Tom Delay Indicted

[RedScare]

It appears Tom DeLay has been indicted a second time, this time for money laundering. If true, this would seem to make sense, given the facts as we know them.

More to come...

[nmainguy]

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

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 !

nmainguy agrees

[RedScare]

TJ, I agree that an indictment is not evidence of guilt, merely probable cause that a crime was committed. And, even though it is fairly easy to indict the average citizen, I somehow doubt Earle would embarrass himself with a completely false (now two) indictment(s).

That being said, an indictment is one thing, a conviction another. This new indictment is apparently from a second grand jury, investigating another part of this case.

[TJones]

TJ, I agree that an indictment is not evidence of guilt, merely probable cause that a crime was committed. And, even though it is fairly easy to indict the average citizen, I somehow doubt Earle would embarrass himself with a completely false (now two) indictment(s).

That being said, an indictment is one thing, a conviction another. This new indictment is apparently from a second grand jury, investigating another part of this case.

Red, I think that a crime may have been unknowingly committed, at least I feel pretty comfortable saying that that will be the "defense", not "ignorance" of the law, just that he "didn't know it was being handled that way."

How much did Earle embarrass himself with Kay Bailey Hutchinson ? I think the guy is looking for a headline Red. Can someone figure out a timeline as to when he has gone after Republicans and gone after Democrats ? Time of year, was there an election around the corner, how many were actually convicted, and are the charges similar. I don't know, sounds like too much work, I need a beer.

[HeightsGuy]

Bam! another indictment, and with a brand-new grand jury to boot. Guess that will negate the jury shopping allegations......

[west20th]

How much did he embarrass himself with Kay Bailey Hutchinson ? I think the guy is looking for a headline Red. Can someone figure out a timeline as to when he has gone after Republicans and gone after Democrats ? Time of year, was there an election around the corner, how many were actually convicted, and are the charges similar. I don't know, sounds like too much work, I need a beer.

There is an election around the corner but the one that matters (as far as Delay is concerned) isn't until 2006. People have short memories. If this charge was politically timed Earl's timing stinks.

[RedScare]

Red, I think that a crime may have been unknowingly committed, at least I feel pretty comfortable saying that that will be the "defense", not "ignorance" of the law, just that he "didn't know it was being handled that way."

How much did Earle embarrass himself with Kay Bailey Hutchinson ? I think the guy is looking for a headline Red. Can someone figure out a timeline as to when he has gone after Republicans and gone after Democrats ? Time of year, was there an election around the corner, how many were actually convicted, and are the charges similar. I don't know, sounds like too much work, I need a beer.

I agree that the defense will probably be to hang Coleandro out to dry by saying he did it alone, without DeLay's knowledge.

Here's my question. Does anyone out there believe that Tom DeLay did not know what the PAC that he created was doing, especially on such a critical issue as trading corporate money for individual money? Do you believe that DeLay operates this way? Is that how he became "The Hammer", by letting undelings go off half-cocked like that? Doesn't this excuse sound like CEOs who demand multi million dollar salaries because they are hands-on leaders, only to say they knew nothing when they get indicted?

[TJones]

I agree that the defense will probably be to hang Coleandro out to dry by saying he did it alone, without DeLay's knowledge.

Here's my question. Does anyone out there believe that Tom DeLay did not know what the PAC that he created was doing, especially on such a critical issue as trading corporate money for individual money? Do you believe that DeLay operates this way? Is that how he became "The Hammer", by letting undelings go off half-cocked like that? Doesn't this excuse sound like CEOs who demand multi million dollar salaries because they are hands-on leaders, only to say they knew nothing when they get indicted?

I saw an interview with Tom the other night, what show was that ? Anyways, I think Tom put at least a big toe in his mouth, cause he spouted off that "he always checked on the goings on with the PAC.", or something to that effect. If this is true, what the hell happened ? <----secret service.

