Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Now that Ronnie Earle's indictment(s) have been revealed for the partisan hit job that they are, I notice that the libs on this forum havent said much. C'mon boys, lets hear your support for good ol' Ronnie Earle! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Tom Delay may go to jail or he may not. I think he did do what he was acussed of but it could be hard to prove. Either way he has been sidelined and I'm okay with that. Delay is an ethically challenged politician and if he goes does at the hands of an ethically challenged DA, so be it.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now that Ronnie Earle's indictment(s) have been revealed for the partisan hit job that they are

[/ QUOTE ]

They have??? Really??? That's funny, I just checked foxnews.com and there's nothing there about Delay being exonerated. Please provide a link to this breaking news.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tom Delay may go to jail or he may not. I think he did do what he was acussed of but it could be hard to prove. Either way he has been sidelined and I'm okay with that. Delay is an ethically challenged politician and if he goes does at the hands of an ethically challenged DA, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which indictment are you referring to? The first indictment wherein Delay was charged with a crime that didnt exist in Texas code or the second one where he is charged with money laundering, which he couldnt even get DeLay indicted on before.

What exactly did DeLay do that was illegal?

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Where did I say he had been exonerated? But when DeLay's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss, Ronnie Earle, in less than a day, with a brand new grand jury, managed to get an indictment on money laundering charges, you have to start thinking maybe there wasnt much merit to the charges. And Im quite sure you know about all these developments, why you are being deliberately obtuse is beyond me.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Delay is accused of using TRMPAC to collect corporate donations with the intention of delivering them to politicians running for state office. This plan was alledgedly excuted by sending the money to the RNC with instructions of having them send a similar amount back to the Texas politians. If this is true this would be illegal.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that Ronnie Earle's indictment(s) have been revealed for the partisan hit job that they are

[/ QUOTE ]

They have??? Really??? That's funny, I just checked foxnews.com and there's nothing there about Delay being exonerated. Please provide a link to this breaking news.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will just point to the fact that he was indicted on "charges" that weren't even illegal as proof of a political motivation. You can't really counter that, because it's a fact.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say he had been exonerated? But when DeLay's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss, Ronnie Earle, in less than a day, with a brand new grand jury, managed to get an indictment on money laundering charges, you have to start thinking maybe there wasnt much merit to the charges. And Im quite sure you know about all these developments, why you are being deliberately obtuse is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you see an indictment on a charge carrying potential penalty of life in prison as an improvement over an indictment on a charge carrying a penalty of six months to two years? Ummmm, ok.

Let's just say that I know enough about how criminal law and plea and charge bargaining work to know that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions from the publicly available information. I can construct arguments "proving" that the indictments are baseless and politically motivated and I can construct arguments "proving" that Delay knows his goose is cooked and has been trying to work out a plea-bargain that salvages his political career. But what I *believe* is that we don't know that *either* of those things are true yet.

Obviously, you have put your faith in Delay's ethics. Ummm...good luck with that, I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

To call it a partisan hit job is a bit ridiculous - that was the initial GOP talking point, until it turned out Earle had indicted something like 3 or 4 times more Dems than Republicans. The reason it hasn't been covered much is because there are no new developments.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now that Ronnie Earle's indictment(s) have been revealed for the partisan hit job that they are...

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha nice. I guess if the mainstream media weren't such bleeding heart liberals, then maybe they would have revealed such a development. Anyways, by all means just take those far-right sources as gospel.

You can make your arguments that he is innocent bacsed on technicalities as you please; these arguments may or may not prevail. But can you guys seriously still consider him an upstanding, ethical politician worthy of leading your party?

Check out David Brooks's article, "The Designated Hitter" drom the NY Times if you can.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will just point to the fact that he was indicted on "charges" that weren't even illegal as proof of a political motivation. You can't really counter that, because it's a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it will change Jax's mind (or Felix's or the rest of the koolaid bunch), but since he put the RNC talking point out there like a good little dittohead, here's the truth:

Texas state penal code has had the conspiracy issue outlined for years. It allows for a charge of conspiracy against defendants if they conspired to commit ANY felony, including an election code felony.

In 2003 (after the money laundering was done), the ELECTION CODE law was expanded to include, explicitly, conspiracy charges.

