Saturday, March 25, 2006

Will Raleigh's News & Observer report this item about DeLay

Can you think of any item during the past year that cast Representative Tom DeLay (D-Tex.)in a bad light that the liberal treanding left Raleigh News & Observer hasn't reported? I can't.

So what do you think the chances are The N&O will tell readers anything about this report in Bob Novak's column:

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has advised friends that he has no derogatory information about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and is not implicating him as part of his plea bargain with federal prosecutors.

Abramoff's guilty plea on fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy charges requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. That led to speculation that this would mean trouble for DeLay, who faces money laundering and conspiracy charges in Texas. ...
If you're betting The N&O will remain silent, so am I.

More about this tomorrow.

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would bet they don't. I would also bet that they report the fact that DeLay's Concealed Carry permit has been revoked because he stands accused of a felony.

Never mind that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff, they will use this as another indication of his untrustworthiness.

While I believe it wrong to rescind his permit before trial and conviction, I can't work up too much sympathy for DeLay over it. I also believe it wrong to require a citizen to rent a privelege (permit) in lieu of actually exercising the right as granted by birth and guaranteed by the constitution. DeLay does not. So, he is "hoist on his own petard" so to speak as he is and has been a proponent of infinging the second amendment. Regulation and permits, etc. are infringements and as regards arms are prohibited by the Supreme law of the land.

Ergo, I have not much sympathy for him, personally, since he has supported the very same wrong for others that is now being done to him.

The only thing he appears to be guilty of however is obeying the law. If one reads the indictment, that appears to be the accusation, that he wasn't thwarted by the new law in raising campaign funds, but rather altered the procedures from the previously legal actions to accomodate the new laws and remain legal.

It took the sixth Grand Jury to indict him, what did the other five see that prevented them from returning a true bill? This prosecutor has a history of doing this to opposition party politicians in election years. To date he hasn't achieved any convictions of this sort, but he has altered the outcome of several elections it is believed.