[HeightsGuy]

Redscare, I don't think that's even a question. It's kinda like asking if politicians really "know" what's going on with their blind trusts..... of course they do, and of course Delay knew what was going on. It's all about the paper trail......

Just staring into the crystal ball........ I think the testimony of the chairman of the Republican National Committee is going to be Delay's downfall. If the charges really do have teeth, the Republican National Committee is too big and too important to let any one person bring it down, even someone at the level of Tom Delay. Because, if you can prove Delay was laundering money, that implicitly adds the Republican National Committee to the party, and they aren't about to let themselves be brought down with a scandal.

[nmainguy]

Not on the topic but interesting never the less.

Read, vomit, rinse. Repeat if neccessary.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic...id%2F1002713%2F

[RedScare]

Quote from the article:

"He and Quayle, DeLay explained to the assembled media in New Orleans, were victims of an unusual phenomenon back in the days of the undeclared Southeast Asian war. So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself. Satisfied with the pronouncement, which dumbfounded more than a few of his listeners who had lived the sixties, DeLay marched off to the convention."

To which Bill Bennett opined:

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to volunteer to go to Viet Nam, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your black soldiers in Viet Nam would go down," Bennett said, according to an audio clip posted on Media Matters for America's Web site. "That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your black soldiers in Viet Nam would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

[TJones]

.......... RedScare ladies and gentlemen, he'll be here at the "Rama Room" all week. " Holy mocking criticisms Batman", that was great. (wipes tear away from eye)

[nmainguy]

Quote from the article:

"He and Quayle, DeLay explained to the assembled media in New Orleans, were victims of an unusual phenomenon back in the days of the undeclared Southeast Asian war. So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself. Satisfied with the pronouncement, which dumbfounded more than a few of his listeners who had lived the sixties, DeLay marched off to the convention."

To which Bill Bennett opined:

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to volunteer to go to Viet Nam, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country, and your black soldiers in Viet Nam would go down," Bennett said, according to an audio clip posted on Media Matters for America's Web site. "That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your black soldiers in Viet Nam would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

nmainguy awards today's HAIF award for Clever Political Satire to [drum roll please]

RedScare!

[westguy]

Tom DeLay paid his family half-a-million with political donor money. That's a lot of $$$.

[eelimon]

Fry the Hammer!

[Ashikaga]

YES, Couldn't have happened to a better guy. I hope the SOB goes to jail where he belongs.

Yes, I also hope that DeLay is sent to the Big House. I've always despised him, and I don't even live in his district.

[gto250us]

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.

Is Delay mobbed up? Sounds good to me.

[TJones]

Well, well, well, it seems that turn about is fair play. Hmmmmm, why did ol' Ronnie Earle turn down the subpoenas? Doesn't want to answer some hard questions about jury shopping I guess. We all know that Dems have nothing to hide, so why subject themselves to an open forum about your legal practices ?

[Ashikaga]

Give it a couple of weeks, this will all blow over. Tom will be kicked back at home in Sugarland.

Speaking of Sugar Land, the former police chief of that city was arrested for DWI, according to today's Chronicle. And it also said that the Republican congressman of the district that I live in (Kevin Brady) was arrested for DWI over the weekend in South Dakota. Good ol' GOP!

[TJones]

Like Ted Kennedy is voting on bills, sober as a church mouse, RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT ! I seem to remember he was reported driving on a suspended license and crashed, while driving drunk, into some body of water and someone actually died. Can you help me remember that DWI incident Ashikaga ?

[Ashikaga]

Like Ted Kennedy is voting on bills, sober as a church mouse, RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT ! I seem to remember he was reported driving on a suspended license and crashed, while driving drunk, into some body of water and someone actually died. Can you help me remember that DWI incident Ashikaga ?

Yes, Chappaquidick (I don't know if I spelled it right). But Kennedy and most other Democrats don't go around publicly proclaiming to be paragons of virtue like DeLay and many other Republicans do.

[MidtownCoog]

Democrats don't go around publicly proclaiming to be paragons of virtue

True, they just cry in their beer about the Republicans.

[RedScare]

Well, well, well, it seems that turn about is fair play. Hmmmmm, why did ol' Ronnie Earle turn down the subpoenas? Doesn't want to answer some hard questions about jury shopping I guess. We all know that Dems have nothing to hide, so why subject themselves to an open forum about your legal practices ?

Grand Jury testimony is secret by law, so DeGeurin's subpoena ploy is just a publicity stunt to get the GOP faithful all riled up when Earle refuses to turn over his notes. Earle did not refuse the subpoena, but I'm sure he will ask the judge to throw it out.

[TJones]

Channel 2 reported that Earle refused them. Of course i know it is all to throw off attention. I'm sure it was expected in the whole law community, I really don't think Earle expected it though. I am Republican, but this does not get me all giddy, like, "alright, we got Earle on the ropes now !" kinda thing.

[RedScare]

What I have seen reported is that Earle refused to sign an acknowledgment of the subpoena, something that is not required, and that I've never seen a process server ask for (they just hand you the subpoena and walk away). Politically, though, it does look good, since very few people are well versed in criminal law technicalities (nor do they care to be). DeLay fans will yell "Gotcha!", even though it means nothing. Also, when Earle refuses to give up his documents, everyone will scream that he's hiding things, even though DAs do that every day.

You can bet that our Republican DA, Chuck Rosenthal, wants that subpoena thrown out, too. He doesn't want every lawyer in Houston dropping subpoenas on him everyday for every case. I guarentee that if that subpoena sticks, I'll do it to Rosenthal on my cases tomorrow.

[TJones]

We have enough legal hinderances already in our court system, what's one more mountain of paperwork to trudge over. Hey Red, do you happen to know Ron L. Tucker, he's a lawyer that has offices over off of San Felipe ?

[nmainguy]

Well, well, well, it seems that turn about is fair play. Hmmmmm, why did ol' Ronnie Earle turn down the subpoenas? Doesn't want to answer some hard questions about jury shopping I guess. We all know that Dems have nothing to hide, so why subject themselves to an open forum about your legal practices ?

That mean old Ronnie Earl! Turning down subpoenas just because it's illegal to discuss grand jury proceedings! How dare he, I say! HOW DARE HE!!!!

[TJones]

That mean old Ronnie Earl! Turning down subpoenas just because it's illegal to discuss grand jury proceedings! How dare he, I say! HOW DARE HE!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...lay-earle_x.htm

Here's a good breakdown of what DeLay's lawyers are accusing Ronnie boy of. I thought this whole thing was just gonna be boring, but now it looks like both sides are gonna sling some mud.

[RedScare]

I still don't see anything there that Earle did improperly. I've had cases where DAs did far more chicken____ things that were perfectly legal. However, I don't blame DeGeurin for his tactics, or even his inflammatory language. He's trying to win a case for his client, so if inflammatory rhetoric or accusations sways public opinion...or a judge...then more power to him.

So far, it doesn't seem to be working, however. An NBC poll shows only 24% believe the charge has no merit, as opposed to 65% who believe there may have been illegal activity, including HALF of Republican voters.

[TJones]

The only thing I really saw in the article was the fact that Earle was "asking for the grand jury's opinions" as to how they didn't present their case good enough after they had denied an indictment, so that when Earle took it to the next jury, they could be better prepared. That just shows that he was fixing some leaks in his presentation each time he "presented" his case to the next jury, then the next jury. It's probably not illegal, it's just as you said Red, "chicken____" ! If Earle is supposedly such a "Boyscout", then why stoop to such levels to try to make your case sound plausible. But, of course, Red, you and I both know Deguerin threw the subpoenas up in order to make it look like Ronnie Earle has something to hide. I think the whole thing is gonna be a wash.