Re: Worry

1

I wouldn't bet against it.

By the way, if there's a better Good Ol' Boy name than Ronnie Earle, I've never heard it.


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
2

Since there are already 3 other DeLay-related threads, I feel no remorse in jacking this one. L, if you're reading this, there's an excellent article on Tulane's limping recovery efforts in today's WSJ. Since it's subscription-only, if you can't read it, drop me a line if you want me to send you a copy.

(No, I don't pay for WSJ Online but one of my friends lets me mooch his subscription with the hope of converting me.)

[Please keep all comments strictly on-topic. Thank you. --The Management.]


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
3

Becks, if you did that yourself, it's really funny.

(If the Management did it, it's still pretty funny.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
4

You'll have to settle for pretty funny.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
5

If only I could lay claim to that. Alas, it is just Ogged pulling my pigtails.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
6

I'm easily entertained -- I'll settle.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
7

(No, I don't pay for WSJ Online but one of my friends lets me mooch his subscription with the hope of converting me.)

but, once you're converted, won't you want to be a good capitalist and not tell him, so you can continue getting your subscription for free, anyway?

i've been mooching the wsj for longer than i'd care to admit...


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
8

(previous comment written before the crossing out and then left unposted- my sticking it to the man was unintentional, but i think proves my point)


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
9

Becks, I'd love to read it.

And to stay on topic, let me say that I too hope that Mr. Earle has the goods.


Posted by: bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
10

That's weak, BG, but adheres to the letter of the law.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
11

Never mind, I just saw that the offer was addressed to L.. Although I would still love to read it, don't want to mooch excessively.


Posted by: bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
12

Haven't any of you people ever heard of e-mail?


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
13

BG - I'll send it. If someone else wants it, feel free to send me an email, although I'm going out soon and probably won't respond until tomorrow AM. If the WSJ credentials were mine, I'd post them. My blog's under lockdown because my co-blogger is afraid of getting Dooced or I'd just post it there.

I want to have a million of Ronnie Earle's babies.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
14

You have a blog?

A million is a lot.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
15

If your blog is currently password-protected because your co-blogger is afraid of getting fired, is it really a blog?

Indictments are hott.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
16

Probably not.

I must have an indictment around here somewhere.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:53 PM
horizontal rule
17

Get a room! Or a house!


I think it's... IN YOUR PANTS!


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
18

What a great idea!


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
19

I didn't e-mail, because the automatic e-mail would have gone through my non-pseudonymous e-mail, and I was lazy.

Do indictments have titties?


Posted by: bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
20

I got nothin'.

Le Drum has the same worry--and ignores our host! Meanwhile, can one of ya lawyers explain what is going in the part where they actually indict DeLay? Are they saying DeLay's lawyers told him not to demand that the indictment say what he's supposed to have done?


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
21

What I want to know is, when does he do the perp walk?


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
22

It's not as if my post added much to the discussion.

not to demand that the indictment say what he's supposed to have done?

What's the language that you're reading that way?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
23

I want to have a million of Ronnie Earle's babies.

I've tried so hard to come up with a funny termite queen joke.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
24

All the stuff about waiving the provisions of blahdy blahdy blahdy, which I thought might have something to do with presenting an indictment that says what's been done.

OK, that looks like it's Articles 12.01 and 12.03, which seem to be the statute of limitations. What's up with that?


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
25

And it seems like the money part is the language about conspiracy at the beginning between one or more of them and TRMPAC, followed by all the overt acts which were in fact done by the other two fellas (and this Terry Nelson--not indicted--did he roll over?)


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
26

No thanks to y'all, Laura Rozen has an explanation for the statute of limitations thing--if he hadn't waived them DeLay would've been indicted earlier.


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
27

You've got linking issues, you know that, right?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
28

By the way, if there's a better Good Ol' Boy name than Ronnie Earle, I've never heard it.

Earle is always perfect, Ronnie is good, but to be really the best he'd need another name in there. Ray, maybe. Ronnie Ray Earle? hmm, too many Rs.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
29

Why are you linking to Times Select, MW?


Posted by: bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
30

How did that get in there? Pause....

Laura Rozen. And in fact there's an answer to BG's question--I hit the link just above the permalink. Pudgy fingers on a laptop.


Posted by: Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
31

It doesn't matter whether Earle has the goods. Delay's career is finished.


Posted by: Joe O | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
32

But Joe O, if Earle has the goods, it means a big trial, on TV, with testimonies from people with names like "Norquist" and "Rove" and "Abramoff". Preferably a long, drawn-out trial. Preferably in the summer of '06.


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 10:48 AM
horizontal rule