Gee, speaking of misrepresentation, I think it is you, Brad, that is doing so.

At the FNC site, right under the headline, there is a subtitle that goes on to say:

"Ex-House majority leader still faces money laundering count, won't return to GOP leadership post."

They then have a couple of links, as follows:

• Raw Data: DeLay Ruling (pdf)

and

Video•DeLay Rulings a Mixed Bag

C/O Tom Delay (r) texass

Please Send this

whining scumbag some KY Jelly so the poor

tax payers won't have to pay his medical bills.

AFTER good ole Bubba Rips him a new ASSHOLE.

Thank You,

The fact that any charges were dropped is a testament to how unprofessional the prosecutor has been during this politically-motivated debacle. DeLay may be out of the leadership position, but he will be acquited and vindicated. Too bad the Texas AG doesn't have the balls to go after Ronnie Earle for his shameful behavior.

Allow me a little space, Brad, to lay down some facts here about Fox News. Their slogan ought to be "We report, You Misperceive":

http://www.alternet.org/story/16892/

“the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong," adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

http://www.pipa.org/Onli.../IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War:

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, a polling, social science, and market research firm in Menlo Park, California, with a randomly selected sample of its large- scale nationwide research panel. This panel is itself randomly selected from the national population of households having telephones and subsequently provided internet access for the completion of surveys (and thus is not limited to those who already have internet access). The distribution of the sample in the webenabled panel closely tracks the distribution of United States Census counts for the US population on age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographical region, employment status, income, education, etc.

In the January ('03) poll it was discovered that a majority believed that Iraq played an important role in 9/11 and that a minority even expressed the belief that they had seen “conclusive evidence” of such involvement. The US intelligence community has said that there is not evidence to support the view that Iraq was directly involved in September 11 and there has clearly never been any observable “conclusive evidence.”

Support for War and Cumulative Effect of Misperceptions:

(Note: Misperceptions included were that (1) evidence of Iraq-al Qaeda links have been found, (2) WMD have been found and (3) world public opinion favored Iraq war.)

Support for war among those who have:

No misperceptions 23%
Only 1 misperception 53%
Only 2 misperceptions 78%
All 3 misperceptions 86%
PIPA/KN 10/03

An analysis of those who were asked all of the key three perception questions does reveal a remarkable level of variation in the presence of misperceptions according to news source. Standing out in the analysis are Fox and NPR/PBS--but for opposite reasons. Fox was the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions. NPR/PBS are notable because their viewers and listeners consistently held fewer misperceptions than respondents who obtained their information from other news sources.

Frequency of Misperceptions:
(Evidence of al-Qaeda Links, WMD Found, World Public Opinion Favorable)

Respondents with one or more misperceptions:

Fox 80%
CBS 71%
ABC 61%
NBC 55%
CNN 55%
Print media 47%
PBS-NPR 23%

Is it really any wonder at all that Fox newsers are so damned ignorant?

I think the most interesting part of this story is the fact that the conspiracy charges were, in fact, dropped...because conspiracy was not against the law in Texas at the time DeLay is alleged to have conspired. I almost fell onthe floor laughing when I read that.

I know there are many good Texans (at least, what was it...37% of them anyway)...but Holy Christ - conspiracy was not against the law. What the hell does that say about Texas?...and no wonder that ass-monkey of a president of ours was able to get elected governor there (and Delay, and the illegal redistricting, and the "Houston miracle" a la Rod Paige). Tell u wut, if Texas wanted to secede, I'm not so sure I'd support another civil war to stop 'em.

If you haven't read Molly Ivins writings on the Texas "Lege", you should - at least read "Shrub". A brilliant in-depth analysis not only of our Commander-in-Thief, but also the ass-backwardsness of politics on Tejas.

History Lesson: Texas declared its independence from Mexico (1836). The question arose, "Should the United States ANNEX Texas?" Annex, as in "add an extra room to our house." The pro-annexation rationale was, "They declared their independence. Remember the Alamo."

But many were opposed to annexation, including two future presidents, Zachary Taylor (who became a hero of the Mexican War despite his opposition to it), and Abraham Lincoln. Easy to understand their viewpoint...when the Confederate states declared their independence from the United States in 1860-61, did that give England the right to "annex" them?

But President Polk was for annexation. We won the Mexican War, and Texas became a state. I always thought Polk was a lousy president.

Today's New York Times, right column, page one:

COURT UPHOLDS 2 OF 3 CHARGES FACED BY DELAY

Subheadline: CONSPIRACY COUNT VOIDED

2nd subheadline: Setback for Texan's Hopes of Recapturing House Leadership Position.

Good journalism, I think. But the Times still can't get its priorities straight. They published two stories (one beginning on the front page) about the two news anchors ABC chose to replace Peter Jennings (essentially about their audience appeal, as if anyone really cares), and relegated coverage of the 9/11 panel's terrorism report card to page A-24.

