Delay Indicted

[channonc 466]

LINK

House rules state that he will have to step down as Majority Leader. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Found guilty in a fair trial, throw him out.

Aint nobody on this forum gonna get me on a hypocracy charge.

I got no use for anyone in public office breaking the law.

Wonder why no one on the Left said a word after the 1996 election with all of Clinton-Gore's Fioinance Shenanigans?

[WarTim 3,463]

I agree with DKW 100%. Wrong is WRONG. (But, he like everyone else is innocent until proven guilty. I am certain that the media will treat him as an innocent man...right?)

[Piglet 0]

Whatever he did, liberals caused him to do it. It's all their fault.

I hate liberals. They have no sense of personal responsibility.

[WarTim 3,463]

Once again, you are wrong little piggy. Whatever he did wrong, IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S FAULT. Remember the liberal lock step line. It is ALL Bush's Fault!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I agree with DKW 100%. Wrong is WRONG. (But, he like everyone else is innocent until proven guilty. I am certain that the media will treat him as an innocent man...right?)

184704[/snapback]

Man, the sharks were on this one really quick. They smelled Republican blood in the water and started circling. You know the media will be nothing but fair and objective here, just like they were with the Rove/Plame witch hunt. By the way, what ever happened to the tar and feather party the democrats had planned for Karl?

I'm with David, if he's found guilty, throw him out. But, let's give this man the liberty of being innocent until proven guilty. Let due process run its course before we muster the lynch mob.

[AUdaREALsecTigers 2]

I agree...if he's found guilty. But the fact that it took 6 grand juries to finally indict him and Jimmie Earl's (what's his name?) highly public and relentless pursuit of his political enemies make this indictment smell to high heaven.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

The jerk's name is Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney in Austin (a bastion of liberalism in the heart of Texas). This is just another Republican witch hunt - he is the one who trumped up charges against Kay Bailey Hutchison that the judge threw out before it ever hit court. He is a partisan hack. Granted, he went after Democratic policiticans too, but if you check into it - most all were political enemies of his. And I think he has managed a conviction in maybe ONE of the 15 or so politically motivted cases he has filed?

DeLay may be guilty of a lot of things, or nothing at all, but since the indictment came from Ronnie Earle, anyone who knows anything about TX politics and who at least tries to be openminded should take this with a VERY large grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism. Even if it gets tossed out of court, which it very well may do, since he is trying to turn a civil charge into a criminal one, the damage is done to DeLay's reputation, so Earle will consider this a win-win situation for himself.

[Tigermike 3,425]

While we are on this topic and not to get too far off on a tangent, whatever came of the proven facts of Nancy Pelosi taking trips and other perks from lobbyists?

[Piglet 0]

The jerk's name is Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney in Austin (a bastion of liberalism in the heart of Texas).  This is just another Republican witch hunt - he is the one who trumped up charges against Kay Bailey Hutchison that the judge threw out before it ever hit court.  He is a partisan hack.  Granted, he went after Democratic policiticans too, but if you check into it - most all were political enemies of his.  And I think he has managed a conviction in maybe ONE of the 15 or so politically motivted cases he has filed?

DeLay may be guilty of a lot of things, or nothing at all, but since the indictment came from Ronnie Earle, anyone who knows anything about TX politics and who at least tries to be openminded should take this with a VERY large grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism.  Even if it gets tossed out of court, which it very well may do, since he is trying to turn a civil charge into a criminal one, the damage is done to DeLay's reputation, so Earle will consider this a win-win situation for himself.

184913[/snapback]

My understanding is Earle has gone after a LOT more Democrats than Republicans. Some partisan hack. And I know enough about Texas politics to know it's the biggest den of corruption outside of Chicago. By the time they get around to indicting a Texas politician, he would have needed the death penalty anywhere else.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

The jerk's name is Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney in Austin (a bastion of liberalism in the heart of Texas).  This is just another Republican witch hunt - he is the one who trumped up charges against Kay Bailey Hutchison that the judge threw out before it ever hit court.  He is a partisan hack.  Granted, he went after Democratic policiticans too, but if you check into it - most all were political enemies of his.  And I think he has managed a conviction in maybe ONE of the 15 or so politically motivted cases he has filed?

