Jump to content

Tom Delay Indicted


RedScare

Recommended Posts

What I think is so funny is a woman who was interviewed in a Sugar Land area coffee shop. When asked why she still supports Delay, she said it's because "He's a Christian and a family man". Well! That exonerates him.

oh gawd...this is the mentality that totally #$*&$ up everything :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What is weak about it? The premise of the case is that $190,000 in corporate contributions came into the PAC. The PAC gave the national Republican Party $190,000. The national Republican party gave $190,000 to republicans in local races. That is not in dispute, what is in dispute is whether there were specific directions to the Republican Party by the PAC on where it goes. That's where the crime potentially is.

The evidence you and I have not seen yet is the paper trail. If there is no paper trail, then the case gets thrown out. If there is a paper trail, then Delay is sunk. You can call it a vendetta by the prosecuter all day, but if he has the goods he has a duty to uphold the law. Notwithstanding what can happen to Delay, if the prosecuter doesn't have the goods his knees will be politically chopped off. I personally think the prosecuter would be an absolute imbecile to go forward with this without the goods.

Again, there is only 1 indictmentl, that indicates a "weak" case. If they really have a case, Then they could and would come up with more trumped up charges. I am excited about this case, if he is guilty, then hell yeah! Fry his ass. There is soooo much corruption in politics I guess you have to start somewhere, but I believe the left side of the american public is in for another let down, and then it's back to the drawing board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Delay was not allowed to speak to any of the six grand juries to defend himself aginst the carges.
It's so funny that you bring that up. Those were Delay's comments to a news program yesterday, and he is lying. Oops, I guess I mean he was "misspoken". His own Attorney said that's not the case.

Delay:

"Never asking me to testify, never doing anything for two years," .... "And then, on the last day of his fourth or sixth grand jury, he indicts me. Why? Because his goal was to make me step down as majority leader."

Delay's Attorney:

Dick DeGuerin, the attorney representing DeLay, said Thursday that DeLay actually was invited to appear before the grand jury, where he would have been under oath. The Houston attorney was not yet on the legal team when DeLay was asked to appear, but he said other attorneys advised him not to testify

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so funny that you bring that up. Those were Delay's comments to a news program yesterday, and he is lying. Oops, I guess I mean he was "misspoken". His own Attorney said that's not the case.

Delay:

"Never asking me to testify, never doing anything for two years," .... "And then, on the last day of his fourth or sixth grand jury, he indicts me. Why? Because his goal was to make me step down as majority leader."

Delay's Attorney:

Dick DeGuerin, the attorney representing DeLay, said Thursday that DeLay actually was invited to appear before the grand jury, where he would have been under oath. The Houston attorney was not yet on the legal team when DeLay was asked to appear, but he said other attorneys advised him not to testify

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea why that would matter. I only mention it because having only one indictment means jack when compared to someone's guilt in the matter. Furthermore, I would argue that bringing 50 indictments against Delay would have been more suspect than a single indictment. Many times when prosecuters don't have a strong case, they'll "throw a bunch of spagetti against the wall" to see if anything sticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I may be the only one here to ever have presented evidence to a grand jury, I'll offer up a few tidbits. Bear in mind, I wasn't in front of THIS grand jury, so some things may or may not have happened.

A criminal act has a statute of limitations. If the crime is not indicted within that period, it is forever barred from prosecution. A grand jury has subpoena power. The subpoena power is needed to get documents from corporations or PACs that the people involved won't give up willingly. Since the grand jury's term is limited to 90 days, you may not collect all of your evidence in that period of time. Therefore, you do not present the case to that grand jury. This is probably why the 4 or 5 grand juries before this one may not have indicted. They may not have been asked to. There is nothing improper about this. It happens all the time. I have heard no one say that a previous grand jury refused to indict, or "no-billed" DeLay, only that they did not indict. Huge difference.

