is only the Dems will get to laugh. The repukes and the beltway press whores will be so solemn with saying how great their love for democracy and the rule of law.
Got any bridges you want sold?

[pdxmom]

57. There's no way they would have agreed to this

if it wasn't to their advantage. Something besides their arms are up their collective sleeves.

[Thor_MN]

43. Glass half full, they have given up on getting bugkiller off.

Don't know why I'm optimistic on this, but maybe the inside track is that he's toast and it's not worth the price to try to change rules to save him.

Then again, maybe they already planted enough severed horseheads to know that it's all going to wash away and don't need to prove what hypocrits they are.

[cyberpj]

44. Barrrrf! Did you keep reading the article ?!

They're saying DeLay took "a bullet for the team"!

...Republicans gave no indication before the meeting that the indictment rule would be changed. Even more surprising was DeLay's decision to make the proposal himself.

Jonathan Grella, a DeLay spokesman, said DeLay still believed it was legitimate to allow a leader to retain his post while under indictment. But Grella said that by reinstating the rule that he step aside, DeLay was "denying the Democrats their lone issue. Anything that could undermine our agenda needs to be nipped in the bud."

Grella said Republicans did not know that DeLay would make the proposal. "He was doing some thinking and this was the conclusion he came to," the spokesman said.

:puke:
Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said, "It's a mark of a leader to take a bullet for the team and not for the team to take a bullet for the leader. I'm very glad we decided to stick with the rules."
:puke:

[buddysmellgood]

46. Time for Dubya to take a bullet for the team and resign.

[cyberpj]

48. Bet Rumsfeld goes first.

[TankLV]

68. Take a bullet.

My thoughts exactly.

I have a couple others who should.

(Of course I'm talking about "for the team" agent Mike!)

[cyberpj]

49. Guess Why. And look who's talking trash about Pelosi!

I think there was too much DeLay evidence so if he has to go they're taking someone with them and guess who they want the most.

But look who's quoted here on ethics!
HA HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ..............

Republicans seek complaint against minority leader
By Alexander Bolton

A group of House Republican lawmakers, stewing over a Democratic ethics complaint filed against Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), is pressing for the GOP to file a reciprocal complaint against Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for violating campaign-finance law.

<clip>

“We have people in our conference who want to go after Nancy Pelosi, who has violated federal election law and has been fined,” said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who was a critic of the ethics committee and a strong defender of DeLay during the ethics controversy that embroiled him before the election.

“To the extent that she’s violated federal law, she’s brought into question the integrity of the House,” Feeney said. “We have members who would love to see us retaliate by going after Nancy Pelosi.” Feeney declined to name members who want to target Pelosi.


http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121504/ethics.html

[mistertrickster]

77. The trouble is that nobody gives a rat's ass about violating campaign

financing. That's pure politics, unlike DeLay's problem.

[zann725]

51. A 'Repug reversal?' Would that be a flip-flop?

n/t

[katinmn]

54. don't you love how our well-paid legislators

spend their time?

All the major problems to deal with, and the Republicans are spending all this time plotting how best to deal with their lead criminal.

Get to work for America, you assholes!

[underpants]

55. Hay AP-this isn't a "tough" standard at all

whores

[No Exit]

58. "and in other news, the republican house majority

will go back to the drawing board to once again re-draw this harsh and draconian ethics rule...'I won't settle for less than perfection,' Speaker Hastert was quoted as saying. 'Until they articulate that this rule is applicable only to democrats, I won't let them quit working on it.'"

[Supersedeas]

59. Does one man have total control over the Peoples House???

Apparently, when it comes to ethics...he does.

[spotbird]

60. This change is to get John Conyers .

The House Republicans are going to wage major war on supposed ethics violations by Democrats. This is a tried and true strategy for them, accuse the opponent before your own faults are exposed.

The incredible part is that the Democrats fall for it every single time.

http://www.freep.com/news/metro/conyers3e_20041203.htm

[jackster]

63. it was only

a matter of time before they went after Conyers on something - i get more discouraged and outraged each day

[aquart]

81. Like Charlie Brown with the football.

[depakid]

61. When you play a rigged game

You win no matter what-

[Massachusetts]

62. FUBAR

that is all.

[Patsy Stone]

65. The CNN article contains a CLASSIC quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/03/delay.rule/index.html

"It takes a big man to do what he did, and a smart politician," said Wamp, who feared the DeLay Rule would have created a chasm in his party. "This allows us to stick together."

