Tom Delay Charges May Be Looming

[Nbadan]

http://rawstory.com/images/new/delayopen.jpg


WASHINGTON - A Texas grand jury's recent interest in conspiracy charges could lead to last-minute criminal indictments — possibly against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay — as it wraps up its investigation Wednesday into DeLay's state political organization, according to lawyers with knowledge of the case.

Conspiracy counts against two DeLay associates this month raised concerns with DeLay's lawyers, who fear the chances are greater that the majority leader could be charged with being part of the conspiracy. Before these counts, the investigation was more narrowly focused on the state election code.

By expanding the charges to include conspiracy, prosecutors made it possible for the Travis County grand jury to bring charges against DeLay. Otherwise, the grand jury would have lacked jurisdiction under state laws.

The Associated Press spoke to several lawyers familiar with the case, all of whom requested anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly. DeLay, R-Texas, said Tuesday that prosecutors have interviewed him. He has insisted he committed no crimes and says Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, is pursuing the case for political reasons.

The disclosure came as congressional officials said top House Republicans were quietly considering how to respond if an indictment were issued.

House GOP rules require any member of the elected leadership to step down temporarily if indicted, and it would be

It's up to the rank and file to select an interim replacement. Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., could make a recommendation, whether choosing to elevate another member of the leadership or tapping an alternative to reduce the possibility of a struggle if DeLay were cleared and then sought to reclaim his post.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050928/ap_on_go_co/delay_investigation)

[xrayzebra]

pant, pant, pant, pant, heavy breathing, very heavy breathing......wet dream time for Dan. Ah, Dan, charges aren't convictions....re Clinton.

[Medvedenko]

Regardless if there is any reality to these charges....he's not going anywhere.

[Vashner]

Dan's about to get his rocks off..

Maybe it will get a pass like Sandy Burgler?

[mookie2001]

I fucking hate his smug gerrymandering ass

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It's funny reading the reactions of every conservative to shit like this.

[mookie2001]

try scoffing Haliburton or the Patriot Act and see them argue for Haliburton and against the Constitution
never fails to make me hysterical with rage

[Useruser666]

I don't support the Patriot Act. I'm not a Haliburton stock holder, but if it is the best company for the job, then let them have it. I have never seen any proof that there was a better or cheaper company that could do what they do. Show me some consistent proof of this and you might have some credibility.

[Vashner]

Ok Dan you are cleared for Neolibgasm...
He was charged...

[Hook Dem]

It's funny reading the reactions of every conservative to shit like this.
It is also funny to read the reactions of the "liberals"!

[2centsworth]

we're sheep. while we fight and call each other names all these freakin politicians are drunk with power and laughing their way str8 to the bank.

[boutons]

September 28, 2005

DeLay Is Charged With Criminal Conspiracy in Texas

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:24 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.

DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee.

''I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today,'' DeLay said.

The White House, meanwhile, called DeLay a ''good ally,'' and said President Bush still considered DeLay a friend and effective leader in Congress.

GOP congressional officials said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties. Some of the duties may go to the GOP whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. The Republican rank and file may meet as early as Wednesday night to act on Hastert's recommendation.

Criminal conspiracy is a state felony punishable by six months to two years in a state jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The potential two-year sentence forces DeLay to step down under House Republican rules.

At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the president still considers DeLay ''a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people.''

''I think the president's view is that we need to let the legal process work,'' McClellan said.

[Nbadan]

we're sheep. while we fight and call each other names all these freakin politicians are drunk with power and laughing their way str8 to the bank.

Doesn't have to be that way if we start holding our elected leaders accountable at the ballot box. This is exactly why we need a Bi-partisan Investigation into the Katrina disaster relief effort, for accountability, not the blame-game.

[Obi wan Ginobili]

for accountablility, not the blame game?

wtf?

if you try to hold someone accountable for what happend are you not blaming them?

idiot

[Useruser666]

:lol I blame the hurricane for the most.

[mookie2001]

whattttt??????????????????????????



Tom Delay that crooked smug gerrymandering rich piece of shit is going down

[xrayzebra]

Doesn't have to be that way if we start holding our elected leaders accountable at the ballot box. This is exactly why we need a Bi-partisan Investigation into the Katrina disaster relief effort, for accountability, not the blame-game.

And then this: "mookie2001 whattttt??????????????????????????



Tom Delay that crooked smug gerrymandering rich piece of shit is going down
Today 01:24 PM "

Now there is a real comparison of accountability, not the blame game. From the "stuck on stupid" twins.

You two only have three more years of Bush. And then four more years of who we, the majority, elect to drive you crazy with four more years.....hehehehehehe!

[Nbadan]

Some sources say Delay may already have a plea deal in place...

The long and short of all the legalese is that Delay, acting with the advice of his counsel, waived his statute of limitations defense in advance of the issuance of the State indictment against him.

You know, the statute of limitations is the part of the law that says for certain crimes you have to bring the charge within a certain number of years, months, whatever. Delay waived the 3 year statute on this charge.

He was not indicted out of the blue, then. His attorneys were aware of the pending indictment, and must have participated in its preparation.

Why would he waive the statute of limitations on a state jail felony charge? (Under Texas law a 'state jail felony' is a sort of cross between a misdemeanor and a felony. It's a felony, but you get probation right off the bat and you can't go to prison for it) It says he waived it with the advice of counsel.

The only reason any defense attorney worth having would advise a client to waive a statute of limitations objection to a felony is if it were in exchange for a reduced charge.

In other words, Ronnie Earle must have told Delay's attorneys that if he didn't agree to waive the statute of limitations for a state jail felony, he would be charged with something more serious, some sort of charge with a longer statute of limitations.

This case may already be headed for a no-jail but resign sort of plea bargain for Delay.

[Vashner]

Here is a pack of moist wipes. Thought you might need them.

[boutons]

washingtonpost.com

GOP Ignores Lessons of Democrats' Past Mistakes

By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 28, 2005; 6:27 PM

In response to the criminal charges he now faces, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has offered up the time-honored defense of Washington politicians: My enemies are out to get me.

In a Capitol Hill news conference, DeLay lashed out, calling the Texas prosecutor who brought the felony charge against him an "unabashed partisan zealot" and a "fanatic." DeLay's supporters echoed the theme. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) -- the man who will fill in for DeLay -- said: "Unfortunately, Tom DeLay's effectiveness as Majority Leader is the best explanation for what happened in Texas today."

It didn't take long for DeLay's supporters to get the talking points. In a statement e-mailed to reporters hours after news of the indictment broke, the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, leader of the Traditional Values Coalition, said DeLay was "a Christian man" and accused prosecutor Ronnie Earle of exacting "political retribution."

Yet, The Washington Post's Jeffrey Smith reported last year that "Earle, an elected Democrat who oversees the state's Public Integrity Unit, previously prosecuted four elected Republicans and 12 Democrats for corruption or election law violations."

And the Associated Press reported last December that Earle had prosecuted some of the biggest Democratic names in the state, including, "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."

Buried under a sea of political scandal in the late 1980s and early 1990s, congressional Democrats often evoked the same defense. And it didn't work .

"Common Cause has made itself the handmaiden of a partisan political initiative," Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright (Tex.) complained in a May 18, 1988, press release --the day the nonpartisan watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against him in the House.

Wright resigned the next year in disgrace. Republicans exploited Wright's troubles and a series of other Democratic foibles to put an end to the Democrats' four-decade reign in Washington in 1994.

The reason was simple: It is entirely possible both that your enemies are out to get you and that you did exactly what you are being accused of doing. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Ask Bill Clinton.

DeLay is innocent until proven guilty. Yet whatever his intentions, the timing of Earle's indictment couldn't have been worse for the Republican Party. Going into next year's midterm elections, the second most powerful person in the House is under indictment, and the most powerful person in the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), is being investigated by both the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors. In addition, a special prosecutor is investigating whether top White House officials may have leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters.

On top of that, the White House's top procurement officer, David Safavian, was arrested last week on charges of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government. And Abramoff, once one of Washington's top lobbyists, is being investigated for his lobbying activities on behalf of Indian tribes and his role in paying for overseas trips for DeLay. DeLay has said he didn't know Abramoff paid the expenses.

But with the voting public so inured to political scandal in Washington, all of those things together might not mean much for the party were it not already in deep water with the voters over the war in Iraq, its response to Hurricane Katrina and the summer's spike in gas prices. Bush's approval rating in some polls hovers around 40 percent, and Congress's is even lower.

Amy Walter, who analyzes House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said, "If people were confident about the direction of the country, happy with performance of the White House and Congress, it's not as big of an issue. But when you put it in this in the current political environment, Democrats don't have to work very hard" to damage Republicans.

Walter's comments raise the question about whether Democrats will make ethics and scandal front-burner issues next year. Walter makes another salient point when she points out that approval ratings for Democrats aren't much higher right now than they are for Republicans.

Can Democrats coalesce around scandal and ethics as a unifying theme, after largely failing to do so with Iraq, Katrina, tax cuts and other major issues? Difficult to say.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) fired a shot yesterday, saying in a statement: "The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people."

But when I called a top Democratic congressional staffer to discuss the broader political implications, the person was skittish and wanted go "on background."

Contrast the Democrats' tepid approach to that of the Republicans of the late 1980s and early 1990s. You could hardly turn on C-Span back then without seeing a pudgy, white-haired back-bencher from Georgia by the name of Newt Gingrich inveighing against the rampant corruption and arrogance of the Democratic party.

True enough, there are Democrats in Congress today with their own ethics problems , complicating efforts to tag the GOP as the party of low standards. But the same was true of the Republicans when they were in the minority party, and that didn't stop them from pressing their case against the Democrats. The bottom line is leaders are always held to a higher standard than back-benchers.

For a long time, Democrats acted like no one was listening or cared. Then came November 1994.

Will Republicans repeat that mistake?

© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

=======================

By their very self-defined nature and the dirty business they have chosen, all politicians are gulity until proven innocent, no presumption of innocence.

Is this a political charge? If so, WGAF? He's politician, a particularly nasty one, so how can HE blame anything on politics? the dumbshit.

The Repubs impeached Clinton for a blow-job.

Payback's a bitch.

[mookie2001]

is he not rich and gerrymandering?

[Yonivore]

I've read the indictment twice...and, for the life of me, I can't find the allegations against Tom DeLay.

Kay Bailey Hutchison: Indicted by Earle three times. All three times the indictments were dismissed post haste.

Jim Mattox: Indicted by Earle. Dismissed.

Bob Bullock (Conservative Democratic friend of the President's): Indicted by Earle. Dismissed.

This is, by far, the most pathetic attempt yet foisted by his office. The only thing I can figure is that he is trying to stretch it out until mid-terms before it is dismissed.

[Yonivore]

It's already unraveling...

From a former DOJ Lawyer:


Ronnie Earle argues that Tom DeLay conspired to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the facts. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the law.

According to the indictment, the conspiracy was to unlawfully make a political contribution of corporate funds to a political party within 60 days of an election.

The Texas Election Code clearly states that "A corporation or labor organization may not knowingly make a contribution [to a political party] during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election." Title 15, Texas Election Code, § 253.104. Texas law also states in part that "A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed: (1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and (2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement."

The Problems with Earle's case:

In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over DeLay, Earle charges that because Congressman DeLay may have known about the transaction before it occurred, he was then part of a conspiracy.

However, Earle's office has sworn testimony and other exculpatory evidence showing that Congressman DeLay did not have knowledge of the transaction.

In addition:

No corporation or labor organization was indicted in this conspiracy. Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor organization.

No corporation or labor organization made a contribution during 60 days of an election.

What constitutes a contribution under the Texas Election Code is not strictly defined.

Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.

Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.

There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?

Then, this:


Ronnie Earle has a history of using his office for attacks on his political and personal enemies.

·"The Travis County, Texas, prosecutor investigating Mr. DeLay has a history of using his office for partisan ends."(Congressional prerogative, The Washington Times, November 19, 2004)

·Earle has demonstrated a past zeal for indicting conservative figures and even liberals with whom he has personal or professional disagreements. (Target: DeLay, National Review, April 11, 2005)

Earle's partisan prosecutions - which have frequently failed - are designed for political harm, not legal harm. Earle is the same partisan prosecutor who politically indicted and failed to convict:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Conservative Democrat Bob Bullock (when he was Comptroller - later he was Lt. Governor)
Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox

Ronnie Earle's three year political vendetta against Rep. DeLay has been marked by:

Illegal grand jury leaks,
A fundraising speech by Earle for the Texas Democrat party that inappropriately focused on the investigation,
Misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and
Extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them.

Ronnie Earle has been frequently criticized for his methods:

The Dallas Morning News criticized Earle in the Hutchison case:

"the impression of partisan unfairness has certainly been reinforced by the leaks and public comment about Hutchison's case from the District Attorney's office throughout the summer. That the Grand Jury investigation has been conducted with so much fanfare such as the tip-offs to the new media when key records were seized from the former treasurer's office has added a darker tone to the cloudy proceedings." (Hutchison Probe; Fair and Speedy trial is essential, The Dallas Morning News, September 28, 1993)

The Houston Chronicle called into question Earle's impartiality and judgment:

"The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his blunder and would do it again calls into question whether he has the necessary impartiality and judgment to conduct the investigation that to a great extent will determine whether Texas election campaigns will be financed and perhaps determined by corporations or by individuals."

(Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's poor judgment in speaking at a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost for DeLay's defenders., The Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2005)
Ronnie Earle is dog squeeze...

[mookie2001]

There was no contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy


ohhh...

[Nbadan]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1203/csmimg/p1b.jpg

Some things you ought to know about Ronnie Earl. First of all, since he got installed as the Austin prosecutor going after political corruption, he's indicted about twice as many Democrats as he has indicted Republicans. (12 (D) - 4 (R) to be exact)

He's been voted Texas' prosecutor of the year and the public administrator of the year for Austin. His office has been listed as among the top ten model offices in the nation by the National District Attorney's Association.