Thus, casual readers of the paper won't know that we're still not safe from future terrorist attacks, but will know why two people reading stuff off a teleprompter for ABC were chosen for their jobs.

The TPM Cafe has an interesting write-up begun by Paul Begala. He is from DeLay's home turf and tells what it was like growing up during the time DeLay was doing the same. The responses to this short commentary about SugarLand are really interesting---who are the 37% who still support DeLay? Well, they are described by people who know the area.

Toward the end, a couple writers describe the 37% as the same who support Bush/Cheney/FoxNews and a thought flashed through my head. These supporters adhere to each other just like gang members--all the same reasons. They depend on one another for self-esteem and will, apparently, do anything and believe anything to acquire it. These are the people who go around saying "I command respect" rather than "I earn" or "deserve" respect. And they particularly like the "command" part, and so construct a small world in which that can be arranged. By some fluke, these strutting egotists have been given the reins of real power and we are all paying the price of that foolery.

Thought I would add some comments about the case.

There are three counts, not two.

Two of the counts deal with conspiracy. One of the conspiracy counts was dropped, and one was sustained.

Thus, two counts remain for trial: one for money laundering, and one conspiracy to commit money laundering.

These two remaining counts were the most serious, in terms of years of prison time. DeLay is facing life in prison on the remaining counts.

The one count that was dismissed was the least serious, in terms of prison time.

So, in conclusion, conspiracy to commit money laundering is a felony in the State of Texas, and money laundering under the laws of the State of Texas is also a felony.

The judges order discusses the issues (link here).

KMS #3

You have said in earlier posts that you do criminal defense work. You should have learned by now, then, that it is common for parts of charges to be dismissed in pretrial motions before trial courts.

It is, as regards remaining counts, indicative of nothing that part of the charges are dismissed. It neither helps nor hurts the remaining case, in terms of a guilty or not guilty verdict, and those issues which the jury will now consider.

That's for clearing that up Dredd...the way I read it was that THE conspiracy charges were dropped, not just one of two.

Maybe Texas is...nah, it's still a big ol' funny farm.

Soul Rebel #11

The coverage was not so good, as Brad pointed out, and it is not easy to follow.

The fact that there are three seperate defendants, DeLay being one of the three, complicates matters even further.

What I think is most amusing is, I wasn't misinformed at all.. and I don't watch TV (well, not news on TV anyway.. well, not -real- news, I pretty much only watch Jon Stewart ).. I got my news from Raw Story, and based on this entry here, I heard it right..

KMS, please explain to me how having "one charge" dropped equates to "will be vindicated"? I, like most, am troubled by a charge that seemingly wasn't "technically illegal" at the time the "alleged crime was commited", but if 2 other charges are "going to trial", doesn't that mean there's enough "preliminary evidence" to warrent "a full investigation by a jury" into it? Doesn't that mean that -any- honest and intelligent person has to "wait and see"? Well, I guess I already know the answer to that question.. you don't want to wait and see, you want this to go away.. It likely bothers you quite a bit that someone you support, someone from your "home team" just might be a total dirt-bag .. well, we know he's a total dirt-bag, but now he might be a convicted and imprisoned dirt-bag, and -that- upsets you. My guess is, it's upsetting because "if he can go to jail for violating the law, anyone can!".. and you elitist jerk-offs don't like seeing that the law actually DOES apply to you too.. right?

Gotta love Straus and the nut-jobs who, for some deluded reason, -honestly believe- that "lying" to "protect the masses" is perfectly ok. Just makes me sick and bewilders me how someone thinks deception can be good for anyone. With no trust there is no stability. Hate, fear, mistrust.. these things are destroyers.. Trust, honesty (but only in the absence of wrong doing, it seems), faith, love.. these are builders.. Why do people hold on to the "destroyer" ideaologies and hope to "build"?

Savantster #13

The inaccuracies of the forth estate go to the bone and even deeper.

The presstitutes in the MSM are out in the open fascists.

For example, some of the more famous (notorious?) ones support the notion that the government should be able to pay reporters to do stories (link here).

Notice one quote from the link:

"Contrary to Brian Williams's claim that the Bush administration, Armstrong Williams, and Tomlinson have a 'right' to engage in such activities, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and CPB's inspector general have determined otherwise."

In other words, what Brian Williams of NBC openly advocates is fascist ... government control of the press thru use of the public purse.

I am certain that we can expect DeLay to accomodate Brian Williams's ideology ... but we can only hope they share the same cell.

Fox tried their best to "spin" it and of course, there is no good news about the fact a Grand Jury is now scrutinizing him and his private relationship with Jack Abramoff, Scanlon & friends......

