Tom Delay Charges May Be Looming

[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 Is Ronnie Earle?

[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]

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.

[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: Cir stantial Ad Hominem



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

Description of Cir stantial Ad Hominem
A Cir stantial 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 subs uting an attack on a person's cir stances (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 cir stances.
Therefore X is false.
A Cir stantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and cir stances 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 cir stances (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 su ious 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 cons ute 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 cons uted 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 cons uted 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 cons ute 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 cons uted 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...

[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_ho...s/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.

[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 Ins ute. "They are all nervous as and don't want to break ranks — yet," he said.

USA Today

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 cir vent 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 do ent 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