The Harvard professor who wrote "Broken Windows", the study that helped Giuliani clean up New York called his office "one of the most thoroughly problem-oriented agencies in criminal justice today".

Even Bill O'Reilly once singled him out for "innovative approaches to law enforcement".

He is not a crackpot and he's not a partisan. He's highly respected and he's a force to be reckoned with.

Here we go - A List of PARTISAN EARLE'S PAST VICTIMS:


"• Former state Rep. Gilbert Serna, D-El Paso. Pleaded guilty to charges of theft by a public servant in 2000.

• Former state Rep. Lane Denton, D-Waco. Found guilty of theft in 1995.

• State Rep. Betty Denton, D-Waco, pleaded guilty in 1995 to perjury charges.

• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican, indicted on a charge of official misconduct. Earle in 1994 declined to present a case at trial. Hutchison received a directed verdict of acquittal.

• Land Commissioner Garry Mauro, Democrat, investigated in 1992 for political misuse of his agency for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign. Earle found no "conscious pattern of misuse of state property for political or personal purposes."

• Speaker Gib Lewis, D-Fort Worth. Pleaded guilty in 1992 of misdemeanor filing of false financial statements. Lewis in 1983 also pleaded guilty to misdemeanor failure to file a financial statement.

• San Antonio voter registrar Marco Gomez, Democrat, pleaded guilty in 1992 to tampering with a government record.

• State Rep. Charles Staniswallis, R-Amarillo, pleaded guilty to felony theft in 1990.

• Attorney General Jim Mattox, Democrat, found innocent by a jury in 1983 on charges of commercial bribery.

• Texas Treasurer Warren G. Harding, Democrat, pleaded guilty in 1982 to misdemeanor official misconduct.

• State Rep. Mike Martin, R-Longview. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor perjury charge in 1981 for having lied about arranging to have himself shot to generate publicity.

• State Sen. Gene Jones, D-Houston, pleaded guilty in 1980 to a misdemeanor charge of official misconduct for using a state computer for political purposes.

• Travis County Commissioner Bob Honts, a Democrat who later switched parties, pleaded guilty in 1979 to misdemeanor misapplication of county property."

Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...)

[Vashner]

Let the jury decide...

[Nbadan]

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison had been charged with using her state office and employees for political purposes and covering up the evidence but was not convicted. Right-wing radio was reporting today that Earl went after Hutchison for throwing a comb at a staff member. What a bunch of morons!


Then, in 1993, he indicted his first important Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. It was the typical thing, using state telephones for campaign purposes. But Hutchison had a political consultant named Karl Rove, and soon it was Earle who was in for the fight of his life. Bumper stickers appeared all over Texas denouncing the Earle of Injustice. Republicans began accusing him of everything from conflict of interest to leaking to the press to "Gestapo-like tactics." For weeks they kept up a wave of hostile press releases and telephone calls, even pushing the legal limit by contacting every single member of his grand jury. One Republican called it a "scorched-earth policy."

But it worked. Having stirred up so much publicity, Hutchison claimed there was too much publicity and got the case moved to a Republican district near Fort Worth. When the new judge made an order that would have resulted in Earle having to go through a separate hearing on each piece of evidence—and there were hundreds of pieces of evidence—he lost hope and dropped the case. His friends were puzzled. His enemies crowed: Bizarre! Flaky!

Esquire Magazine, Who The Hell Is Ronnie Earle? (http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2005/050928_mfe_earle_4.html)

[JoeChalupa]

From I've read hasn't this DA prosecuted quite a few democrats as well?

I think he's gone after like 15 politicians and around 12 of them have been democrats.

But I could be wrong.

[Yonivore]

From I've read hasn't this DA prosecuted quite a few democrats as well?

I think he's gone after like 15 politicians and around 12 of them have been democrats.

But I could be wrong.
No, no, you're right...but, if you look back, those people actually committed crimes that were detailed in the indictments. Most plead guilty because, well, the crimes were apparent. Sometimes, even a Democratic hack like Earle can't avoid actually doing his job.

With Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom Delay, no such specificity. Just vague assertions that even Earle can't adequately articulate.

[JoeChalupa]

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/delay/delayind92805ind3.jpg

I think there is evidence but I could be wrong.

[RandomGuy]

It should surprise no one that the party that thinks torture is ok also misplaces it's sense of ethics when it comes to campaign donations.

"Win at any cost" is more expensive than people think...

[RandomGuy]

No, no, you're right...but, if you look back, those people actually committed crimes that were detailed in the indictments. Most plead guilty because, well, the crimes were apparent. Sometimes, even a Democratic hack like Earle can't avoid actually doing his job.

With Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom Delay, no such specificity. Just vague assertions that even Earle can't adequately articulate.


Earl has gone after more democratic politicians than republican ones. This directly contradicts the assertion that he is doing this simply because Delay is a republican.

How do you explain this?

[RandomGuy]

No, no, you're right...but, if you look back, only democrats actually committed crimes that were detailed in the indictments.


:rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

No, no, you're right...but, if you look back, those people actually committed crimes that were detailed in the indictments. Most plead guilty because, well, the crimes were apparent. Sometimes, even a Democratic hack like Earle can't avoid actually doing his job.

With Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom Delay, no such specificity. Just vague assertions that even Earle can't adequately articulate.

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

[Yonivore]

Have you read the indictment? Aside from mentioning his name as a defendent, in the heading, Tom Dale Delay doesn't get another mention until they acknowledge he waived certain provisions of statute related to the statute of limitations.

Indictments usually tell one of what they are accused.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

It is clear as rain for me.

[Yonivore]

It is clear as rain for me.
Okay, quote the relevant portions of the indictment that specify the criminal act engaged in by Tom Delay.

Yes, the indictment describes an alleged crime. And, yes, Tom Delay's alleged "co-conspirators" are listed along with the specific acts they allegedly committed that constitute a alleged crime. But, nowhere will you find Tom Delay's alleged criminal act listed or described.

Even Earle, in his press conference, refused to state what Delay had allegedly done that constituted a crime; saying only that he would bring it out in court. That's code for, "we haven't figured that out yet."

[JoeChalupa]

Maybe he just doesn't want to reveal too much right now?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt just like you give to democrats.

[Yonivore]

Maybe he just doesn't want to reveal too much right now?
You mean like the crime? It's highly unusual (and I'm sure Manny-the-lawyer-in-training can clarify) for an indictment to be issued without a specific allegation of wrongdoing. If there is concern the indictment will tip the government's hand to those who've yet to be named, it's sealed. Otherwise, every indictment I've ever read has, with excruciating detail, specified the acts committed by the indicted that constituted a crime.


I'll give him the benefit of the doubt just like you give to democrats.
It'd be different if Earle didn't have a history of doing this to political opponents.

[JoeChalupa]

I didn't know those democrats he went after were political opponents....but I could be wrong.

[Yonivore]

I didn't know those democrats he went after were political opponents....but I could be wrong.
Like I said, even Ronnie Earle is forced to do his job sometimes. I'll bet that if you go back and read the indictments on those Democrats, the indicted was actually mentioned in the same sentence as the alleged crime.

[attyjackiechiles]

Okay, quote the relevant portions of the indictment that specify the criminal act engaged in by Tom Delay.

Yes, the indictment describes an alleged crime. And, yes, Tom Delay's alleged "co-conspirators" are listed along with the specific acts they allegedly committed that constitute a alleged crime. But, nowhere will you find Tom Delay's alleged criminal act listed or described.

Even Earle, in his press conference, refused to state what Delay had allegedly done that constituted a crime; saying only that he would bring it out in court. That's code for, "we haven't figured that out yet."

"That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!"

[Yonivore]

Powerline has an interesting take on the Delay indictment...


There is a lot to be said about Ronnie Earle's indictment yesterday of Tom DeLay--and, by the way, a corrupt DA like Earle can procure an indictment of pretty much anyone he chooses, so I refuse to give Earle cover by attributing the indictment to the grand jury--but the most interesting question to me is, why did he do it?

To help the Democratic Party, obviously; but I mean the question more specifically. Earle has been conducting this "investigation" for three years. He indicted three of DeLay's aides a year ago. If he thought he could get away with indicting DeLay, why didn't he do it then, shortly before the 2004 election?

Earle has said more than once, including as recently as two weeks ago, that DeLay was not a target of his "investigation." So, what changed? One possibility is that, after three years, Earle suddenly found some evidence against DeLay. That's possible, I suppose, but certainly unlikely. Based on the indictment, which we linked to yesterday, it doesn't appear that Earle has any evidence at all. In all probability, the DeLay indictment will be thrown out at some point, and Earle will look like a fool, just as he did when he indicted Kay Hutchison shortly after she was elected to the Senate.

A year ago, and apparently as recently as two weeks ago, Earle did not choose to take that risk. So--once again--what changed? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it has to do with the impending battle over the Supreme Court. It appears that the Democrats have decided, barring the extremely unlikely possibility that President Bush nominates a Democrat, to filibuster the next nominee, whoever he or she may be. Such a move would be unprecedented in American history, and carries considerable political risk.

I believe that the Democrats think they can get away with a filibuster because they have the Republicans on the run--nothing but bad news from Iraq (untrue, but that's the impression you get from the media), the fiasco of Hurricane Katrina (also untrue, as we're learning), Bush's sagging poll numbers, etc. In order to lay the groundwork for their filibuster, the Democrats are doing everything they can to create an anti-Republican frenzy in the press. My guess is that the DeLay indictment is part of that effort.

It would be interesting to subpoena Ronnie Earle's telephone records and see what Democratic Senators or representatives of the Democratic National Committee he has been talking to over the past couple of weeks.

Could be...

[Nbadan]

a corrupt DA like Earle...

That's about as far as you have to read of the post to know it's spin...

http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10110/mURI_temp_4fecf568.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

So Delay was indicted by a partisan prosectuor with a film crew following him around in the case? We saw where he got with Kay Bailey.

No number of cartoons from obscure sites on the internets are going to disguise the obvious.

[SpursWoman]

So Delay was indicted by a partisan prosectuor with a film crew following him around in the case? We saw where he got with Kay Bailey.

No number of cartoons from obscure sites on the internets are going to disguise the obvious.



Since that seems to be his MO, I certainly wouldn't disregard that line of thinking. This ought to be interesting to watch unfold.

[Yonivore]

Ooooops....

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Sep-29-Thu-2005/news/3594772.html

[Nbadan]

So Delay was indicted by a partisan prosectuor with a film crew following him around in the case? We saw where he got with Kay Bailey.

No number of cartoons from obscure sites on the internets are going to disguise the obvious.

Yeah, Earle is such a partisan that he's tried and convicted more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans in Texas.

:rolleyes

[Nbadan]

Meanwhile, back in reality, some Republican lawmakers are so sure of Delay's eventual vindication that they are returning his PAC money NOW BEFORE it's too late...


Republicans may return DeLay's PAC funds

WASHINGTON — At least two Republicans in the House of Representatives say they will return money to Rep. Tom DeLay's political action committee now that the former majority leader has been indicted for allegedly conspiring to violate Texas campaign fundraising laws.

Reps. Jeb Bradley of New Hampshire and Heather Wilson of New Mexico said they would return contributions from Americans for a Republican Majority, the political action committee DeLay started to help elect GOP candidates to Congress. Known as ARMPAC, it is separate from Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC, which is at the center of the charge against DeLay.

...

Bradley, in his second term, was the first to renounce DeLay's money. He said he's returning $15,000 contributed in 2002 and 2004 to "remove any questions that may arise about contributions."

...

Most other House Republicans are watching polls on DeLay very carefully, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "They are all nervous as hell and don't want to break ranks — yet," he said.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-29-delay-funds_x.htm)

By next month Republicans will be whistling past Delay's graveyard saying,"Tom Who?"

[Nbadan]

'Stacks of papers' support indictment, foreman says; U.S. Rep. says there's no case
09:00 PM CDT on Friday, September 30, 2005
By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Grand jurors were presented a load of evidence, including testimony and phone records, that led them to believe Rep. Tom DeLay should be tried on a conspiracy charge, the leader of the Travis County grand jury that indicted the congressman said Friday.

"It was not one of those sugarcoated deals that we handed to Ronnie Earle," William M. Gibson said.

He added: "Mr. Earle has stacks and stacks of papers – evidence of telephone calls from Mr. DeLay and everybody."

Mr. DeLay has said that Mr. Earle has no evidence to prove that he tried to subvert Texas election laws. The Sugar Land Republican's lawyers did not return calls seeking comments on Mr. Gibson's description of the grand jury proceedings.

The indictment stems from the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee created by Mr. DeLay. The group, known as TRMPAC, is accused of trying to circumvent Texas laws that make it illegal to use corporate or union money in political campaigns.

Labeling it a money laundering scheme, Mr. Earle says that TRMPAC took $190,000 in corporate donations and routed it – along with the names of seven Statehouse candidates – to the Republican National Committee in September 2002. The RNC then sent out $190,000 in contributions to those same seven candidates, who couldn't legally have accepted corporate money.

At the heart of the conspiracy charge against Mr. DeLay is whether he knew about the transaction. Experts on Texas law say that knowledge alone might be all that is needed for a conviction under state law.

Mr. DeLay, who stepped down as House majority leader when the indictment was issued Wednesday, and his lawyers say he knew nothing about the money exchange at the time it happened and that the indictment is a political vendetta against him.

But in the first public acknowledgements of what evidence against Mr. DeLay might exist, Mr. Gibson, a 76-year-old former sheriff's deputy and state insurance investigator, said there were ample indications of the congressman's involvement.

He said that Mr. DeLay provided the district attorney with a written statement that was given to the grand jury to consider but that Mr. DeLay declined to sign a sworn document or testify under oath.

Mr. DeLay "just gave a statement saying he did nothing. And he didn't know how that money got back down here and all that stuff," Mr. Gibson said. "We believe different from other paperwork we got."

He added, "I am very much convinced that he had" knowledge of the transaction.