DeLay may be guilty of a lot of things, or nothing at all, but since the indictment came from Ronnie Earle, anyone who knows anything about TX politics and who at least tries to be openminded should take this with a VERY large grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism.  Even if it gets tossed out of court, which it very well may do, since he is trying to turn a civil charge into a criminal one, the damage is done to DeLay's reputation, so Earle will consider this a win-win situation for himself.

184913[/snapback]

My understanding is Earle has gone after a LOT more Democrats than Republicans. Some partisan hack. And I know enough about Texas politics to know it's the biggest den of corruption outside of Chicago. By the time they get around to indicting a Texas politician, he would have needed the death penalty anywhere else.

185050[/snapback]

What part of my post did you not read before popping off? See bolded statement above. Yes, Earle has gone after more Dems than Republicans, but maybe that has something to do with the fact that up until about ten years ago, the Dems were in total control of this state. But ever since the R's took over, he has been foaming at the mouth, trying everything he can to bring them down. The local news this morning said DeLay's camp is saying that the Democratic party in Texas pressured Earle into bringing this indictment, even tho DeLay had already been told he would not be indicted. So if that is true, that makes him a partisan hack, not to mention the following, where he isn't even shy about being a left-wing extremist:

Link

The Houston Chronicle reports today that the supposedly non-partisan Travis County DA investigating charges of corruption among DeLay's staff spent last week fund-raising for the Democratic Party:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who denies partisan motives for his investigation of a political group founded by Republican leader Tom DeLay, was the featured speaker last week at a Democratic fund-raiser where he spoke directly about the congressman.

A newly formed Democratic political action committee, Texas Values in Action Coalition, hosted the May 12 event in Dallas to raise campaign money to take control of the state Legislature from the GOP, organizers said.

Earle, an elected Democrat, helped generate $102,000 for the organization.

In his remarks, Earle likened DeLay to a bully and spoke about political corruption and the investigation involving DeLay, the House majority leader from Sugar Land, according to a transcript supplied by Earle.

It seems like a breach of prosecutorial ethics for a district attorney to be discussing a potential witness or target in an investigation in public in any environment. It speaks to a pre-existing bias that should result in the disqualification of Earle and/or any indictment he files. However, using that rhetoric to raise money for a political party while investigations are ongoing not only strikes me as unethical but potentially actionable for Earle's status at the Bar.

The fact that he has managed few convictions in all the politically motivated cases he has brought should tell you something about Earle. Even more telling is that this is not all new stuff people are pulling out of the woodwork just because DeLay is the one indicted. Even some Democrats in Texas think Earle is a menace to society and an out-of-control frustrated little man. His reputation was in tatters long before this case came along. Do a Google search on his name and read the articles you get. He can't even competently handle the regular cases that get thrown his way.

This from a blog written by a local attorney. I completely agree with everything in this paragraph: Link

The fact that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is well documented as a prosecutorial over-reacher, a hyper-partisan loose cannon (almost as dangerous to himself and members of his own party as to opponents), a grandstander, a frequent magnificent loser at the courthouse, and one of the biggest horse's asses in the history of Texas does not mean that Tom DeLay is necessarily innocent. But neither does the fact that Tom Delay has been indicted mean that he's guilty. I am not among Rep. DeLay's fans, but I do think he's entitled to his presumption of innocence.

This is from National Review OnLine:Link

...this indictment is totally phony. Here's why:

The indictment centers around a money swap that took place between the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), to which DeLay has ties, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent the same total amount in seven checks ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 to Texas House candidates in 2002. Travis County DA Ronnie 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.

What you won't hear in the press is that A) This is a perfectly legal move, and the Democrats did the exact same thing. An Institute on Money in State Politics study reveals that on Oct. 31, 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 the very same day.

Here's what I wrote about this case last summer:

Just to put this $190,000 deal into perspective and demonstrate the petty, vindictive nature of this partisan investigation, the study also reveals that Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans.

Bottom line: Even people who aren't fans of Tom DeLay should show some intellectual honesty and admit that this is an out-of-control prosecutor and a phony charge.

So my Texas tax dollars get to be spent on another unsubstantiated, unprosecutable, Ronnie Earle wash-out. Great.