Tommy better do some real soul searching....I hear prison is a very unfriendly place. At the least he should flat resign from congress since none of the charges against him are actually "frivilous"....

Doug E.

If having an arrogant attitude could get you in trouble and having no respect for the rule of law, you could jack up the jail and throw Tom Delay under it. He is totally ruthless and a baby not wanting to take responsibility for his actions. He whines like a ten year old who doesn't want to take his medicine. He tries to to put everyone down, but he doesn't have the morals to justify doing that.

To set the record straight, the one charge against DeLay that was dropped would not have been dropped had the offense been committed today. DeLay was lucky, in that the law at the time didn't proscribe the offense he was charged with...today it would.

So he stands indicted on two charges for which conviction would bring a long prison sentence. He stands indicted in the court of public opinion on a third charge, of committing an act that is now illegal but wasn't at the time he committed it...thus the charge was dropped. This is a man for whom Dick Cheney just appeared at a fundraiser.

Nice.

Dick Cheney was responsible for the outing of a CIA agent operation. That's a crime supported by death in some countries. Apparently criminals, or blasphemers in this case stick together.

You would think it though, wouldn't you?

Doug E.

Everytime george bush speaks God kills a Kitten.

Don't you think that the trial will be stretched out as long as possible, maybe 2008, and the monkey will pardon delay, just like Dad, with the Iran-Contra criminals??

The Bush administration has no control over Ronnie Earle and the Texas courts. Yesterday's papers said DeLay's trial might begin in January.

The Abramoff business is separate. The Justice Department is involved there, and if it gets too hot Bush could fire a prosecutor, claim national security is being threatened, say it's all a partisan witch hunt, etc. etc. He could also pardon everyone, but I doubt he would

Iran-Contra was bad, but different from soliciting bribes from Native American casino owners. Bush 41 could fairly argue, "Iran was our enemy, and any illegality was committed by people with good motives." Bush 43 can't say, "Native Americans are our enemies, and people who bribed them had good motives."

If one believes the end justifies the means, and further that the Contras were really freedom fighters and not terrorists (I don't believe it, but many do), then Iran-Contra's crimes are pardonable. Soliciting bribes from casino owners for the favor of limiting competition from competing casinos has no justifiable end...the end is lining the pockets of legislators.

DeLay Victory

The "victory" the president and his admin now pray we will accept is tired.

They defined "victory" originally to be seizing WMD in Iraq. That war could not be won because it was a fantasy war.

Next "victory" was defined as being welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi's did not, however, like shock and awe and random killings of their women and children, less water than before, less electricity than before, less security than before, a hyper increase of terrorists and terrorism, nor did they welcome US as liberators, and so that "victory" is also an illusion.

Next "victory" was bringing "freedom" to Iraq via elections. Like Vietnam elections where "83% of the vietnamese registered voters voted" in September of 1967 even tho the viet cong were terrorizing the populace, vietnam fell not too long thereafter. Having an election is not the hallmark of freedom in case neoCons have not noticed.

The word "victory" is another empty, meaningless, and useless term which is touted as the pinnacle of admin policies and the talking points of shills like Rush and O'Reilly.

The word "victory" is the new lie word.

Good morning to the Servents of Surrender!

AS the democratic party moves further towards socialism, the red states get redder and the blue states are becomming purple.

Why do you advocate surrender? Can one of you liberals explain this position to me?

BDM

Surrender? Gee, Brett. We're the ones who haven't surrendered. Your party is taking you down the path of slavery and into the razor-wired courtyard of the gulag.

Get real, dummy.

Poor Brett the troll. Say something informative, and maybe even interesting, please. I'm sure you're chock full of provocative ideas

Surrender is what you have to do to become a neoCon.

Surrender your individualism and join the group think and parrot the talking points of closet gay Mehlman. Spout hate against gays as a gay. Real solid "victory" stuff.

Surrender your constructive criticism of your party and its leaders, and never criticize the top politician (the prez).

Surrender your common sense to convoluted, mealy mouthed inane jargon which only those spouting such mantras believe.

Surrender your respect for the wishes of the american people and move consistently toward the lowest poll percentages.

We here will not surrender by adopting your tired concept of "victory", which in reality is surrender to fascism.

We will seek the true victory. Honest and open government with accountability. Government by the people not by the Lie'n King and his friend neoConvicts.

Brett,

If at first you don't succeed...

LIE! LIE! LIE! again.

Chump.

I see that Fitzgerald is visiting the grand jury again(link here). Uh oh, will he revive the term "Fitzmas"?

Funny.. when we illegally invade a nation to plunder it, we're "surrendering" when we get out and appologize for our transgressions? I thought that was "doing the right thing", not surrender.. Surrender is when you decide that, despite having a justified reason to fight, you just can't win.. Seeing as how we -never- had a "justified reason" to be in Iraq, it's hard to "surrender", don't you think? (well, I have to pretend you can think.. otherwise writing this post is futile..)

