Boogeyman cleared, taxpayers hit hardest...

[udman]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41104.html

Feds clear DeLay after six years

The Justice Department has informed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that the government has ended a six-year investigation of his ties to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to DeLay's lead counsel in the matter, Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods.

The investigation lasted through two presidents and four attorneys general. Its demise provides a stark footnote to the lobbying scandals that helped Democrats regain the House majority they held for 40 years and lost in the Republican revolution of 1994, which eventually made the pugnacious DeLay one of Washington’s top power brokers.

“The federal investigation of Tom DeLay is over, and there will be no charges,” Cullen said. “This was one of the longest and expensive and thorough investigations in recent memory. DeLay took a tack right from the start that he had nothing to hide, and we have been in a routine and constant dialogue with [prosecutors].

“I’m sure he wishes it didn’t take six years of his life, with a cloud hanging over him. I am pleased with the outcome. They just took longer than we would have preferred. He said he was gratified and thanked us.”

Cullen said he was pleased there were no leaks from the government as the investigation ground on. “They played fair,” he said.

The Justice Department does not comment publicly on investigations where charges are not brought. But Cullen said a prosecutor from the department’s Public Integrity Section telephoned him with the news last week and said he was free to make it public.

Cullen said investigators talked to witnesses and checked documents overseas and had an “extremely active grand jury” that heard testimony from former aides and others.

“In 2005, we voluntarily produced to the prosecutors over 1,000 e-mails and documents from the DeLay office dating back to 1997,” Cullen said.

“Several members of Congress [accused in related cases] objected to producing official government records under Speech or Debate Clause concerns. DeLay took the opposite position, ordering all his staff to answer all questions. He turned over more than 1,000 documents, and several of his aides gave interviews and grand jury testimony.”

A state case continues in Texas, with a hearing scheduled for Aug. 24. A trial is expected next spring and could last several weeks.

DeLay started a consulting firm, First Principles LLC, when he left office. He now spends most of his time at his home in Sugarland, Texas. He travels a lot to give speeches and works with foster children through the community he and his wife, Christine, started.

[Avatard]

Wow. Good thing they didn't investigate the guy over a blow job.

Ah, the games politicians play.

At least we was cleared...

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Wow. Good thing they didn't investigate the guy over a blow job.

If Clinton hadn't lied under oath about it he would have been fine.

[Avatard]

Ask anyone in public about their dick (a wildly inappropriate thing to do) and they're likely to lie. This is human nature.

It was none of anyone's business, and nothing but a hit job.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Ask anyone in public about their dick (a wildly inappropriate thing to do) and they're likely to lie. This is human nature.

It was none of anyone's business, and nothing but a hit job.

Ask anyone in public about their dick and they are free to lie all they want. Ask them during a deposition while under oath in their own sexual harassment suit and if they lie they are breaking the law. Do you really think what people do with their junk should be off limits in a deposition when being sued for sexual harassment? It should be OK to lie under oath if the truth might be embarrassing?

[Avatard]

Originally Posted by goof2

Ask anyone in public about their dick and they are free to lie all they want. Ask them during a deposition while under oath in their own sexual harassment suit and if they lie they are breaking the law. Do you really think what people do with their junk should be off limits in a deposition when being sued for sexual harassment? It should be OK to lie under oath if the truth might be embarrassing?

I don't recall Bill being sued for sexual harassment.

I recall a third part ugly fucking stank bitch named Linda Trip putting her ugly-ass nose all up in other people's business, and stirring shit at the behest of the GOP.

I guess you remember it differently...

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Avatard

I don't recall Bill being sued for sexual harassment.

I recall a third part ugly fucking stank bitch named Linda Trip putting her ugly-ass nose all up in other people's business, and stirring shit at the behest of the GOP.

I guess you remember it differently...

Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. In a deposition while under oath for the Jones case Clinton perjured himself . You can remember it however you like but Clinton did lie under oath, something which is frowned upon.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by goof2

Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. In a deposition while under oath for the Jones case Clinton perjured himself . You can remember it however you like but Clinton did lie under oath, something which is frowned upon.

Please, don't let facts get in the way of Avatard's debates!

[Avatard]

Originally Posted by goof2

Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. In a deposition while under oath for the Jones case Clinton perjured himself . You can remember it however you like but Clinton did lie under oath, something which is frowned upon.

Yeah, but IIRC she was egged on to do so by Trip.

She was actually quite proud she had blown the cat, and was bragging.

The suit was without merit. Perhaps she should have kept her lips off his dick.

Did he lie? Yeah. I'd venture to say 99% of men would have done the same thing. It's not an excuse, but it is reality.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment. In a deposition while under oath for the Jones case Clinton perjured himself . You can remember it however you like but Clinton did lie under oath, something which is frowned upon.

Clinton answered the question correctly, by the definitions set by The Court, itself, which limited the term "sexual relations" to actual intercourse. Using the law to its letter is what lawyers do. It was slimy, but it was true by that standard.