So the indictment Earle made, under the Texas state PENAL code, is more than valid. I anxiously await the trial date on both this charge and the money laundering charge.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

We'll have to wait and see how strong the case is methinks. Too soon to tell.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Earle says the new indictments were the result of additional information coming in over the weekend. One could interpret that to mean more of Delay's cronies are flipping to save their own skins. Or one could say he's making it up and he's just a partisan hack. I know which one the dittoheads will believe.

Others have mentioned the large Democrat component of his indictment record. Not receiving as much attention is the fact that he actually indicted himself in 1983 for campaign finance violations. (He discovered his campaign made a reporting error the previous year, and the only way to pay the fine was to get the offense on the official record, so he charged himself and paid the fine.) Sounds a lot more like someone who has honest respect for the law than a partisan hack.

Of course the dittohead response to this will undoubtedly be that it was all a ruse on his part to make it look like he's an honest prosecutor, so that he could lie in waiting and launch his evil plan against Hutchison 10 years later, and DeLay 20 years later.

Finally, the mere fact that DeLay has come out with fangs bared strongly suggests that he's in trouble, otherwise why not just sit back and let the facts exonerate him?

He\'ll be convicted
 

It's clear that you share the the corrupt ethical belief system of your masters.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Since when did you become a Delay-hater?

Delayed statements
 

I don't know anything about Ronnie Earle, or much about the indictments, but I do know Tom DeLay has said the following things:

"Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills."

"Our entire system is built on the Judeo-Christian ethic, but it fell apart when we started denying God. If you stand up today and acknowledge God, they will try to destroy you... My mission is to bring us back to the Constitution and to Absolute Truth that has been manipulated and destroyed by a liberal worldview."

"People hate the messenger. That's why they killed Christ."

"Give me one example that proves evolution. One example! You can't."

"The judges need to be intimidated, they need to uphold the Constitution. If they don't behave, we're going to go after them in a big way."

"It has never been proven that air toxics are hazardous to people."

"I AM the federal government." –to the owner of Ruth's Chris Steak House, after being told to put out his cigar because of federal government regulations banning smoking in the building, May 14, 2003

"So many minority youths had volunteered…that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." -explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War

"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" –to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 9, 2005

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
In 2003 (after the money laundering was done), the ELECTION CODE law was expanded to include, explicitly, conspiracy charges.

So the indictment Earle made, under the Texas state PENAL code, is more than valid. I anxiously await the trial date on both this charge and the money laundering charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this true? I thought you couldn't be charged because of an act committed before it was considered a crime.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In 2003 (after the money laundering was done), the ELECTION CODE law was expanded to include, explicitly, conspiracy charges.

So the indictment Earle made, under the Texas state PENAL code, is more than valid. I anxiously await the trial date on both this charge and the money laundering charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this true? I thought you couldn't be charged because of an act committed before it was considered a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot.. That's, I believe, Ex Post Facto.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Lets look a the facts:

Indictment 1: A charge for crime that wasnt even a crime at the time DeLay allegedly commited the crime.

Indictment 2: A charge of money laundering. A quick persual of Texas penal code on money laundering reveals this is tenuous at best. Also, Earle admitted to trying to indict DeLay on a money laundering charge with a previous grand jury and was unable to do so. We get a motion to dismiss the first indictment, and in the span of less than a day, Earle manages to find and convince a grand jury that this indictment had merit. Color me skeptical.

People are trying to sidetrack the issue with attacks on DeLay's character. But I have yet to see a good answer to the facts I listed. To those who claim that Earle has indicted more Democrats than Repbulicans, so what? For many years the Democrats dominated Texas politics and certainly there were rifts and political enemies gained within the party. Also, Earle has brought tenuous charges against people before and been shut down.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
People are trying to sidetrack the issue with attacks on DeLay's character

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Earle has brought tenuous charges against people before and been shut down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's, for the sake of the argument, say that we should only judge the charges against DeLay based on the merits of the case(s).

Now, you seem to want to be critical of people for being preoccupied with issues of DeLay's character - and these don't necessarily have any bearing on the case. Okay, on it's own, fair enough.

Yet you also want to seem to be critical of Earle's past behavior/failures in his role as DA as well. On it's own, perfectly fair - but this would seem to invalidate our "let's just stick to the merits of the case" idea, would it not?

It seems to me no one really knows whether or not this case has merit or not; so I don't think it's fair to impugn people for using DeLay's character issues as a variable in speculation, if we're going to replace such variables with other variables that don't necessarily apply to the merits of the case.

In other words, I think the "DeLay has a shady history ---&gt; he might be guilty" is just as valid/relevant as "Earle has a shady history ---&gt; these charges are bogus".

Re: Delayed statements
 

[ QUOTE ]


"Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills."



[/ QUOTE ]

You're serious? Source?

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are trying to sidetrack the issue with attacks on DeLay's character

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Earle has brought tenuous charges against people before and been shut down.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

nh. Was about to make a similar post.

Earlier he said Earle was a partisan hit-man, and now he says people are avoiding the topic by attacking DeLay's character. Just so blatantly hypocratical, how can he be serious.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

I don't know if the judge will allow this charge to stand as a legally chargable offense or not, but I believe you do not understand fully the legal nature of this. I've read many legal experts who have claimed that the offense was already implicitly in the law before the act was committed and therefore can be legally charged. The legislature added the specific language later just as a way of saying, "if you didn't already understand this, then let us make this perfectly clear, this is against the law."

Again, I'm not saying that the judge might not possibly throw this out, but it's very debatable as to whether or not it was already on the books.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the judge will allow this charge to stand as a legally chargable offense or not, but I believe you do not understand fully the legal nature of this. I've read many legal experts who have claimed that the offense was already implicitly in the law before the act was committed and therefore can be legally charged. The legislature added the specific language later just as a way of saying, "if you didn't already understand this, then let us make this perfectly clear, this is against the law."

Again, I'm not saying that the judge might not possibly throw this out, but it's very debatable as to whether or not it was already on the books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone even read the "charge"? There are no real facts in it, usually an indictment sort of "relies" on facts to even be presented, they are strangely and profoundly missing in this "case". Especially involving Mr. Delay.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Regardless of whether or not the indictments were a "partisan hit job," Delay is still one of the lowest of the low.

It would be nice if the people on this forum stopped showing so much blind allegiance to their own party members. It won't happen, but it would be nice.

NOTE: For all those waiting to say it, I'm still not a liberal.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of whether or not the indictments were a "partisan hit job," Delay is still one of the lowest of the low.

It would be nice if the people on this forum stopped showing so much blind allegiance to their own party members. It won't happen, but it would be nice.

NOTE: For all those waiting to say it, I'm still not a liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont misunderstand me. I have no particular loyalty to Mr DeLay. Hes done some good things for the Republican party. He has also hurt the image of the party at times. Frankly. I dont give a crap whether he gets convicted or not. I just think its funny how it the DeLay issue got real quiet on here after the initial gloating.

Also, to those that are calling me a hypocrite, no. I am saying judge his case on the merits of the facts, regardless of whether or not he is a douche. No one is charging Earle with a crime, at least I'm not, and thus adressing the role his character may have had in these charges is completely relevant, especially given that he has engaged in this sort of behavior before.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone even read the "charge"? There are no real facts in it, usually an indictment sort of "relies" on facts to even be presented, they are strangely and profoundly missing in this "case". Especially involving Mr. Delay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the charge? The parties involved, the exact dollar amounts, the money trail through the various accounts in question, and a photocopy of one of the checks don't count as facts?

Here is the link to the indictment:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/0...indictment.pdf

Please note as well that this is an indictment, not a conviction, thus a landslide of rock-solid airtight evidence is not going to be included. That's what the trial will be for.

Re: He\'ll be convicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's clear that you share the the corrupt ethical belief system of your masters.

[/ QUOTE ]

we've missed you jokerswild. Can't keep a good troll down, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Delayed statements
 

It was a DeLay statement in reaction to the shootings at Columbine High.

http://www.newswriter.us/

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Indictment 1: A charge for crime that wasnt even a crime at the time DeLay allegedly commited the crime.


[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, conspiracy to violate the election code was not a specific statute. Nevertheless, conspiracy to commit a crime has been a illegal for a long long time, regardless of whether it's been "in the books".

To say "this isn't a crime" is like saying murder's not a crime, if it has not been codified.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

What the hell do you expect us to be saying about the indictments? Do you want more threads started about it? What?

Personally I'm just waiting for him to plea bargain.

Re: Delayed statements
 

great post, Andy -

[ QUOTE ]
"So many minority youths had volunteered…that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." -explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War

[/ QUOTE ]

what a crock of [censored]. - Seriously - If he goes to federal "pound me in the ass" prison for 20 years, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

RB

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

It's simple..the grand jury chose to indict. So whether there is a bunch of evidence listed in the indictment or not the fact remains there was enough evidence to move forward.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the judge will allow this charge to stand as a legally chargable offense or not, but I believe you do not understand fully the legal nature of this. I've read many legal experts who have claimed that the offense was already implicitly in the law before the act was committed and therefore can be legally charged. The legislature added the specific language later just as a way of saying, "if you didn't already understand this, then let us make this perfectly clear, this is against the law."

Again, I'm not saying that the judge might not possibly throw this out, but it's very debatable as to whether or not it was already on the books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone even read the "charge"? There are no real facts in it, usually an indictment sort of "relies" on facts to even be presented, they are strangely and profoundly missing in this "case". Especially involving Mr. Delay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

so many other scandals going on - plus the new re-indictment -

he'll get his turn at federal "pound me in the ass" prison - patience - even then, that's almost too good for him [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

RB

Grand Jury Shopping: Abuse of Power or not?
 

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/...10/5earle.html
If you don't subsribe, the full story is at the bottom of the page. In a typical DA office, the policy is if a grand jury "no bills" a defendent this ends the matter and the defendent walks. But not with Ronnie Earle. THE HISTORY of THESE INDICTMENTS IS HILARIOUS!!!! If any one can read this and not conclude Ronnie Earle is a huge BUFFOON, then you have no critical thinking skills...... After reading this, you will see why I'm glad the rest of the country will get to know Ronnie Earle. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


Here is the history:
A. Grand Jury #1:
Spends 6 months investigating Tom DeLay and indicts for DeLay for conspiracy.
"The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence"

B. Tom DeLay's defense team announces the conspiracy law had not been enacted by by the Texas State Leglislature and therefore Ronnie Earle's indictment is invalid.

C. Ronnie Earle discovers "new evidence" and convenes a 2nd grand jury.

D. 2nd Grand Jury 'No Bills" Tom DeLay on money laundering charge.

E. Ronnie Earle discovers MORE "new evidence" over the weekend.

F. 3rd Grand Jury is assembled at 12noon and returns an indictment of money laundering THAT SAME DAY! Now keep in mind the first grand jury was convened SIX MONTHS and only returned one indictment of conspiracy and yet the 3rd grand jury was able to review all the evidence in less than one day and return an indictment. LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
"About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned."


"Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday."
************************************************** *
Mmmmmmmmmm.....normally Ronnie Earle loves to have cameras in front of him. I wonder why he did no announce that Tom DeLay was "no billed" on money laundering?

Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.
************************************************** *
Can any fair-minded person believe this cock-and-bull story? DeLay's first indictment was in HUGE danger of being thrown out and the 2nd Grand Jury no billed DeLay on Friday and yet.....new "evidence" was discovered before Monday!? LOL


Here is a printout of the link.
************************************************** ******
Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment
Newly impaneled grand jury returned money-laundering charge within hours

By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, October 04, 2005

A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.

In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.

Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.

Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.

Lawyers for DeLay immediately called foul after Earle released his statement after 5 p.m. Tuesday.

"What could have happened over the weekend?" said Austin lawyer Bill White, who represents DeLay. "They investigate for three years and suddenly they have new evidence? That's beyond the pale!"

White suggested that Earle released his statement Tuesday because he feared reporters would learn about the no-bill.

In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.

DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.

"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"

The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.

The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.

According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."

It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.

Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.

Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.

When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.

About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.

DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.

"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

Uh oh...

Linking Delay To Everyday Operations of Texans For A Republican Majority

Ronnie Has a Temper Tantrum When 2nd GJ No Billed DeLay
 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._delay?mode=PF

Other jury declined to indict DeLay
Texas prosecutor described as angry

By Larry Margasak and Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press | October 6, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A Texas prosecutor tried to convince a grand jury that Representative Tom DeLay gave tacit approval to a series of laundered campaign contributions, and when jurors declined to indict, he became angry, according to two people directly familiar with the proceeding.

The grand jury was one of three that considered whether there was probable cause to indict DeLay. Two other grand juries did indict the former House majority leader, who had to step aside temporarily under Republican rules.

Both indictments focused on an alleged scheme to provide corporate political donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The two people interviewed, who commented anonymously because of grand jury secrecy, said Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle became visibly angry when the grand jurors last week signed a document declining to indict, known as a ''no bill."

One person said the sole evidence Earle presented was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor, in which DeLay said he was generally aware of activities of his associates. He is charged in an alleged money- laundering scheme to funnel corporate donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The person said that Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay ''didn't say 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

After the grand jurors declined to go forward, the mood ''was unpleasant," the other person said, describing Earle's reaction.

DeLay and political aides Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were indicted last week by another grand jury, accused of criminal conspiracy to violate Texas election laws.

After the second grand jury declined to indict, a third grand jury brought money laundering charges against DeLay on Monday.

Dick DeGuerin, attorney for DeLay, sought to have the original conspiracy charge dismissed Monday by arguing in a court filing that contended the indictment was based on a law that the Legislature changed in 2003. The original indictment alleges that the illegal acts date to 2002.

Earle said late Tuesday that he sought the second indictment of DeLay on Monday because he became aware of additional evidence.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone even read the "charge"? There are no real facts in it, usually an indictment sort of "relies" on facts to even be presented, they are strangely and profoundly missing in this "case". Especially involving Mr. Delay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the charge? The parties involved, the exact dollar amounts, the money trail through the various accounts in question, and a photocopy of one of the checks don't count as facts?

Here is the link to the indictment:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/0...indictment.pdf

Please note as well that this is an indictment, not a conviction, thus a landslide of rock-solid airtight evidence is not going to be included. That's what the trial will be for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Count the times that you see Delay mentioned. Count the number of specific FACTS that are presented about Delay. 3 total times, that's all. Then the "facts" they present are that he knew about it somehow and approved it somehow. It is further comical that even if he HAD done what is charged, it wasnt a crime at the time. Shame on him for not breaking the law.

Re: Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Count the times that you see Delay mentioned. Count the number of specific FACTS that are presented about Delay. 3 total times, that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantasic! You've gone from no facts to 3 facts! That is significant progress; you should be very proud of yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Then the "facts" they present are that he knew about it somehow and approved it somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's the charge. The facts are the details of the transaction. The charge is that DeLay, as you say, knew about it somehow and approved it somehow. If you're insisting there is no actual proof of this in the indictment, then I repeat my earlier statement - this is an indictment, not a conviction, thus a landslide of rock-solid airtight evidence is not going to be included. That's what the trial will be for.

[ QUOTE ]
It is further comical that even if he HAD done what is charged, it wasnt a crime at the time. Shame on him for not breaking the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awwww. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. Since you read MtSmalls' post and even responded (indirectly), while completely failing to comprehend it, allow me to try.

The charge is that DeLay violated Texas Penal Code Section 15.02, which is criminal conspiracy, defined briefly as entering into an agreement to commit a felony. This was on the books in 2002.

The alleged felony itself, contributing corporate money to individuals, was also on the Election Code (not Penal Code) books in 2002. Earle has no jurisdiction over Election Code in DeLay's county, so he couldn't prosecute the felony itself. That is why the charge is a Penal Code violation (conspiracy to commit a felony), not an Election Code violation (the felony itself).

Make sense so far? Here's where DeLay's argument comes into play.

In 2003, the Election Code was changed to state explicitly that the above section of the Penal Code applies to felonies committed under the Election Code.

DeLay's argument is that this means the Penal Code conspiracy charge didn't apply to Election Code felonies in 2002. However, at least one legal scholar has disagreed, stating that the Penal Code already applied to all felonies implicitly, and the change in the Election Code just made it explicit for the sake of clarity. (See article here.)

Anyway, this is ultimately for a judge to decide, but there is sufficient gray area that you cannot just categorically state that it wasn't a crime at the time.

Btw, read here for a deeper explanation of this issue. Warning, it is a liberal blog site, just in case you want to save time and dismiss it on an ad hominem basis without even looking at the actual content.

Re: Grand Jury Shopping: Abuse of Power or not?
 

From the Washington Post:

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) met for at least 30 minutes with the top fundraiser of his Texas political action committee on Oct. 2, 2002, the same day that the Republican National Committee in Washington set in motion a series of financial transactions at the heart of the money-laundering and conspiracy case against DeLay.

During the meeting at his Capitol office, DeLay conferred with James W. Ellis, the head of his principal fundraising committee in Washington and his chief fundraiser in Texas. Ellis had earlier given the Republican National Committee a check for $190,000 drawn mostly from corporate contributions. The same day as the meeting, the RNC ordered $190,000 worth of checks sent to seven Republican legislative candidates in Texas.