And TEXAS politics is the biggest den of corruption outside of Chicago? You just totally blew what little cred you had remaining with me in one fell swoop. Since when has Texas politics ever been seen as corrupt? Pray give us one specific legitimate example. And have you ever heard of the state of Louisiana, starting with a man named Long? We have CURRENT EVENT examples of corruption in Louisiana politics, but Texas is worse? Once again, you are making comments on topics about which you obviously have no clue. You aren't from Texas (I suppose), don't live here (ditto), and apparently can't read, so stick with what you know.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Thanks Jenny, I didnt know we were having roast pork for lunch though. I 'll just take a sandwich and some chips...

[Jenny AU-92 0]

The sad thing is that I am really NOT a Tom DeLay fan. I think he is a posturing bully who is not a very nice person. Is he guilty of something? Probably, but so is every prominent politician in this country - you don't get to positions of political power in this country and keep your hands (or the hands of your advisors) TOTALLY squeaky clean in the process. Bending the rules to suit you (or having plausible deniablity while your staffers do it) is a political reality. I am not that naive.

But I just CANNOT STAND this kind of stuff. I believe in the law and the vigorous prosecution of lawbreakers, but abuse of the power of law makes people skeptical and cynical about the right of an accused person to even get a fair trial. Ronnie Earle is just a menace and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Travis County (read: AUSTIN) is the only place this man could be elected D.A. He is incompetent at best, corrupt himself at worst. Using an elected office to commit a smear campaign and personal vendetta against people who oppose you is, to me, a more egregious abuse of power than anything Tom DeLay may or may not have done in relation to this case.

I feel very confident in stating that IF this case even makes it to a jury, DeLay will be acquitted. From all I have read so far, it would take one hell of a smoking gun for Earle to even get this to a jury, and so far, there is no reason to believe he has one. Especially since he has already presented his case to the media and to a DOCUMENTARY FILM CREW!!

Link

For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew "extraordinary access" to make a motion picture about his work on the case.

    

[snip]

The film, according to the description, "follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle's investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC."

"We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff," Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. "We've been shooting for about two years."

[snip]

Earle "allowed us behind the scenes when the indictments came down last year, the first wave of indictments," Schermbeck says. "We got to follow him back to his home a couple of times, which I understand he doesn't allow anybody to do." Schermbeck says the film includes interviews with some critics of Earle, as well as lawyers who are representing some of the targets of the investigation.

Defend THAT.

[WarTim 3,463]

Please, everyone remind me to NEVER get on the wrong side of OUR Football Goddess!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Please, everyone remind me to NEVER get on the wrong side of OUR Football Goddess!

185177[/snapback]

Amen, brother Tim! I think ol' Piglet just got bar-b-qued.

Jenny, you really need to start up a blog! You have a real God given talent for telling it like it is!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Who needs a blog - I have you guys.

[Piglet 0]

So someone yells a lot, spouts off Republican talking points and cites National Review as a source, and it's "roast pork", is it? Not quite.

You think the National Review is a source? Whatever. I suppose that means so is Molly Ivins. She's no more of an agenda pusher than they are.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/nati...-14483610c.html

AUSTIN, Texas -- Jeez, that was quite a hissy fit Tom DeLay had, calling Ronnie Earle a rogue prosecutor, a partisan fanatic and an unabashed partisan zealot out for personal revenge.

Ronnie Earle? Our very own mild-mannered -- well, let's be honest, bland as toast, eternally unexciting, Mr. Understatement, Old Vanilla -- Ronnie Earle? If the rest of Tom DeLay's defense is as accurate as his description of Ronnie Earle, DeLay might as well have himself measured for a white jumpsuit right now.

For the one-zillionth time, of the 15 cases Ronnie Earle has brought against politicians over the years, 12 of them were against Democrats. Earle was so aggressive in going after corrupt Democrats, the Republicans never even put up a candidate against him all during the '80s. Partisan is not a word anyone can honestly use about Ronnie Earle, but that sure doesn't stop the TV blabbermouths. So many of them have bought the Republican spin that Earle is on a partisan witch-hunt, the watchdogs like Media Matters can hardly keep up.

Note that it's not just "some Democrats", who must have been Earle's political enemies. It's 12 out of 15. Looks to me like the Republicans are the exceptions, not the rule.

What? You say that shows that Democrats are more corrupt? Could well be! I don't care. Unlike some of you, if DeLay and Ted Kennedy said the exact same thing, I would not praise one and yell about the other. When I said Texas politics were so corrupt, I meant LBJ and Wright and Bustamante as well as DeLay. I mean the cronyism that stacks regulatory agencies with lobbyists for the businesses they're supposed to be regulating. I mean the chicken magnate who went down to the legislature and stood in the lobby handing out cash bribes in exchange for votes.

You like the National Review. I think maybe the foreman of the grand jury that indicted DeLay may be a tad less biased.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...y.20c896f8.html

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 [District Attorney] 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."

...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.

Or how about DeLay himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/text100998.htm

... I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.

Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.

Yup, that's him talking about Clinton. I thought his words were right, then. They're right now, too.

I'm not saying you blew what little cred you had, Jenny, just by taking the party hack line on deLay. But you sure can do better than that. You're blinding yourself on purpose.

There's so much **** in Texas, you're bound to step in some.

--Johnny Winter

[Jenny AU-92 0]

1. For many many many years, there WERE no Republicans in power in Texas for Ronnie Earle to go after. GWB was the first Republican governor in decades and that was twelve years ago. The Dems controlled all statewide offices until the Bush Revolution took over. The comment has also been made that the Democrats he went after are all people who either opposed him directly or indirectly - political enemies. And you can find more than just conservative links to support that same position.

2. As soon as the Republicans took over, Earle switched to going after them like a duck on a June Bug, even though there are still Dems in office in some areas.

3. The Republicans don't run anyone against Ronnie Earle in Travis County because that would be a waste of money. David Duke has a better chance of being elected in Harlem than a Republican has of being elected in that pinko hole called Austin.

4. The fact that Molly Ivins defends him should be enough proof of his partisanship right there.

5. Did you not read the link about the speech he gave to that ultra-left wing group? Partisan. That link referenced an article from the Houston Chronicle - which leans far left, if anything. The link from National Review didn't contain anything but facts taken off the A.P. wire - that just happened to be the first place I found it.

6. Let me re-state something for you, since you missed it the first time:

What you won't hear in the press is that A) This is a perfectly legal move, and b. the Democrats did the exact same thing. An Institute on Money in State Politics study reveals that on Oct. 31, 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 the very same day.

Here's what I wrote about this case last summer:

Just to put this $190,000 deal into perspective and demonstrate the petty, vindictive nature of this partisan investigation, the study also reveals that Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans.

Just because this comes from a conservative web site does NOT mean the facts are anything different. What DeLay has been accused of is nothing irregular.

7. You have the right to maintain your silence in this country, and the jury is supposed to understand that they may NOT infer anything from an accused's exercise of this right. So if him not testifying is the basis for the indictment, then the jury was wrong to indict him in the first place.

[Piglet 0]

1. Incorrect. Texas elected a Republican Governor in 1978 and 1986.

2. So what? The party in power, if it controls the whole government, is always gonna be more corrupt than the minority. If the Democrats were corrupt when they were in charge, I'm not surprised a bit. If the Republicans got a taste for graft when they got in a position to be dealing out the favors, it sounds like par for the course to me. Look at how they rode into power on a crusade to shrink the government, and once in, they found they liked big spending too.

3. But then, they do run Republican candidates in Harlem. And San Francisco and boston and everywhere else they know they can't win. It's only Democrats who run away from a hard fight. If Republicans cared, they'd run someone against Earle.

4 and 5. You mean, the way National Review spinning the whole thing to be about Earle and not DeLay is proof that Earle is pure as Ivory Soap? You seem to think I give a ripe turd whether Earle is as bad as DeLay. This ain't about Earle, it's about the Speaker of the House. You want to tell me Earle is another crook? Save your breath, I'm already sure he's another good ol' boy like the rest of them. None of which makes a difference in DeLay's matter. There's defendants all over America that are no less guilty just because the prosecutor is a jerk.

6. Sure, money laundering is legal. I'm sure all the drug dealers will be glad to know that. And again, Democrats doing it too doesn't make it right. If they're unclean, then they should go to jail, or at least out of office, right along with the GOP.

7. The point is that DeLay didn't rebut the charges. Yeah, you've got the right to remain silent, but when the prosecutor puts up a good case and you've got nothing to say to it, the jury is going to draw conclusions from that. Not to mention that DeLay later lied and said he DID speak to the grand jury. Pants on fire, Tom.

[channonc 466]

Piglet, stop making sense!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

1. Incorrect.  Texas elected a Republican Governor in 1978 and 1986.

That's why I said it had been decades - Bush wasn't elected until the late 90's.  Once in each of the preceding decades does not a dynasty make.  And both of those Republican governors served one term each.

2. So what?  The party in power, if it controls the whole government, is always gonna be more corrupt than the minority.  If the Democrats were corrupt when they were in charge, I'm not surprised a bit.  If the Republicans got a taste for graft when they got in a position to be dealing out the favors, it sounds like par for the course to me.  Look at how they rode into power on a crusade to shrink the government, and once in, they found they liked big spending too.

You are still missing my point.  The Democrats Earle went after were not just any Democrats that were allegedly abusing power (since he failed to get convictions in most every case).  They were people that he had a personal vendetta against.  They were just easy targets because they were in power, and even if the best he could do was ruin their reputation and their career, since no one remembers people sometimes get acquitted, then it was still a good day for Ronnie Earle.

3. But then, they do run Republican candidates in Harlem.  And San Francisco and boston and everywhere else they know they can't win.  It's only Democrats who run away from a hard fight.  If Republicans cared, they'd run someone against Earle.

Again, you aren't too hip into Texas politics.  When I lived in Collin County, Texas, just north of Dallas, I NEVER saw a Democrat on the ballot for any local or state rep race.  NEVER.  Collin County was and still is 100% Republican, just like Travis Country was and is 100% liberal.  You didn't even have a choice to vote for anyone but a Republican and a Libertarian on the ballot in Collin County except in state wide races.  Texas is too big a state for a party to waste money running people in areas they have no shot at winning.  The Republicans have occasionally run someone against Earle, but it has been someone who has asked them to help him run, not a hand picked party candidate.  He got token support.  There are lots of places around the country where LOCAL races are most often run unopposed when a location identifies solidly with one party or another.

4 and 5. You mean, the way National Review spinning the whole thing to be about Earle and not DeLay is proof that Earle is pure as Ivory Soap?  You seem to think I give a ripe turd whether Earle is as bad as DeLay. This ain't about Earle, it's about the Speaker of the House.  You want to tell me Earle is another crook? Save your breath, I'm already sure he's another good ol' boy like the rest of them.   None of which makes a difference in DeLay's matter.  There's defendants all over America that are no less guilty just because the prosecutor is a jerk.

First, DeLay is not the Speaker of the House - he is Majority Leader.  Big difference.  And second, what difference does it make that I cited the NR???  Either something is legal or it's not.  And I think the "new" indictment that Ronnie Earle husted off to a grand jury yesterday proves that he knows he blew it big time.  What DeLay's campaign people did was LEGAL.  The law they are alleged to have broken was not enacted until ONE YEAR after the supposed "conspiracy" happened.  Mr. Delay's attorney pointed that out in his motion to dismiss and Earle about wet his britches running back to ANOTHER grand jury to find something else to charge DeLay with, so he can still make headlines even after the judge throws out the original indictment.  Hence the "money laundering" charge.  Why didn't he charge him with that at the original grand jury?? The other two guys were charged with both crimes at the same time.  Why did Earle have to go get an EIGHTH GJ to pass down this indictment?  And you can still sit here and say that this is NOT partisan???  Ronnie Earle is not even smart enough to know how to charge someone with an actual crime.  This is from the AP wire - maybe that will make you feel better about my "source":Link

The latest indictment, for one count of conspiring to launder money and one count of money laundering, was brought hours after DeLay's lawyers attacked on technical grounds another indictment handed down last week.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle did not return repeated phone calls from The Associated Press, but legal experts say the new charges from the Democratic prosecutor were likely filed to head off a potential problem with the previous charge.

