One step forward, two steps backword...
- Thread starter JoMoDo
- Start date
LOL, he stepped aside, he will be back when all charges are dropped.
what you guys fail to realize is that this DA was a huge Kerry Fund Raiser, is a huge Democrat Fundraiser, has said in public at a Democrat fundraiser that it was his goal to ruin DeLay.
This DA is also the same guy that did the same thing to Kay Baily Hutchinson a few years back when she was running for the Senate (before she won). he indicted her, knowing full well that there was no case against her, he just wanted to ruin her reputation, and now he just wants to ruin DeLay, just because he is the most effective Republican leader in the history of the congress, even more than Newt during his heyday.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200509291814.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200509291317.asp
what you guys fail to realize is that this DA was a huge Kerry Fund Raiser, is a huge Democrat Fundraiser, has said in public at a Democrat fundraiser that it was his goal to ruin DeLay.
This DA is also the same guy that did the same thing to Kay Baily Hutchinson a few years back when she was running for the Senate (before she won). he indicted her, knowing full well that there was no case against her, he just wanted to ruin her reputation, and now he just wants to ruin DeLay, just because he is the most effective Republican leader in the history of the congress, even more than Newt during his heyday.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200509291814.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200509291317.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200509291317.asp
Targeting DeLay
Following the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, conservatives are left wondering what to make of the charges. The answer is simple. The charges are absurd and should be thrown out of court.
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has charged DeLay with conspiracy to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. The alleged violation involved a money swap between the now-defunct Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which DeLay helped found but never managed, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent a check for $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent checks totaling approximately the same amount to Texas House candidates in October of 2002. Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.
Earle is wrong. Before campaign-finance reform, this kind of soft-money for hard-money swap was perfectly legal and happened all the time. In October of 2002, the Texas Democratic party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC.
Also, as former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, “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?” Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and he’s convinced a grand jury to play along with him.
Even if the underlying transactions were illegal, Earle would have to convince a jury that DeLay conspired with others to send the checks. DeLay told Brit Hume on Fox News Wednesday night that he was not aware of the transactions until after they had already taken place. If Earle has any evidence proving otherwise, he left it out of the indictment.
It should come as no surprise that the mastermind of such a farcical case also conducted a farcical investigation, which dragged on for 34 months and six grand juries. Accused of frequently leaking sealed proceedings, Earle also discussed the case as the featured speaker at a Democratic-party fundraiser last May. He told the crowd, “This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before. This is a structural problem involving the combination of money and power. Money brings power and power corrupts.”
“These charges probably
won’t survive first contact
with DeLay’s attorney.”
Earle should know. He has already abused his power in this case to extort money from corporations for his own pet projects in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them, as Byron York has reported.
These charges probably won’t survive first contact with DeLay’s attorney, who also defended Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in Earle’s crash-and-burn case against her in 1993. Hutchison, up for reelection, insisted on a jury trial. As soon as a jury was chosen, Earle refused to proceed. That judge threw out the case. The same thing should happen this time, if the case even makes it to trial.
One needn't be a DeLay flack to see this. We have had criticisms of DeLay ourselves — his support of the Medicare-drug benefit, his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and his recent comments about the “pared down” budget all come to mind. But this indictment is outrageous and should not be allowed to succeed as a tactic. While the political fallout of this indictment will take time to sort through, this case makes one thing clear: Campaign-finance regulation makes prosecution a continuation of politics by other means.
* * *
Targeting DeLay
Following the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, conservatives are left wondering what to make of the charges. The answer is simple. The charges are absurd and should be thrown out of court.
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has charged DeLay with conspiracy to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. The alleged violation involved a money swap between the now-defunct Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which DeLay helped found but never managed, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent a check for $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent checks totaling approximately the same amount to Texas House candidates in October of 2002. Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.
Earle is wrong. Before campaign-finance reform, this kind of soft-money for hard-money swap was perfectly legal and happened all the time. In October of 2002, the Texas Democratic party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC.
Also, as former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock noted yesterday, “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?” Earle considers these transactions illegal because he thinks they should be, and he’s convinced a grand jury to play along with him.
Even if the underlying transactions were illegal, Earle would have to convince a jury that DeLay conspired with others to send the checks. DeLay told Brit Hume on Fox News Wednesday night that he was not aware of the transactions until after they had already taken place. If Earle has any evidence proving otherwise, he left it out of the indictment.
It should come as no surprise that the mastermind of such a farcical case also conducted a farcical investigation, which dragged on for 34 months and six grand juries. Accused of frequently leaking sealed proceedings, Earle also discussed the case as the featured speaker at a Democratic-party fundraiser last May. He told the crowd, “This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before. This is a structural problem involving the combination of money and power. Money brings power and power corrupts.”
“These charges probably
won’t survive first contact
with DeLay’s attorney.”
Earle should know. He has already abused his power in this case to extort money from corporations for his own pet projects in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them, as Byron York has reported.
These charges probably won’t survive first contact with DeLay’s attorney, who also defended Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in Earle’s crash-and-burn case against her in 1993. Hutchison, up for reelection, insisted on a jury trial. As soon as a jury was chosen, Earle refused to proceed. That judge threw out the case. The same thing should happen this time, if the case even makes it to trial.
One needn't be a DeLay flack to see this. We have had criticisms of DeLay ourselves — his support of the Medicare-drug benefit, his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and his recent comments about the “pared down” budget all come to mind. But this indictment is outrageous and should not be allowed to succeed as a tactic. While the political fallout of this indictment will take time to sort through, this case makes one thing clear: Campaign-finance regulation makes prosecution a continuation of politics by other means.
* * *
Good read. I hadn't really paid enough attention to sort through particulars.
This part of the article was fucking hilarious though: While the political fallout of this indictment will take time to sort through, this case makes one thing clear: Campaign-finance regulation makes prosecution a continuation of politics by other means.
This part of the article was fucking hilarious though: While the political fallout of this indictment will take time to sort through, this case makes one thing clear: Campaign-finance regulation makes prosecution a continuation of politics by other means.
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/10/5earle.html
Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment
Newly impaneled grand jury returned money-laundering charge within hours
By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.
In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.
Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.
Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.
Lawyers for DeLay immediately called foul after Earle released his statement after 5 p.m. Tuesday.
"What could have happened over the weekend?" said Austin lawyer Bill White, who represents DeLay. "They investigate for three years and suddenly they have new evidence? That's beyond the pale!"
White suggested that Earle released his statement Tuesday because he feared reporters would learn about the no-bill.
In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.
DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.
"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"
The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.
The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.
According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."
It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.
Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.
Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.
When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.
About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.
DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.
"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."
Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment
Newly impaneled grand jury returned money-laundering charge within hours
By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.
In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.
Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.
Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.
Lawyers for DeLay immediately called foul after Earle released his statement after 5 p.m. Tuesday.
"What could have happened over the weekend?" said Austin lawyer Bill White, who represents DeLay. "They investigate for three years and suddenly they have new evidence? That's beyond the pale!"
White suggested that Earle released his statement Tuesday because he feared reporters would learn about the no-bill.
In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.
DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.
"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"
The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.
The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.
According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."
It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.
Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.
Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.
When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.
About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.
DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.
"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."