The foreman of the GJ said Earle did not ask them to indict. He said they invited DeLay to testify and waited until the last possible day before voting. This may help rebut the accusation that Earle is out to get DeLay, but it could also mean that Earle did not have enough evidence to ask for an indictment, and the GJ did it anyway. This could be huge. If true, Earle is stuck with an indictment for which he doesn't have the evidence to convict. Again, I haven't heard this to be true, only that the foreman said they indicted, not Earle.

OPINION -

The details that are out show that, while DeLay may beat the charge, his intent, and TRMPAC's, was to circumvent a 100 year old Texas campaign law banning corporate contributions to individual candidates. DeLay's supporters will say that since he was not convicted, he did nothing wrong. Everyone else sees the complete breakdown of the representative system, of which Tom DeLay is just the most obvious rule bender. All Americans should be disgusted at the selling of politicians to the highest bidder. This is probably why there are not many people "defending" DeLay. It is the entire US political system that was indicted, and it frankly, cannot be defended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, RedScare, for giving us some insights into the tangled web which is our judicial system.

Perhaps someday I can pick your brain about the mysterious dismissal of the conviction of those behind the Vita-Pro scandal. Conveniently, the judge waited years - until we were in the midst of Katrina and Supreme Court nominations - before tossing the case out. It's been pretty well ignored by the press, which I think is a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if convicted, I highly doubt Delay would get jail time. Unlike Martha's federal conviction, Texas doesn't have mandatory minimums. To a person such as Delay, the conviction itself is punishment enough.

Redscare, good point. Thinking back a little, I remember that Kenneth Starr had 2 grand juries, and that at the federal level you can keep them for 36 months at a time and extend beyond that if the prosecutor deems it necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, 11 of the 15 politicians Earle has prosecuted over the years were Democrats. So I guess that would knock down the "vendetta" charge that he is after Republicans. I saw an old interview with him from 60 Minutes-he said it's not a political game-it's more like cops and robbers-he being the cop. The "vendetta" smear is yet another tactic used by the extreme right when they are caught with their pants down. Never address the charges. ALWAYS attack the messenger and smear them in any way possible. They did it with McCain in S. Carolina in 2000 so you can bet they'll do it with any one else.

Their tactic is to repeat it over and over and over and over and over again until the lie becomes the perceived truth.

BTW, thanks Red for the GJ info-very helpful.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Delay was not allowed to speak to any of the six grand juries to defend himself aginst the carges.

Totally wrong. Even Delay's lawyer contradicts him on this. The grand jury invited him to testify. Delay chose not to.

Never mind. This was already covered in an earlier post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Delay was not allowed to speak to any of the six grand juries to defend himself aginst the carges.

Actually DeLay refused the invitation from the Grand Jury to answer their questions.

Darlings! Put it into perspective.

At least the guy didn't dip illegal Cuban cigars into a Jewish, teenage subordinate's honey-pot, pull it out and proceed to lick and slurp the dipstick while conducting the Nation's business in the Oval Office and then proceed to wipe his hands on the American Flag. All else pales in comparison

"Put it into perspective?"

Oh dear! Another Republican who can't get the Clinton monkey off it's back.

B)

On a related topic, David Dreier, the top ranking closeteted gay house Republican will be assuming the #3 spot in the house majority leadership. Gotta love that good ol' diversity we like to call the GOP. Now close that closet door! It's getting drafty in here!

http://www.alternet.org/story/26140/

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I just found out, the statute of limitations is 3 years on this case. The alleged crime was committed on Sept. 13, 2002. The Indictment gets handed down, Sept. 28, 2005. I'm not saying thats fishy, but I think I saw Ronnie Earle pull a can of sardines out of his pocket on CNN. I know ,i know, the "grand jury" handed down the indictment. From what the indictment charges, is that Delay's 2 "co-conspirators" were actually charged in April, and Delay was just an after thought, in Sept. Why do you suppose that is ? I'd like to know what those 2 "articles" that Tom allegedly "waived" are. Any lawyers here know, Red ? I'm guessing they have something to do with how campaign contributions are supposed to be claimed for tax purposes, or something. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I just found out, the statute of limitations is 3 years on this case. The alleged crime was committed on Sept. 13, 2002. The Indictment gets handed down, Sept. 28, 2005. I'm not saying thats fishy, but I think I saw Ronnie Earle pull a can of sardines out of his pocket on CNN. I know ,i know, the "grand jury" handed down the indictment. From what the indictment charges, is that Delay's 2 "co-conspirators" were actually charged in April, and Delay was just an after thought, in Sept. Why do you suppose that is ? I'd like to know what those 2 "articles" that Tom allegedly "waived" are. Any lawyers here know, Red ? I'm guessing they have something to do with how campaign contributions are supposed to be claimed for tax purposes, or something. <_<

Article 12.01 of the TX Code of Criminal Procedure is the Statute of Limitations for felonies. Any felony that does not have a specific limitation, is three years. Article 12.03 is the statute of limitations for conspiracy, basically the same as the underlying crime.

The conspiracy against DeLay would theoretically stem from the fact that he created TRMPAC, and was the one that called the shots. A similar situation would exist if John Gotti ordered a couple of his hitmen to whack someone. Even if Gotti is nowhere nearby, he would be a co-conspirator. Of course, Gotti, and DeLay, would have to be shown as participating in the conspiracy. Even though we know what the purpose of TRMPAC was, if there is no credible evidence that DeLay ordered or approved the laundering of the corporate donations (that is the basic allegation), then no conviction will lie. That evidence could come from the co-defendants, or the corporate donors, or others who saw or heard DeLAY approve the laundering. If they don't have that, he probably walks.

As to why DeLay and his lawyers waived the statute of limitations, many things could account for that. My guess is that the limitation was approaching, and Earle suggested to DeLay's lawyer that he might have to indict DeLay quickly, or else be barred from proceeding. In this situation, prosecutors often will indict, even though they are not quite ready. They know they can dismiss the case later, if the evidence collapses. Obviously, DeLay does not want ANY indictment, so he may agree to waive the statute of limitations, hoping that Earle later decides that he doesn't have enough evidence to indict. In this case, that did not happen.

For those that REALLY want to understand what happened, don't fall for any suggestions that Tom DeLay got hoodwinked by Ronnie Earle. DeLay has the best lawyers money can buy, and anything they agree to was not done stupidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey, nmainguy, they democrats Earle went after were die-hard conservative democrate. Earle is an equal operturnity conservative attacker. The fact he went after democrats doesn't mean he's bipartisan.

The fact that conspiracy is only charge, I think Delay will get through. Does this mean he's innocent? I don't know. Our justice system does not determine innocence, only if you are not guilty or guilty.

Delay isn't perfect and I wouldn't claim him to be. Also, he is not removed from being a representative right now, he just isn't a majority leader because of the rules within the republican party. Techinically he could still be majority leader, but the republicans won't let people indicted have the positions. It's almost like that was planned just before election season. Earle did it to Kay Baily Hutchinson during her campaign for the senate too. The charges were dropped after she got elected.

Also, Earle has hired a camara crew to follow him around only on the Delay case and has spoken to strong left leaning groups constantly about how he is going to get Delay. Earle is by no means all innocent and perfect in this matter. This is politics plain and simple.

Why were many constitutuents getting phone calls within minutes of the reading of the indictment from the DNC and local democratic party officials about the situation and whether they would vote for Delay again? Seems kind of quick since the indictment was just read that phonebanks are running to get future election data. Just seems kind of fishy.

It seems like they are just throwing these charges to wall and hoping one sticks. Of course, the media care more about the seriousness of the charge and not whether they are substantial. Why is it when some is indicted where well know or not, our assumption is that they did something?

Also, many other representatives in this state and in other states commonly engage in the practice that the PAC did. Nacy Pelosi is being investigated for the same thing. Harry Ried is also being investigated and the case against him makes Delay looking like and innocent schoolgirl, but of course we would never here that in the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hing?