We'll pretend for a second that you -do- think we are there for just reasons.. we'll pretend for a second that you -do- believe that we're really "at war" and "fighting an enemy".. and I'll try to explian it from that perspective, ok? No one is "advocating surrender", that's a spin by the right-wing morons who can't utter a complete truth to save their souls. What "we" are advocating is, getting our troops out of harm's way in a conflict that has nothing to do with anything.. That is, we have no reason to be there, so why are we there? We're not suggesting "surrender", we're not fighting for anything, not fighting a "real" fight, we're occupying a nation. Occupiers don't "surrender", they decide it's not worth the price to steal the country.. see, -thats- what we're doing over there, trying to steal the country.. Given your question, I'm guessing you didn't come to realize that FACT yet. In our attempt at stealing the country (read: we want access to their resources since it's likely the worlds -largest- supply of oil left.. and he who has control of the oil wins), we've found that the people of said country aren't as ignorant and complacant as we had hoped. Because of such, it's time to "cut our losses", not "cut and run".. it's time to acknowledge that our "plan" is costing us more than we thought it would.. it's time to acknowledge that the leader of this fiasco is a moron who fired people who gave him sound advice simply because he didn't want to spend as much for his pillaging as was needed.. as a result, we're in over our heads now, and it's time to "stop wasting resources".

Withdrawl is not surrender, it's withdrawl. Surrender is when you approach the opposing force and turn your self in.. No one is suggesting doing that. We're simply saying "ok you fucking morons, you've killed enough Americans and enough Iraqis and it's getting worse. Stop the insanity NOW".. that's not "surrender", that's demanding we do the "right thing", get it?

When george w bush speaks God kills a Kitten.

Okay, guys...gather 'round. Here's what we do.......
Let's accuse GW of being mentally ill and cook up some intel to "prove" it. We'll tell the MSM that his condition is becoming worse by the minute and that there is no time to wait....We HAVE to take action now, take him by the scruff of the neck and throw him out of office, unless we want to see a "mushroom cloud" over Jack Murtha's home and the New York Time's location.
Then, when he's out, sitting in prison, and the truth of the "intel" is eventually known, we'll switch strategies and declare, "Well, at least we are rid of a terrible leader who was a danger to the world!"
Yeah....it might work.

Okay, guys...gather 'round. Here's what we do.......
Let's accuse GW of being mentally ill and cook up some intel to "prove" it. We'll tell the MSM that his condition is becoming worse by the minute and that there is no time to wait....We HAVE to take action now, take him by the scruff of the neck and throw him out of office, unless we want to see a "mushroom cloud" over Jack Murtha's home and the New York Time's location.
Then, when he's out, sitting in prison, and the truth of the "intel" is eventually known, we'll switch strategies and declare, "Well, at least we are rid of a terrible leader who was a danger to the world!"
Yeah....it might work.

Whoops, sorry 'bout the double post. Didn't think the first one took because my computer froze....

tom Remember all those lies you told about

Terri Schivo, well she's back

http://www.terripac.com/

Judge of Judges

Put a sock in it. Repeatedly posting nonsense ad nauseum trashes up this blog.

Judge of Judges, finish your anti-semitic slang:

...Judge of Judges said on 12/9/2005 @ 12:15pm PT...

Koncentration Kamp Konservatives

Jews like Joe Leiberman Lead the Jews into the gas

chambers Ultamatly into the OVENS. Fuck Trader Joe!

Every time george w bush speaks God kills a Kitten

We must recall that Fox is not independant media at all. Rather, it is an extention of the propaganda-spewing Bush administration. Fox is a bigoted news network that has absolutely no concept of logical, rational thought.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't trust any American news network. Recall that Mr. Bush is buddy buddy with a whole slew of rich people. Maybe some media men are "friends".

AS such, we logicians can only trust news channels from international sources, such as the CBC. The CBC, I find is at least untouched by Bushco. Even then, it is a publically owned corporation.

The fact that a public company can be more accurate than a "private" Fox says something about the state of affairs in your sad neck of the woods.

Canada Hates Bush!!

FOX NEWS IS BECOMING MORE LIKE THE STUFF YOU SEEN ON THE WALLS OF A PUBLIC RESTROOM,,,,FOX IS ALL S.P.A.M....SILLY PRE ASSININE MOUTHING OFF........MAYBE KARL ROVE HAS FOX IN HIS POCKET

watch geo. w. bush, REMEMBER IN HIS WMD SPEECH, THE WAY HE SAID IT, I DONT THINK HE BELIEED IT HIMSELF, HIS SPEECH PATTERNS ARE INTERESTING TO WATCH, THEY REVEAL MORE THAN HE KNOWS, PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION