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.
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.That's a non sequitur.Sure. He wasn't convicted, do you recall? His opponents suffered politically, do you recall?He was disbarred for it, as well...do you recall?
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.
No, you didn't. In fact you still haven't admitted that his impeachment was about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice.
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.
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.
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?No, you didn't. In fact you still haven't admitted that his impeachment was about perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice.I agree they have no balls, but you and they had their shot and blew it horribly.Yeah, because we had a Republican Senate without any balls.Gee, and DeLay hasn't gone on the offensive and isn't assassinating Earle's character (along with you of course)?Yeah, but he had to employ a "Bimbo Squad" and resort to character assassinations just to try and deflect some of the head.
That's showbiz. If you don't like it, be consistent about it.
Perjury is perjury...and, it wasn't about a blowjob; it was committed in order to deny a party to a lawsuit due process.
I didn't bring it up, you did.
I wasn't involved in the prosecution but, you're right, they blew it.
You said he was being partisan...
There should be a demarcation between politics and legal proceedings.
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.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 you whined.I didn't bring it up, you did.I said he is partisan. The trial will speak for itself. What are you afraid of?You said he was being partisan...So you agree about the impeachment. Understood.There should be a demarcation between politics and legal proceedings.
I agree, but we had Clinton lying, under oath, on videotape. All Earle has is a vague statement made during a lengthy interrogation.
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.
What? He'll get a job as a University President? I'm hoping for a jail cell myself.
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.
There should be no room for partisanship in the Prosecutor's office.
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?
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?
Unless you were on the grand jury, you really don't know.I agree, but we had Clinton lying, under oath, on videotape. All Earle has is a vague statement made during a lengthy interrogation.Yeah, it's nice that you can convict someone after reading a couple of articles. How quaint.What? He'll get a job as a University President? I'm hoping for a jail cell myself.Hah. Wake me when they aren't elected.There should be no room for partisanship in the Prosecutor's office.Then be happy.Nothing, I've already predicted the case will fall apart before it ever goes to trial.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.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?
I'm just trying to keep Delay's story straight since it seems to keep changing..or should I say..flip flopping?
Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor
I agree with this guy.
So, Joe, what has DeLay flip-flopped on?
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?
His assertions, and his lawyer's, have apparently changed this week
I'm sure it was an innocent slip of the tongue.
So Sears Co. didn't do anything wrong, but gave a few thousand to UT anyway and signed a do ent 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.I'm glad you agree. 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
Earle may need his own attorney soon.
Delay asks for a lot of things.
And now we have this:
================================================== =======Oct. 15, 2005, 12:34AM
DeLay's prosecutors lack a key do ent
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 do ent 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 do ent is a duplicate (or copy thereof)" of the do ent given to Nelson, the "state believes that the do ent is at least factually related" to the do ent 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 do ent that they say is similar to the list."
'Astonishing, astonishing'
DeLay's lawyer, 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 do ent 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.
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...
Yahoo NewsWASHINGTON - 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.
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."
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.
Sure, DeLay turned him down because Earle doesn't have jack.
Eh, Tom Delay will be doing his perpwalk sometime this week and that's all people will remember anyway...
San Francisco GateRep. 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.
Talk about must-see TV. Book'em Dano!
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.
Tom Delay ing about abuse and politicization of the judiciary?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
The Case Against Tom DeLay: What Has Happened To Grand Jury Secrecy In Texas?
John Dean, FindlawThe 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, 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 en y at the heart of the case, Texans for a Republican Majority PAC, DeLay told Mathews, "TRMPAC is a separate en y. 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 do entations, 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.
That John Dean?
Interesting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