Dallas News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100105dntexdelay.20c896f8.html)

[boutons]

The New York Times
October 2, 2005

The War Against Tom DeLay
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT

WASHINGTON

TO hear Tom DeLay tell it, his indictment last week by a Texas grand jury resulted from a vast left-wing conspiracy - the culmination of years of relentless pursuit by Democrats who, in Mr. DeLay's words, "drug my name through the mud."

Democrats, of course, brushed the accusation aside, saying Mr. Delay, a Texas Republican, had only himself to blame for the conspiracy charge that forced him to step aside as the House majority leader.

But in fact an extensive network of forces has been aligned against Mr. DeLay - a kaleidoscope of activists and liberals, clean-government advocates and legal experts, even a smattering of resentful conservatives and Republican moderates, all bound by their desire to see him stopped.

Some have launched daily blogs devoted to the House leader, rented billboard ads denouncing him and mobilized phone banks to spread the word. Others have staged protests and written opinion pieces. A few have invoked his name to recruit Democratic candidates - one, predictably, in his Texas district, but many more in other parts of the country, where the DeLay name has slowly become Democratic code for Republican corruption after many months of a public relations campaign with that very goal in mind.

Whether the roaring anti-DeLay machine deserves even partial credit - or blame - for his tumble last week is up for debate. Mr. DeLay has painted the veteran Democratic prosecutor in the case, Ronnie Earle, as a partisan fanatic, while Mr. Earle's defenders claim he is an evenhanded seeker of justice. The grand jury Mr. Earle convened brought a count of conspiracy against Mr. DeLay alleging that he funneled illegal corporate contributions to Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature in 2002.

Regardless of how the criminal case unfolds, it is clear that Mr. Delay's persona has produced a cottage industry of forces that trace his every step and draw negative public attention to it.

"I think it's entirely his own undoing, but the good-government groups definitely decided to focus on him," said Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of the liberal organization MoveOn, which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars running advertisements against Mr. DeLay and for his current Democratic opponent.

Or from a different perspective: "The anti-DeLay groups are sore losers - or 'Soros losers' as we call them," said Barbara Comstock, a former spokeswoman at the Justice Department under President Bush who has been active in Mr. Delay's defense, referring to the billionaire George Soros, who contributes heavily to Democratic causes, including MoveOn.

Exactly how much money has been spent by partisan donors to drive Mr. DeLay from power is difficult to determine. Even the Republican National Committee and prominent Republican opposition researchers do not put a precise figure on it, although House Republicans did launch a drive earlier this year to link anti-DeLay groups to prominent Democratic donors.

According to the Washington newspaper The Hill, the Republican National Committee issued talking points in March that accused four independent watchdog groups, including Democracy 21 and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known as CREW, of having "close ties to left-wing leaders like George Soros."

Proving the extent of collaboration among Democrats, watchdog groups and their intermediaries is no simple task: Nonprofit groups have fewer campaign-finance disclosure requirements, making it harder to connect the dots, if any.

At the same time, the line between genuinely nonpartisan advocacy groups, which monitor the fund-raising of Democrats and Republicans, and partisan entities, which seek to unravel the Republicans' success, has grown blurry. Their strategies have overlapped - much the way those of Newt Gingrich and the watchdog group Common Cause did in 1988 when they highlighted ethics violations by Speaker Jim Wright, a Democrat.

Perhaps the most famously zealous Ahab in pursuit of Mr. DeLay's resignation is David Donnelly, the national campaign director for the Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonprofit organization with an adjoining political committee that has devoted its efforts to tracking the House leader. Its heavily trafficked Web log, the "Daily DeLay" compiles negative articles about Mr. DeLay's activities. It spent some $200,000 in his district in the 2004 campaign, according to Mr. Donnelly, and has circulated an online petition demanding that Mr. DeLay quit.

"There's no question that a lot of people have been out after DeLay for a long time," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Still, Mr. Ornstein said, "They wouldn't have gotten anywhere if there weren't a lot of grist for that mill."

Although the often-attacked Mr. Soros has not donated money directly to the Public Campaign Action Fund (his financing went to an affiliated but separate organization, the Public Campaign), other reliably Democratic entities have made such donations, including the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, which gave $150,000 in 2004, according to the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Over all, Mr. Soros's Open Society Institute has given at least $12,274,388 toward campaign-finance reform efforts in the last eight years, according to the same site. That money has contributed to his status as a favored culprit for Republicans seeking to identify the source of the anti-DeLay effort.

Another popular Republican target is CREW, which has doggedly monitored the ethics allegations against Mr. DeLay. Although CREW says it is nonpartisan, its director, Melanie Sloan, was once a lawyer for House Democrats.

The alignment of clean-campaign organizations and Democratic partisans "is something that's been very consistently done over the years, and these are groups that certainly cross-pollinate," said Ms. Comstock, now a principal at the Blank Rome government relations firm. "There's certainly a very strong over-arching theme here - to go after Tom."

On the contrary, the watchdog groups say. When the Democrats were in power, they faced similar scrutiny. "It just happens to be that the Republicans are in power in Washington now," Mr. Donnelly said. "We find ourselves being critical of those who are in power because money flows to them."

Mr. DeLay's claim of a witch hunt is also muddied by his conservative critics. The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal has not been a fan, nor has the editor of National Review, Rich Lowry, who said Mr. DeLay had become "too comfortable with the perks of power."

Yet, neither The Journal nor Mr. Lowry seem to enjoy themselves as much as the anti-DeLay groups, which have launched lively campaigns that ridicule Mr. DeLay in his own district, in Washington and nationally. Democracy for America, a New England group run by Howard Dean's brother Jim, posted billboards in Texas mocking Mr. DeLay's golf trip with Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist.

Campaign for America's Future, a progressive group best known for its work on the mustier subject of Social Security, ran a $75,000 advertising campaign after Mr. DeLay's controversial involvement in the case of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman taken off life support earlier this year.

Last week, the group posted a picture of Mr. DeLay on its Web site under the red-lettered headline, "Indicted."

Now, having accomplished at least one of its goals, the anti-DeLay movement seems to have diverted some of its focus from the Texas Republican and turned it toward unearthing the records of Roy Blunt, the Republican Congressman from Missouri who was elected as temporary majority leader.

Nevertheless, Mr. DeLay seems likely to keep his foes in the spotlight - much as Hillary Rodham Clinton turned the tables on what she called the "right-wing conspiracy" when her husband was under fire.

Mr. DeLay referred to his firing squad as a "left-wing syndicate" in interviews last April. "These people are all hooked up," he said on Fox News. "The same people that went after George W. Bush have just changed their focus onto me."

Following his indictment last week, he suggested that Democratic critics, specifically Rahm Emanuel, a leading House member, are directly in cahoots with Mr. Earle, the Texas district attorney.

That level of coordination has yet to be backed up with evidence. And Democrats argue that they would benefit from keeping Mr. DeLay on the national stage at least through the 2006 midterm elections. He could serve as a reminder of Republican misdeeds. "I think it's a ridiculous claim that there would be a coordinated effort," Mr. Matzzie of MoveOn said. "Nobody I know has talked to Ronnie Earle."

At the same time, he acknowledged, "In the crassest sense, having Tom DeLay as a punching bag plays to the advantage of his political opponents."


* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

===========================

http://www.creators.com/0925/CB/CB0930g.gif

[boutons]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif

October 2, 2005

In the Beginning, There Was Abramoff

By FRANK RICH

"Terri Schiavo is not brain-dead; she talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort. Terri Schiavo is not on life support."
- Tom DeLay, March 20, 2005

IF you believed Tom DeLay then, you no doubt believe now that the deposed House majority leader is only on "temporary" leave from his powerful perch in Washington and that he'll soon bounce back, laughing all the way, from a partisan witch hunt that unjustly requires his brief discomfort in a Texas courtroom.

Those who still live in the reality-based community, however, may sense they're watching the beginning of the end of something big. It's not just Mr. DeLay, a k a the Hammer, who is on life support, but a Washington establishment whose infatuation with power and money has contaminated nearly every limb of government and turned off a public that by two to one finds the country on the wrong track.

But don't take my word for it. And don't listen to the canned talking points of the Democrats, who are still so busy trying to explain why they were for the war in Iraq before they were against it that it's hard to trust their logic on anything else. Listen instead to Andrew Ferguson, of the conservative Rupert Murdoch magazine, The Weekly Standard. As far back as last December in a cover article on the sleazy lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Mr. Ferguson was already declaring "the end of the Republican Revolution."

He painted the big picture of the Abramoff ethos in vibrant strokes: the ill-gotten Indian gambling moolah snaking through the bank accounts of a network of DeLay cronies and former aides; the "fact-finding" Congressional golfing trips to further the cause of sweatshop garment factories in the Marianas islands; the bogus "think tank" in Rehoboth Beach, Del., where the two scholars in residence were a yoga instructor and a lifeguard (albeit a "lifeguard of the year"). Certain names kept recurring in Mr. Ferguson's epic narrative, most prominently Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist, Republican money-changers who are as tightly tied to President Bush and Karl Rove as they are to Mr. Abramoff and Mr. DeLay, if not more so.

The bottom line, Mr. Ferguson wrote, was a culture antithetical to everything conservatives had stood for in the Gingrich revolution of 1994. Slaying a corrupt, bloated Democratic establishment was out, gluttony for the G.O.P. and its fat cats was in. Mr. Abramoff and his gang embodied the very enemy the "Contract With America" Congress had supposedly come to Washington to smite: " 'Beltway Bandits,' profiteers who manipulate the power of big government on behalf of well-heeled people who pay them tons of money to do so." Those tons of Republican money were deposited in the favors bank of K Street, where, as The Washington Post reported this year, the number of lobbyists has more than doubled (to some 35,000) since the Bush era began in 2000. Conservatives who once aspired to cut government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" - as a famous Norquist maxim had it - merely outsourced government instead to the highest bidder.

Mr. DeLay's latest plight is only a tiny detail within this vast Boschian canvas of depravity. If this were Watergate - and Watergate itself increasingly looks like a relatively contained epidemic of corruption - the Texas grand jury's indictment of the congressman and his associates would be a sideshow tantamount to the initial 1973 California grand jury indictment of the Nixon aide John Ehrlichman and his pals in the break-in at Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office; Watergate's real legal fireworks were still in the wings. So forget about all those details down in Texas that make your teeth hurt; don't bother to learn the difference between Trmpac and Armpac. Fasten your seat belt instead for the roller coaster of other revelations and possible indictments that's about to roar through the Beltway.

The most important plot development of the past two weeks, in fact, has nothing to do with Mr. DeLay (as far as we know). It was instead the arrest of the administration's top procurement officer, David Safavian, on charges of lying and obstructing the investigation of Mr. Abramoff. And what an investigation it is: The F.B.I., the I.R.S., the Treasury Department and the Interior Department have all been involved. The popular theory of the case has it that Mr. Safavian, a former lobbying colleague of both Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Norquist, is being muscled by the feds to rat on the big guys in Washington - much as another smaller fish may have helped reel in Mr. DeLay in Texas.

The DeLay and Abramoff investigations are not to be confused with the many others percolating in the capital, including, most famously of late, the Justice Department and S.E.C. inquiries into the pious Bill Frist's divine stock-sale windfall and the homeland security inspector general's promised inquiry into possible fraud in the no-bid contracts doled out by FEMA for Hurricane Katrina. The mother of all investigations, of course, remains the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's pursuit of whoever outed the C.I.A. agent Valerie Wilson to Robert Novak and whoever may have lied to cover it up. The denouement is on its way.

But whatever the resolution of any of these individual dramas, they will not be the end of the story. Like the continuing revelations of detainee abuse emerging from Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo, this is a crisis in the governing culture, not the tale of a few bad apples. Every time you turn over a rock, you find more vermin. We've only just learned from The Los Angeles Times that Joseph Schmitz, until last month the inspector general in charge of policing waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon, is himself the focus of a Congressional inquiry. He is accused of blocking the investigation of another Bush appointee who is suspected of siphoning Iraq reconstruction contracts to business cronies. At the Justice Department, the F.B.I. is looking into why a career prosecutor was demoted after he started probing alleged Abramoff illegality in Guam. According to The Los Angeles Times, the demoted prosecutor was then replaced by a Rove-approved Republican pol who just happened to be a cousin of a major target of another corruption investigation in Guam.

We have to hope that the law will get to the bottom of these cases and start to connect the recurring dots. But while everyone is innocent until proved guilty, the overall pattern stinks and has for a long time. It's so filthy that the Republican caucus couldn't even find someone clean to name as Mr. DeLay's "temporary" stand-in as House majority leader last week. As The Washington Post reported in 2003, Roy Blunt, the Missouri congressman who got the job, was found trying to alter a homeland security bill with a last-minute provision that would have benefited Philip Morris-brand cigarettes. Not only had the tobacco giant contributed royally to Mr. Blunt's various campaign coffers, but both the congressman's girlfriend (now wife) and his son were Philip Morris lobbyists at the time.

This is the culture that has given us the government we have. It's a government that has spent more of the taxpayers' money than any since L.B.J.'s (as calculated by the Cato Institute, a libertarian research institution), even as it rewards its benefactors with tax breaks and corporate pork. It's a government so used to lying that Mr. DeLay could say with a straight face that the cost of Katrina relief could not be offset by budget cuts because there was no governmental fat left to cut. It's the government that fostered the wholesale loss of American lives in both Iraq and on the Gulf Coast by putting cronyism above patriotism.

The courts can punish crooks, but they can't reform democracy from the ground up, and the voters can't get into the game until 2006. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the key players both in the White House and in the leadership of both houses of Congress are either under investigation or joined at the hip to Messrs Rove, DeLay, Abramoff, Reed or Norquist. They seem to be hoping that some magical event - a sudden outbreak of peace and democracy in Iraq, the capture of Osama bin Laden, a hurricane affording better presidential photo ops than Rita - will turn things around. Dream on.

The one notable anomaly is John McCain, who retains a genuine hunger for reform, a rage at the corruption around him and the compelling motive of his presidential ambitions to push him forward; it's his Indian Affairs Committee, after all, that exposed the hideous Abramoff cesspool to public view last year. The Democrats, bereft of leadership and ideas (though not of their own Beltway bandits), also harbor a number of would-be presidents, but they are busier positioning themselves politically than they are articulating actual positions that might indicate what a new governmental order would look like. While the Republican revolution is dead, it says everything about the power vacuum left in its wake that Geena Davis's fictional commander in chief has more traction, as measured in Nielsen ratings and press, than any of the real-life contenders for that job in D.C.

[mookie2001]

Tom Delay that crooked smug gerrymandering rich piece of shit is going down

[RandomGuy]

At the Justice Department, the F.B.I. is looking into why a career prosecutor was demoted after he started probing alleged Abramoff illegality in Guam. According to The Los Angeles Times, the demoted prosecutor was then replaced by a Rove-approved Republican pol who just happened to be a cousin of a major target of another corruption investigation in Guam.

Bush administration MO. People who start looking at inconvienient facts tend to have bad things happen to them. Valerie Plame anyone?

[RandomGuy]

The reason was simple: It is entirely possible both that your enemies are out to get you and that you did exactly what you are being accused of doing. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Bingo. This statement is consistant with the generally accepted rules of logic, re: circumstantial ad hominem.

[Bandit2981]

So Delay was indicted by a partisan prosectuor with a film crew following him around in the case? We saw where he got with Kay Bailey
The grand jury indicted Delay, the prosecutor just provides his evidence findings.

[boutons]

"At the Justice Department, the F.B.I. is looking into why a career prosecutor ..."

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25828

[Yonivore]

The grand jury indicted Delay, the prosecutor just provides his evidence findings.
A corrupt District Attorney could get a grand jury to indict an eggplant. So, just what findings did the District Attorney's office provide to get them to indict? I wasn't a sealed indictment...and, for the life of me, I can't find where a crime, implicating Tom DeLay, is described. Heck, even Ronnie Earle himself seemed unprepared to support the indictment at the press conference. It was as if he thought the question wouldn't come up or something.

[MannyIsGod]

It obviously has to do with a different interpretation of the finance laws than the one you are using. Whether or not that stands up in court is a different matter.

Of course this is all politics, but to be quite frank the type of money laundering that was used to finance these campaigns was pretty damn shady at best, and criminal at worst. The intent of the law was crystal clear, and if this didn't violate the letter of the law it sure as hell did violate the spirit and intent.

To me in the long run this means shit unless someone figues out a way to level the playing field in campaign money, and I'm not holding my breath on that side of the story. More likely than not, this will be used for short term political gain and nothing more. People will eventually forget about it.

Everything in politics is so damn short term now.

[exstatic]

Speaking of money laundering, Manny...:lol
Second DeLay indictment... (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/delay.indictment/index.html)

[Yonivore]

Speaking of money laundering, Manny...:lol
Second DeLay indictment... (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/delay.indictment/index.html)
Second indictment, indeed. It's only because Earle knew the first was crap and went shopping for a second.

Earlier today, Tom DeLay's lawyers moved to dismiss Ronnie Earle's conspiracy indictment on the ground that Texas's conspiracy statute had no application to the election laws until it was amended in 2003--subsequent to the 2002 election cycle that is the subject of the indictment. The Austin Statesman notes that the term of the grand jury that Earle used to indict DeLay expired last week, and the statute of limitation may have run in the meantime.

DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, adds an interesting observation:


DeLay's lawyer Dick DeGuerin said "rumors are flying" that prosecutors were trying to find a sitting grand jury, who hadn't heard any of the DeLay case, to return a new money-laundering indictment.
As Mann will certainly attest, grand jury proceedings are ex parte, which means that the DA has the grand jury all to himself. The target of an investigation, like DeLay, doesn't get to be represented by counsel and participate in the proceedings. Now that the indictment has been leveled, however, the playing field is even. DeLay gets to hire a lawyer--he's hired a very good one--and he gets equal time with the Court.

So, sure enough, late this evening Earle got a new grand jury to indict DeLay on a new charge of "money laundering," which I assume we can take as an acknowledgement that the original charge can't stick. DeLay issued a statement in response to the new indictment:


Ronnie Earle has stooped to a new low with his brand of prosecutorial abuse. He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a 'do-over' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate. This is an abomination of justice.
Sounds about right to me. Earle may be routed again, as he was when he brought a specious indictment against Kay Hutchison. It helps a lot when you get to hire a lawyer and defend yourself, doesn't it?

Now, if I understand the news reports correctly, Earle just started scrambling around today, or at best within the last day or two, looking for a new grand jury with no prior knowledge of the DeLay matter. And he already had an indictment for "money laundering" by this afternoon? Unbelievable. If this is really correct, someone needs to start investigating Earle.

[RandomGuy]

Second indictment, indeed. It's only because Earle knew the first was crap and went shopping for a second.


And I am *sure* your legal expertise and psychic abilities allow you the expertise to be able to say that for certain. :rolleyes

It couldn't *possibly* be due to the fact that there might be something to the charges that a trial might bring out.

[Nbadan]

And I am *sure* your legal expertise and psychic abilities allow you the expertise to be able to say that for certain. :rolleyes

It couldn't *possibly* be due to the fact that there might be something to the charges that a trial might bring out.

Earlier in the thread I wrote that from a legal stand-point, it seemed as if Delay already had a deal with Earle in the works dropping the statue of limitations on the lesser charge conspiracy charge, which he initially did, for a promise from Earle that he would not seek prison time for Delay if convicted. Well, today Delay's attorney's decided to back out on their word to Earle, so Earle decided to go ahead with the more serious charge of money laundering.

http://www.tompaine.com/upload/DeLay%20billboard.gif

[Nbadan]

Delay should have stuck with his deal. The new indictment carries a sentence of life in prison...


"The new indictment, handed up by a grand jury seated Monday, contains two counts: conspiring to launder money and money laundering. The latter charge carries a penalty of up to life in prison. Last week, DeLay was charged with conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws."

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051004/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment)

[Yonivore]

And I am *sure* your legal expertise and psychic abilities allow you the expertise to be able to say that for certain. :rolleyes

It couldn't *possibly* be due to the fact that there might be something to the charges that a trial might bring out.
2 1/2 year investigation and he waits a week to get a new grand jury?

[ClintSquint]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/getoutofjailfree.gif

Tom is covered.

[boutons]

Arguing over the details and merits of the indictments is hardly the central or high-level issue. Abusing the legal system for political purposes is hardly shocking.

I'd really like the dirty bastard Delay in jail, but even if get barred from office, his 10 years of filth and corruption, with all of Congress, esp the Repugs, as accomplices, will live on after him.

His legacy is that influence-peddling is no longer a crime, but an accepted, expected banality. Another legacy, along with Rove, is that there is no middle in politics, there is no civility. It's all out war, with resistors in his own party being punished and destroyed, and enemy combattants fall under take no prisoners. The Repubs, as dickhead so clearly indicated after winning the 2002 mid-terms, see winning the war as permitting them to treat the US govt as spoils of war, raping and pillaging every aspect of govt until it is ineffective and destroyed.

This is not a rhetorical question: do the last 5 years of Repug govt have ANY redeeming values, any qualities, beyond enriching the rich and corps?

==========================

washingtonpost.com

DeLay's Influence Transcends His Title

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, October 3, 2005; A01

For the indefinite future, Washington will remain Tom DeLay's capital. Dislodged by a criminal indictment last week from his post as House majority leader, DeLay in his decade of steering the Republican caucus dramatically -- and in many cases inalterably -- changed how power is amassed and used on Capitol Hill and well beyond.

Proteges of the wounded Texan still hold virtually every position of influence in the House, including the office of speaker. DeLay's former staff members are securely in the lobbying offices for many of the largest corporations and business advocacy groups.

But even more than people, DeLay's lasting influence is an ethos. He stood for a view of Washington as a battlefield on which two sides struggle relentlessly, moderates and voices of compromise are pushed to the margins, and the winners presume they have earned the right to punish dissenters and reward their own side with financial and policy favors.

His take-no-prisoners style of fundraising -- in which the classic unstated bargain of access for contributions is made explicitly and without apology -- has been adopted by both parties in Congress, according to lawmakers, lobbyists and congressional scholars. Democrats, likewise, increasingly are trying to emulate DeLay-perfected methods for enforcing caucus discipline -- rewarding lawmakers who follow the dictums of party leaders and seeking retribution against those who do not.

Most of all, DeLay stood for a blurring of the line between lawmakers and lobbyists so that lobbyists are now considered partners of politicians and not merely pleaders -- especially if they once worked for Republicans on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers-turned-corporate lobbyists such as Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) and aides such as Ed Buckham, DeLay's former chief of staff, remain among the most influential figures on Capitol Hill -- often more involved than lawmakers in writing policy and plotting political strategy.

For a vivid sign of how what was once considered controversial has gone mainstream, consider the K Street Project. That was the name for a DeLay-inspired campaign -- for which he was chastised by the House ethics committee -- to demand that lobbying firms seeking access hire loyal Republicans. Rather than going underground, the project has gone unabashedly public, with a Web site, http://www.kstreetproject.com/ , providing news about the latest lobbying vacancies.

"People who have worked for Mr. DeLay become, like other senior Republican staffers, members in good standing of a club and are accepted back by many members [of Congress] and staffers," said Andrew M. Shore, chief of staff of the House Republican Conference. "The idea is that we are a team. What's good for one is good for all; anything to cultivate that team mentality is seen in a positive light."

Usually, staffers-turned-lobbyists lose their cachet when their former bosses retire or lose their jobs. But the DeLay fraternity -- so large that it is called DeLay Inc. -- does not look as if it will suffer the same fate. "Has the value of these people diminished? I would say no," Shore said. "As they transition into the private sector, the benefits are shared by the [Republican] conference. There's a symbiosis between the former staffers and many members of the conference."

None of the tactics used so effectively by DeLay and his allies were invented by them. The Texan's innovation was to systematically institutionalize them within the GOP. It's possible his zeal in these methods could ultimately bring about his downfall.

Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle won a grand jury indictment of DeLay on a charge of conspiring to illegally evade fundraising restrictions. DeLay, still in Congress, has vowed to return to his leadership post after clearing his name at trial -- though his future is shadowed by a tall stack of other legal and political problems. But scholars say his methods are imprinted on Washington like a tattoo. "Even if Boss DeLay leaves, his legacy stays," said James A. Thurber, director of congressional studies at American University.

Part of the reason for this is that DeLay's temporary replacement, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), is a DeLay protege whose rapid rise was spawned by the Texas Republican. So were the careers of almost everyone else in the House Republican leadership, including Rep. Eric I. Cantor of Virginia and Thomas M. Reynolds of New York. They are all social conservatives who support such pro-business policies as deregulation and tax cuts.

The DeLay network is just as formidable in downtown Washington. Former DeLay aides Buckham, Tony Rudy and Karl Gallant form the core of one of Washington's largest and fastest-growing lobbying firms, Alexander Strategy Group. Susan Hirschmann, a former DeLay chief of staff, is a senior member of Williams & Jensen, another major lobbying firm. Congressional aides said that these and other DeLay alumni are part of their "team" and will be welcome in their offices no matter what happens to their old boss.

Speaking of Hirschmann, Mike Stokke, deputy chief of staff to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), said, "Having DeLay in her background is a strength; having worked for Tom brings credibility."

There has been no sign that DeLay personally has been active in the K Street Project since he was admonished by the House ethics committee for pressuring the Electronics Industries Alliance to hire a Republican as its president seven years ago. Nonetheless, the project is still going strong; other lawmakers and lobbyists have taken up the cause. Job listings on K Street are still distributed in regularly scheduled meetings held by other GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.). Lobbying executives report that former Republican aides and lawmakers have telephoned them to suggest that their top openings should be filled with loyalists. The K Street Project Web site is run by well-connected conservative Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

In the House, DeLay enhanced the leadership's role by ending the practice of automatically promoting the most senior lawmakers to committee chairmanships and, instead, choosing loyalists to fill the powerful slots. Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) was booted from the chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee at the beginning of the current Congress because he repeatedly bucked DeLay and other GOP leaders on key votes. DeLay also arranged to have the chairmen elected by the committees themselves, whose members he also selected and was thus better able to control.

The same technique is now used in the Senate by Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who won the authority to select committee members after the 2004 elections increased his majority to 55 seats. "There is only one reason for that change, and it is to punish people," Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) told the newspaper Roll Call in November.

Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), an outspoken DeLay critic, has started to crack down on her own members with DeLay-like tactics. After this summer's vote on free trade with Central American nations -- a plan that several House Democrats supported despite her strong objections -- Pelosi summoned Democratic lawmakers to a private meeting and threatened to take away their committee assignments if they did not start voting with party leaders, according to participants.

DeLay's fundraising focus has also permeated Washington. Over the years, DeLay has raised tens of millions of dollars for Republicans through nearly a dozen fundraising entities. Today, no leader of either party or lawmaker with leadership ambitions would even consider not forming at least two such fundraising committees. "DeLay set a new benchmark for fundraising and that's not going to go away," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

DeLay established as common practice the requirement that House GOP incumbents with safe seats collect at least some money for the party as a whole. Chairmen of committees were particularly on the line to raise large sums, Republican aides said. Unless they paid up, their chairmanships were in danger.

In late June, Pelosi adopted a similar tack. She sent a letter warning that Democratic lawmakers who did not raise money for the House campaign committee would be deprived of everything from financial resources to telephone access. "If you are on the team, you have to" pay up, a House Democratic aide said.

Meanwhile, anyone looking for signs of the ongoing influence of DeLay Inc. will find another one today. It's the starting date for Time Warner Inc.'s new vice president for global public policy. The new executive is Tim Berry, former chief of staff to Tom DeLay.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Marcus Bryant]

Harry S. Truman was bought and paid for by organized crime in Kansas City, for example. Running a little money through the RNC back to some campaigns in Texas is a non-starter.