6. Sure, money laundering is legal. I'm sure all the drug dealers will be glad to know that. And again, Democrats doing it too doesn't make it right. If they're unclean, then they should go to jail, or at least out of office, right along with the GOP. Then why hasn't Ronnie Earle gone after his buddies in the state Dem party FOR DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS TOM DELAY'S BUNCH??? Go to the website mentioned in the NATIONAL REVIEW article. Facts is facts. There was no spin from the NR - this non-partisan group made a study and the facts clearly show that the DNC did exactly what the RNC did, but on an even LARGER scale! So where are the indictments against Democrats? OH WAIT! THEY LOST!! So no headlines there. And Ronnie Earle just HAPPENS to be a Democrat. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!

Link to PROOF - See pages 2 and 5. Note the table on page 5 that shows transfers of identical amounts on the same day by the DEMOCRATS!! Where's the indictment????

The Texas Democratic Party received the bulk of the 2002 contributions, taking in $11M to the GOP's $5.2 M. 

The Institute found eight trades of soft money for hard money, all between the Democratic National Committee and the Texas Democratic Party.  In two trades in 1998, the DNC sent $172,500 in soft money to Texas, and the state party sent back $150,000 in hard money.  In two trades in 2000, the DNC sent $150,000 of soft money and received $125,000 in hard money.  And over a series of four trades in 2002, the DNC gave the state party $225,000 in soft money and the Texas Democratic Party sent $225,000 in hard money to the DNC.

7. The point is that DeLay didn't rebut the charges. Yeah, you've got the right to remain silent, but when the prosecutor puts up a good case and you've got nothing to say to it, the jury is going to draw conclusions from that. Not to mention that DeLay later lied and said he DID speak to the grand jury. Pants on fire, Tom. NO ONE ever goes before a grand jury to give their side, not if they are smart. You cannot have legal counsel in there with you, there is no rebuttal, and do you HONESTLY think Ronnie Earle would have allowed DeLay to speak without butting in? There would have been no telling his side of the story - Earle just wanted DeLay to go on the record with things he could then try and use against him later.

And you STILL have your facts wrong. DeLay first said he had not been invited to speak to the GJ, when in fact, the GJ had extended an invitation. I question whether or not DeLay's attorneys ever even told him about it, as there would have been no way a good attorney would have let him do that. A GJ is a prosecutor's witch hunt - all he has to do is convince people that he has enough evidence to warrant going to trial - he does not have to convince them of guilt or innocence.

DeLay WILL get off.

See, channonc, I can make sense too.

And just out of curiosity, channon and piglet, what was your opinion of Ken Starr? A good prosecutor just doing his job to root out abuse of power and corruption or a partisan hack looking for anything to bring down the Clintonistas?

186088[/snapback]

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Now that rational legal minds have had a chnce to read the "desperte try to fix it" indictment of Tom DeLay, here's one interesting take on the charge of "money laundering". Looks like this one will get tossed too. Ronnie Earle needs to have his bar card revoked. He can't even figure out how to make a legitimate charge that will actually hold up to more than five minutes scrutiny by another lawyer. Again, one attorney's opinion, but even as a lay person, I can read and understand his logic. Hard to break the law if no law exists and the facts don't fit the requirements of the statute:

Link

Drudge and Media Blog are reporting that a new indictment against Delay charges him with money laundering... the Texas Penal Code only appears to have one section on "money laundering, Chapter 34. To violate section 34.02, a defendant must:

"knowingly: (1) acquires or maintains an interest in, receives, conceals, possesses, transfers, or transports the proceeds of criminal activity; (2) conducts, supervises, or facilitates a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity; or (3) invests, expends, or receives, or offers to invest, expend, or receive, the proceeds of criminal activity or funds that the person believes are the proceeds of criminal activity."

Section 34.01 in turn defines "criminal activity":

"(1) 'Criminal activity' means any offense, including any preparatory offense, that is: (A) classified as a felony under the laws of this state or the United States; or ( punishable by confinement for more than one year under the laws of another state."

Assuming the facts alleged are true, this indictment cannot stand because there is no "criminal activity," as defined by statute.  Accepting money from a corporation and depositing it in a national account, is not a felony. It is also not a felony to give money from another account (which came from non-corporate donors) to Texas politicians.

