Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Barbara Comstock and Tom DeLay
Posted by:
Scooter L
()
Date: July 18, 2014 10:43AM
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2005/10/delays_transact.html
From the blog
"Using the law to take down political opponents is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Singapore, for example, has a particularly creative method: Bankrupting the opposition. Singapore has a loophole in its defamation law that leaves political speech without protection, making it particularly easy for members of the ruling party to sue their opponents. That the threat of a lawsuit creates a climate of fear around political speech is part of the problem. But more sinister is the large payouts awarded to the plaintiff; when the defendant can't pay quickly enough, the plaintiff petitions for that person to be declared bankrupt. According to Singapore law, no one in bankruptcy can be a member of parliament -- viola, instant political destruction with minimal mess.
But is this some trumped up, politically-motivated charge? A National Review editorial says yes, asserting that Tom DeLay took part in nothing illegal. "Former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, 'Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?' Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and he's convinced a grand jury to play along with him."
I really don't see how Comstock's assertion could be true. Spending corporate money on the campaigns themselves is what was so illegal. "Texas law prohibits political parties from spending corporate or labor union money on anything other than running a party primary, paying for a convention or administrative expenses. State law also requires those funds to be spent through a separate, restricted account, which can also include money from other sources."
Why did Barbara use verbal trickery to defend a sleazeball, Tom DeLay?
From the blog
"Using the law to take down political opponents is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Singapore, for example, has a particularly creative method: Bankrupting the opposition. Singapore has a loophole in its defamation law that leaves political speech without protection, making it particularly easy for members of the ruling party to sue their opponents. That the threat of a lawsuit creates a climate of fear around political speech is part of the problem. But more sinister is the large payouts awarded to the plaintiff; when the defendant can't pay quickly enough, the plaintiff petitions for that person to be declared bankrupt. According to Singapore law, no one in bankruptcy can be a member of parliament -- viola, instant political destruction with minimal mess.
But is this some trumped up, politically-motivated charge? A National Review editorial says yes, asserting that Tom DeLay took part in nothing illegal. "Former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, 'Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?' Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and he's convinced a grand jury to play along with him."
I really don't see how Comstock's assertion could be true. Spending corporate money on the campaigns themselves is what was so illegal. "Texas law prohibits political parties from spending corporate or labor union money on anything other than running a party primary, paying for a convention or administrative expenses. State law also requires those funds to be spent through a separate, restricted account, which can also include money from other sources."
Why did Barbara use verbal trickery to defend a sleazeball, Tom DeLay?
Re: Barbara Comstock and Tom DeLay
Posted by:
hack writer
()
Date: July 18, 2014 10:49AM
Emily Messner? That crackpot couldn't hold down a job at the Post. LoLz. Keep trying (and failing). It's amusing.
Re: Barbara Comstock and Tom DeLay
Posted by:
Fred Sanford
()
Date: July 18, 2014 11:18AM
hack writer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Emily Messner? That crackpot couldn't hold down a
> job at the Post. LoLz. Keep trying (and
> failing). It's amusing.
You call her a "crackpot" why? Because she questioned the rush to war with Iraq?
Yeah,
-------------------------------------------------------
> Emily Messner? That crackpot couldn't hold down a
> job at the Post. LoLz. Keep trying (and
> failing). It's amusing.
You call her a "crackpot" why? Because she questioned the rush to war with Iraq?
Yeah,
Re: Barbara Comstock and Tom DeLay
Posted by:
Holder On
()
Date: July 18, 2014 12:02PM
Why did Barbara use verbal trickery to defend DeLay?
Why is Eric Holder using the Justice Department to shield every illegal and corrupt activity by the Obama administration and to stonewall every effort by Congress to exercise its oversight function?
Why is Holder using the Justice Department to target journalists and bumpkins in Nebraska who make a float with an outhouse labeled Obama's presidential library? Dopey, but isn't that be protected by our Right to Free Speech, if one thinks the Constitution is still applicable?
Why is Eric Holder using the Justice Department to shield every illegal and corrupt activity by the Obama administration and to stonewall every effort by Congress to exercise its oversight function?
Why is Holder using the Justice Department to target journalists and bumpkins in Nebraska who make a float with an outhouse labeled Obama's presidential library? Dopey, but isn't that be protected by our Right to Free Speech, if one thinks the Constitution is still applicable?
Re: Barbara Comstock and Tom DeLay
Posted by:
Scooter L
()
Date: July 18, 2014 12:59PM
I know, reaching back to a 2005 blog is a little much. But we tried everything else and Comstock is still winning, so we have to be creative.
Wait til you see our list of John Foust's legislative accomplishments.
Wait til you see our list of John Foust's legislative accomplishments.