DeLay Indicted

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The more info I hear about this, the more I am convinced that DeLay will breeze through this situation without a scratch

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering he's had to step down as the Majority Leader (at least temporarily)...and the news cycle for the next 48 hours will be dominated by the words "Republican congressman/majority leader Tom Delay" and "criminal indictment", I think he/the party has at least been scratched.

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he/the party has at least been scratched.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially when you consider the fact that the MSM can now start linking all of these together:

DeLay - Indicted
Frist - Now under direct SEC Investigation
Abramoff - Under investigation, also partners under investigation for murder for hire
Rove - Plame investigation coming to an end in October...

[slamdunkpro]

According to a lawyer friend it’s OK to use the testimony or deposition of an unnamed un-indicted co-conspirator in a grand jury, but testimony of a co-conspirator is insufficient for conviction in a trail.

Is this the case in Texas?

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'm not sure.
I do know the defendent is not allowed to have his attorney in the room with him during the questioning. I believe the defendent is allowed to leave the room to consult his lawyer. The rules are rather strange. The purpose of the grand jury is to act as the first line of defense against a malicious government prosecution NOT TO CONDUCT A FULL TRIAL. DeLay's "no bill" on all charges but one was a legal victory for him and a legal defeat for Ronnie Earle.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a joke among DAs that they could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. The reason for this is there are strict limitations on how the indicted person may defend themselves in front of a Grand Jury. ACTUALLY, in legal circles when a Grand Jury "no bills" a defendent, it is considered a MAJOR DEFEAT for the DA. Indicting Tom DeLay on conspiracy charges was no big deal from a 'legal' standpoint. If Tom DeLay was truly "No Billed" on the other charges then this was a major legal victory by Delay..... It shows that Earle brought several baseless charges against him. If anything it shows that Ronnie Earle was overplaying his hand on those other charges.

The more info I hear about this, the more I am convinced that DeLay will breeze through this situation without a scratch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I do agree with most of this. I just want to point out that one of the reasons why prosecutors are usually successful in obtaining an indictment is because the burden of proof required. Although it varies from state to state, the prosecution usually must only make out a prima facie (literally, "at first sight") case that the defendant committed a crime. Of course, the burden at trial is much more stringent - the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

A prosecutor is unlikely to go forward with a case unless he thinks he has enough evidence to meet the tougher burden of proof; therefore, he usually has enough evidence to easily meet the lower burden of proof necessary to obtain an indictment.

So I buy part of your argument - I do think it's possible that a prosecutor could, if he wanted, engage in some political grandstanding by securing indictments against politicians whom he didn't have sufficient evidence to convict. Does anyone know Earle's convction rate in these politician cases?

However, I think it's pretty clear that Earle hasn't been engaging in anti-Republican prosecutions; if anything he's been targeting Democrats. Additionally, most DA's are, to my knowledge, elected. I doubt that Earle could continually bring frivolous indictments against Democratic politicians in a Democratic stronghold and yet get re-elected.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Considering he's had to step down as the Majority Leader (at least temporarily)...and the news cycle for the next 48 hours will be dominated by the words "Republican congressman/majority leader Tom Delay" and "criminal indictment", I think he/the party has at least been scratched.
************************************************** *******
It is PR defeat and he had to step down because of house rules. If DeLay is willing, the people of Sugarland, TX will keep sending him to Washington and I predict he will be the majority leader once this silly charge have been resolved.

Ronnie Earle and the democrat party are overplaying their hands once again. Mark my words. Tom DeLay will seek a QUICK TRIAL and RONNIE EARLE will do EVERYTHING in his power to DELAY (no pun intended) this trial. The reasons are:
(1)The longer the delay, the more time will elapse before DeLay can become the majority leader once again.
(2)He has no case and will be laughed out of court.

The happiness and glee the democrats are experiencing will do NOTHING in helping them regain political power. I suppose I should shut up and not rain on their parade. The 2008 elections will send them another wakeup call to the Democratic party.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It is PR defeat

[/ QUOTE ]

I think PR victories/defeats are what retail politics is all about, right?

I think it's necessary to make a distinction between the legal and the political implications for Tom DeLay. I don't think we can say anything conclusive about what the legal implications for Tom DeLay will be; in fact, it's likely he'll have no legal consequences (in that, if I were to guess, I'd probably wager that he won't be convicted).

Yet I think it's hard to deny some political damage hasn't been done - particularly since you concede DeLay has suffered a PR defeat.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Perhaps you have heard the phrase, "All politics is local".
If New Yorkers and other northeast liberals hate Tom DeLay even more, it will have ZERO effect on DeLay's congressional career. The people of Sugarland, TX will continue to re-elect him and send him to Congress. As for PR damage, it is only temporary. Once DeLay is cleared of this charge, Ronnie Earle will look like a partisan hack that he truly is.

Several talk shows have invited lawyers to review the indictment and so far the unanamous reaction had been incredulation. These attorneys have expressed shock that a DA could could actually file an indictment without any details of the supposed offense. The indictment is suppose to include enough detail where a defendent will clearly understand the specifics of the charge so a defense may be prepared. So far the lawyers that reviewed the indictment have said that don't know what DeLay is being charged with.

The more I learn, the more confident I am that Delay will EASILY prevail....
Ronnie Earle is overplaying his hand and it will be fascinating to see how this turns out for him.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you have heard the phrase, "All politics is local".
If New Yorkers and other northeast liberals hate Tom DeLay even more, it will have ZERO effect on DeLay's congressional career. The people of Sugarland, TX will continue to re-elect him and send him to Congress. As for PR damage, it is only temporary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this probably won't threaten DeLay's reelection chances; but that doesn't mean there isn't a cost for the Republcans. Couple this with the Plume investigation, the Frist stock sale, and Jack Abramoff investigation - and the Democrats' "Republican Party = corruption" narrative writes itself.

[Matty]

Oh yes let's dumb this down to talking points:

EARLE HAS PROSECUTED FOUR TIMES AS MANY DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS: "Over Earle's 27-year tenure, his Public Integrity Unit has prosecuted 15 elected officials, including 12 Democrats." [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/05]

EARLE PROSECUTED DEMOCRATS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF STATE GOVERNMENT: "Some of the Democrats prosecuted by Earle and his Public Integrity Unit are former Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox, former State Treasurer Warren Harding and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough." [AP, 12/12/04]

EARLE AIDES WENT ON TO RUN FOR OFFICE AS REPUBLICANS: "Some of his top assistants have been with him for decades. A few have gone on to run for elected office as Republicans." [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/05]