• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richardson Probe 'Was Killed in Washington'

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm just blown away. I can't believe the Hope-n-Change government is going to do this. Oh, wait...



SANTA FE, N.M. -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former high-ranking members of his administration won't be criminally charged in a yearlong federal investigation into pay-to-play allegations involving one of the Democratic governor's large political donors, someone familiar with the case said.

Richardson Probe 'Was Killed in Washington' - Political News - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...
 
Why don't we read a legitimate news story from a legitimate news source ?
AP: Bill Richardson Cleared in Fed's Probe - CBS News
" AP: Bill Richardson Cleared in Fed's Probe
Source Says New Mexico Governor, Aides, Will Face No Criminal Charges in Alleged Pay-to-Play Deal"

The Gov. Bill Richardson and former high-ranking members of his administration will not be criminally charged " someone familiar with the case said. "


"It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," the person told The Associated Press.

Why was it killed in Washington we need to ask ? Well becasue that is where we keep our justice deparftment. WOW !! What a wonder !!
So I guess there is no VAST OBAMA Conspiracy after all is there now !!

For those of us who are looking for a coverup or a crime to cover the non crime I guess we would have to prove that the Obama administration forced the JD to stop the investigation.

Yet the non partisan view of all of this is that oh my there was no crime so there are no indictments. Now isn't that something !!

Of course the wild and out of control anti-Obama freaks see conspiracies and crime everywhere.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Why don't we read a legitimate news story from a legitimate news source ?
AP: Bill Richardson Cleared in Fed's Probe - CBS News
" AP: Bill Richardson Cleared in Fed's Probe
Source Says New Mexico Governor, Aides, Will Face No Criminal Charges in Alleged Pay-to-Play Deal"

The Gov. Bill Richardson and former high-ranking members of his administration will not be criminally charged " someone familiar with the case said. "


"It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," the person told The Associated Press.

Why was it killed in Washington we need to ask ? Well becasue that is where we keep our justice deparftment. WOW !! What a wonder !!
So I guess there is no VAST OBAMA Conspiracy after all is there now !!

For those of us who are looking for a coverup or a crime to cover the non crime I guess we would have to prove that the Obama administration forced the JD to stop the investigation.

Yet the non partisan view of all of this is that oh my there was no crime so there are no indictments. Now isn't that something !!

Of course the wild and out of control anti-Obama freaks see conspiracies and crime everywhere.
Click to expand...

And, what did your, "legitimate", source say different?
 
did the federal grand jury have the power to indict?
 
apdst said:
I'm just blown away. I can't believe the Hope-n-Change government is going to do this. Oh, wait...
Click to expand...

I am not sure what this all means; does it mean there was no evidence, or that they just don't want to pursue the case with the evidence at hand?

"It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," the person told The Associated Press.
 
Truth Detector said:
I am not sure what this all means; does it mean there was no evidence, or that they just don't want to pursue the case with the evidence at hand?

"It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," the person told The Associated Press.
Click to expand...

I am still wondering why we accept at face value "someone" and "the person" as a credible news source.

If you read the story to the end you can see a fair amount of smoke.


"Federal investigators reviewed whether political contributions influenced the selection of California-based CDR Financial Products as an adviser on state transportation bond transactions, and whether Richardson's former chief of staff, David Contarino, played a role in the hiring of CDR.

Prosecutors also subpoenaed records of another former Richardson aide, David Harris, and one of the governor's close political advisers, Michael Stratton.

Harris served as Richardson's deputy chief of staff and then became executive director of the New Mexico Finance Authority, which selected CDR for the bond financing work. Stratton, a Denver-based political consultant, served as a senior adviser to Richardson's 2008 presidential campaign and was a consultant to CDR and another financial firm when the Finance Authority put together the bond deals in 2004.

The state work generated almost $1.5 million in fees for CDR in 2004-2005.

