• 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!

GOP Fails to Remove Rangel

Middleground said:
That is complete and utter BS. Who here in this thread is defending Rangel? If he is guilty of evading taxes, then the book should get thrown at him. Let's just hope that he doesn't end up on "Dancing with the Stars" like some other crook I know.
Click to expand...

Are Democrats on this thread the only ones in existence?? It is obvious that Democratic members of Congress ARE defending him as much as possible.
 
Gill said:
Are Democrats on this thread the only ones in existence?? It is obvious that Democratic members of Congress ARE defending him as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Has it been proven in a court of law yet that he is guilty of tax evasion?
 
Gill said:
Has it been proven in court that DeLay is guilty of anything???
Click to expand...


You know, he has not been so far. I wonder what they are waiting for? The people charged at the same time as he have been convicted.

But I digress. You're right, he is innocent until his day in court. Just like Rangel, right?


From Wiki:

He was Republican House Majority Leader from 2003–2005, when his legal problems forced him to step down. In 2005, a Texas court charged DeLay with criminal violations of state campaign finance laws and money laundering. DeLay pled not guilty, claiming political motivation for the charges. As of October 2009, the prosecutor has yet to bring the case before a jury. Two former senior aides to DeLay have been convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal, and though the infamous lobbyist was closely associated with DeLay, the former congressman himself has not been legally implicated at this time.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay]Tom DeLay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Middleground said:
You know, he has not been so far. I wonder what they are waiting for? The people charged at the same time as he have been convicted.

But I digress. You're right, he is innocent until his day in court. Just like Rangel, right?


From Wiki:

He was Republican House Majority Leader from 2003–2005, when his legal problems forced him to step down. In 2005, a Texas court charged DeLay with criminal violations of state campaign finance laws and money laundering. DeLay pled not guilty, claiming political motivation for the charges. As of October 2009, the prosecutor has yet to bring the case before a jury. Two former senior aides to DeLay have been convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal, and though the infamous lobbyist was closely associated with DeLay, the former congressman himself has not been legally implicated at this time.


Tom DeLay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Could the years long delay possibly be because they know they have no case against DeLay???

You are absolutely right.. they are both innocent until proven guilty. The main difference in the two is that DeLay lost his position in the House. The Dems are fighting tooth and nail to make sure Rangel keeps his committee chair.

That may be about to change though. I saw a bulletin that the House Ethics Committee has an announcement planned today on their investigation of Rangel.
 
PeteEU said:
More selected outrage.

Is it bad, sure, but come on... where have you guys been the last 10 years when the Republican's ran congress and the White House...

Let me answer that...

Defending every piece of corrupt deviant scum on the right.
Click to expand...

American said:
*crickets*
Click to expand...

tomdelaymug1.jpg


larrycraigmug4.jpg


bushabramoff.jpg
 
Gill said:
Could the years long delay possibly be because they know they have no case against DeLay???

You are absolutely right.. they are both innocent until proven guilty. The main difference in the two is that DeLay lost his position in the House. The Dems are fighting tooth and nail to make sure Rangel keeps his committee chair.

That may be about to change though. I saw a bulletin that the House Ethics Committee has an announcement planned today on their investigation of Rangel.
Click to expand...

Also, Rangel has not been charged with anything yet.

That is a huge difference between Rangel and DeLay.
 
Middleground said:
You know, he has not been so far. I wonder what they are waiting for? The people charged at the same time as he have been convicted.

But I digress. You're right, he is innocent until his day in court. Just like Rangel, right?


From Wiki:

He was Republican House Majority Leader from 2003–2005, when his legal problems forced him to step down. In 2005, a Texas court charged DeLay with criminal violations of state campaign finance laws and money laundering. DeLay pled not guilty, claiming political motivation for the charges. As of October 2009, the prosecutor has yet to bring the case before a jury. Two former senior aides to DeLay have been convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal, and though the infamous lobbyist was closely associated with DeLay, the former congressman himself has not been legally implicated at this time.


