The Republican culture of corruption marches on…
AP: “TEXAS GRAND JURY INDICTS U.S. REP. TOM DELAY ON A NEW CHARGE OF MONEY LAUNDERING”
Grand Jury Indicts DeLay on New Charge
A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.
Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.
I have a strong feeling this is going to be another great week.
As I’ve said before, DeLay’s toast.
Even if he beats all the charges–the Repugs are rapidly growing weary of constantly having to run interference for this sleazebag.
Friday Night Massacre in the wings?
dont you think a CLERK or someone in charge would have caught that before indicting someone?
Others have raised an interesting observation that I’ll repeat here.
The law DeLay is accused of violating became effective in 2003.
The transfers in question took place in 2002.
Doesn’t the Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws?
Yup, just checked — Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.
(http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)
On those grounds, shouldn’t the charges be dropped posthaste?
J.
Time will tell. Follow the money.
It s a major weakness in their crusade.
Ha. You defend this slimebag and you say we have weakness in our crusade?
The law DeLay is accused of violating became effective in 2003.
Houston Chronicle:
George Dix, a professor at the University of Texas law school who is an expert in criminal law and procedure, said he doesn’t believe changes made to the Texas election code by the 2003 legislature have any effect on the conspiracy charge.
The penal code’s conspiracy charge allows for the charge if the defendants allegedly conspired to commit any felony, including an election code felony.
Just because the election code was “silent” on the penal code provision until 2003, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a valid charge before 2003, Dix said.
“To me it just says, ‘We really mean what we said implicitly before,’ ” Dix said.
On those grounds, shouldn t the charges be dropped posthaste?
J.
No, Jay. I don’t think they should be dropped..Instead I think we should take this under cover of night and make it a National Security issue.
Once that is accomplished we will dismantle the Constitution, just this one time, so that we can first lynch DeLay, then burn his putrifying carcass on a bonfire made of all the documents which could implicate us in this crime.
Then we will daisy-chain across the enemies landscape and arrest all the co-conspirators in the Bush Administration right down to the White House Chef (surely he overheard secret conversations) and prance them around the capitol with dunce hats on their melons. All the while chanting on national TV before the whole country “WHADDAYA WANNA US TO DO???”
And we’ll conduct live polls on the internet with the two choices A(.Burn ‘em?
or B.) Skin ‘em?…Whats your choice America?
Yes, I do. Hence my asking about it, instead of demanding it. There has to be some kind of valid answer, and the people best motivated to find it seem to be those most invested in seeing DeLay destroyed. It’s a major weakness in their crusade.
J.
How dare the grand jury look at the evidence and make a determination of whether there’s enough evidence for a trial!
“Questioning the prosecution” is not the same as “defending the slimebag.” I don’t really care much about DeLay one way or another, but I am deeply concerned with constitutional issues. Professor Dix’s response, as you quoted above, does work towards undoing the incredibly sloppy work of the AP. Trite, cliched personal attacks don’t.
J.
Actually the original charges were dropped or thrown out and today’s indictment is in response. I fail to see however, why he would have been indicted for campaign finance violations in the first place if the prosecutor could have then indicted him for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, knowing that such charges carry stiffer penalties, presumably. A curious development.
They are 2 different grand juries, 2 different prosecutors too?
No same prosecutor. DeLay filed a motion to dismiss the first indictment (trying to weasel out on a technicality that wasn’t really a technicality), and Earle called his bluff and got him indicted under another provision that was more specific.
Burn, Bug-boy, BURN!!!
I hear one vote for burning.
Do I hear two….
How about skinnin?
Sorry, mr. C., I should have pushed “refresh” before “submit”.
This is getting better by the hour…oh, how I pine for the return of the Guillotine.
Hedley, the original charges weren’t dropped. Delay’s lawyers moved to have them dismissed on ex post facto grounds, but the judge is out of town and hasn’t ruled on that motion yet. Earle is presumably buying himself some insurance with the new indictments in case the old one is thrown out on a technicality, though as Dix’s comments indicate, Delay can’t start counting his chickens on that score.
I think that’s what brought about the intemperate outburst from Delay quoted in the article: he feels himself being checkmated.
outer_space: different grand jury, same prosecutor who (in case anyone has forgotten) has prosecuted far more corrupt Democrats than corrupt Republicans
Looks like we have a triple-play (three indictments): http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-04T001036Z_01_YUE381522_RTRUKOC_0_US-DELAY.xml
Yes, the guillotine seems to be the appropriate punishment for campaign finance violations. Were that to be the case, there will likely be quite a large commotion in DC, followed shortly thereafter by a mass exodus of politicians.
