Next Jailbird

Bill Clinton proved out to be a liar - a blatant liar - and truly guilty of what he'd been accused. He ended up having little credibility.

If Tom Delay has lied in his statements of innocence the same will result for him as it should. He has certainly been direct about proclaiming his innocence so he'd best be "squeaky" clean.

The question is more whether or not Delay's accusers will accept his innocence if his guilt is not proven or will they just say he "got away" this time.

 

I don't think you're unkind, Joseph!

 

Don't forget that a grand jury only determines probable cause and not guilt. The defendant is not normally represented in grand jury proceedings.

 

"Bill Clinton proved out to be a liar - a blatant liar - and truly guilty of what he'd been accused. He ended up having little credibility."

But what did he lie about? Having sex with someone? Unless it was a child his having sex with anyone is noone's business. I do concede that lying in court was wrong...but he should have never been in court in the first place. What he did was between him, Lewinsky, his wife and family, and God. It was none of our business.

 

I don't know how many politicians Earle has convinced a grand jury to indict. It does bother me that it took six to indict Tom Delay. I can't say, for a fact, whether Delay is guilty or not. I hope the truth will be found by the judge and jury that hears the case. In that process the evidence will be presented, cross examined, and the allegations will have to be proven to stand. Right now, I'm suspicious of the motives Earle may have had and doubt the allegations are true. If Delay is guilty then let justice be done. If Delay is not guilty then also let justice be done. If it's the later we will see what's said by the accusers. Do you think Earle then admit he was wrong? </font>[/QUOTE]Democrats like to point to the # of democrats he has prosecuted. A careful examination of the record and who they were is quite revealing.

Some of them were outright crooks and any law school student could have made a case for indictment. On at least one occasion, he indicted one apparently as a favor to then Governor Ann Richards, his good friend. Atty. Gen. Jim Maddox, it seems, had ambitions to be Governor. He was aquitted but Earle ruined his political career, his main objective.

You also have to keep in mind that the state , at the time, was being run by large democrat majorities. More opportunities for improprieties.

 

The "none of our business" angle could apply to all sorts of things but, when it comes to persons in positions of authority and leadership, their personal actions become subject to public view. They become measures of their character and are the business of all to the extent they might impact the person's ability to properly perform their duties. I do believe there should be reasonable limits on this public view and "digging for dirt" in a person's past is not a good trait in politics. However, conduct that is relevant, and especially conduct that is recent or old but severe, is everyone's business.

Everyone should understand the nature of mankind - all mankind - is to fall into sin and, as such, we can hardly expect perfection among anyone. Each of us are guilty of many sins. We can identify them in others because we know them in ourselves. We all are in need of salvation by Jesus, God the Son, else we could not be presented blameless before God the Father.

What a person has or has not done matters but so does how they face up to what they've done, whether or not they can acknowledge their faults, whether or not they are remorseful for their wrong doing, whether or not the nature of their wrong doing indicates a character unfit for the role they have, to what extent the act might be subject to present law, etc.

For example, a person who long ago drank heavily but has long since come to grips with it and no longer engages in that conduct can be accepted. A person who is a drunkard, can not be trusted to remain sober, and claims "it's no one's business" can not be trusted as a national leader. On the other hand, a person who once had a potential problem but no longer has such a problem, understands the risks and consequences of heavy drinking, etc. can not be faulted as a national leader on that basis alone.

For example, a person who once committed an adulterous act, has admitted it, is remorseful about it, and no longer exhibits that conduct can be accepted. A person who actively seeks to deny it, to excuse it, and to claim "it's no one's business" can not be trusted as a national leader. On the other hand, a person who once engaged in adulterous acts but no longer does so, understands it is wrong, etc. can not be faulted as a national leader on that basis alone.

 

Why do you hold the office of presidency in such low regard? His every move, including the current President, should be under careful scrutiny. Why I vote for a candidate, I hope he ain't perverted.

 

DeLay’s Prosecutor Offered “Dollars for Dismissals”

Isn't this interesting, don't you think?

 

Dragoon, I don't have the energy to debate anymore right now. But I won't say I disagree with you too much.

Orvie, I don't hold the Presidency in low regard. He's the leader of the free world. People say that Bush is entitled to his privacy and I say "so was Clinton". Clinton did not rape anyone, he did not break the law. He sinned...but he did not break the law.

 

Lying under oath is against the law. So is witness tampering. Clinton broke enough laws to be disbarred, so he cannot practice law anymore.

 

And I don't recall arguing against that. In fact, I've said the opposite. But cheating on his wife is not a criminal offense and is really nobody's business. But what do I know huh? I thought you weren't talking to me anymore?

 

This Grand Jury's return of indictment surly wasn't based on the same bill of indictment I read. There was no basis for the indictment.

I think gullible was the key word.

 

Coming Soon: The Ronnie Earle Movie

Justice or profit?

 

Today's big joke!

Does Tom know George Soros?

 

And I don't recall arguing against that. In fact, I've said the opposite. But cheating on his wife is not a criminal offense and is really nobody's business. But what do I know huh? I thought you weren't talking to me anymore? </font>[/QUOTE]Who ever said cheating on his wife was a criminal offense?

 

Ask a blunt question...get a blunt answer. That's what everyone's problem with him is. And that's why he was in court. Wasn't it?

 

By reading the following articles, Tom DeLay might have some roomies if he has to go to jail.

Harry Reid D-Nevada (Minority Leader)

or

Jon Corzine D-New Jersey (Running for NJ Governor)

Hey, Nancy Pelosi...When you accuse the Republican Party of being the party of corruption you might want to throw a couple of your boys in that group too.

 

I don't think Tom DeLay is going to jail for this trumped up allegation. I think Earle is going to be looking stupid before it's over.

 

If he doesn't go to jail then doesn't that mean Earle should? I don't know.