Also, many other representatives in this state and in other states commonly engage in the practice that the PAC did. Nacy Pelosi is being investigated for the same thing. Harry Ried is also being investigated and the case against him makes Delay looking like and innocent schoolgirl, but of course we would never here that in the news.

Hmmm. The old everyone does it defense. And what exactly is Reid being investigated for? And how can Nancy Pelosi be investigated for the same thing? The law Delay is accused of breacking is specific to Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey, nmainguy, they democrats Earle went after were die-hard conservative democrate. Earle is an equal operturnity conservative attacker.

Maddox? Conservative?[/b]

The fact he went after democrats doesn't mean he's bipartisan.

Yes it does-by definition.

The fact that conspiracy is only charge, I think Delay will get through. Does this mean he's innocent? I don't know. Our justice system does not determine innocence, only if you are not guilty or guilty.

Delay isn't perfect and I wouldn't claim him to be. Also, he is not removed from being a representative right now, he just isn't a majority leader because of the rules within the republican party. Techinically he could still be majority leader, but the republicans won't let people indicted have the positions.

Because the Republicans changed the rule back after getting so much heat for changing it to protect DeLay when and if indicted.

It's almost like that was planned just before election season. Earle did it to Kay Baily Hutchinson during her campaign for the senate too. The charges were dropped after she got elected.

Also, Earle has hired a camara crew to follow him around only on the Delay case...

No, he did not hire a camera crew. Mark Birnbaum is filming a movie for the last two years called "The Big Buy" http://markbirnbaum.com/. It's his fim crew.

...and has spoken to strong left leaning groups constantly about how he is going to get Delay. Earle is by no means all innocent and perfect in this matter. This is politics plain and simple.

WOW! Now there's an indictment! Lock the man up for practicing his 1st Amendment rights and praise god we have Delay talking to and encouraging anti-gay activists! BTW kjb434, as a gay Republican, how's that working out for you?

Why were many constitutuents getting phone calls within minutes of the reading of the indictment from the DNC and local democratic party officials about the situation and whether they would vote for Delay again? Seems kind of quick since the indictment was just read that phonebanks are running to get future election data. Just seems kind of fishy.

It seems like they are just throwing these charges to wall and hoping one sticks. Of course, the media care more about the seriousness of the charge and not whether they are substantial. Why is it when some is indicted where well know or not, our assumption is that they did something?

Also, many other representatives in this state and in other states commonly engage in the practice that the PAC did. Nacy Pelosi is being investigated for the same thing. Harry Ried is also being investigated and the case against him makes Delay looking like and innocent schoolgirl, but of course we would never here that in the news.

Uh, I believe the subject here is the Delay indictment handed down by the Travis Grand Jury. Stay focused.

It's amazing how the defenders of someone like DeLay can dance around the facts so well while being twisted into such a tight pretzel.

Oh yeah, kjb434, how 'bout that closeted gay congressman, David Dreier as the #3 guy in the Republican leadership? Quite the coup, don't you think?

B)

Earle is an equal operturnity conservative attacker

Glad I got the "operturnity" to help ya out there, kj, ol' buddy!

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's his fim crew."

How much "fim" are they using ? Those who live in glass houses chief, you know how the rest goes. :D

Uhhh...that ...uh...was a test, TJ....YEAH! That's it! I was testing YOU! You passed! 3 cheers for TJ!

[nmainguy slinks under the desk in total embarassment with no defense what-so-ever :( ]

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhh...that ...uh...was a test, TJ....YEAH! That's it! I was testing YOU! You passed! 3 cheers for TJ!

[nmainguy slinks under the desk in total embarassment with no defense what-so-ever :( ]

B)

You are still my favorite "lib." on these pages. :P

BTW, I am a conservative, and I believe that if ol' Tom is involved, then he gets what's coming, but, it always goes the same way, guilty before a trial. I can't bring myself to jump on the bandwagon of he did or didn't , when it is still a "Tom said", and "Ronnie said", or I guess, it would be a "he said, she said." thing. D'OH !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...