convictions

Home » convictions

Tom DeLay is free

tom delay

Wow, I thought that this was done. I thought that Tom DeLay was a jailbird. I was wrong.

From TPM:

A Texas Court of Appeals overturned former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s (R-TX) conviction of money laundering on Thursday, finding the trial court’s decision “legally insufficient to sustain DeLay’s convictions,” KHOU reported.

A court convicted and sentenced DeLay to three years in prison in 2010 for allegedly scheming to improperly influence Texas elections by helping to illegally steer corporate money to candidates in 2002. DeLay has since been waging a lenghty appeals process, and was acquitted Thursday.

Read the appeals court opinion here.

By |2013-09-21T21:35:18-04:00September 19th, 2013|Party Politics|Comments Off on Tom DeLay is free

Rangel found guilty (Update)

I appreciate Representative Rangel and his service but it now time for him to go.

From TPM:

The ethics committee has found that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) violated congressional ethics rules.

The committee ruled that Rangel was guilty on 11 counts. Rangel had been accused of 13 violations. On one, the committee was deadlocked. The committee dismissed another charge, rolling it into one of the others.

The subcommittee that found the violations will now forward the convictions to the full ethics committee. The full committee will then hold another hearing, during which it will vote on whether to recommend a punishment for Rangel. If they do, they will send that recommendation — be it admonishment, censuring, expulsion or otherwise — to the full House for a vote.

The violations stem from four different actions: Rangel used official Congressional resources to raise funds for an educational center in his name; he failed to report taxable income on a rental villa in the Dominican Republic; he filed inaccurate financial disclosure forms; and he used a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem as a campaign office. (more…)

I saw this cartoon and I had to add it.

By |2010-11-18T19:36:55-04:00November 18th, 2010|Domestic Issues|Comments Off on Rangel found guilty (Update)

Obama at Notre Dame

From Obama’s speech:

The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts?  Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort?  As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate?  How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonetizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called “The Audacity of Hope.”  A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election.  He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website — an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”  The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable.  He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”  Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him.  And I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website.  And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.  Because when we do that — when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.”

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies.  (Applause.)  Let’s make adoption more available.  (Applause.)  Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.  (Applause.)  Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”  Those are things we can do.  (Applause.)

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.  Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.  Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.  But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (more…)

By |2009-05-18T20:57:11-04:00May 18th, 2009|Domestic Issues|Comments Off on Obama at Notre Dame
Go to Top