It’s a testament to how low Tom DeLay is that it’s a good day for him that his indictment on conspiracy has been thrown out, but his indictment for money laundering will go to trial.
About
Oliver Willis
owillis@gmail.com
AIM: oliverwill
OW @ MySpace
OW @ Facebook
OW @ Flickr
OW @ XBox Live
OW @ Twitter
Read My Endorsement
National News
- "I'm An Alcoholic" Says Wonder Woman Lynda Carter
- Karl Rove To Debate John Edwards
- NBC To Buy Weather Channel
- Joey Chestnut Beats Takeru Kobayashi In Hotdog Eating Again
- Laurent Bonomo & Gabriel Ferez Murder: Killed For Playstation?
- Katy Perry Wants To Kiss Scarlett Johansson
- Cynthia Rodriguez Found A-Rod Love Note To Madonna
- Racist Senator Jesse Helms Dies At 86
- Takeru Kobayashi Vows To Regain Hot Dog Eating Competition Crown
- Gilbert Arenas Signs $111 Million Deal With Washington Wizards
Breaking News
- Republicans Face Further Senate Losses In 2008
- Hollywood Preps ?2012?, End Of Days Disaster Pic
- Pentagon Insiders Think Israel May Be Lying About Supposed Iranian Nukes
- Real Estate Key To Starbucks Closing 600 Stores
- Media Screws Up Reporting Of Obama Iraq Comments
- Wax Hitler Decapitated In Berlin
- Don?t Ask Don?t Tell Policy Affecting Military Women The Most
- Top Clinton Donors Plan Meetup With Obama
- Hilary Duff Does Cartier
- George Carlin Dead At 71
Mancyclopedia
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Maybe not -
The judge notes in his letter that a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct is still pending for the second indictment (also known as the “Do-Over Indictment”) and will require the hearing of evidence. The bulk of the arguments made in that motion concerned the manner in which Ronnie Earle went about getting this second indictment. Thus, the pending indictment can still yet be dismissed after additional hearings.
From today’s ruling:
[1] At least one motion to dismiss upon the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct was filed by Defendant DeLay and is presumed by the Court to have been adopted by defendants Colyandro and Ellis. This motion may require the hearing of evidence (a matter not yet resolved), and it is not included within the ambit of the present rulings.
Yeah, if you read what the judge had to say, it basically says he’s assuredly exhonerated. Today vindicated DeLay nearly 100%… And Earle’s credibility, what little he had left, is shot.
Actually what the judge said is essentially that, provided Ronnie Earle can prove that DeLay moved about $200K to one account and paid out to state political bodies from another, he’s as good as nailed on the laundering charge.
Pay closer attention, class.
Gosh, should we go back to the archives and review who correctly explained how the original indictment was a load of crap based on reading the actual indictment?
Does anyone want to apologize for their ad hominem attacks and admit they should have argued the facts instead?
Concordian,
what the Judge ACTUALLY said was that Earle has to prove the donations had the “express intent of converting those funds to the use of individual candidates“.
Oh, by the way: Earle admits he doesn’t have the key piece of evidence he would need to prove that charge.
It should be noted, I think, that the conspiracy charge wasn’t thrown out because of things DeLay didn’t do, but because when he was alleged to have done them, the law wasn’t yet on the books. I agree with the judge’s decision; these things should be consistent. But let us not pretend that DeLay’s going to be canonized anytime soon. He is and has been, at all times, a thug that the GOP gladly keeps around because his thuggishness is useful for fundraising and arm-twisting in the House.
One less indictment is fine. I’m sure he’s still worried about what Abramoff and Scanlon will have to say.
Actually, my favorite part of this little soap opera so far has been one of de Guerrin’s primary challenge’s to the charges brought by Earle: To wit, that “funds” means only paper bills and coins, and does not include checks. I wonder if I can use that to tell the IRS to take I hike. “But sir, I never received any funds in return for my services to my employer…only checks!”
Christ almighty, Farris. If the best argument you can come up with to save DeLay’s ass is to suggest that “checks” aren’t “money,” then I honestly don’t think I have anything else to say to you. And you people accuse liberals of soft-headed thinking.
:::walks off muttering about how some people are just stupid on purpose:::
:::pokes his head back in the door for a second:::
By the by, allow me to congratulate you on that most Clintonesque of logical contortions. I have this really great mental image of you holding a pro-DeLay press conference down in Austin. I see you standing at the microphone, brow furrowed and finger shaking at the press gaggle: “Mister DeLay did not give funds to those candidates!”
Suppose it all depends on what the definition of “funds” is, right?
The reason the “funds” motion was made was because last year, the Texas Legislature amended the law specifically to include “checks”. As Judge Priest himself notes:
By specifically amending the law to include “checks”, the Legislature admits that, previously, “checks” were not part of the law. And we’ve got yet another case of Earle trying to make an Ex Post Facto case against DeLay.
We would also have a case of DeLay slipping through the cracks of a broken system. I’m stunned that what should be common sense–ie, “checks” are “funds”–had to be run through legislature.
But the system is full of technicalities, I suppose, and for worse crimes than DeLay is accused of.
Concordian - Lawyers argue what lawyers argue. Though I personally cannot stand not looking at the clear and obvious meanings of the language utilized, lawyers are paid to make those distinctions. Apparently, it was enough of a “technicality” that the legislature had to go back and re-address the definition of the word.
Actually, the best argument is that Earle doesn’t have the singular piece of evidence needed to prove his QuidProQuo argument (as noted above.) The checks/funds issue is just gravy on a big ol’ plate of prosecutorial misconduct.
And yet, the grand jury found evidence enough to at least merit a trial. I suppose Ronnie Earle just had all them soft-headed Texans in his big ol’ back pocket.
I’ll buy that Earle may not be able to prove his case. That’s always a possibility, in any case. But “prosecutorial misconduct” is a fantasy for people who can’t stand the idea that one of their own might be dirty. The GJ believed Earle has at least some kind of a case, and the judge believes he may have a case on the money laundering charges.
Alleging “misconduct” is just silly.
At least 2 other Grand juries didn’t.
Why do you want to disenfranchise 2 different Grand Jury panels?
Portions of the Article reprinted without permission:
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.
….
Give me a link that doesn’t require registration, and I’ll look at it.
In the meantime, it’s my understanding that only one of three grand juries did not vote to indict. None of which has anything to do with anything…it only takes one. “Disenfranchisement” my ass.
:::shrug:::
Okay. So what? All he needs is one indictment, Farris. Fake outrage from DeLay’s attorneys proves nothing…it’s what they get paid to do. And once again, the judge in the case sees enough evidence to go forward. Or perhaps, just becuase you don’t like Ronnie Earle, we should short-circuit the judicial process and let DeLay walk. Just on your say-so.
I find it instructive that your best defense of DeLay is to attack Earle. That’s pretty lame, all things considered.
Coming from the party that made ‘Kenneth Starr’ a dirty word, that’s pretty funny.
more that a loose sheaf
more “than”…sorry. No coffee as yet.
As with your other comments, Farris…weak dodge.
I was previously unaware that I should be claiming sole credit for demonizing Ken Starr. I’ll keep that in mind in the future. I imagine some history books will require a significant rewrite.
And just FYI, I’m not a Democrat.
Finally, because your comment is nothing more that a loose sheaf of straw thrown up to the wind, I’m not going to answer it except for this: Any attempt to draw a serious comparison between Ken Starr and his investigations of the Clinton White House, and Ronnie Earle and his prosecution of Tom DeLay, is utterly laughable on its face.
Find another excuse. That dog don’t hunt here.