Yes, Mike..We wouldn’t want to spoil everyone else’s party! Would we?
Food for thought …
From Roll Call, Feb. 9, 2004:
http://www.rollcall.com/pub/49_75/news/4293-1.html
“A controversial fundraising committee run by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was slapped with a $21,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission for enabling Pelosi to funnel more than $100,000 in illegal contributions to Democratic candidates in late 2002 as she was vying to become Democratic leader.”
Campaign finances are a very dangerous place to go snooping around.
Be careful what you wish for.
Er…the “technicality” being that he wasn’t charged with a crime within the first indictment…which several people (myself included) pointed out in the first round of threads.
Before the accusations of DeLay being my boy are thrown around by some commenters again…let me remind you that I’m just pointing out the obvious from the first indictment based on, you know, reading it.
I have no idea what evidence Earle has against DeLay and maybe the second indictment is more specific about his alleged illegal activity.
He most certainly was charged with a crime in the first indictment: criminal conspiracy. Not even his lawyers are saying otherwise; they’re claiming that the law he’s being charged under does not apply to the actions he’s being accused of. As we see from Prof. Dix’s comments above, the argument DeLay’s lawyers are making is far from a slam dunk. Let’s wait and see what the judge says, shall we?
I have no problem with this. Of course, Oliver wants to milk the “corruption” angle for all it’s worth before this happens. If he’s found guilty, then plaster his face everywhere with a big “Republican” and “Culture of Corruption” on it. Until then, I’ll look at the facts rather than what political gain can be manufactured.
OK, somehow I messed up my first point above:
*(Sigh)* Go back and look what Texas election codes were alleged to have been broken in the indictment. Why do you think Earle went back to a second grand jury and acquired a more specific charge? Did he just forget to do it the first time around?
Well, here are some of Dix’s comments that were conviently ignored above:
I never said there might not be a problem with the earlier indictment. All I’m saying is that your contention that there unquestionably is a problem is biased BS.
And I’ve also got to say that it’s interesting to see in this case and in the Rove case that suddenly, for right wingers, right and wrong is determined not by whether something is right or wrong but whether it’s prosecutable. So, OJ killed his wife and Clinton is a serial sex-harrasser, but if Earle can’t make it stick then DeLay is pure as the driven snow.
Regardless of whether Earle ever puts together a winning case, there’s not a shadow of doubt in my mind that DeLay is a crooked scumbag. Now, should he be fined or imprisoned on the basis of my opinion of him? Absolutely not. But that won’t stop me from telling everyone who cares to listen that they should definitely keep their children away from him.
Wilbur: It’s been a long time since “not guilty” has meant “innocent”. Blame that on your liberal Judges.
As to keeping children away from DeLay, he’s only accused of moving some money around, not poking any available piece of poontang from here to Podunk, like some ex – President I could name, but dare not on this thread, where he is worshipped as a god (and I don’t mean Kennedy)
Actually, Frank, if you defend Tom DeLay, you defend prostitution and child prostitution. Do a search on DeLay and his efforts to preserve sweatshops and the sex trade in the Mariana Islands.
I’d ask you what’s worse—extra-marital sex between consenting adults or forcing young women and children into brothels?
Actually, JadeGold, you are, as usual, reading my mind incorrectly. I am noit defending Tom DeLay. I was merely having a little fun at ex-President Bill “How did that get in my hand” Clinton’s expense.
Interestingly, my CNN source was Mark Shields’ editorial which made Tom DeLay somehow the center of the Marianas affair.
My FOX source informed that Abramoff, “who has been associated with Bush and DeLay” was at the center of tje Marianas investigation into monies paid by their government to him.
Not at all different from Earle’s investigation.
If I had a teenage daughter, I still wouldn’t let her babysit over at the Clintons. Maybe I wouldn’t let go to the Marianas to seek employment, either. But, then again, I wouldn’t let her take a spring break in Aruba or Bali, either.
Hmmm, seems like there has been some more monkey business going on in Washington. Imagine that!
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/aug03/162382.asp
In other words, Zorro, everybody does it all the time, Democrats even do it openly, but when Republicans do it, then, and only then, does the “stench of corruption” arise to envelop the Republicans.