Author Topic: IF Tejada is released, will anyone in the Houston media ask Drayton about ... (Read 4779 times)

Deja Vu · « **on:** February 10, 2009, 02:09:03 pm »

I'll put this bomb in here, for the Republicans who overrun Houston to hack away at:

Drayton has been one of the biggest worshippers of GWB around. I remember going to MMP and seeing videos of Bush in a white tuxedo on the Jumbotron, complete Mussolini stuff.

OK, so Miguel Tejada lied to Congress. About steroids in baseball.

Well, so did Drayton's clan, about BIG stuff. About lying us into a war where billions of dollars were wasted and thousands of our best and brightest were killed. About lying about a surveillance program on all Americans on all of our communications. About lying about rigging the pool of US attorneys to be partisan hacks who would rather do the bidding of the elite (like Drayton) than uphold the law.

If Drayton now releases Tejada, will anyone in Houston ask him if he withdraws his support for Bush and regrets the benefactor's and cheerleader's role he played for 8 years?

JimR · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:12:04 pm »

STFU,Clayton. Please.

matadorph · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:22:10 pm »

Quote from: Deja Vu on February 10, 2009, 02:09:03 pm

I'll put this bomb in here, for the Republicans who overrun Houston to hack away at:

Drayton has been one of the biggest worshippers of GWB around. I remember going to MMP and seeing videos of Bush in a white tuxedo on the Jumbotron, complete Mussolini stuff.

OK, so Miguel Tejada lied to Congress. About steroids in baseball.

Well, so did Drayton's clan, about BIG stuff. About lying us into a war where billions of dollars were wasted and thousands of our best and brightest were killed. About lying about a surveillance program on all Americans on all of our communications. About lying about rigging the pool of US attorneys to be partisan hacks who would rather do the bidding of the elite (like Drayton) than uphold the law.

If Drayton now releases Tejada, will anyone in Houston ask him if he withdraws his support for Bush and regrets the benefactor's and cheerleader's role he played for 8 years?

Cmon, man. I have very strong opinions about the Bush administration and its extremist policies, but is this really necessary? Wtf does the Tejada situation have to do with Bush? Why use this as an excuse to start a clusterfuck of a thread?

MusicMan · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:23:42 pm »

Of course, the biggest "if" in the whole thing is "If Drayton now releases Tejada", which is quite a leap at this point.

Ty in Tampa · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:23:48 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on February 10, 2009, 02:22:10 pm

Cmon, man. I have very strong opinions about the Bush administration and its extremist policies, but is this really necessary? Wtf does the Tejada situation have to do with Bush? Why use this as an excuse to start a clusterfuck of a thread?

Matt A. Dorph, meet Heter O. Doxy.

matadorph · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:28:17 pm »

JaneDoe · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:37:58 pm »

Quote from: Deja Vu on February 10, 2009, 02:09:03 pm

If Drayton now releases Tejada,

I would be really surprised if that happens. Drayton would still be liable for the contract woudn't he?

jonbloozy · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:46:14 pm »

Quote from: Deja Vu on February 10, 2009, 02:09:03 pm

I'll put this bomb in here, for the Republicans who overrun Houston to hack away at:

Drayton has been one of the biggest worshippers of GWB around. I remember going to MMP and seeing videos of Bush in a white tuxedo on the Jumbotron, complete Mussolini stuff.

OK, so Miguel Tejada lied to Congress. About steroids in baseball.

Well, so did Drayton's clan, about BIG stuff. About lying us into a war where billions of dollars were wasted and thousands of our best and brightest were killed. About lying about a surveillance program on all Americans on all of our communications. About lying about rigging the pool of US attorneys to be partisan hacks who would rather do the bidding of the elite (like Drayton) than uphold the law.

If Drayton now releases Tejada, will anyone in Houston ask him if he withdraws his support for Bush and regrets the benefactor's and cheerleader's role he played for 8 years?

If Noe moves back to Houston, do JdJO and Dick Justice have to apologize to Spack?

Limey · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:48:06 pm »

Quote from: JaneDoe on February 10, 2009, 02:37:58 pm

I would be really surprised if that happens. Drayton would still be liable for the contract woudn't he?

Felony conviction might make it voidable. Possibly not, but you never know.

Still don't think it happens. "It's all behind him now blah, blah, blah".

Bench · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:04:51 pm »

Quote from: Limey on February 10, 2009, 02:48:06 pm

Felony conviction might make it voidable. Possibly not, but you never know.

Still don't think it happens. "It's all behind him now blah, blah, blah".