Tom DeLay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Wow!!!!.... that must be an iron clad case. :shock:
 
Middleground said:
tom_delay_mugshot.jpg
Click to expand...

When was he convicted? Oh, yeah, I remember. He committed a legal act, then was charged with a crime after that activity was made illegal.

You should have drug Ted Williams out of the closet, instead. oh, wait, he was wrongfully charged and the charges were dropped...:rofl
 
"Tell me American, do you actually think that Delay is a stand up guy? "

Much more so than Cold Cash Jefferson whom Nancy Pelosi nominated to be the chairman of the House Ethics committee AFTER he had been formally charged with taking bribes in an FBI sting.

Got to love the chutzpa involved with that move!!:shock:
 
rangel admits it, virtually all of it
 
Gill said:
Are Democrats on this thread the only ones in existence?? It is obvious that Democratic members of Congress ARE defending him as much as possible.
Click to expand...

I don't know what they could be thinking. After calling the GOP the party of corruption, they should show that they don't like corruption. I'm disgusted with their stupidity and hypocrisy.
 
aps said:
I don't know what they could be thinking. After calling the GOP the party of corruption, they should show that they don't like corruption. I'm disgusted with their stupidity and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
2010 is coming up, I know you can be the payback type aps, but in a nice way, why not come over to the evil side for once and teach them a lesson.:2razz:
 
aps said:
Has Rangel been indicted?
Click to expand...
I don't remember if it was an official indictment, but evidentiary pretty much had him dead bang, someone will have a better answer than myself on this.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't remember if it was an official indictment, but evidentiary pretty much had him dead bang, someone will have a better answer than myself on this.
Click to expand...

My point was that I believe he HAS to step down if he is indicted (even if the facts show he's guilty, I think he has to be indicted first). Otherwise, I think he can stay on unless removed by the head honchos.
 
aps said:
My point was that I believe he HAS to step down if he is indicted (even if the facts show he's guilty, I think he has to be indicted first). Otherwise, I think he can stay on unless removed by the head honchos.
Click to expand...

If he is indicted, the House Ethics committee must initiate an investigation. No action must be taken until the Ethics committee makes a final determination. Then the person still may not lose his position unless the House leaders think it is advantageous to replace him. Even after a Felony Convition, there is no requirement that a member lose their committee seat or leadership position.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33229.pdf
 
aps said:
I don't know what they could be thinking. After calling the GOP the party of corruption, they should show that they don't like corruption. I'm disgusted with their stupidity and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Thing is, aps, I don't think the Dems were defending him. They were not jumping to conclusions before an official investigation. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Middleground said:
Thing is, aps, I don't think the Dems were defending him. They were not jumping to conclusions before an official investigation. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Very good point. I must confess that I haven't read up on this whole thing. I based my criticism on the first paragraph of Eugene Robinson's editorial today (which I will read at some point today):

House Democrats had better start taking the ethics allegations against Rep. Charlie Rangel seriously. I know it's difficult for those steeped in Capitol Hill's hermetic culture to understand, but a verdict of "mistakes were made" -- which a lot of Democrats would like to reach -- doesn't cut it in the real world. Strange as it seems. Seriously.

washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...

He's a die-hard Dem, so I take his words seriously.
 
aps said:
Very good point. I must confess that I haven't read up on this whole thing. I based my criticism on the first paragraph of Eugene Robinson's editorial today (which I will read at some point today):



He's a die-hard Dem, so I take his words seriously.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case, then yeah, it's wrong to defend him. Once proven guilty, he should not be defended. Let's hope the era of "I dunno," "I forgot," and "I can't remember" is over. No one forgets their income or what they own, especially one who freakin' writes tax legislation.
 
Middleground said:
Thing is, aps, I don't think the Dems were defending him. They were not jumping to conclusions before an official investigation. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...


What is wrong with this is the hypocrisy being shown. Mark Foley was not convicted of anything. Neither was Tom Delay. Yet the Dems were more than happy to DEMAND their immediate loss of all leadership positions, etc. even before charges were filed.

They should at least be consistent and demand the same level of personal responsibility as they demanded from Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom