Not hearing much on the Delay indictments suddenly

[Matty]

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.

[whiskeytown]

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

[John Ho]

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 ]

[whiskeytown]

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

[Felix_Nietsche]

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."

[nyc999]

Uh oh...

Linking Delay To Everyday Operations of Texans For A Republican Majority

[Felix_Nietsche]

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.

[jaxmike]

[ 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.

[pankwindu]

[ 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.

[nyc999]

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.