CDR chief executive David Rubin and his firm contributed $110,000 to Richardson political committees in 2003-2005. The largest of those contributions, $75,000, was made less than a week before CDR was selected in June 2004 by the Finance Authority to handle the reinvestment of idle bond proceeds. The firm earned $443,000 in fees for its reinvestment work.

CDR received more than $1 million in fees in May 2004 for serving as a financial adviser on interest rate swaps for the transportation bond issues and as the manager of bond proceeds held in escrow.

The bonds financed a $1.6 billion state transportation program that was called GRIP - Gov. Richardson's Investment Partnership. The Legislature approved the transportation plan, which included the governor's commuter rail proposal, in the fall of 2003 during a special session.

The Finance Authority is a quasi-public agency that issues bonds and helps develop low-cost financing for state and local projects. The governor indirectly controls the authority because its 12-member board is made up mostly of executive branch department administrators and gubernatorial appointees. "

I tend to lend more credence to facts and figures than what "someone" said.

If they have something then use it. If they have nothing to prosecute for then let it go.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
I am still wondering why we accept at face value "someone" and "the person" as a credible news source.

If you read the story to the end you can see a fair amount of smoke.


"Federal investigators reviewed whether political contributions influenced the selection of California-based CDR Financial Products as an adviser on state transportation bond transactions, and whether Richardson's former chief of staff, David Contarino, played a role in the hiring of CDR.

Prosecutors also subpoenaed records of another former Richardson aide, David Harris, and one of the governor's close political advisers, Michael Stratton.

Harris served as Richardson's deputy chief of staff and then became executive director of the New Mexico Finance Authority, which selected CDR for the bond financing work. Stratton, a Denver-based political consultant, served as a senior adviser to Richardson's 2008 presidential campaign and was a consultant to CDR and another financial firm when the Finance Authority put together the bond deals in 2004.

The state work generated almost $1.5 million in fees for CDR in 2004-2005.

CDR chief executive David Rubin and his firm contributed $110,000 to Richardson political committees in 2003-2005. The largest of those contributions, $75,000, was made less than a week before CDR was selected in June 2004 by the Finance Authority to handle the reinvestment of idle bond proceeds. The firm earned $443,000 in fees for its reinvestment work.

CDR received more than $1 million in fees in May 2004 for serving as a financial adviser on interest rate swaps for the transportation bond issues and as the manager of bond proceeds held in escrow.

The bonds financed a $1.6 billion state transportation program that was called GRIP - Gov. Richardson's Investment Partnership. The Legislature approved the transportation plan, which included the governor's commuter rail proposal, in the fall of 2003 during a special session.

The Finance Authority is a quasi-public agency that issues bonds and helps develop low-cost financing for state and local projects. The governor indirectly controls the authority because its 12-member board is made up mostly of executive branch department administrators and gubernatorial appointees. "

I tend to lend more credence to facts and figures than what "someone" said.

If they have something then use it. If they have nothing to prosecute for then let it go.
Click to expand...

From what is contained here, I would say there is a very high probability of something not smelling right.

But contrast this with the efforts to defame Tom DeLay and the fact that it cost him his job, there is a lot more here than in his case. And yet, nothing has uncovered and therefore we are just going to drop it?

Mkay. :2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
But contrast this with the efforts to defame Tom DeLay and the fact that it cost him his job,
Click to expand...

Please. DeLay blew himself out of the water without any outside help.
 
Last edited:
Glinda said:
In the Blankenship/Albo case, DeLay settled out of court. You don't generally do that when you're squeaky clean and eager to defend your "honor" to the bitter end.

His money-laundering indictment is still in pre-trial mode, due to politicization of Texas justice system and DeLay's countless appeals.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

A couple of things here; are you asserting that the new standard is that someone is guilty because they settle out of court? That would be laughable at best; many settle OUT of court because it is easier than spending MORE defending oneself.

