The Justice Department has informed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that the government has ended a six-year investigation of his ties to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to DeLay's lead counsel in the matter, Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods.

The investigation lasted through two presidents and four attorneys general. Its demise provides a stark footnote to the lobbying scandals that helped Democrats regain the House majority they held for 40 years and lost in the Republican revolution of 1994, which eventually made the pugnacious DeLay one of Washington’s top power brokers.
Continue Reading
Text Size

* -
* +
* reset

Video
POLITICO 44
Get Adobe Flash player

“The federal investigation of Tom DeLay is over, and there will be no charges,” Cullen said. “This was one of the longest and expensive and thorough investigations in recent memory. DeLay took a tack right from the start that he had nothing to hide, and we have been in a routine and constant dialogue with [prosecutors].

“I’m sure he wishes it didn’t take six years of his life, with a cloud hanging over him. I am pleased with the outcome. They just took longer than we would have preferred. He said he was gratified and thanked us.”

Cullen said he was pleased there were no leaks from the government as the investigation ground on. “They played fair,” he said.

The Justice Department does not comment publicly on investigations where charges are not brought. But Cullen said a prosecutor from the department’s Public Integrity Section telephoned him with the news last week and said he was free to make it public.

Cullen said investigators talked to witnesses and checked documents overseas and had an “extremely active grand jury” that heard testimony from former aides and others.

“In 2005, we voluntarily produced to the prosecutors over 1,000 e-mails and documents from the DeLay office dating back to 1997,” Cullen said.

“Several members of Congress [accused in related cases] objected to producing official government records under Speech or Debate Clause concerns. DeLay took the opposite position, ordering all his staff to answer all questions. He turned over more than 1,000 documents, and several of his aides gave interviews and grand jury testimony.”

A state case continues in Texas, with a hearing scheduled for Aug. 24. A trial is expected next spring and could last several weeks.

DeLay started a consulting firm, First Principles LLC, when he left office. He now spends most of his time at his home in Sugarland, Texas. He travels a lot to give speeches and works with foster children through the community he and his wife, Christine, started.

Wow. I must say I'm disappointed, but not terribly surprised.

There are no innocent conservatives or Republicans, only those not yet up against the wall for the glory of the Revolution.

Wow. I must say I'm disappointed, but not terribly surprised.

Disappointed that he's innocent?

Hmmms, so actual claims of a conspiracy theory versus Montegue's repeated bare assertions that we're all racist, conspiracy theorists ...

Well isn't that just special.

And he wasn't found not guilty, the DoJ didn't build a good case. Which means he walks.

It's difficult to seriously debate with people who simply reject reality out of hand. Someone's going to quote that line, as if it's ironic. And my guess is the person who quotes that line may not be so sure the President was born in America, or they might think that the global scientific consensus on HIGCC is just a massive hoax or a conspiracy or a cult. They may at one time have believed (and may still believe) that Michelle Obama is some sort of militant black racist, or that James O'Keefe's videos were an honest accounting of his experiences with ACORN.

And that, I think is the main problem. There are things a person can reasonably debate. You can debate the relative merits of different economic outlooks. You can debate the relative merits of various government policies. You can debate morality, or faith, or what have you. And that's all fine and good.

However, there are some things you cannot debate with a person who does not accept reality. You can't have a serious discussion on policy responses to climate change when people, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, believe in their heart of hearts that it's a hoax. You can't have a rational discussion about the President's position on foreign policy with people that think it's reasonable to assert that Obama is just like Stalin or Hitler.

On this board, there is an Enemy. The Enemy is the Left. Anything of the Left is wrong and must be attacked. Anything not sufficiently Right enough is wrong. And not only wrong, but must be eliminated. It doesn't matter if a thing is objectively true. It only matters that the Left be attacked.

It's not enough, on this board, to support reforms to public schools. You have to actually oppose the Department of Education as a fascist, slave-making plot or you're not a "serious" poster. It's not enough to talk about ways to make Social Security or Medicare work. If you don't castigate those programs as sinister armed robbery at gun point, then you're the crazy one.

This board is not a place for reasoned, rational debate. It's a place where no right wing conspiracy theory is too far fetched to get air time. Secret Whitey Tape? It *definitely* exists. Obama's birth certificate? It's not a "real" birth certificate. Violence in Arizona is actually going down over the last few years? BAH! Liberal conspiracy. Damn liberal media. Everyone knows the Mexicans are killing ranchers left and right and that every single one of them is a drug mule.

This disconnected relationship with reality has been growing since the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Everyone *knew* that everything the government said about Iraq was true, and if you dared to say otherwise, you were a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer.

I am convinced at this point that the "very serious" minds on this board would accept just about any conspiracy theory spewed by Fox News and put up on a chalkboard by Glenn Beck. He's the hero of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement is the hero of the conservative movement. All hail Beckistan.

There are still charges pending in Texas. And he wasn't found not guilty, the DoJ didn't build a good case. Which means he walks.

I recently served on a jury. The prosecution did a terrible job with the case (not entirely their fault, their witnesses sucked). The jury acquitted the man, though all of us believed he was likely involved in what happened.

Tom DeLay is one of the most corrupt officials to be in government in the last 50 years. Just because he didn't get busted doesn't mean he's actually innocent. It just means they failed to make a good case.

The late Senator Stevens got off, as well, and he was corrupt. I firmly believe that the Bush DoJ was intentionally incompetent with both cases, and that by the time Holder got into office there wasn't much to go on.

Faith is defined as an ardent belief in something in absence of evidence to support that belief.

Incorrect. Remember that faith requires belief in absence of evidence.

I do not take on faith that he does not exist. I look at the evidence, and I draw a rational conclusion that he does not exist.

[...]It is an act of faith because in order to hold that belief, you must do so in absence of evidence.

Again, it does not require an act of faith to come to this conclusion. It only requires that a person look at the evidence and lack of evidence objectively and draw the only rational conclusion.

And he wasn't found not guilty, the DoJ didn't build a good case.

So you have all this proof of Delay and Steven's guilt, yet the grand jury can't come up with any? No, I think you just want people to go to jail because you don't like them.

I certainly don't have it, but I do believe it involves failure on the part of prosecutors.

My theory is that said failure is intentional. It *could* be the result of gross incompetence on the part of Bush's political appointees to the department. Who knows?

OJ got acquitted, too. Doesn't mean he didn't actually kill those people.

Ok, so you don't have evidence but you BELIEVE the prosecutors failed and he's really guilty. So I guess Stathol hit the nail on the head. It's like faith. Your animosity toward Republicans is your religion.

Or maybe your noodly appendage of God? Or, maybe, he's innocent.

Ok, so we've previously established that producing no evidence of a crime and producing no charges does not mean you're not guilty. Now you are saying that going through trial and being found "not guilty" does not mean you're not guilty.

Basically, then, it can be assumed that in order to be accepted as not guilty, the Religion of Monty must BELIEVE it.

The ownage of Monty in this thread is epic. I can imagine other libs on this board thinking "this idiot is on our side?"