I think it's only a misdemeanor.

homer · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:11:50 pm »

Quote from: Bench on February 10, 2009, 03:04:51 pm

I think it's only a misdemeanor.

Felony.

18 USC 1505

Bench · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:14:57 pm »

Quote from: homer on February 10, 2009, 03:11:50 pm

Felony.

18 USC 1505

Not that I believe ESPN over you, but they say:

"Tejada faces as much as a year in jail if convicted on the misdemeanor charge of making misrepresentations to Congress. Under federal guidelines, he would probably receive a lighter sentence."

ETA: The charge in the information is a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192 (Misrepresentations to Congress). The text of which is:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

homer · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:25:09 pm »

Quote from: Bench on February 10, 2009, 03:14:57 pm

Not that I believe ESPN over you, but they say:

"Tejada faces as much as a year in jail if convicted on the misdemeanor charge of making misrepresentations to Congress. Under federal guidelines, he would probably receive a lighter sentence."

ETA: The charge in the information is a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192 (Misrepresentations to Congress). The text of which is:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

Well, this letter: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080115110520.pdf

says 18 USC 1001. Which is probably the proper statute. But, that also has a maximum of 5 years.

I haven't find the actual filing yet...

ETA: Looks like Bench has it.

jonbloozy · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:27:33 pm »

I'm not a lawyer, but I know a guy who watches someone that plays a lawyer on TV.

This article says possible probation, rather than the mandatory one-month jail sentence.

According to the Post report, Tejada faces a maximum penalty of one year in jail, but advisory sentencing guidelines call for a sentence of probation to six months behind bars.

homer · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:37:50 pm »

Quote from: Bench on February 10, 2009, 03:14:57 pm

ETA: The charge in the information is a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192 (Misrepresentations to Congress).

Do you have a link to this?

Bench · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:44:02 pm »

Quote from: homer on February 10, 2009, 03:37:50 pm

Do you have a link to this?

The information in its entirety is reproduced in this Deadspin article. The last page indicates the appropriate statute.

Bench · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:45:11 pm »

Quote from: jonbloozy on February 10, 2009, 03:27:33 pm

I'm not a lawyer, but I know a guy who watches someone that plays a lawyer on TV.

This article says possible probation, rather than the mandatory one-month jail sentence.

According to the Post report, Tejada faces a maximum penalty of one year in jail, but advisory sentencing guidelines call for a sentence of probation to six months behind bars.

Probation is included in the definition of "imprisonment in a common jail."

matadorph · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:46:48 pm »

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/192.html

matadorph · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:53:30 pm »

Quote from: homer on February 10, 2009, 03:25:09 pm

Well, this letter: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080115110520.pdf

says 18 USC 1001. Which is probably the proper statute. But, that also has a maximum of 5 years.

I haven't find the actual filing yet...

ETA: Looks like Bench has it.

The letter is a suggestion from the Oversight Committee and not a charging instrument. I'm sure they could have charged Tejada with a violation under 18 USC 1001 if they wanted to but the DoJ offered him a deal if he'd plead guilty to the lesser charge.

homer · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:59:31 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on February 10, 2009, 03:53:30 pm

The letter is a suggestion from the Oversight Committee and not a charging instrument.

Sure, but that is all I had found in my search for the charging instrument at that point. And, the article(s) indicated that he was charged misrepresentation to congress- not willfully making default.

UpTooLate · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2009, 05:06:37 pm »

Quote from: Limey on February 10, 2009, 02:48:06 pm

Felony conviction might make it voidable. Possibly not, but you never know.

Still don't think it happens. "It's all behind him now blah, blah, blah".

Yeah, what Limey said. On the lawyer stuff, I'll give Bench the benefit of the doubt as he supposedly attended one of those law thingy places that gives out degrees. It's rumored that he even passed the Bar exam.

Bench · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2009, 06:19:11 pm »

Quote from: matadorph on February 10, 2009, 03:53:30 pm

The letter is a suggestion from the Oversight Committee and not a charging instrument. I'm sure they could have charged Tejada with a violation under 18 USC 1001 if they wanted to but the DoJ offered him a deal if he'd plead guilty to the lesser charge.

From what I remember, an information is different than an indictment in that it is an executive instrument rather than a judicial instrument. Informations are often used when a preliminary agreement to plead guilty has already been reached with the prospective defendant.

Limey · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2009, 06:20:41 pm »

Quote from: Bench on February 10, 2009, 06:19:11 pm

From what I remember, an information is different than an indictment in that it is an executive instrument rather than a judicial instrument. Informations are often used when a preliminary agreement to plead guilty has already been reached with the prospective defendant.

"I got your executive instrument right here!"
- Bill Clinton