Secondly; what does the Alpo case have to do with the false allegations that forced DeLay from office?

DeLay in 1986 but filed a fraud suit against DeLay, another partner and Albo Pest Control Co. in 1994, after being terminated. DeLay reached a confidential, out-of-court settlement with Blankenship in 1995.

As for the false allegations of money laundering, I have to laugh at your source and illustrate it here by pointing out the partisanship within it:

In theory, our legal system affords equal access to justice. But, as George Orwell offers in Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others, and Tom DeLay is, in Texas politics, the most equal of all. Texas courts, which are notoriously political, are packed with Republicans who owe their careers to Tom DeLay, directly or indirectly. That makes the justice dealt out in the DeLay case justice without equal.

DeLay is now facing trial in Austin on charges of money-laundering. But his case has been bottled up by an appeals court dominated by Republicans. Ronnie Earle, a legendary prosecutor who has taken down far more Democrats than Republicans in his day, had hoped to end his career with this trial–but DeLay’s fellow Republicans insured that this would not happen. They waited patiently for Earle to retire and then handed down a preliminary ruling. The Republican judges find no reason why one of their colleagues who, before coming on the bench, said the DeLay prosecution was “politically motivated” could not then rule on the case. That reflects a novel understanding of the canons of judicial ethics, which–at least in places other than Texas–require that a judge handle his matters impartially. When a judge expresses an opinion on the merits of a case before it comes to him, that is prejudgment. It disqualifies him from participating in the case. Why this extraordinary departure from settled rules of judicial ethics? It appears that with one Republican recused, the court would have a tie vote, and DeLay would be denied the deus ex machina he is waiting for: a court ruling that the prosecution’s case is fatally defective.

But alas, the truth is that the reasons this case have dragged on as long as they have is the fact that there never was a case and the dismissals are on their third appeal.

The FACTS are this:

Last summer the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed the dismissal of a separate indictment against DeLay and his associates on a charge of conspiring to violate the state election code. The court ruled that conspiracy did not apply to election code violations until 2003 — a year after the $190,000 exchange — when the Legislature changed the law.

DeLay might be cleared of charges

More FACTS:

DeLay was indicted on a conspiracy charge Sept. 28. A second grand jury considered the case after questions were raised about when the law on which the conspiracy charge was based went into effect, but the panel returned no indictment.

Days later, a third grand jury indicted DeLay on money-laundering charges, which carry five years to life in prison on conviction.
DeGuerin contends that Earle unlawfully participated in the second grand jury's deliberations to seek another indictment, and that Earle tried to "browbeat and coerce" grand jurors into filing criminal charges.

FOXNews.com - DeLay's Legal Team Works to Get Charges Dropped - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

So how many Grand Jury’s does it take to make any charges stick; three?

From the NewsMax.com Staff
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:28 p.m. EDT
Tom DeLay Wins Round in Texas Court

The highest criminal court in Texas on Wednesday refused to reinstate a dropped conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Two charges - money laundering and conspiring to launder money - remain against the former congressman. He resigned last year amid allegations that he violated campaign finance laws to funnel $190,000 in corporate contributions to Republicans in the state's 2002 legislative elections.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 5-4 against reinstating a count of conspiracy to violate the state's election code.

A state district judge threw out that charge in December 2005 after defense lawyers argued that the law DeLay was accused of violating didn't take effect until 2003. A regional appeals court upheld the judge's decision.
Tom DeLay Wins Round in Texas Court

So what he had here as a media supported Democrat smear campaign intended to impugn their political opponents in the court of public opinion rather than debate political ideas honestly and with integrity.

The only thing that amazes me these days is how anyone can support such a corrupt party with such corrupt political ideals.

:2wave:
 
akyron said:
If they are presumed innocent what else can they do without evidence?
Click to expand...