The first indictment, while no doubt politically motivated, at least alleged the elements of a conspiracy, although if Media Blog's account is accurate, that indictment fails because the conspiracy law did not apply to election laws at the time of the alleged offense. This second indictment, however, is even more off base as there is no criminal activity at issue.

Update: Although the indictment adds some details, the essential facts remain the same. Based on the above statute, the new count of the indictment is flawed--for money laundering, the money that is laundered must be the proceeds of criminal activity. The money, alleged to be moved around, however, was not the proceeds of criminal activity. And money laundering is not defined as moving money around so as to avoid criminal activity. At least under Texas' statute.

[WarTim 3,463]

I still believe that all politics is LOCAL. Our Jenny has got her feet on the ground out there in the crisp-cool State of Texas . Her take on this is good enough for me.

[Piglet 0]

1. Incorrect.  Texas elected a Republican Governor in 1978 and 1986.

That's why I said it had been decades - Bush wasn't elected until the late 90's.  Once in each of the preceding decades does not a dynasty make.  And both of those Republican governors served one term each.

It was four years(one term), not decades.  Look: Clements® ==one term, 1987-1991.  Richards(D)==one term, 1991-1995. Bush®==one and a half, 1995-2000.

2. So what?  The party in power, if it controls the whole government, is always gonna be more corrupt than the minority.  If the Democrats were corrupt when they were in charge, I'm not surprised a bit.  If the Republicans got a taste for graft when they got in a position to be dealing out the favors, it sounds like par for the course to me.  Look at how they rode into power on a crusade to shrink the government, and once in, they found they liked big spending too.

You are still missing my point.  The Democrats Earle went after were not just any Democrats that were allegedly abusing power (since he failed to get convictions in most every case).  They were people that he had a personal vendetta against.  They were just easy targets because they were in power, and even if the best he could do was ruin their reputation and their career, since no one remembers people sometimes get acquitted, then it was still a good day for Ronnie Earle.

Seems to me, it's the powerless, not the people in power, who are the easy targets.  If Earle's that big a cowardly hack, why didn't he spend all his time going after homeless drug addicts, or even Republicans in the Democratic era and Democrats in the Republican era, which would have been much safer than taking on the big fish?  Instead, here he is incurring the Wrath of the Hammer, inviting the Swift Boat Machine to slime him like he's never been slimed, just so he can earn brownie points from the all-powerful ( ) Texas Democratic Party.  Sorry, but no one that stupid would be competent to stay in office as long as Earle, even in a one-party district.

3. But then, they do run Republican candidates in Harlem.  And San Francisco and boston and everywhere else they know they can't win.  It's only Democrats who run away from a hard fight.  If Republicans cared, they'd run someone against Earle.

Again, you aren't too hip into Texas politics.  When I lived in Collin County, Texas, just north of Dallas, I NEVER saw a Democrat on the ballot for any local or state rep race.  NEVER.  Collin County was and still is 100% Republican, just like Travis Country was and is 100% liberal.  You didn't even have a choice to vote for anyone but a Republican and a Libertarian on the ballot in Collin County except in state wide races.  Texas is too big a state for a party to waste money running people in areas they have no shot at winning.  The Republicans have occasionally run someone against Earle, but it has been someone who has asked them to help him run, not a hand picked party candidate.  He got token support.  There are lots of places around the country where LOCAL races are most often run unopposed when a location identifies solidly with one party or another.

  For all I know, you're right on this point. I don't know much about Travis County.  In Georgia, however, they run Republicans everywhere, even in the most liberal no-hope parts of Atlanta.  If they can't win, they figure they'll at least make the other side work for its win, set up a platform for maybe winning in future years, take the long view.  Even in San Francisco, they get a Republican in for mayor and stuff now and then, and don't try telling me Austin is more liberal than that.  It still seems to me that if Earle is THAT crooked and incompetent, they'd kick him out like they kicked out Rostenkowski and Gus Savage in Chicago.  More likely, he's no more crooked than the rest of the bunch--which is still bad, I've always granted you that--, and the GOP is trying to make him into a monster  to distract from the stench around their own big boy.

4 and 5. You mean, the way National Review spinning the whole thing to be about Earle and not DeLay is proof that Earle is pure as Ivory Soap?  You seem to think I give a ripe turd whether Earle is as bad as DeLay. This ain't about Earle, it's about the Speaker of the House.  You want to tell me Earle is another crook? Save your breath, I'm already sure he's another good ol' boy like the rest of them.   None of which makes a difference in DeLay's matter.  There's defendants all over America that are no less guilty just because the prosecutor is a jerk.

First, DeLay is not the Speaker of the House - he is Majority Leader.  Big difference.  And second, what difference does it make that I cited the NR???  Either something is legal or it's not.  And I think the "new" indictment that Ronnie Earle husted off to a grand jury yesterday proves that he knows he blew it big time.  What DeLay's campaign people did was LEGAL.  The law they are alleged to have broken was not enacted until ONE YEAR after the supposed "conspiracy" happened.  Mr. Delay's attorney pointed that out in his motion to dismiss and Earle about wet his britches running back to ANOTHER grand jury to find something else to charge DeLay with, so he can still make headlines even after the judge throws out the original indictment.  Hence the "money laundering" charge.  Why didn't he charge him with that at the original grand jury?? The other two guys were charged with both crimes at the same time.  Why did Earle have to go get an EIGHTH GJ to pass down this indictment?  And you can still sit here and say that this is NOT partisan???  Ronnie Earle is not even smart enough to know how to charge someone with an actual crime. 

If he's so dumb, how did he land one of the biggest fish in politics?  You're trying to have it both ways.  Earle could be a bumbling Roscoe Coltraine, or he could be a powerful lord of darkness. No way he's both at once.  Same way, either partisan journalists are either thereby discredited or they're not.  You don't get to cite National Review and dismiss Molly Ivins.

6. Sure, money laundering is legal.  I'm sure all the drug dealers will be glad to know that.  And again, Democrats doing it too doesn't make it right.  If they're unclean, then they should go to jail, or at least out of office, right along with the GOP. Then why hasn't Ronnie Earle gone after his buddies in the state Dem party FOR DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS TOM DELAY'S BUNCH???

That there's a good question.  Maybe he didn't have the evidence to make it stick.  Maybe he's playing favorites like you said.  Maybe that link is a crock and the Democrats did something different from DeLay, in a way that is legal.  Of course, if he's a crooked political opportunist, it would seem there'd be more in it for him to align himself with the DeLay wing and go after the Democrats, who are an easier target, have fewer favors to give in return, and don't fight back as hard.  Remember, you said Earle switches sides as the wind blows, so it can't be blind  party loyalty driving him.

And just out of curiosity, channon and piglet, what was your opinion of Ken Starr?  A good prosecutor just doing his job to root out abuse of power and corruption or a partisan hack looking for anything to bring down the Clintonistas?

[/b]

My opinion was that it would have been perfect justice for Clinton and Starr to have to share a jail cell together.  They were both slime. Monica was slime. Congress was slime. The media was slime. And Linda Tripp was the slimiest of them all.  But to really answer you, Starr was a partisan hack, but Clinton was still guilty. Just like DeLay is still guilty even if Earle is a partisan hack.

PS: Looks like they got DeLay a second time:  http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/...Indictment.html  Given everything you know about DeLay, do you really have a reasonable doubt about his crookedness? When he goes, they'll have to use a corkscrew to bury him.

186088[/snapback]

186119[/snapback]

[Piglet 0]

Now that rational legal minds have had a chnce to read the "desperte try to fix it" indictment of Tom DeLay, here's one interesting take on the charge of "money laundering".  Looks like this one will get tossed too.  Ronnie Earle needs to have his bar card revoked.  He can't even figure out how to make a legitimate charge that will actually hold up to more than five minutes scrutiny by another lawyer.  Again, one attorney's opinion, but even as a lay person, I can read and understand his logic.  Hard to break the law if no law exists and the facts don't fit the requirements of the statute:

So under Texas law, it's not illegal.

You know, if it comes down to DeLay getting away with it because Texas has legal money laundering and because the Prosecutor really is THAT STUPID, I'll concede cheerfully.

Man, Texas is like a whole different country. No wonder it's all screwed up there.