Earle got an indictment based on a law that wasn't even in effect at the time of the alleged crime. That goes to show you how much weight you should abscribe to a grand jury in Austin, Texas indicting a conservative GOP congressman.

What will be interesting is what the film crew following Earle around has caught on tape.

[Nbadan]

Harry S. Truman was bought and paid for by organized crime in Kansas City, for example. Running a little money through the RNC back to some campaigns in Texas is a non-starter.

Earle got an indictment based on a law that wasn't even in effect at the time of the alleged crime. That goes to show you how much weight you should abscribe to a grand jury in Austin, Texas indicting a conservative GOP congressman.

What will be interesting is what the film crew following Earle around has caught on tape.

A corrupt politician? What are the chances? There are traces of mob money being used to influence national elections going back all the way to Calvin Coolidge.

As I mentioned before, Earle indicted Delay on the lesser charge first because
they likely had a deal worked out where Delay would plead guilty, not have to serve Jail time, but his political career would be over. Yesterday morning, Delay's lawyers backed out of that deal challenging, as you said, the statue of limitations. By yesterday afternoon, Earle had gotten a Grand Jury to indict Delay on two new charges, conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering.

I suspect what will be on the tape will be a hard working state prosecutor.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, just like back in '93...

:guffaw

[Hook Dem]

"I suspect what will be on the tape will be a hard working state prosecutor.".................................................. .................................................O f course you do Dan. He's a Democrat! Duh!

[JoeChalupa]

It'll all come out soon and the millions of dollars in tax dollars will be well worth it.
I know I was satisfied with the results that 200 million dollars in tax money got me. I was dying to know if Bill really got oral in the Oval Office.

What ever it takes!!

[xrayzebra]

It obviously has to do with a different interpretation of the finance laws than the one you are using. Whether or not that stands up in court is a different matter.

Of course this is all politics, but to be quite frank the type of money laundering that was used to finance these campaigns was pretty damn shady at best, and criminal at worst. The intent of the law was crystal clear, and if this didn't violate the letter of the law it sure as hell did violate the spirit and intent.

To me in the long run this means shit unless someone figues out a way to level the playing field in campaign money, and I'm not holding my breath on that side of the story. More likely than not, this will be used for short term political gain and nothing more. People will eventually forget about it.

Everything in politics is so damn short term now.

Manny, are you saying it is the seriousness of the charge that we should look at, not if he is guilty or not? It was a state law passed years ago to stop the railroads from buying pols.

Also, why does the playing field have to be level. Nothing is fair in this world. And you can always be sure of one thing, no one is going to level your playing field of life.

[Yonivore]

It'll all come out soon and the millions of dollars in tax dollars will be well worth it.
I know I was satisfied with the results that 200 million dollars in tax money got me. I was dying to know if Bill really got oral in the Oval Office.

What ever it takes!!
So, you had no interest in the fact that he lied, under oath (perjury), in order to deny Paula "Trailer Trash" Jones her day in court? So, you futher had no interest in him getting other people to lie to investigators (suborning perjury & obstructing justice) so that the court -- hearing the lawsuit filed by Ms. Jones -- wouldn't know about his sexual misconducts in other areas?

I see. Pretty elitist Joe. Why is Clinton better than the thousands of other philandering husbands who have served time in prison for this very exact crime?

[Hook Dem]

Dan has a real woody on for this one. lol http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9462/dan9ka.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[ChumpDumper]

Why is Clinton better than the thousands of other philandering husbands who have served time in prison for this very exact crime?I would like to see the number of husbands who served prison time for getting hummers or lying about said hummers.

[boutons]

infidelity is an imprisonable offense in USA?

I thought was the national sport.

[Nbadan]

I would like to see the number of husbands who served prison time for getting hummers or lying about said hummers.

You think it's a joke, but let these fanatics have any power and infidelity will be a punishable crime.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I doubt it -- it was just a ploy to discredit Clinton that blew up in their faces. They should've quit while they were behind. I can't say I believe the Democrats are above the same kind of thing.

[xrayzebra]

I am just wondering where Dan's observation is on the "new" indictment. Or his comments on other grand juries would not indict and Ronny Baby thru a temper hissy fit. You know Dan is so even handed in these matters.

[Nbadan]

I am just wondering where Dan's observation is on the "new" indictment.

I have already commented many times on both indictments. Go back and reread my posts.

[Nbadan]

Or his comments on other grand juries would not indict and Ronny Baby thru a temper hissy fit. You know Dan is so even handed in these matters.

A hissy fit? Yeah, according to 'some sources' I bet. Earle is like the male version of Katherine Strayhorn, he's one though grandpa.

[Marcus Bryant]

According to some sources, Earle wasn't able to hoodwink a grand jury into supporting his cinematic career.

[Nbadan]

According to some sources, Earle wasn't able to hoodwink a grand jury into supporting his cinematic career.


Ronnie Earle prosecuted and convicted himself once for failing to file timely paperwork. Now that's accountability.

[xrayzebra]

Ronnie Earle prosecuted and convicted himself once for failing to file timely paperwork. Now that's accountability.

Yes, let us talk about accountability. Normally I would put a link in here, but I want to be sure everyone has the chance to read about your Ronnie Babby, the accountable one.






October 06, 2005, 7:33 a.m.
Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor
The abuses of power in the Tom DeLay case should offend Democrats and Republicans alike.



If there is one thing liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on, it is this: Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous powers of prosecution.




I don't know Congressman Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader. I certainly don't know if he's done anything illegal, let alone something so illegal as to warrant indictment. It doesn't look like it — and at least one grand jury has already refused to indict him (a fact Earle appears to have tried to conceal from the public as he scrambled to find a new grand jury that would). Yet experience shows it is foolhardy for those who don't know all the facts to hazard a judgment about such things.

One thing is sure, though, and it ought to make anyone who cares about basic fairness angry. The investigation of DeLay, a matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney — by Ronnie Earle.

For nearly 20 years, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor in the best law-enforcement office in the United States, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Being a prosecutor is the world's greatest job because it is honest work for the highest cause — service to one's own community. And it is work that has precious little to do with politics.

In their private lives, many of my fellow government lawyers were political independents, either by design (i.e., out of a conscious rectitude holding that law enforcement should be above politics) or because they were just apolitical. Most, as one would expect in New York, were Democrats. A large percentage, as, again, one would expect from a group of mostly young people educated in top schools, was proudly liberal. Over coffee, or lunch, or dinner, they and we few, hardy conservatives would have spirited debates over all manner of issues.

In the four corners of a case, however, none of that mattered a wit. Within those four corners, there were rules and responsibilities. There was recognition that prosecutors have breathtaking power over the lives of those they investigate. Power inarguably vital to the rule of law. But power which, if used recklessly or maliciously, can leave lives in tatters. The lives not only of the innocent and the guilty, but of the justice system itself.

This was especially so in investigations of political corruption. We prosecuted Republicans and Democrats, in about equal measure. The cases were hard, but checking your politics at the door was never hard, for at least two reasons.

First, there tends to be nothing ideological about the crimes committed by politicians. They are a stew of pettiness, greed and above-it-all arrogance over which neither party has a monopoly, and the offensiveness of which cuts across philosophical divides.

Second, some wrongs are simply not intended to be crimes. Among them are political wrongs: sleazy abuses of power, cronyism, most acts of nepotism, half-truths or outright lies in campaigns, etc. In a free society, these get sorted out in our bumptious political system. Usually, absent shades of financial fraud, bribery, and extortion, prosecutors should stay their hands. There are too many real crimes to waste resources on that sort of thing. More significantly, the risk of criminalizing politics would only discourage honest citizens from participating in matters of public concern.

The code prosecutors live by is not a liberal or conservative one. It is a code of ethics — of nonpartisan, non-ideological honor. Of course many prosecutors are ambitious. Of course prosecutors want to win. But even the ambitious ones who care a bit too much about winning quickly learn that success is intimately tied to doing things the right way. And not least because that is the norm their colleagues follow — as well as the standard by which the defense bar and the judiciary (populated by no small percentage of former prosecutors) scrutinize them. It is, moreover, the standard the public demands they meet.

People want to see the guilty convicted, but they also want to feel good about the way it is done. The prosecutor is the public's lawyer, and his duty is not merely to get the job done but to get it done right. The second part is just as crucial as the first. They are equal parts of doing justice. No one expects perfection, which is unattainable in any human endeavor. But if the outcomes of the justice system are to be regarded as legitimate, as befitting a decent society, people have to be confident that if they stood accused, the prosecutor would enforce their rights and make sure they got a fair fight.

So there are certain things that are just flat-out verboten. Most basic are these: to resist public comment about non-public, investigative information; to abjure any personal stake in the litigation that could suggest decisions regarding the public interest are being made to suit the prosecutor's private interests; and — if all that is not Sesame Street simple enough — to remain above any financial or political entanglement that could render one's objectivity and judgment suspect.

In the profession, these things come under the hoary rubric of "avoiding the appearance of impropriety." In layman's terms, they are about having an I.Q. high enough that you know to put your socks on before your shoes. This is bedrock stuff. It is central to the presumption of innocence, due process, and equal protection under the law that prosecutors owe even the most despicable offenders. It is foundational to the integrity of the system on which rest our security, our economy, and our freedoms.

And Ronnie Earle has flouted it in embarrassing, mind-numbingly brazen ways.

As Byron York has been reporting on NRO (see here, here, and here), Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his Ahab's pursuit of DeLay. A movie about a real investigation? Giving filmmakers access to investigative information while a secret grand-jury probe is underway? Allowing them to know who is being investigated and why? To view proposed indictments even before the grand jury does? Allowing them into the sanctuary of the grand jury room, and actually to film grand jurors themselves? Creating a powerful incentive — in conflict with the duty of evenhandedness — to bring charges on flimsy evidence? For a prosecutor, these aren't just major lapses. They are firing offenses. For prosecutors such as those I worked with over the years, from across the political spectrum, I daresay they'd be thought firing-squad offenses.

Attending partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an uncharged public official. As a moneymaking vehicle.

Penning a nakedly partisan op-ed (in the New York Times on November 23, 2004) about the political fallout of his grand-jury investigation of DeLay, then uncharged.

Settling cases by squeezing businesses to make hefty financial contributions to pet personal causes in exchange for exercising the public's power to dismiss charges.

Secretly shopping for new grand juries when, despite the incalculable advantages the prosecution has in that forum, the earlier grand jurors have found the case too weak to indict.

Ignoring the commission by members of his own party of the same conduct that he seeks to brand felonious when engaged in by members of the other party.

Such actions and tactics are reprehensible. They constitute inexcusably dishonorable behavior on the part of a public servant, regardless of whether the persons and entities investigated were in the wrong. They warrant universal censure.

If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called to account. But he, like anyone else, is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial.

Ronnie Earle is not that prosecutor. He has disgraced his profession, and done grievous disservice to thousands of federal, state, and local government attorneys. Prosecutors of all persuasions whose common bond is a good faith commitment to the rules — but who will now bear the burden of suspicions fostered by Earle's excesses.

The burden, but not the cost. That will be borne by the public.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.


* * *

[Nbadan]

What does a smear opt. piece by an obvious partisan have to do with any real facts concerning Ronnie Earle? There is nothing new or breath-taking in this article. Ronnie Earle called 3 grand juries and two of them felt there was enough evidence to indict Delay on 3 separate charges, two which carry life sentences. I would say, that's a pretty good day for justice and for Prosecutor Earle.

[Marcus Bryant]

Ronnie Earle prosecuted and convicted himself once for failing to file timely paperwork. Now that's accountability.

What a stunt.

I guess we all should touch ourselves now.

[xrayzebra]

What does a smear opt. piece by an obvious partisan have to do with any real facts concerning Ronnie Earle? There is nothing new or breath-taking in this article. Ronnie Earle called 3 grand juries and two of them felt there was enough evidence to indict Delay on 3 separate charges, two which carry life sentences. I would say, that's a pretty good day for justice and for Prosecutor Earle.

You got to be kidding me, right! :lol :lol :lol

[Yonivore]

Ronnie Earle prosecuted and convicted himself once for failing to file timely paperwork. Now that's accountability.
So, I wonder if he's presented a Grand Jury with the evidence to indict himself for accepting corporate and union money in 2000. Glass houses and all that...

DeLay accuses Earle of taking corporate funds (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051007-120137-5865r.htm)

[ChumpDumper]

If Earle promises to give the $250 back, would you forgive him?

It's not like he conspired to hide or launder the contribution; but if $250 is the best the smear machine can come up with, they're in big trouble.

[Yonivore]

If Earle promises to give the $250 back, would you forgive him?

It's not like he conspired to hide or launder the contribution; but if $250 is the best the smear machine can come up with, they're in big trouble.
I just thought he was a law and order guy? I mean, if (as according to Nbadan) he filed on himself for something as innocuous as missing a filing deadline, wouldn't it be appropriate for him to seek an indictment against himself for taking corporate contributions?

And, as far as your attempted deflection to DeLay, there was no conspiracy -- which is why that indictment was dropped and the only "evidence" Earle presented to two subsequent Grand Juries (one of which "no billed" DeLay) was that DeLay had made the statement that he was "generally aware of what his associates are doing," taking that as an admission that he conspired or had knowledge of a crime.

Finally, there is nothing connecting the $198,000 dollars in corporate money that went to the national organization with the over $4.1 million dollars that came back to Texas congressional races. There are only 14 states that prohibit corporate donations -- and, with all the money that was sent to the various races around the country, there is absolutely no chance of connecting those dots.

But, we do have campaign contribution forms, (timely) filed by Ronnie Earle that show he accepted $250.00 from the AFL-CIO. And, if you'd read the article, there are other contributions from corporations -- given under the corporation name (not an officer or individual in the corporation) -- for other unspecified amounts.

And, further, how 'bout the practice that Earle engaged in over the past 3 years of this witch hunt whereby he would dismiss charges in exchange for cash contributions to his pet causes?

[ChumpDumper]

And, as far as your attempted deflection to DeLayYou're the one attempting to deflect from DeLay.
Finally, there is nothing connecting the $198,000 dollars in corporate money that went to the national organization with the over $4.1 million dollars that came back to Texas congressional races. There are only 14 states that prohibit corporate donations -- and, with all the money that was sent to the various races around the country, there is absolutely no chance of connecting those dots.So even if he did it, you don't care. Understood. If it can't be proven, so be it. I'm perfectly willing to wait and see. You've definitely made up your mind already, so why even bother posting further?
But, we do have campaign contribution forms, (timely) filed by Ronnie Earle that show he accepted $250.00 from the AFL-CIO. And, if you'd read the article, there are other contributions from corporations -- given under the corporation name (not an officer or individual in the corporation) -- for other unspecified amounts.I read the article -- if there was anything above $250 (you can add decimals to try and make it look bigger, but it changes nothing), you can bet a conservative newspaper would have reported it.
And, further, how 'bout the practice that Earle engaged in over the past 3 years of this witch hunt whereby he would dismiss charges in exchange for cash contributions to his pet causes?How about it? Charge him with something if you can.

[Yonivore]

You're the one attempting to deflect from DeLay.
No, my post was specifically directed at the comment made by Nbadan about the honesty and integrity of Ronnie Earle -- so squeeky clean he'd "write his own mother a ticket," as they say. I wasn't even talking about DeLay and his troubles which, I predict, are just about over.

So even if he did it, you don't care. Understood. If it can't be proven, so be it. I'm perfectly willing to wait and see. You've definitely made up your mind already, so why even bother posting further?
No, I'm saying there can be no crime without a specific allegation that the $198,000.00 (<< do the decimals confuse you?) was laundered through the national organization and that Tom DeLay had knowledge of that action. And, to my knowledge, no such evidence has been alleged. All Ronnie Earle has done -- according to his own office and the poorly written indictments -- is allege that just because corporate money (from Texas) was donated to the national organization in an amount less than what was contributed to Texas races, from that organization, that a crime was committed. Then, he went on to say that since Tom DeLay stated that he was "generally aware of what his associates are doing" in the context of what was an extremely long interrogation then he must have a) known that a crime was committed and b) was part of some conspiracy.

Doesn't it bother you that Earle presented the indictment to a second Grand Jury who "No Billed" Delay and that Earle then squashed that "No Bill" long enough to get a third Grand Jury -- just empaneled to issue an indictment? Further, doesn't it bother you that Earle excused the first Grand Jury's long deliberations -- even asking for an extension of that Jury -- because the case was complex and they needed all that time to dig through the facts of the case and make an informed decision only to rush into the brand spankin' new Grand Jury this Monday and, before they were even issued their parking passes, rammed through an indictment? Further, doesn't it bother you that Earle authorized a movie about his office and the secret deliberations of a Grand Jury in relationship to this case? Finally, doesn't it bother you that Earle stood up at a Democratic fund raiser and all but assured the crowd that he was going to bring DeLay down -- all before he had even been charged with a crime?

I know, that's all too nuanced for you to grasp, right?

I read the article -- if there was anything above $250 (you can add decimals to try and make it look bigger, but it changes nothing), you can bet a conservative newspaper would have reported it.
Again, the amount is insignificant in relationship to the holier-than-thou posture Earle has taken. That was the point of the post.

How about it? Charge him with something if you can.
I'm not a prosecutor but, here's hoping someone does...I was merely suggesting that, with his record of holding himself accountable, he'd do it himself.

[mookie2001]

tro
dont you know what a grand jury is?
fuck earle
see that bastard in court

[ChumpDumper]

No, I'm saying there can be no crime without a specific allegation that the $198,000.00 (<< do the decimals confuse you?) was laundered through the national organization and that Tom DeLay had knowledge of that action. And, to my knowledge, no such evidence has been alleged.So, you weren't on the grand jury. Congratulations. Wait for the trial -- if there is one -- like everyone else.
Doesn't it bother you that Earle presented the indictment to a second Grand Jury who "No Billed" Delay and that Earle then squashed that "No Bill" long enough to get a third Grand Jury -- just empaneled to issue an indictment? Further, doesn't it bother you that Earle excused the first Grand Jury's long deliberations -- even asking for an extension of that Jury -- because the case was complex and they needed all that time to dig through the facts of the case and make an informed decision only to rush into the brand spankin' new Grand Jury this Monday and, before they were even issued their parking passes, rammed through an indictment? Further, doesn't it bother you that Earle authorized a movie about his office and the secret deliberations of a Grand Jury in relationship to this case? Finally, doesn't it bother you that Earle stood up at a Democratic fund raiser and all but assured the crowd that he was going to bring DeLay down -- all before he had even been charged with a crime? Not really. He's partisan, that's for sure. Just let the process proceed. If your boy can beat it, he'll beat it.

If you're all up in arms about this, you probably were against Clinton's impeachment over blowjobs too, right?

[Dos]

the left had not problems smearing ken starr during the clinton impeachment trial..

just saying...

[Yonivore]

So, you weren't on the grand jury. Congratulations. Wait for the trial -- if there is one -- like everyone else. Not really. He's partisan, that's for sure. Just let the process proceed. If your boy can beat it, he'll beat it.
Glad you admit he's a partisan...


If you're all up in arms about this, you probably were against Clinton's impeachment over blowjobs too, right?
Wow, you are dense...so, you still think Clinton's impeachment was about a blowjob?

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, you are dense...so, you still think Clinton's impeachment was about a blowjob?If you think it wasn't a colossal waste of time and money, you are the dense one. I was against it until I saw how stupid the charges were and that following through with the trial would only hurt the Republicans who were stupid enough to press the non-issue. So, you should be happy this is going through -- if it's as bad a case as you say it is, Earle will be discredited.

[ChumpDumper]

the left had not problems smearing ken starr during the clinton impeachment trial..

just saying...I completely agree.

That's show biz, folks.

[Yonivore]

If you think it wasn't a colossal waste of time and money, you are the dense one. I was against it until I saw how stupid the charges were and that following through with the trial would only hurt the Republicans who were stupid enough to press the non-issue. So, you should be happy this is going through -- if it's as bad a case as you say it is, Earle will be discredited.
That's a non sequitur.

First of all, the investigation started out as one in which it was alleged the President was involved in a shady land deal. There were many indictments and convictions of some very powerful and close associates of the Presidents; Chief among them, Governor Jim Guy Tucker and Webster Hubbell.

Now, I know this is hard for the Left to accept, but Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr only pursue tangential investigations into other matters, such as the Monica Lewinsky affair and allegations of perjury AFTER receiving direction from a three-judge panel appointed by then Attorney General Janet Reno.

Starr wasn't a loose cannon on a witch hunt and he didn't just make up investigations out of whole cloth. As allegations of wrong doing came to his attention through the normal course of the Whitewater investigation, he presented them to the panel and they thumbs-upped or thumbs-downed pursuing those allegations.

I think former FBI Director Louie Freeh's statement is very telling in this respect, “The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice as a result of his attempts of deny Paula Jones a fair adjudication of her sexual harrassment lawsuit against him.

He was disbarred for it, as well...do you recall?

[Marcus Bryant]

One wonders what the reaction would have been had a GOP president been sued for sexual harassment by a former subordinate and then perjured himself about his relationship with a twentysomething intern.

I'm sure it would've been stupid and 'just about sex' then. Yeah. I'm sure NOW would've kicked back and let that one slide.

Funny how all of a sudden veracity from the Executive Branch matters again.

[ChumpDumper]

That's a non sequitur.Are people just seeing this word for the first time and using it anywhere they can't find the words? I drew the parallel, if you can't understand it that's your problem.
He was disbarred for it, as well...do you recall?Sure. He wasn't convicted, do you recall? His opponents suffered politically, do you recall?

[Yonivore]

Are people just seeing this word for the first time and using it anywhere they can't find the words?
No, going from my suggesting that you were an idiot for believing that Clinton's impeachment was about a blow job to suggesting that I had an opinion over whether or not it was a waste of time is a non sequitur. Your response had nothing to do with my post...even though it pretended to have relevance.

I drew the parallel, if you can't understand it that's your problem.
No, you didn't. In fact you still haven't admitted that his impeachment was about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice.

Sure. He wasn't convicted, do you recall?
Yeah, because we had a Republican Senate without any balls. His settling the lawsuit with Paula Jones and his being disbarred for the same behavior over which he was impeached was short of what I would have liked but, hey, I can't have everything.

His opponents suffered politically, do you recall?
Yeah, but he had to employ a "Bimbo Squad" and resort to character assassinations just to try and deflect some of the head...still, he was impeached and still he paid off in the lawsuit and still he was disbarred and still he's emerging as the most unethical, morally bankrupt, and ineffective President ever.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you didn't. In fact you still haven't admitted that his impeachment was about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice.Since the perjury stuff was about the blowjob, my point remains. Again -- if it was so ironclad why was he not convicted? Why are you still whining about it?
Yeah, because we had a Republican Senate without any balls.I agree they have no balls, but you and they had their shot and blew it horribly.
Yeah, but he had to employ a "Bimbo Squad" and resort to character assassinations just to try and deflect some of the head.Gee, and DeLay hasn't gone on the offensive and isn't assassinating Earle's character (along with you of course)?

That's showbiz. If you don't like it, be consistent about it.

[Yonivore]

Since the perjury stuff was about the blowjob, my point remains.
Perjury is perjury...and, it wasn't about a blowjob; it was committed in order to deny a party to a lawsuit due process.

Again -- if it was so ironclad why was he not convicted? Why are you still whining about it?
I didn't bring it up, you did.

I agree they have no balls, but you and they had their shot and blew it horribly.
I wasn't involved in the prosecution but, you're right, they blew it.

Gee, and DeLay hasn't gone on the offensive and isn't assassinating Earle's character (along with you of course)?
You said he was being partisan...

That's showbiz. If you don't like it, be consistent about it.
There should be a demarcation between politics and legal proceedings.

[ChumpDumper]

Perjury is perjury...and, it wasn't about a blowjob; it was committed in order to deny a party to a lawsuit due process.And money laundering is money laundering, so unless you don't think laws apply to yourt side, let the process work like it did with the blowjob and bimbo charges. The impeachment was about the last gasp of a prosecutor who had dug up nothing he was originally charged to investigate after several years and millions of dollars spent between job interviews at Pepperdine. His report would've been nice and damaging in itself, but House Republicans thought they had their chance to really stick it to Clinton and overplayed their hand. Too bad for them. If Earle is doing the same, the same will happen to him.
I didn't bring it up, you did.And you whined.
You said he was being partisan...I said he is partisan. The trial will speak for itself. What are you afraid of?
There should be a demarcation between politics and legal proceedings.So you agree about the impeachment. Understood.

[Yonivore]

And money laundering is money laundering, so unless you don't think laws apply to yourt side, let the process work like it did with the blowjob and bimbo charges.
I agree, but we had Clinton lying, under oath, on videotape. All Earle has is a vague statement made during a lengthy interrogation.

The impeachment was about the last gasp of a prosecutor who had dug up nothing he was originally charged to investigate after several years and millions of dollars spent between job interviews at Pepperdine. His report would've been nice and damaging in itself, but House Republicans thought they had their chance to really stick it to Clinton and overplayed their hand. Too bad for them.
You have a very skewed memory...but, again, I didn't bring this topic up and have no interest in rehashing the actual facts for the umpteenth time.

If Earle is doing the same, the same will happen to him.
What? He'll get a job as a University President? I'm hoping for a jail cell myself.

And you whined.
Nope, just re-stated the facts of the case -- I do that everytime someone misremembers that the impeachment was about a blowjob. I don't think it's whining but, whatever floats your boat.

I said he is partisan. The trial will speak for itself.
There should be no room for partisanship in the Prosecutor's office.

What are you afraid of?
Nothing, I've already predicted the case will fall apart before it ever goes to trial. Why is a discussion about the case intepreted as fear?

So you agree about the impeachment. Understood.
Yeah, I don't recall ever hearing of Kenneth Starr or Henry Hyde standing before a partisan crowd and saying they were going to be the ones that brough Bill Clinton down. I don't recall Kenneth Starr having invited a film crew to follow him around, during his investigation. Do you?

[ChumpDumper]

I agree, but we had Clinton lying, under oath, on videotape. All Earle has is a vague statement made during a lengthy interrogation.Unless you were on the grand jury, you really don't know.
What? He'll get a job as a University President? I'm hoping for a jail cell myself.Yeah, it's nice that you can convict someone after reading a couple of articles. How quaint.
There should be no room for partisanship in the Prosecutor's office.Hah. Wake me when they aren't elected.
Nothing, I've already predicted the case will fall apart before it ever goes to trial.Then be happy.
Yeah, I don't recall ever hearing of Kenneth Starr or Henry Hyde standing before a partisan crowd and saying they were going to be the ones that brough Bill Clinton down. I don't recall Kenneth Starr having invited a film crew to follow him around, during his investigation. Do you?So what's the big deal about a film crew? Wouldn't the film just show what a nutjob he is like you claim? And maybe Hyde and Starr did say those things -- just not in public. I'm certianly not saying this guy isn't enjoying this particular job.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm just trying to keep Delay's story straight since it seems to keep changing..or should I say..flip flopping?

[Yonivore]

Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200510060733.asp)

I agree with this guy.

So, Joe, what has DeLay flip-flopped on?

[Yonivore]

I'm just trying to keep Delay's story straight since it seems to keep changing..or should I say..flip flopping?
You're serious?

First, he's indicted for a crime that didn't exist. Then, he's no billed by a Grand Jury who said Earle didn't present any evidence against DeLay -- then Earle fails to make public the No Bill (as is usual). Finally, he's indicted for a different crime (for which evidence magically appeared over the weekend) by a brand new Grand Jury who had precisely 4 hours to review what it took the first one months to review.

Who's flip-flopping?

[JoeChalupa]

His assertions, and his lawyer's, have apparently changed this week (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3386125)

I'm sure it was an innocent slip of the tongue.

[ChumpDumper]

So Sears Co. didn't do anything wrong, but gave a few thousand to UT anyway and signed a document admitting the dangers of corprate involvement in politics.

Odd.

I agree if the film crew was given unrestricted access to all his proceedings, that would be wrong.
If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called to account.I'm glad you agree. As for it's being Earle's job, you fight with the army you have.

[Yonivore]

As for it's being Earle's job, you fight with the army you have.

That's yet to be seen.


DeLay Asks That Indictments Be Set Aside (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/07/D8D3F5S89.html)


DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, alleged in a court motion that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle unlawfully participated in grand jury deliberations when he went to a second grand jury last week to seek a second indictment against the congressman.

Earle may need his own attorney soon.

[JoeChalupa]

Delay asks for a lot of things.

[xrayzebra]

pant, pant, pant, pant, heavy breathing, very heavy breathing......wet dream time for Dan. Ah, Dan, charges aren't convictions....re Clinton.


And now we have this:

================================================== =======Oct. 15, 2005, 12:34AM



DeLay's prosecutors lack a key document
They don't have list of candidates at the heart of the laundering case, just a 'similar' one
By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau


The list is key to prosecutors being able to prove that corporate money that could not be legally spent on Texas candidates was specifically exchanged at the national level for donations that legally could be spent on Republican candidates for the Texas House.

Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a "similar" list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.

A lawyer for Ellis said prosecutors' inability to produce the list mentioned in the indictments is on par with the tactics used by U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the communist witch hunts of the 1950s.

"I'll tell you what I think about this list. In the 1950s, a man named McCarthy claimed to have a list of 200 communists in the State Department, and he didn't," said J.D. Pauerstein, a lawyer for Jim Ellis, the director of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority. "They (prosecutors) don't know what list they're talking about, even though they specify it in their indictment."


Nelson's testimony is key
Without the exact list, the prosecutors' case against DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro likely turns on Nelson's testimony. Nelson testified at least twice to grand juries hearing the case.

"That would be something Mr. Nelson could testify to, and the jury could weigh the testimony and decide whether to accept it or whether he's confused about what list he saw three or four years ago in the midst of a heated election cycle," Pauerstein said.

Lawyers for Ellis and Colyandro demanded a copy of the list from Travis County prosecutors during the court hearing Friday. But Assistant District Attorney Rick Reed told state District Judge Bob Perkins that the list prosecutors wanted to provide the defense was not the one mentioned in the indictment.

Reed said prosecutors had a list of candidates from the business papers of the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority, TRMPAC, that they believe was a precursor to the one given to Nelson.

"Despite the fact that the state cannot conclusively prove that the said document is a duplicate (or copy thereof)" of the document given to Nelson, the "state believes that the document is at least factually related" to the document mentioned in the indictment, Reed said in a court brief filed after the hearing.

The list released by prosecutors contained the names of 17 Republican state House candidates from 2002. Nine of the candidates had dollar amounts listed next to their names totaling $230,000.

Those nine include the seven candidates who received the contested $190,000 in donations from the Republican National State Elections Committee, with the dollar amounts next to their names matching the donations they received.

A lawyer for Colyandro said he was stunned to learn the state does not have a copy of the list given to Nelson. Colyandro was the executive director of TRMPAC.

"It's just hard to believe this (list) is central to their indictment," said Colyandro attorney Joe Turner. "They've had this grand jury investigation for over three years now, and they don't have a list, and now they've come up with a document that they say is similar to the list."


'Astonishing, astonishing'
DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin of Houston, was not present in court Friday. But he later said the lack of a list "destroys" District Attorney Ronnie Earle's case against the three men.

"That's astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list," DeGuerin said.

In a civil lawsuit related to the case, RNC election law counsel Charles Spies testified in March that he knew of no list of Texas candidates being given to the RNC as part of an alleged money exchange in 2002.

Nelson has referred questions to the RNC, whose spokesman Brian Jones has declined to comment.

The indictments allege Colyandro had a TRMPAC check for $190,000 drawn from corporate funds and sent to Ellis, who in turn gave the check to Nelson on Sept. 13, 2002. The indictment says Ellis gave Nelson a document with candidate names on it and outlined how they should receive donations "in exchange" for the TRMPAC corporate money.

Texas law prohibits corporate donations to candidates.

Pauerstein said it was legal for TRMPAC to accept corporate money so long as it did not donate it to a candidate.

He said there is no state law to prohibit TRMPAC from donating corporate money to the RNC.

"If they (corporations) want to give them (TRMPAC) $100,000 to set on fire in a parking lot, that's not illegal. There's no intent for that to be a campaign contribution," Pauerstein said.


Subpoenas raise criticism
Pauerstein also blasted prosecutors for a new set of subpoenas that he said includes a request for the 2002 phone records of Ellis' daughter.

"On top of that, they are now subpoenaing cell phone records of Jim Ellis' 17-year-old daughter. This is a prosecution that has run amok. It's time for this to stop," Pauerstein said. "I guess they think Jim's 17-year-old daughter is a money launderer. I think it's outrageous that they're doing that to the young lady."

Earle responded to Pauerstein's comments by saying, "The investigation is continuing."

================================================== =======

Oh-well, I hope the Daughters phone records proves to be interesting reading. Gone fishing.........with Ronnie Earle.

[Nbadan]

Today, Yahoo is confirming what I have been saying all along in the Delay case. Ronnie Earle offered Delay an easy out before he indicted him for a felony, but Delay turned him down...


WASHINGTON - A Texas prosecutor tried to persuade Rep. Tom DeLay to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and save his job as majority leader but DeLay refused, the congressman's attorney said Monday.

Dick DeGuerin described such an effort in a letter to the prosecutor in the case, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

DeLay has been indicted on conspiracy and money laundering charges in a Texas campaign finance investigation, both felonies. He was obligated to step aside under House Republican rules.

"Before the first indictment you tried to coerce a guilty plea from Tom DeLay for a misdemeanor, stating the alternative was indictment for a felony which would require his stepping down as majority leader of the United States House of Representatives," DeGuerin wrote.

"He turned you down flat so you had him indicted, in spite of advice from others in your office that Tom DeLay had not committed any crime," the lawyer contended. "In short, neither lack of evidence nor lack of law has deterred you."

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051017/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment)

This is a standard plea bargain deal. Accept the lesser charge and you don't get whacked for the felony. Delay was too arrogant to take the deal and now he'll pay the price.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, DeLay turned him down because Earle doesn't have jack.

[Nbadan]

Eh, Tom Delay will be doing his perpwalk sometime this week and that's all people will remember anyway...


Rep. Tom DeLay will likely be booked in a Texas county jail this week despite attempts by his attorneys to bypass the fingerprinting and mug shot process.

The former House majority leader was forced to step down from the post last month when he was indicted by a Texas grand jury. DeLay initially was charged with conspiracy to violate the election code and days later was indicted on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money in an alleged illegal scheme to funnel corporate money to Republican Texas legislative candidates.

DeLay's arraignment is set for Friday before state district Judge Bob Perkins in Travis County, Texas.

San Francisco Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/17/national/w105129D10.DTL)

Talk about must-see TV. Book'em Dano! (http://www.mjq.net/fiveo/50theme.wav)

[xrayzebra]

Eh, Tom Delay will be doing his perpwalk sometime this week and that's all people will remember anyway...



San Francisco Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/17/national/w105129D10.DTL)

Talk about must-see TV. Book'em Dano! (http://www.mjq.net/fiveo/50theme.wav)

Can Earle baby be far behind? I don't think Tom will forgive and forget after this is over.

[Yonivore]

Can Earle baby be far behind? I don't think Tom will forgive and forget after this is over.
I would bet not...

It'll be good to see Earle twist in the wind. And, that should start as soon as this MoveOn.org judge realizes he has no choice but to throw out the indictments.

[boutons]

Tom Delay bitching about abuse and politicization of the judiciary? :lol GMAFB

===================

washingtonpost.com
'Rule of Law'? That's So '90s

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005; A25

We are on the verge of an extraordinary moment in American politics. The people running our government are about to face their day -- or days -- in court.

Those who thought investigations were a wonderful thing when Bill Clinton was president are suddenly facing prosecutors, and they don't like it. It seems like a hundred years ago when Clinton's defenders were accusing his opponents of using special prosecutors, lawsuits, criminal charges and, ultimately, impeachment to overturn the will of the voters.

Clinton's conservative enemies would have none of this. No, they said over and over, the Clinton mess was not about sex but about "perjury and the obstruction of justice" and "the rule of law."

The old conservative talking points are now inoperative.

It's especially amusing to see former House majority leader Tom DeLay complain about the politicization of justice. The man who spoke of the Clinton impeachment as "a debate about relativism versus absolute truth" now insists that the Democratic prosecutor in Texas who indicted him on charges of violating campaign finance law is engaged in a partisan war. That's precisely what Clinton's defenders accused DeLay of championing in the impeachment battle seven years ago.

DeLay's supporters say charges that he transferred corporate money illegally to local Texas campaigns should be discounted because "everybody does it" when it comes to playing fast and loose with political cash. That's another defense the champions of impeachment derided in the Clinton imbroglio.

The most explosive legal case -- if special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald brings charges, and lawyers I've spoken with will be surprised if he doesn't -- involves Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove. A lot of evidence has emerged that they leaked information about Valerie Plame, a CIA employee married to Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had the nerve to question aspects of the administration's case for waging war on Saddam Hussein. Even if these administration heavies are not charged with improperly unmasking Plame, they could be in legal jeopardy if they are found to have made false statements to investigators about their role in the Plame affair.

This case goes to the heart of how Republicans recaptured power after the Clinton presidency and how they have held on to it since. The strategy involved attacking their adversaries without pity. In the Clinton years, the attacks married a legal strategy to a political strategy.

Since Bush took office, many of those who raised their voices in opposition to the president or his policies have found themselves under assault, although the president himself has maintained a careful distance from the bloodletting.

In Wilson's case, the administration suggested that his hiring by the CIA to investigate claims that Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear material was an act of nepotism, courtesy of his wife. But administration figures wanted to wipe their fingerprints off any smoking gun that would link them to the anti-Wilson campaign. Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter who went to jail to protect Libby until she got what she took to be a release from a confidentiality agreement, offered a revealing fact in an account of her saga in Sunday's Times.

Before he trashed Wilson to Miller in a July 8, 2003, meeting, Libby asked that his comments not be attributed to a "senior administration official," the standard anonymous reference to, well, senior administration officials. Instead, he wanted his statements attributed to a "former Hill staffer," a reference to Libby's earlier work in Congress. Why would Libby want his comments ascribed to such a vague source? Miller says she told the special prosecutor that she "assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson."

These cases portray an administration and a movement that can dish it out, but want to evade responsibility for doing so and can't take it when they are subjected to the same rule book that inconvenienced an earlier president. An editorial in the latest issue of the conservative Weekly Standard is a sign of arguments to come. The editorial complains about the various accusations being leveled against DeLay, Libby, Rove and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and it says that "a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives."

I have great respect for my friends at the Weekly Standard, so I think they'll understand my surprise and wonder over this new conservative concern for the criminalization of politics. A process that was about "the rule of law" when Democrats were in power is suddenly an outrage now that it's Republicans who are being held accountable.

[email protected]

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Nbadan]

The Case Against Tom DeLay: What Has Happened To Grand Jury Secrecy In Texas?


The Charges Against DeLay

The (now) former Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives was indicted on September 28, and again on October 2, by two different Travis County, Texas grand juries. The second indictment is far more serious than the first.

The first indictment charges DeLay with engaging in a criminal conspiracy in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 15.02. It states that DeLay and two of his associates (also indicted) agreed to make corporate political contributions which are prohibited by the Elections Code. If convicted, DeLay faces up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Six days later came the second indictment, which is twice the length of the first, with its two counts. The first count charges another conspiracy under Section 15.02, again to violate the election law - but ALSO to launder corporate money, in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 34.02, the state's money laundering prohibition. The second count charges DeLay outright with the offense of money laundering, and because the amount of the money allegedly laundered exceeds $100,000, that is a felony punishable by life in prison.

Not surprisingly, DeLay angrily responded that the charges are blatantly political, reckless, a sham, and "wholly unsupported by the facts." DeLay called the first indictment "one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history." He called the second indictment a "do over" by Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle, suggesting that Earle was facing a legally-strong motion to toss the first indictment as defective, and hedging his bets with the second indictment.

The First Indictment Is Not Flawed But It Is Now Irrelevant

All those with whom I spoke said that DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, is extremely able. As one former judge, a Democrat who knows the players well, told me, "DeGuerin is A-1, probably several notches above Ronnie Earle." DeGuerin successfully defended Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson when Earle indicted her in 1994.

DeGuerin's motion to dismiss the first indictment has not been made public. All that is known is that the gist of his argument is a claim that the conspiracy statute cited in the initial indictment, Section 15.02 of the Texas Penal Code, was not applicable at the time of DeLay's purported offense, the alleged 2002 violation of the Election Code prohibiting corporate contributions.

Despite DeGuerin's skill, one of my sources suggests his tactic in filing the motion to dismiss the first indictment when he did, may have been faulty. "DeGuerin probably pulled the trigger too fast," one attorney told me. "Had he waited until it was clear the statute of limitations had passed, and had he made it clear DeLay's waiver of the statute of limitations had ended, he might have done to Earle again what he did in the Kay Bailey Hutchinson case, and raise the technical error when it was too late to fix it. But by going in guns blazing, trying to blow Earle out of the water, Earle simply issued a second indictment to cover himself."

Another Texas attorney told me he thought that, in any case, DeGuerin's technical argument about the defect in the first indictment would not fly. Texas has had a conspiracy statute forever. And it has had a prohibition against corporate contributions for about as long. So the fact that the state legislature did not get around to adding statutory language picking out, in particular, a conspiracy to violate the elections laws does not seem especially significant. Thus, it probably does not mean, as DeGuerin says, that there cannot be a conspiracy to violate the election laws. This lawyer, a former federal prosecutor, but now active criminal defense attorney, believes that any thinking judge will deny DeGuerin's motion to dismiss the first indictment.

"But it's irrelevant now, with the second indictment," he added, "and DeLay is in much worse shape under the second indictment."

Could The Second Indictment Be Barred By The Statute Of Limitations?

But what if the second indictment is barred by the statute of limitations for the offenses it describes?

The issue of whether the statutory limitations period has expired is complicated by the fact that DeGuerin at least temporarily waived his client's ability to raise the statute of limitations as a defense. In the first indictment, this waiver is set forth.

But only temporarily: When DeGuerin filed his motion to dismiss the first indictment, he simultaneously sent a letter to District Attorney Ronnie Earle, advising him that DeLay was now withdrawing his waiver of his client's ability to raise the statute of limitations as a defense. Clearly, this was a move by DeGuerin to cut off further indictments.

So now that the waiver has expired, has the statute of limitations elapsed vis-à-vis the second indictment? It seems the answer is probably no.

When I asked two Texas attorneys who have been following the case in the news, as well as on their respective local grapevines (but neither has insider information), I got a unanimous opinion that Earle's second indictment was timely. As one put it, "The reason DeLay is pissed is that Earle moved faster than they thought he could. He found a spanking new grand jury, and he had a new indictment within hours. That suggests to me that Ronnie Earle has some good evidence." "Those Austin grand jurors usually aren't push-overs," he told me.

This attorney continued, "It is my understanding that the reason Earle's office moved so fast was because the day the motion to dismiss arrived was the last day under the Texas statute of limitations to charge DeLay with money-laundering." So Earle got the second indictment just in the nick of time. (Incidentally, the same source reminded me that DeLay's associates, and now alleged co-conspirators, John D. Colyandro and James W. Ellis, had also been previously indicted for money laundering.)

While this attorney said he had not looked at the docket in the Colyandro and Ellis cases, he had read news accounts indicating that these defendants have been filing, and losing, a number of motion against their separate money laundering charges.

In short, it seems that Earle's money laundering case has been poked and probed, and found to be solid.

"These money launder charges against DeLay are going to trial," I was told with some assurance. "Unless the feds indict DeLay, and request that Travis County step back, and the judge and prosecutor agree."

But no one can predict what a Texas jury will do, if a trial does occur.

DeLay's Foolish Untruthful Public Statements About The Case

One experienced criminal defense attorneys (from Texas, who is following the case closely) volunteered his surprise that DeLay was going around to radio and television shows to speak out on the matter. DeLay has visited Rush Limbaugh's show, Sean Hannity's, and Chris Mathews's "Hardball" to mention a few. At each stop, DeLay repeats his claim that the grand jury had no basis, no evidence whatsoever, to indict him.

"It is just not smart for a criminal defendant to blabber on," the attorney told me. "Those public statements will come back to haunt Tom DeLay in a courtroom, probably early next year." I asked that he be more specific.

This attorney said he had watched DeLay contradict himself on "Hardball," and then, apparently, lie about never having been requested to appear before the grand jury. I pulled the transcript.

Referring to the fund-raising entity at the heart of the case, Texans for a Republican Majority PAC, DeLay told Mathews, "TRMPAC is a separate entity. I had no fiduciary responsibilities. I had no managerial responsibilities. I had nothing to do with the day-to-day operation. I was simply, along with four other elected officials, on an advisory board. They used my name as headliners for fund-raisers."

A few minutes later, though, the transcript reflects that DeLay is contradicting himself. He tells Mathews he was, in effect, deeply involved: "Everything TRMPAC did -- and I insisted on -- to even be on their board of advisers. Now, TRMPAC was my idea. I wanted the Texas House to be a Republican majority. And I went down there and worked with them to do that. We were successful."

One DeLay lie that seemed to stir several of the grand jurors into speaking out, was his false statement that the grand jury and the prosecutor had ignored him. In fact, they claimed, the grand jurors had requested DeLay be invited to appear, and Ronnie Earle had transmitted their request to DeLay, but DeLay refused, submitting an unsworn written statement in lieu of an appearance, which would have been required to be under oath.

Nevertheless, DeLay told Mathews: "[The grand jury and prosecutor] [n]ever ask[ed] me to testify, never doing anything for two years."

Grand Jurors Put The Lie To DeLay: Have They Violated Their Secrecy Oath?

Frankly, I was surprised to read, within 48 hours of DeLay's denials, and commentary on the grand jury, a response by no less than the foreman of the grand jury that issued the first indictment. "It was not one of those sugarcoated deals that we handed to [District Attorney] Ronnie Earle," William M. Gibson, a retired sheriff and state insurance inspector, was quoted telling the Dallas Morning News.

Even more remarkable was Gibson's interview with Aaron Brown of CNN. Gibson told the anchor, that while he was a Democrat, he was not politically motivated. Aaron Brown asked, "Was there any single compelling piece of evidence that said to you, Mr. DeLay knew that this money was being raised from corporations and sent to Washington and then sent back to Texas? That he knew it."

"We had information that was presented to us," Gibson continued, "and the twelve members of that grand jury decided that was enough evidence to warrant that indictment."

"Would you have liked to have heard from Mr. DeLay?" Gibson was asked.

"We had requested. He had answered with Ronnie Earle the district attorney. But he would not go under oath. He gave a statement to Mr. Earle. That statement was presented to the grand jury. We had requested that Mr. DeLay visit with us. He was given an open invitation but he never did appear."

This extraordinary peek inside the grand jury continued, as Brown pressed forward: "Let me ask you one other thing. There's an old saying that a good prosecutor perhaps, even a bad one, can get a grand jury to indictment a ham sandwich. Did you hear evidence that would have led you to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Tom DeLay was guilty of a crime?"

Gibson, after congratulating Ronnie Earle's work, said, "We were provided with documentations, we had witnesses. I cannot go into what was said and everything, but I feel that the grand jury acted properly and I would have not put my name on that indictment had I not felt there was sufficient evidence to proceed on with this."

Clearly, Gibson was trying to be careful. But he appears perilously close to the line. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 19.34, requires all grand jurors take an oath to "keep secret" their proceeding. And Article 20.02 is rather blunt in describing this secrecy: "The proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret."

And Gibson was not alone. Veronica Dixon, who sat on the jury that returned the first indictment, told the Houston Chronicle that the "only thing the grand jury bases its decisions on is the evidence presented to us. " "We had quite a lot of evidence," she said. Dixon, a state employee who said she voted Democratic in the last elections, added, "My decisions had nothing to do with what party I belonged to."

The Chronicle found a public copy of the list of the grand jurors' names, before it was sealed by a judge, and determined that seven of the 12 grand jurors had voted in Democratic primaries in recent years. One grand juror had voted in a Republican primary. Four of the grand jurors had no history or could not be fully identified by the Chronicle.

Interesting reporting. Clearly the grand jury was not totally stacked against DeLay politically, and clearly its members saw convincing evidence. But this reporting is also very close to the reporting described by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in All The President's Men - reporting that came very close to landing the reporters in jail, for grand jury secrecy rules apply to the press, as well as grand jurors.

It seems the best thing that has happened to this case is this: It has gotten buried by the hubbub surrounding President Bush's controversial nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers for Justice O'Connor's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both the prosecution and the defense are better off trying Tom DeLay's case in a courtroom, not in the news media. And it should be thrilling.

John Dean, Findlaw (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051007.html)

[ChumpDumper]

That John Dean?

Interesting.

[Nbadan]

http://home.ripway.com/2003-11/38936/main-hammer.jpg

[xrayzebra]

http://home.ripway.com/2003-11/38936/main-hammer.jpg

Now dan is happy, he has a picture of Delay he can hang on the wall. It is going to be really funny when he has to use it wash the egg off his face. Maybe he can hang it right next to Clinton's disbarment and conviction of lying.

[Nbadan]

Oh, the party started early today...


A Texas court on Wednesday issued a warrant for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's arrest, and set an initial $10,000 bail as a routine step before his first court appearance on conspiracy and state money laundering charges.

Travis County court officials said DeLay was ordered to appear at the Fort Bend County, Texas, jail for booking, where he'd likely be fingerprinted and photographed. DeLay's lawyers had hoped to avoid such a spectacle.

San Francisco Gate (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/19/national/w112706D64.DTL)

[Nbadan]

Here is just a partial list of Delay's know scandals...

"DeLay has admitted offering to endorse Sen. Nick Smith's son Brad, who was running for Congress at the time, in exchange for Smith's "yea" vote on the Medicare bill.

The House ethics panel rebuked DeLay for using government resources to help locate a private plane he thought was carrying Texas Democratic legislators. DeLay was trying to force the legislators back to the capitol so he could push through his congressional redistricting."

DeLay used a children's charity, Celebrations for Children Inc., as cover for collecting soft money from anonymous interest groups, some of which was used for "dinners, a golf tournament, a rock concert, Broadway tickets and other fundraising events" at the Republican convention in New York. Because the money was supposedly for charity, companies wishing to curry favor with DeLay were able to do so without revealing themselves as campaign donors.

The House Ethics Committee cited the belief on the part of executives at an energy company, Westar Energy Inc., that a $56,500 contribution to a political action committee associated with DeLay would get them a "seat at the table" where key energy legislation was being drafted.

DeLay "took a $100,000 check from a private prison company" - the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) - at a fundraiser for his children's charity, the DeLay Foundation for Kids. CCA - whose 20-year history has been "fraught with malfeasance, mismanagement, and abuse" - was part of an ongoing lobby for a bill that would privatize up to half of Texas's jails.

In 1999, DeLay received a "private rebuke" for threatening retaliation against the Electronic Industries Association when the trade group named a Democrat to head its Washington operation.

DeLay enjoyed a luxurious vacation at the Four Seasons Hotel in London in mid-2000, paid for by an Indian tribe and a gambling services company, both of which opposed gambling legislation DeLay voted against two months later. The payment was funneled through lobbyist Jack Abramoff, best known for teaming up with right-wing religious fundamentalist Ralph Reed to close down a Texas casino operated by the Tigua Indians in 2002, then persuading the tribe to pay the two of them $4.2 million to lobby Washington lawmakers, including DeLay, to reopen it.

DeLay accepted an expense-paid trip to South Korea which, in direct violation of House rules, was paid for by a South Korean lobbying group.

DeLay and his allies in the House have sought to cripple the House Ethics Committee. The committee, which rebuked DeLay three times last year, was purged of its most "responsible" members last month and is currently "paralyzed" by a proposed rules change.

DeLay was the driving force behind the decision by House leaders to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that "required leaders to step aside temporarily if indicted.

[xrayzebra]

Here is just a partial list of Delay's know scandals...

"DeLay has admitted offering to endorse Sen. Nick Smith's son Brad, who was running for Congress at the time, in exchange for Smith's "yea" vote on the Medicare bill.

The House ethics panel rebuked DeLay for using government resources to help locate a private plane he thought was carrying Texas Democratic legislators. DeLay was trying to force the legislators back to the capitol so he could push through his congressional redistricting."

DeLay used a children's charity, Celebrations for Children Inc., as cover for collecting soft money from anonymous interest groups, some of which was used for "dinners, a golf tournament, a rock concert, Broadway tickets and other fundraising events" at the Republican convention in New York. Because the money was supposedly for charity, companies wishing to curry favor with DeLay were able to do so without revealing themselves as campaign donors.

The House Ethics Committee cited the belief on the part of executives at an energy company, Westar Energy Inc., that a $56,500 contribution to a political action committee associated with DeLay would get them a "seat at the table" where key energy legislation was being drafted.

DeLay "took a $100,000 check from a private prison company" - the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) - at a fundraiser for his children's charity, the DeLay Foundation for Kids. CCA - whose 20-year history has been "fraught with malfeasance, mismanagement, and abuse" - was part of an ongoing lobby for a bill that would privatize up to half of Texas's jails.

In 1999, DeLay received a "private rebuke" for threatening retaliation against the Electronic Industries Association when the trade group named a Democrat to head its Washington operation.

DeLay enjoyed a luxurious vacation at the Four Seasons Hotel in London in mid-2000, paid for by an Indian tribe and a gambling services company, both of which opposed gambling legislation DeLay voted against two months later. The payment was funneled through lobbyist Jack Abramoff, best known for teaming up with right-wing religious fundamentalist Ralph Reed to close down a Texas casino operated by the Tigua Indians in 2002, then persuading the tribe to pay the two of them $4.2 million to lobby Washington lawmakers, including DeLay, to reopen it.

DeLay accepted an expense-paid trip to South Korea which, in direct violation of House rules, was paid for by a South Korean lobbying group.

DeLay and his allies in the House have sought to cripple the House Ethics Committee. The committee, which rebuked DeLay three times last year, was purged of its most "responsible" members last month and is currently "paralyzed" by a proposed rules change.

DeLay was the driving force behind the decision by House leaders to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that "required leaders to step aside temporarily if indicted.

You know dan, we could do a whole thread on all the pols money collected. From/to/whatnot. If you want to start that junk then I will pull up some stuff on all the dimm-o-craps and you can go back and pull up all the stuff on the repubs, and on and on. So just drop it. Just once I wished you would post some of your own thoughts. And carry on a decent conversation. You post from every blog known to man and I am also guilty sometime of the same, so I stand convicted, but I do attempt to have a in depth conversation about our difference, which you choose to ignore. What a shame, you and I both may learn something.

[RichieRich]

Where can I donate to his legal defense fund?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The Daily Texan said today a warrant has been issued in the state of Texas and bail at 10000 dollars