GOP Pushes Rule Change To Protect DeLay's Post

Washington Post ^ | November 17, 2004 | Charles Babington

[IBisOK]

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders. The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions. House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

[beandog]

One of the reasons I refuse to sit on a Grand Jury. I will not be used by a DA to harm someone. To many people see an indictment as being guilty.

[Shethink13]

I find it disturbing that the GOP will change a rule that ALLOWS someone indicted to remain on a post, especially when they created the rule to get Rostenkowski to resign. If the Dems did this, we'd be screaming to high heaven

First of all, I am dubious about the authenticity of your "facts".

I'm not sure about the dates, but I don't believe the Republicans were the majority when Rosty got canned. I seem to remember hearing that part of the reason for the huge pubbie win in '94 was the House Banking Scandal which involved Rosty big time.

Also, the way I read this, these rules are applied only to Republicans - it is a party caucus ruling - so such a ruling would have no effect on a Dem.

[Shethink13]

[Tax-chick]

Good picture!

[HoundsTooth_BP]

Rostenkowski was corrupt and needed to resign.

[fat city]

"IBisOK --- Since Nov 22, 2003 And this is your first post? Not much to say til now, huh?"

Dude, I've been here since 1998 and haven't posted anything but a stupid cartoon and a Swedish sex article. My doctor says I have a high interest threshold.

[stands2reason]

Are you telling me even the border counties went for Bush?

[Lancey Howard]

Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it.

It's all in the wording. Simply leave the rule "as is", but add the caveat, "politically motivated indictments shall not be considered for purposes of this rule unless and until such indictments result in conviction".

"Problem solved." (/Ross Perot)

[stands2reason]

So all those replies I see under your posting history are just figments of my imagination?

[MeekOneGOP]

I am not concerned or commenting on what DeLay did or the indictments. I find it disturbing that the GOP will change a rule that ALLOWS someone indicted to remain on a post, especially when they created the rule to get Rostenkowski to resign. If the Dems did this, we'd be screaming to high heaven.

Did you READ the whole article?????

---

From the article:

Other Republicans agreed the conference is likely to change the rule if given the chance. An indictment is simply an unproven allegation that should not require a party leader to step aside, said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), a former trial judge, said it makes sense to differentiate between federal and state indictments in shaping party rules because state grand juries often are led by partisan, elected prosecutors who may carry political grudges against lawmakers.

Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.

"Congressman Bonilla's rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the process while preserving the original ethical principles of the rule," Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said.

---

Ronnie Earle is the 'RAT partisan on a witch hunt down here in Texas.

[MeekOneGOP]

Another tidbit from the article:

The Texas investigation is headed by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat who has been bitterly criticized by DeLay supporters. Yesterday, Cantor called Earle's efforts "a witch hunt."

"It's a totally a partisan exercise," Cantor said. "It's coincidental with what's going on up here [in the Capitol], where they are trying every avenue to go after Tom DeLay because they can't beat him" on the House floor or in congressional elections. Changing the rule is not a sign that lawmakers think DeLay will be indicted, Cantor said, but rather a public rebuke of an investigation they feel is wholly unwarranted.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I never read the comPOST or articles posted from same. I am ignoring this thread.

[Dog Gone]

You've got your facts wrong. This in an internal GOP rule and has nothing to do with Rostenkowski. The Democrats make their own rules, too.

Ronnie Earle and his liberal Democrat/Green Grand Jury would be happy to indict the entire GOP leadership team if they thought it would force them out of their posts.