A (cough) big man (cough)? OMG.

Also, that photo needs a good caption!

Who sucks???

[Democrat 4 Ever]

66. They do away with the proposed rule changes but did modify the decades old

rule that an ethics investigation will take place if the committee is evenly divided on the issue. The committee is comprised of 5 repugs and 5 dems, in the past if the issue was voted on and the committee ended with a tie then the investigation goes forth, they have now changed the rule to where it takes a majority for the investigation to go forth so essentially they have changed the rules for Delay - and the repug leaders have made sure that no one will break ranks and vote against one of their own - so Delay (or anyone else) can skate free.

Also, as we speak the Texas legislature is busily working to change the laws so it will be more difficult to indict Delay. It does pay to have corrupt friends in high places.

I posted this on another thread that is now locked. This was reported this morning on C-Span by the editors of "Roll Call" and "The Hill." They said they were shocked that more wasn't being made about the change from a simple split to a majority due to the make up the committee is practically guarantees that nobody will ever be investigated. Again, MSM asleep at the wheel.

[ImpeachBush]

73. I heard this on NPR this morning ...

It was immediately obvious to me why things were coming down the way they were. The chances that any one Repuke on the committee will vote for an ethics investigation of Delay is pretty damned remote. The fix is in, indeed.

[genieroze]

67. Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury?

I guess he must know he's not going to be indicted, wonder who got bribed. Of course they could be doing it for the good of the party so they don't look like the hypocrites that they really are.

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

70. Sent ol' Bill Young a letter bout this

I am just really upset with the way YOUR party has been handling itself. First we have "The Delay Rule", to shield a guy who is under a CRIMINAL investigation, now we have this "rule" about having a GOP member having to vote for an inquiry before one can begin. Bullshit! I want ALL of you in government to behave with ETHICS and I want to make sure it is hanging over ALL of your heads, be you a Republican or a Democrat.

What kind of nation are we becoming when we let ETHICS slip away for the sake a partisan purposes?

I fully expect you to OPPOSE this rule change. The GOP CANNOT keep bending the rules to suit its needs. I look forward to hearing your position on this matter.

P.S. Even the earlier notion of the GOP planning to make it harder to investigate ETHICS didn't make me happy to begin with. But this has crossed the line to where I have to say something.

xxxxx xxxxxxxx
Indian Rocks Beach, FL

[lovuian]

72. Actually my take is Repubs were scared they violate more rules

than Democrats and if they get Pelosi and McDermott and conyers then they better look over their shoulder cause they have violations too.

Its exactly the downfall of Gingrich an the other Republicans that went after Clinton

Maybe they realized they were going to start to destroy themselves

and I think Tom Delay maybe looking for a Government position with Bush in control

They made him an offer like Secretary of State or something big Maybe the Secretary of Defense

It was a Deal that Delay came out big

[Gloria]

75. This is apparently a fake out...according to the USA Today reporter

on CSPAN who is covering the House swearing in ceremony, although the GOP "backed off" they will be voting on other rules this afternoon that will apparently make it just as hard to go after ethics violations of "senior members". (her words)

She said there may even be debate on this, which is highly unusual for a first day of Congress.

What won't be unusual is that the GOP will get their rules changes...but what is left in the minds of anybody reading the papers is that they BACK OFF the eased rules....Untrue....but, good PR for them, as usual.

PS--she also said that the swearing in is a "delightful moment" of non-partisanship where the speaker usually makes a joke and the minority leader says he wishes he/she were doing the job. Ugh.

[Nothing Without Hope]

78. There was a deal struck. You know it, I know it.

There is no way Tom Delay would do anything not in his personal interest, and he is not by nature a meek man slow to demand what he wants.

They took some heat on the ethics rules thing, and they need to look especially moral and holy when they start taking the sledgeHAMMER to our remaining rights and the rest of Constitutional law. Can't upset the plebes TOO much, ya know.

I would really like to know just what sort of slimy exchange was made. But whatever it was, you know the people of the US were the losers in the deal.

[CRK7376]

79. Let the Flip Flops

Begin. Two-faced SOBs! What a hoot. THey change their positions so quickly when it's one of their own...

[Ian David]

82. There's another thread on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=203&topic_id=232700&mesg_id=233196

[Eye_on_prize]

84. fyi - here is whole 'other thread' .. "Everyone should be watching C-Span"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x232700#233213

and still think we need whole new thread to ferret out the devils. tick ..tick...tick...tick

[Ian David]

87. Two Democrats actually voted in favor of this rule so far

Anyone know who they are yet???

[Ian David]

89. Oops. CSPAN just changed the tally

Only ONE democrat voted for it.

So far, only 1 republican has voted against it.

[Ian David]

90. CSPAN changed the tally AGAIN

Now it is ZERO democrats in favor.

[fiestygrrl]

83. Delayed

I heard on NPR this morning that Pelosi had put the repubs on the spot, saying she would record a vote on how they votewd on whether or not to rescind the new, Delay-friendly rule and to make the votes public.

[anarchy1999]

85. See this: Rep Lon Burnam

Re: More on the subpoena (none / 0)
Here is more which I just got from Kos:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) was subpoenaed in Houston to an October 25, 2004 deposition concerning his role in the controversial dispute between Democratic Legislators and the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) during last year's redistricting struggle. Texas State Representative Lon Burnam (D--Fort Worth) subpoenaed DeLay in his ongoing lawsuit challenging DPS's use of public funds to achieve political ends and for its destruction of documents following the exodus of Democratic Legislators from the State to prevent a quorum in a redistricting effort that Democrats claim was illegal.

Burnam's subpoena of DeLay comes just days after the Republican House Majority Leader was officially rebuked by the House Ethics Committee for his inappropriate use of government resources in an effort to track down and arrest House Democrats--including Burnam--who went to Ardmore to block redistricting efforts of the Texas Republicans.

Burnam's lawsuit alleges that the DPS destroyed documents regarding their efforts to apprehend the Legislators and that DPS had no lawful authority to arrest Democratic members who went to Ardmore. A number of high ranking DPS officials have given their depositions, as has Burnam in the case. An Austin Appeals Court recently held that Burnam's case on the open records issue could go forward.

"Questions have been raised about Majority Leader DeLay's role in directing both DPS and Homeland Security personnel in the use of the state and federal funds in the search for House Democrats. We believe these funds were improperly used for political gain and House Majority Leader DeLay should be required to testify about his role in the matter," said Fort Worth lawyer, Art Brender, who together with Austin lawyer Catherine Mauzy represents Burnam in the case.

"I believe DeLay's testimony is especially important in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision ordering a reconsideration of the redistricting plan to determine whether it was overly partisan," Burnam said. This Monday, October 18, 2004, the United States Supreme Court reversed the three judge lower federal court ruling that upheld the Republican drawn congressional lines and remanded the matter back to that court in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case in Pennsylvania.

Burnam claims DeLay continued a pattern of obstruction and abuse of power in avoiding service of the subpoena. Burnam had sought to subpoena DeLay at a major Republican fundraising event in Austin on the evening of October 1, 2004, but DeLay and his supporters secretly rescheduled the event to 7:00 a.m., thwarting Burnam's process server. Preventing execution of civil process is a misdemeanor under the Texas Penal Code. On Wednesday, DeLay's attorneys agreed to accept the subpoena for him to prevent service at the event.

"I brought this lawsuit because no government official should be able to use government resources for partisan political purposes and to oppress duly elected officials who are acting in their official capacity," Burnam stated. "If they can do this to an elected official and get away with it, then no citizen's rights can be protected against abuse."

http://www.commonblog.com/comments/2004/10/21/11394/873/1

Lon's website:

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist90/burnam.htm

Please consider donating to the cause. It is possible to take DeLay out. Why exactly did Newt have to step down and what about Jim Wright?

[Not_Giving_Up]

93. They changed what they said, but he can still keep his job

It will go to committee, and if a majority of the committee sees fit, they can toss it.

So, he can still be indicted AND keep his job.

[rainbow4321]

95. The Arizona dude and his leadership comment...

Yeah, right..now if we could get "leadership" that were not CROOKS..

Still think this is fallout from the 2 companies that agreed to give evidence in the Travis County case to get their charges dropped...wonder what they "shared"??



http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45573-2005Jan3.html

Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said during a break in the meeting that the "indictment rule" was restored in part because of complaints that members had heard back home.

"Constituents reacted," he said. "We're blessed with a leadership that listens."

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.