>Corruption exists in both parties...
Thats what i meant when i said one could go back & forth with this stuff.
>
http://dfa.meetup.com/146/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1774324>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-28-pelosi_x.htm>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1691736/posts>
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/democrat-mollohan-sees-assets-increase.html>
http://dailygotham.com/blog/mole333/extremely_corrupt_democrats_and_the_betrayal_of_brooklynWhat - no R corruption links for balance? ;)
>
>Corruption exists in both parties...
>
>
>This is of more concern to me:
>
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7804.htm>
>
>One could go back & forth with this stuff, but dont forget Tom Delay and GOP congress critters after Delay was indicted. Not sure what became of William "Freezer Money" Jefferson, but there were many calls by Dem-leaning websites to punt the guy. Cant say i am familiar w/ how the right-leaning blogs/websites reacted to Delay's doings. Apparently Pelosi requested that Jefferson resign from ways/means committee, and was later removed from that committe. But changing house rules versus requesting someone leave committees pending legal action appear to be very different reactions.
>>
>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html>>
>>
GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post>>
>>
By Charles Babington
>>Washington Post Staff Writer
>>Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01
>>
>>House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.
>>
>>The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions. >>
>>
>>>>For starters I would not characterize myself as a Democrat. We basically have a two party system so in that sense I am a Democrat given the two choices. More of an independent really, though. There are Republicans I like and Democrats I can't stand.
>>>>
>>>>You had me scratching my head about which criminals "we" are supposedly rallying behind, given that the recent scandals I could think of (Ney, Cunningham) involved Republicans. Thank you for clarifying in another message that you were talking about a 24 year old case.
>>>
>>>That's a pretty good comeback. However, I'm not talking about the time of the events, rather the response to the events. A recent response from the Dems (of which you are disassociating yourself, and I certainly don't blame you) was to villify Republicans for doing the same thing, only less, than one of their own did. The Dems are out for blood on the Scooter Libby case, when it turns out this case is about as shaky as the Duke LaCrosse case. It is extremely hard to prosecute someone for not having a photographic memory, as the reporters are learning, while trying to recall the minutia of the moment. If Libby lied, under oath, that would be the same thing Clinton was accused of, and should be prosecuted. Clinton's testimony proved that he lied, while Libby's testimony and the testimony of other witnesses has not shown me he did anything wrong. It was an attempt at retaliation for the Clinton prosecution. If the congress hadn't decided they didn't want a sitting president to be dealt
>>>with so harshly, and justly, he would have been impeached.
>>>
>>>As I said before, the difference between the parties is how they respond to these things. Republicans (and I'm not REALLY one of those either) have given the appropriate response (after some wailing and gnashing of teeth).