One is ALWAYS presumed innocent; it requires a court of law and a jury of peers to judge one's guilt. So that stated, what is here that cannot be brought before a Grand Jury and an indictment sought? Surely there is much more of an appearance of impropriety than that which was claimed against DeLay; a case which in the end was obviously politically motivated.
 
Truth Detector said:
A couple of things here; are you asserting that the new standard is that someone is guilty because they settle out of court? That would be laughable at best; many settle OUT of court because it is easier than spending MORE defending oneself.

Secondly; what does the Alpo case have to do with the false allegations that forced DeLay from office?

DeLay in 1986 but filed a fraud suit against DeLay, another partner and Albo Pest Control Co. in 1994, after being terminated. DeLay reached a confidential, out-of-court settlement with Blankenship in 1995.

As for the false allegations of money laundering, I have to laugh at your source and illustrate it here by pointing out the partisanship within it:

In theory, our legal system affords equal access to justice. But, as George Orwell offers in Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others, and Tom DeLay is, in Texas politics, the most equal of all. Texas courts, which are notoriously political, are packed with Republicans who owe their careers to Tom DeLay, directly or indirectly. That makes the justice dealt out in the DeLay case justice without equal.

DeLay is now facing trial in Austin on charges of money-laundering. But his case has been bottled up by an appeals court dominated by Republicans. Ronnie Earle, a legendary prosecutor who has taken down far more Democrats than Republicans in his day, had hoped to end his career with this trial–but DeLay’s fellow Republicans insured that this would not happen. They waited patiently for Earle to retire and then handed down a preliminary ruling. The Republican judges find no reason why one of their colleagues who, before coming on the bench, said the DeLay prosecution was “politically motivated” could not then rule on the case. That reflects a novel understanding of the canons of judicial ethics, which–at least in places other than Texas–require that a judge handle his matters impartially. When a judge expresses an opinion on the merits of a case before it comes to him, that is prejudgment. It disqualifies him from participating in the case. Why this extraordinary departure from settled rules of judicial ethics? It appears that with one Republican recused, the court would have a tie vote, and DeLay would be denied the deus ex machina he is waiting for: a court ruling that the prosecution’s case is fatally defective.

But alas, the truth is that the reasons this case have dragged on as long as they have is the fact that there never was a case and the dismissals are on their third appeal.

The FACTS are this:

Last summer the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed the dismissal of a separate indictment against DeLay and his associates on a charge of conspiring to violate the state election code. The court ruled that conspiracy did not apply to election code violations until 2003 — a year after the $190,000 exchange — when the Legislature changed the law.

DeLay might be cleared of charges

More FACTS:

DeLay was indicted on a conspiracy charge Sept. 28. A second grand jury considered the case after questions were raised about when the law on which the conspiracy charge was based went into effect, but the panel returned no indictment.

Days later, a third grand jury indicted DeLay on money-laundering charges, which carry five years to life in prison on conviction.
DeGuerin contends that Earle unlawfully participated in the second grand jury's deliberations to seek another indictment, and that Earle tried to "browbeat and coerce" grand jurors into filing criminal charges.

FOXNews.com - DeLay's Legal Team Works to Get Charges Dropped - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

So how many Grand Jury’s does it take to make any charges stick; three?

From the NewsMax.com Staff
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:28 p.m. EDT
Tom DeLay Wins Round in Texas Court

The highest criminal court in Texas on Wednesday refused to reinstate a dropped conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Two charges - money laundering and conspiring to launder money - remain against the former congressman. He resigned last year amid allegations that he violated campaign finance laws to funnel $190,000 in corporate contributions to Republicans in the state's 2002 legislative elections.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 5-4 against reinstating a count of conspiracy to violate the state's election code.

A state district judge threw out that charge in December 2005 after defense lawyers argued that the law DeLay was accused of violating didn't take effect until 2003. A regional appeals court upheld the judge's decision.
Tom DeLay Wins Round in Texas Court

So what he had here as a media supported Democrat smear campaign intended to impugn their political opponents in the court of public opinion rather than debate political ideas honestly and with integrity.

The only thing that amazes me these days is how anyone can support such a corrupt party with such corrupt political ideals.

:2wave:
Click to expand...
Brain dead?
 
liblady said:
did the federal grand jury have the power to indict?
Click to expand...

Grand juries do whatever prosecutors tell them to do.

Glinda said:
In the Blankenship/Albo case, DeLay settled out of court. You don't generally do that when you're squeaky clean and eager to defend your "honor" to the bitter end.
Click to expand...

This is not true - settling often has no reflection on the strength of the case.
 
Truth Detector said:
So that stated, what is here that cannot be brought before a Grand Jury and an indictment sought? .
Click to expand...

I have not seen an answer to that yet but I would like to. So far all we have is an anonymous commentator backed by the media.
 
Truth Detector said:
A couple of things here; are you asserting that the new standard is that someone is guilty because they settle out of court? That would be laughable at best; many settle OUT of court because it is easier than spending MORE defending oneself.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd settle and leave your reputation in question, but those of us who have nothing to hide would fight for what's right.

Secondly; what does the Alpo case have to do with the false allegations that forced DeLay from office?
Click to expand...

Alpo? Please note that the lame statement above is NOT the same question you asked earlier, which I've already answered:

care to tell me what happened to the charges made against DeLay?
Click to expand...

As for the rest of your post, I have to laugh at your source (FOX? Are you effin' kidding!?) but will not waste my time pointing out the partisanship within it. It's obvious to all but the Kook-Aid drinkers.

The only thing that amazes me these days is how anyone can support such a corrupt party with such corrupt political ideals.
Click to expand...

TRUE! Don't know how much longer the GOP can swirl around the bowl without finally going down. Can't be much longer now!

:2wave:
 
Glinda said:
Maybe you'd settle and leave your reputation in question, but those of us who have nothing to hide would fight for what's right.

Alpo? Please note that the lame statement above is NOT the same question you asked earlier, which I've already answered:

As for the rest of your post, I have to laugh at your source (FOX? Are you effin' kidding!?) but will not waste my time pointing out the partisanship within it. It's obvious to all but the Kook-Aid drinkers.

TRUE! Don't know how much longer the GOP can swirl around the bowl without finally going down. Can't be much longer now!

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old avoidance tactic of attacking the source and avoiding the facts. I should have known better to even believe for a minute you would be wanting to have an HONEST debate; you're so much better at petty Librul talkiing points and lacking anything that could be mistaken for substance.

Carry on Glinda, the Dems have a brand new batch of kool-aid they want you to try. :2wave:
 
Glinda said:
Maybe you'd settle and leave your reputation in question, but those of us who have nothing to hide would fight for what's right.
Click to expand...

Again, you obviously don't have much experience with criminal investigations. It's routine for parties to settle regardless of whether they are guilty of what they're being charged with.
 
Lovely. You think that the network that foisted Dan Rather on us, he of the poorly forged documents, is a legitimate news source.
 
Truth Detector said:
Ah yes, the old avoidance tactic of attacking the source and avoiding the facts. I should have known better to even believe for a minute you would be wanting to have an HONEST debate; you're so much better at petty Librul talkiing points and lacking anything that could be mistaken for substance.
Click to expand...

Guess you didn't notice that my complaint about your source was taken from a direct quote from YOU, when you attacked MY source in a previous post. :doh

Truth Detector said:
As for the false allegations of money laundering, I have to laugh at your source and illustrate it here by pointing out the partisanship within it... So what he had here as a media supported Democrat smear campaign intended to impugn their political opponents in the court of public opinion rather than debate political ideas honestly and with integrity.
Click to expand...

Glinda said:
As for the rest of your post, I have to laugh at your source (FOX? Are you effin' kidding!?) but will not waste my time pointing out the partisanship within it.
Click to expand...

Idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom