Delay Indicted

[channonc 466]

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?

*

I personally saw the whole Clinton thing a total disgrace on both sides. It was mudslinging at its finest. Starr and Clinton both were wrong, and are still wrong. Unfortunately, some political hacks don't see it that black and white.

But my question is, what does my opinion of Starr or Clinton for that matter have to do with my opinion of Delay?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

But my question is, what does my opinion of Starr or Clinton for that matter have to do with my opinion of Delay?

186219[/snapback]

The same people claiming DeLay is guilty and Ronnie Earle is the shining star of freedom and justice are the same people that claimed Ken Starr was a partisan hack who was going after Clinton for political reasons. What's the difference?

To me, the difference is that Clinton actually committed a crime and DeLay has not according to the laws of the state of Texas. If you set aside the political glasses, any thinking person can see that no crime was committed by Tom DeLay, whereas anyone can see clearly that Clinton DID lie under oath. But just because the Repubs are the ones doing the screaming this time, it is just some right-wing tinted opinion.

Money Laundering, by ANY definition, is taking money that is the result of a CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE - aka drug dealing, weapon sales, embezzlement, etc.

On a web site about Swiss bank Accounts, here's a definition:

Money laundering is a process whereby the origin of funds generated by illegal means is concealed (drug trafficking, gun smuggling, corruption, etc.). The objective of the operation, which usually takes places in several stages, consists in making the capital and assets that are illegally gained seem as though they are derived from a legitimate source, and inserting them into economic circulation.

How, then, is it money laundering to take money legally contributed by people who knew what they were contributing and to whom they were contributing it, and moving it around?

And I would be willing to bet, Piglet, that the Texas law regarding money laundering is not any different from equivalent statutes in other states. Its not like Texas passed this law just so the state political parties could "break the law" and get away with it. Political groups might exploit loopholes, but until a law is passed closing the loophole, there is nothing illegal about it. And since the Dems availed themselves of this loophole far more often than the Repubs, how can this be anything BUT a partisan witchhunt??? Why not go after the Dems??? PARTISAN!

Ronnie Earle stays in office because the Dems want a lapdog in that position - unlike most states, Texas does not give its attorney general the power to prosecute criminal acts at the state level. That task goes to the Travis County district attorney - Ronnie Earle, a Democrat. This is the only way Dems can fight the Republicans in power in this state. Again, your ignorance of TX politics keeps you from understanding how this is a partisan attack.

I have already stated that I am not fond of Tom DeLay AT ALL, and I beleive the state of Texas and Houston would be better off without him. But a prosecutor who repeatedly misuses the powers of HIS office to go after another person in political power for supposed abuse of power is himself guilty of the SAME thing. Yes, he prosecuted Democrats too - but the three biggest fish (2 D's and an R) were all acquitted - Comptroller (at the time) Bob Bullock, State Attorney General Jim Mattox, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Bob Bullock was a very conservative, and very bi-partisan Democrat who later was Lt Gov under GWB. Jim Mattox was, at the time, about to run for Congress against a guy who was a close personal friend of Ronnie Earle - those charges were also found to be baseless. And the "case" against Kay Bailey Hutchison was tossed by the judge. He is a zealot and an idiot. The other cases he has prosecuted were all cut and dried - bribery, theft, embezzlement - even a first year ADA could have prosecuted those and won. But many others have been brought on MUCH shakier ground and he has lost them all, because he had no case.

I guess my point to all of this is that although I am a conservative and vote Republican, you can still see the strong failings in Ronnie Earle's case against Tom DeLay if you look at the facts and the LAW. The case is baseless and so the only explanation left as to why Earle brought this case is PARTISAN POLITICS.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

To me, the difference is that Clinton actually committed a crime and DeLay has not according to the laws of the state of Texas. 

186309[/snapback]

Since you're insisting on such specificity and accuracy, tell us exactly what law Clinton violated and exactly what he did that violated it.

[AUloggerhead 2,507]

To me, the difference is that Clinton actually committed a crime and DeLay has not according to the laws of the state of Texas. 

186309[/snapback]

Since you're insisting on such specificity and accuracy, tell us exactly what law Clinton violated and exactly what he did that violated it.

186327[/snapback]

You gotta be kidding. bill clinton was impeached for obstructing justice & suborning perjury. The fact that the Senate failed to convict was based more on politics than facts:

The Supreme Court moved to disbar clinton as did the Arkansas Supreme Court. clinton resigned from the Supreme Court Bar before he was disbarred & he worked out a deal with the Arkansas Supreme Court paying a $25k fine and a 5-yr suspension of his law license rather than being disbarred outright. The rules say disbarment is an appropriate punishment for "serious misconduct,'' including "dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation.'' Also, clinton paid an uncontested $90k fine for contempt of court in the sexual harrassment lawsuit Paula Jones brought against him. What's particulalry egregious is that the lawsuit was originally thrown out, and the contempt of court charge only issued later after his impeachment.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

To me, the difference is that Clinton actually committed a crime and DeLay has not according to the laws of the state of Texas. 

186309[/snapback]

Since you're insisting on such specificity and accuracy, tell us exactly what law Clinton violated and exactly what he did that violated it.

186327[/snapback]

You gotta be kidding. bill clinton was impeached for obstructing justice & suborning perjury. The fact that the Senate failed to convict was based more on politics than facts:

The Supreme Court moved to disbar clinton as did the Arkansas Supreme Court. clinton resigned from the Supreme Court Bar before he was disbarred & he worked out a deal with the Arkansas Supreme Court paying a $25k fine and a 5-yr suspension of his law license rather than being disbarred outright. The rules say disbarment is an appropriate punishment for "serious misconduct,'' including "dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation.'' Also, clinton paid an uncontested $90k fine for contempt of court in the sexual harrassment lawsuit Paula Jones brought against him. What's particulalry egregious is that the lawsuit was originally thrown out, and the contempt of court charge only issued later after his impeachment.

186381[/snapback]

You didn't answer the question. We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns. Did he violate a law? If so, what specific law and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

[AUloggerhead 2,507]

You didn't answer the question.  We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns.  Did he violate a law?  If so, what specific law  and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

186382[/snapback]

No, I did answer your question. You asked for specifics & I gave them to you straight up. The Senate was gutless to convict clinton of the specific charges in his impeachment. Lucky for him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court & the Supreme Court of Arkansas did their duty and did not simply gloss over the fact that, as incredible as it seems, the highest law enforcement officer in the country at the time was lying his azz off in court under oath to keep from admitting he dropped trou in front of Paula Jones & requested a BJ while he was the Arky Gov. (Unreal, isn't it?)

Equally fortunate as well, Judge Susan Webber Wright refused to ignore clinton's lying under oath and properly held in contempt of court. And fortunately still, clinton ended up settling his sexual harrassement lawsuit with Paula Jones paying her something in the neighborhood of $800k out of court. clinton, the former president of the US committed perjury & obstructed justice. clinton, the former Arky Gov, sexually harrassed a state employee. I can't state it any clearer for you, Tex. Either you get it this time or you'll never get it. It was all over the news and in the papers just a few years back. Were you in a cave?

[TexasTiger 14,069]

You didn't answer the question.  We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns.  Did he violate a law?  If so, what specific law  and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

186382[/snapback]

No, I did answer your question. You asked for specifics & I gave them to you straight up. The Senate was gutless to convict clinton of the specific charges in his impeachment. Lucky for him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court & the Supreme Court of Arkansas did their duty and did not simply gloss over the fact that, as incredible as it seems, the highest law enforcement officer in the country at the time was lying his azz off in court under oath to keep from admitting he dropped trou in front of Paula Jones & requested a BJ while he was the Arky Gov. (Unreal, isn't it?)

Equally fortunate as well, Judge Susan Webber Wright refused to ignore clinton's lying under oath and properly held in contempt of court. And fortunately still, clinton ended up settling his sexual harrassement lawsuit with Paula Jones paying her something in the neighborhood of $800k out of court. clinton, the former president of the US committed perjury & obstructed justice. clinton, the former Arky Gov, sexually harrassed a state employee. I can't state it any clearer for you, Tex. Either you get it this time or you'll never get it. It was all over the news and in the papers just a few years back. Were you in a cave?

186403[/snapback]

You gave me a broad conclusion. What specific statement did he make that was illegal and what specific law-- spelled out-- did he violate? Define perjury, define obstruction of justice-- legally-- and quote what he said that supports those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that Earle will have to meet with Delay or anyone else charged with a crime to get a conviction.

[Tigermike 3,657]

You didn't answer the question.  We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns.  Did he violate a law?  If so, what specific law  and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

186382[/snapback]

No, I did answer your question. You asked for specifics & I gave them to you straight up. The Senate was gutless to convict clinton of the specific charges in his impeachment. Lucky for him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court & the Supreme Court of Arkansas did their duty and did not simply gloss over the fact that, as incredible as it seems, the highest law enforcement officer in the country at the time was lying his azz off in court under oath to keep from admitting he dropped trou in front of Paula Jones & requested a BJ while he was the Arky Gov. (Unreal, isn't it?)

Equally fortunate as well, Judge Susan Webber Wright refused to ignore clinton's lying under oath and properly held in contempt of court. And fortunately still, clinton ended up settling his sexual harrassement lawsuit with Paula Jones paying her something in the neighborhood of $800k out of court. clinton, the former president of the US committed perjury & obstructed justice. clinton, the former Arky Gov, sexually harrassed a state employee. I can't state it any clearer for you, Tex. Either you get it this time or you'll never get it. It was all over the news and in the papers just a few years back. Were you in a cave?

186403[/snapback]

You gave me a broad conclusion. What specific statement did he make that was illegal and what specific law-- spelled out-- did he violate? Define perjury, define obstruction of justice-- legally-- and quote what he said that supports those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that Earle will have to meet with Delay or anyone else charged with a crime to get a conviction.

186422[/snapback]

Tex, since you are the resident lib and you seem to be making a case for Bill Clinton’s sainthood, please tell us. Did Bill Clinton tell lies under oath? If you want, I can provide a defination of did and lie.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

To me, the difference is that Clinton actually committed a crime and DeLay has not according to the laws of the state of Texas. 

186309[/snapback]

Since you're insisting on such specificity and accuracy, tell us exactly what law Clinton violated and exactly what he did that violated it.

186327[/snapback]

You gotta be kidding. bill clinton was impeached for obstructing justice & suborning perjury. The fact that the Senate failed to convict was based more on politics than facts:

The Supreme Court moved to disbar clinton as did the Arkansas Supreme Court. clinton resigned from the Supreme Court Bar before he was disbarred & he worked out a deal with the Arkansas Supreme Court paying a $25k fine and a 5-yr suspension of his law license rather than being disbarred outright. The rules say disbarment is an appropriate punishment for "serious misconduct,'' including "dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation.'' Also, clinton paid an uncontested $90k fine for contempt of court in the sexual harrassment lawsuit Paula Jones brought against him. What's particulalry egregious is that the lawsuit was originally thrown out, and the contempt of court charge only issued later after his impeachment.

186381[/snapback]

You didn't answer the question. We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns. Did he violate a law? If so, what specific law and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

186382[/snapback]

There is no law in Texas saying that corporate money cannot be given to the National Party Committee, altho McCain-Feingold tried to close some of the corporate "unlimited donations" loopholes. There is no law anywhere that says the Majority Leader of the House cannot encourage corporations to donate money to the National Committee - politicians of all stripes do fundraisers all the time. The law in Texas says that the money cannot go directly to the state party committees. BOTH parties, the Dems especially, followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit, in 2002, by having corporations donate to their National Committees and then having money transferred back to the state party by the National Committee. This was not a crime in 2002. The law making it a so-called "conspiracy" was not enacted until 2003. So Tom DeLay has not, in fact, committed the crime of which he has been accused. The money laundering charge is based on the assumption that the money that was moved was the result of a criminal enterprise, per the definition under Texas law. However, if the movement of legally obtained money was not a crime in 2002, then how can it be money laundering to have moved it? No crime was committed relative to the origination of the money. Ronnie Earle has no case.

How is this difficult to understand??? That would be like trying to prosecute someone for taking a drink in the year before Prohibition was enacted. Or for not wearing your seatbelt in the six months before it became mandatory. You can't prosecute someone retroactively.

[WarTim 3,524]

Libs not only want to prosecute retroactively, they want to prosecute The President for thinking about doing something in the future.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

You didn't answer the question.  We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns.  Did he violate a law?  If so, what specific law  and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

186382[/snapback]

No, I did answer your question. You asked for specifics & I gave them to you straight up. The Senate was gutless to convict clinton of the specific charges in his impeachment. Lucky for him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court & the Supreme Court of Arkansas did their duty and did not simply gloss over the fact that, as incredible as it seems, the highest law enforcement officer in the country at the time was lying his azz off in court under oath to keep from admitting he dropped trou in front of Paula Jones & requested a BJ while he was the Arky Gov. (Unreal, isn't it?)

Equally fortunate as well, Judge Susan Webber Wright refused to ignore clinton's lying under oath and properly held in contempt of court. And fortunately still, clinton ended up settling his sexual harrassement lawsuit with Paula Jones paying her something in the neighborhood of $800k out of court. clinton, the former president of the US committed perjury & obstructed justice. clinton, the former Arky Gov, sexually harrassed a state employee. I can't state it any clearer for you, Tex. Either you get it this time or you'll never get it. It was all over the news and in the papers just a few years back. Were you in a cave?

186403[/snapback]

You gave me a broad conclusion. What specific statement did he make that was illegal and what specific law-- spelled out-- did he violate? Define perjury, define obstruction of justice-- legally-- and quote what he said that supports those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that Earle will have to meet with Delay or anyone else charged with a crime to get a conviction.

186422[/snapback]

Tex, since you are the resident lib and you seem to be making a case for Bill Clinton’s sainthood, please tell us. Did Bill Clinton tell lies under oath? If you want, I can provide a defination of did and lie.

186452[/snapback]

Extending your "logic" you are making the case for Tom Delay's sainthood. Good luck with that.

Define "lie" if you want. If we're talking about violating a law define the actual law, e.g. perjuy and then point out how his specific conduct satisfies each element of that crime. That is the task Earle has with Delay, as well. Again, we know that he solicited donations from corporations for his PAC, and we know he exchanged that money for an identical amount with the RNC and that it was spent in a fashion that would be illegal for corporate money. Do those actions constitute a violation of the law? Delay's saying "no", because he swapped the tainted money for different money. Is that a distinction that matters? I guess that's what a jury will decide.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

To me, the difference is that Clinton actually committed a crime and DeLay has not according to the laws of the state of Texas. 

186309[/snapback]

Since you're insisting on such specificity and accuracy, tell us exactly what law Clinton violated and exactly what he did that violated it.

186327[/snapback]

You gotta be kidding. bill clinton was impeached for obstructing justice & suborning perjury. The fact that the Senate failed to convict was based more on politics than facts:

The Supreme Court moved to disbar clinton as did the Arkansas Supreme Court. clinton resigned from the Supreme Court Bar before he was disbarred & he worked out a deal with the Arkansas Supreme Court paying a $25k fine and a 5-yr suspension of his law license rather than being disbarred outright. The rules say disbarment is an appropriate punishment for "serious misconduct,'' including "dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation.'' Also, clinton paid an uncontested $90k fine for contempt of court in the sexual harrassment lawsuit Paula Jones brought against him. What's particulalry egregious is that the lawsuit was originally thrown out, and the contempt of court charge only issued later after his impeachment.

186381[/snapback]

You didn't answer the question. We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns. Did he violate a law? If so, what specific law and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

186382[/snapback]

There is no law in Texas saying that corporate money cannot be given to the National Party Committee, altho McCain-Feingold tried to close some of the corporate "unlimited donations" loopholes. There is no law anywhere that says the Majority Leader of the House cannot encourage corporations to donate money to the National Committee - politicians of all stripes do fundraisers all the time. The law in Texas says that the money cannot go directly to the state party committees. BOTH parties, the Dems especially, followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit, in 2002, by having corporations donate to their National Committees and then having money transferred back to the state party by the National Committee. This was not a crime in 2002. The law making it a so-called "conspiracy" was not enacted until 2003. So Tom DeLay has not, in fact, committed the crime of which he has been accused. The money laundering charge is based on the assumption that the money that was moved was the result of a criminal enterprise, per the definition under Texas law. However, if the movement of legally obtained money was not a crime in 2002, then how can it be money laundering to have moved it? No crime was committed relative to the origination of the money. Ronnie Earle has no case.

How is this difficult to understand??? That would be like trying to prosecute someone for taking a drink in the year before Prohibition was enacted. Or for not wearing your seatbelt in the six months before it became mandatory. You can't prosecute someone retroactively.

186480[/snapback]

You have alot of your facts wrong. This is not a question of corporations donating to the RNC as you state. They donated to TRMPAC. That money was then transferred by TRMPAC to the RNC and the RNC sent back an identical amount to specific candidates running for office. It is like you getting $20 that cannot legally be spent a certain way, so you meet me somewhere and we swap $20 dollar bills. Now that you have a different $20 bill you spend it the way you couldn't have legally spent the first one. Is the nature of that exchange of money truly meaningful? Are they still essentially the same funds? That's a valid question for a jury.

You are also buying Delay's lawyer spin on "conspiracy" and what was changed about that law. Lawyers make whatever argument they have available and try to dress it up, but this is like trying to make a silk purse out of sow's ear. Under Texas law, “conspiracy” charges can apply to any felony (Texas Penal Code § 15.02. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.) The language added specifically to the Election Code that Delay’s attorney is relying on is actually redundant and unnecessary.

George Dix literally wrote “the book” on Criminal Law:

University of Texas law professor George Dix, an expert in election legal matters, said Monday night that he thinks DeLay's attorneys are wrong in maintaining that the initial conspiracy complaint against DeLay was not valid in 2002.

The 2003 legislative session simply made explicit the somewhat "awkward language" of the law that already made it a criminal conspiracy to agree to violate election laws, Dix said. "I don't see any reason to think that, in 2002, it was not a crime of conspiracy to agree to violate the election code in a way that would be a felony," he said.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/04/Worldand...ed_on_new.shtml

University of Texas professor George Dix, who specializes in criminal law, said he thinks the conspiracy statute applies to any felonies, including those in the election code.

"It isn't unheard of -- the Legislature passing a law to make clear what the law is," Dix said of the 2003 change by the Legislature.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto...f7e0ae00d4.html

[Jenny AU-92 0]

As for said alleged conspiracy, Link

For DeLay to be guilty, he would have had to have both been informed of the transaction and approved the transaction, according to a source familiar with the details of case."

Yet, the GJ who DECLINED to indict DeLay were not convinced based on Earle's "evidence":Link

One person said the sole evidence Earle presented to the grand jury that declined to indict was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor in August. DeLay reportedly said he was generally aware of activities of his associates.

The person said Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay "didn't say, 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

Under either definition of conspiracy (the old one or the new one), that doesn't meet the definition. Of course DeLay was "generally aware" of the activites of his associates. I know that the attorney in the office next to me is working on a construction contract - but I have NO CLUE of the details of that contract.

So this will be one big huge "what did he know and when did he know it?" and no one can present proof of that!! You'd have to have a genuine document (not one a'la Dan Rather) that was an email or a handwritten note from Tom DeLay saying "Hey, let's conspire to circumvent the law by swapping this money around!" And even then, the law was not clear in 2002 - it was "cleared up" as you put it, in 2003. I still say that you can't hold someone accountable for retroactively breaking a law.

Even the fact that Earle GOT an indictment is suspect. The foreman of the GJ that indicted DeLay admitted openly on an Austin talk radio show that he had already made up him mind about DeLay long before his GJ service. Nothing like considering the evidence before you, and making a fair decision free of personal bias, like any jury is supposed to do. What a shock - getting a partisan jury in Travis County... Link

Also yesterday, the foreman of the first grand jury, which returned the campaign-finance conspiracy indictment, said yesterday that his vote to indict was based on TV commercials that he disliked and were run by a Texas business group in 2002 and not on any evidence presented to the grand jury.

    "My decision was based upon those, not based upon what happened in the grand jury room," William Gibson told Austin radio station KLBJ. "They were stating their positions, and I could state my position by saying I don't like that." 

You citing a UT law professor is no different than me for citing National Review. UT is a liberal law school by anyone's definition. I don't care what book he wrote - that is just his opinion. Whether or not you can retroactively apply a law will be up to a judge or even a jury, if it gets that far. I still say DeLay walks.

Okay, so I misspoke about where the money came from - I said the State Committee rather than a PAC. Big deal - the rules for each are still the same - the money given to the National Committee can still only be used for administrative expenses and the like. Prove it wasn't used for that purpose? YOU CAN'T. The attorneys for the PAC say the money came from a checking account containing non-corporate donations. That should be easy enough to prove or disprove. All Ronnie Earle has is a copy of a check and a list of candidates and recommended contribution amounts. Even if the PAC asked the RNC to support a certain group of candidates with certain amounts of money, how is that a crime? Who better than a local organization to tell a national organization which people should receive support? US senators recommend to the President who would be the best judges to appoint to federal district office. Same thing. The RNC certainly wasn't OBLIGATED to send out those checks. But the RNC wasn't indicted.

The bottom line here is that the Dems are PISSED OFF that DeLay started up and successfully managed a plan to take control of Texas away from the Democrats, so they are claiming he did it illegally and unfairly. If his plan had failed, there would be no indictment. Two other democrat election losers are suing the PAC because THEY LOST!! Whiners - maybe they lost BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE VOTED FOR THEM!!!

[Tigermike 3,657]

You didn't answer the question.  We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns.  Did he violate a law?  If so, what specific law  and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

186382[/snapback]

No, I did answer your question. You asked for specifics & I gave them to you straight up. The Senate was gutless to convict clinton of the specific charges in his impeachment. Lucky for him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court & the Supreme Court of Arkansas did their duty and did not simply gloss over the fact that, as incredible as it seems, the highest law enforcement officer in the country at the time was lying his azz off in court under oath to keep from admitting he dropped trou in front of Paula Jones & requested a BJ while he was the Arky Gov. (Unreal, isn't it?)

Equally fortunate as well, Judge Susan Webber Wright refused to ignore clinton's lying under oath and properly held in contempt of court. And fortunately still, clinton ended up settling his sexual harrassement lawsuit with Paula Jones paying her something in the neighborhood of $800k out of court. clinton, the former president of the US committed perjury & obstructed justice. clinton, the former Arky Gov, sexually harrassed a state employee. I can't state it any clearer for you, Tex. Either you get it this time or you'll never get it. It was all over the news and in the papers just a few years back. Were you in a cave?

186403[/snapback]

You gave me a broad conclusion. What specific statement did he make that was illegal and what specific law-- spelled out-- did he violate? Define perjury, define obstruction of justice-- legally-- and quote what he said that supports those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that Earle will have to meet with Delay or anyone else charged with a crime to get a conviction.

186422[/snapback]

Tex, since you are the resident lib and you seem to be making a case for Bill Clinton’s sainthood, please tell us. Did Bill Clinton tell lies under oath? If you want, I can provide a defination of did and lie.

186452[/snapback]

Extending your "logic" you are making the case for Tom Delay's sainthood. Good luck with that.

186641[/snapback]

Once again you just make up things to suit your defense of any and all dems. Show me where I have made a case one way or another in defense of Mr. DeLay.

Extending your "logic", all democrats are above reproach and we should all accept the "fact" that they know what is best for us. We should also accept the "fact" that Ronnie Earle is not on a partisan witch hunt. Every conservative on this board has stated that if DeLay has done anything wrong he should be removed from office. Several have offered "evidence" that seems to show Mr. Earle for what he is, a democrat hatchet man. As usual your deep rooted need to defend anything and anyone democrat has affected your better judgment.

Your impatience with other people whose opinions differ from your conclusions seems to be growing.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

You didn't answer the question.  We know Tom Delay was instrumental in raising money from corporations which couldn't be spent on the candidates in Texas, having that amount sent to the RNC and having the exact amount returned to the candidates to spend on their campaigns.  Did he violate a law?  If so, what specific law  and with what specific behavior did he violate it?

186382[/snapback]

No, I did answer your question. You asked for specifics & I gave them to you straight up. The Senate was gutless to convict clinton of the specific charges in his impeachment. Lucky for him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court & the Supreme Court of Arkansas did their duty and did not simply gloss over the fact that, as incredible as it seems, the highest law enforcement officer in the country at the time was lying his azz off in court under oath to keep from admitting he dropped trou in front of Paula Jones & requested a BJ while he was the Arky Gov. (Unreal, isn't it?)

Equally fortunate as well, Judge Susan Webber Wright refused to ignore clinton's lying under oath and properly held in contempt of court. And fortunately still, clinton ended up settling his sexual harrassement lawsuit with Paula Jones paying her something in the neighborhood of $800k out of court. clinton, the former president of the US committed perjury & obstructed justice. clinton, the former Arky Gov, sexually harrassed a state employee. I can't state it any clearer for you, Tex. Either you get it this time or you'll never get it. It was all over the news and in the papers just a few years back. Were you in a cave?

186403[/snapback]

You gave me a broad conclusion. What specific statement did he make that was illegal and what specific law-- spelled out-- did he violate? Define perjury, define obstruction of justice-- legally-- and quote what he said that supports those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that Earle will have to meet with Delay or anyone else charged with a crime to get a conviction.

186422[/snapback]

Tex, since you are the resident lib and you seem to be making a case for Bill Clinton’s sainthood, please tell us. Did Bill Clinton tell lies under oath? If you want, I can provide a defination of did and lie.

186452[/snapback]

Extending your "logic" you are making the case for Tom Delay's sainthood. Good luck with that.

186641[/snapback]

Once again you just make up things to suit your defense of any and all dems. Show me where I have made a case one way or another in defense of Mr. DeLay.

Extending your "logic", all democrats are above reproach and we should all accept the "fact" that they know what is best for us. We should also accept the "fact" that Ronnie Earle is not on a partisan witch hunt. Every conservative on this board has stated that if DeLay has done anything wrong he should be removed from office. Several have offered "evidence" that seems to show Mr. Earle for what he is, a democrat hatchet man. As usual your deep rooted need to defend anything and anyone democrat has affected your better judgment.

Your impatience with other people whose opinions differ from your conclusions seems to be growing.

186842[/snapback]

Show me where I have made a case one way or another in defense of Mr. DeLay.

Show me where I made a case for Clinton's "sainthood."

This is a particularly odd statement:

Your impatience with other people whose opinions differ from your conclusions seems to be growing.

My posts on this thread have been pretty low key. I've been trying to engage in an actual discussion. I haven't called any poster on this thread OR Delay names or even said he was guilty. I think it is a question for a jury to decide. Meanwhile, the prosecutor in the case has been called a "scumbag" and a "democrat hatchet man".

[TexasTiger 14,069]

As for said alleged conspiracy, Link

For DeLay to be guilty, he would have had to have both been informed of the transaction and approved the transaction, according to a source familiar with the details of case."

Yet, the GJ who DECLINED to indict DeLay were not convinced based on Earle's "evidence":Link

One person said the sole evidence Earle presented to the grand jury that declined to indict was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor in August. DeLay reportedly said he was generally aware of activities of his associates.

The person said Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay "didn't say, 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

Under either definition of conspiracy (the old one or the new one), that doesn't meet the definition. Of course DeLay was "generally aware" of the activites of his associates. I know that the attorney in the office next to me is working on a construction contract - but I have NO CLUE of the details of that contract.

So this will be one big huge "what did he know and when did he know it?" and no one can present proof of that!! You'd have to have a genuine document (not one a'la Dan Rather) that was an email or a handwritten note from Tom DeLay saying "Hey, let's conspire to circumvent the law by swapping this money around!" And even then, the law was not clear in 2002 - it was "cleared up" as you put it, in 2003. I still say that you can't hold someone accountable for retroactively breaking a law.

Even the fact that Earle GOT an indictment is suspect. The foreman of the GJ that indicted DeLay admitted openly on an Austin talk radio show that he had already made up him mind about DeLay long before his GJ service. Nothing like considering the evidence before you, and making a fair decision free of personal bias, like any jury is supposed to do. What a shock - getting a partisan jury in Travis County... Link

Also yesterday, the foreman of the first grand jury, which returned the campaign-finance conspiracy indictment, said yesterday that his vote to indict was based on TV commercials that he disliked and were run by a Texas business group in 2002 and not on any evidence presented to the grand jury.

    "My decision was based upon those, not based upon what happened in the grand jury room," William Gibson told Austin radio station KLBJ. "They were stating their positions, and I could state my position by saying I don't like that." 

You citing a UT law professor is no different than me for citing National Review. UT is a liberal law school by anyone's definition. I don't care what book he wrote - that is just his opinion. Whether or not you can retroactively apply a law will be up to a judge or even a jury, if it gets that far. I still say DeLay walks.

Okay, so I misspoke about where the money came from - I said the State Committee rather than a PAC. Big deal - the rules for each are still the same - the money given to the National Committee can still only be used for administrative expenses and the like. Prove it wasn't used for that purpose? YOU CAN'T. The attorneys for the PAC say the money came from a checking account containing non-corporate donations. That should be easy enough to prove or disprove. All Ronnie Earle has is a copy of a check and a list of candidates and recommended contribution amounts. Even if the PAC asked the RNC to support a certain group of candidates with certain amounts of money, how is that a crime? Who better than a local organization to tell a national organization which people should receive support? US senators recommend to the President who would be the best judges to appoint to federal district office. Same thing. The RNC certainly wasn't OBLIGATED to send out those checks. But the RNC wasn't indicted.

The bottom line here is that the Dems are PISSED OFF that DeLay started up and successfully managed a plan to take control of Texas away from the Democrats, so they are claiming he did it illegally and unfairly. If his plan had failed, there would be no indictment. Two other democrat election losers are suing the PAC because THEY LOST!! Whiners - maybe they lost BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE VOTED FOR THEM!!!

186772[/snapback]

You citing a UT law professor is no different than me for citing National Review. UT is a liberal law school by anyone's definition. I don't care what book he wrote - that is just his opinion. Whether or not you can retroactively apply a law will be up to a judge or even a jury, if it gets that far.

Dismissing the analysis because he's at librul UT is silly. This guy is one of the nation's most recognized conservative legal minds:

Lino A Graglia

LLB 1954, Columbia

BA 1952, City College of New York

Professor Graglia has written widely in constitutional law--especially on judicial review, constitutional interpretation, race discrimination, and affirmative action--and also teaches and writes in the area of antitrust. He is the author of Disaster by Decree: The Supreme Court Decisions on Race and the Schools (Cornell, 1976) and many articles, including recently "Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye: Of Animal Sacrifice and Religious Persecution" (Georgetown Law Journal, 1996). He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=graglia

And then there is this guy who teaches Constitutional Law at the University of Texas—oh yeah, he is also the Chair of the Travis County Republican Party:

http://www.tcrp.org/sager/lead.html

Also a “longtime activist and fundraiser” for the Republican Party.

University of Texas at Austin

Lecturer in Government, U.T. Austin

Teaches three courses

Judicial Process and Behavior

American Constitutional Development I: Structure and Processes

American Constitutional Development II: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

http://www.tcrp.org/sager/resume.html#ut

Dix's analysis is actually just first year law student stuff. This is the general law on criminal conspiracy:

§ 15.02.  CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.  (a)  A person commits

criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed:

  (1)  he agrees with one or more persons that they or one

or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; 

and

  (2)  he or one or more of them performs an overt act in

pursuance of the agreement.

(   An agreement constituting a conspiracy may be inferred

from acts of the parties.

©  It is no defense to prosecution for criminal conspiracy

that:          

  (1)  one or more of the coconspirators is not

criminally responsible for the object offense;

  (2)  one or more of the coconspirators has been

acquitted, so long as two or more coconspirators have not been

acquitted;

  (3)  one or more of the coconspirators has not been

prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense,

or is immune from prosecution;

  (4)  the actor belongs to a class of persons that by

definition of the object offense is legally incapable of committing

the object offense in an individual capacity;  or

  (5)  the object offense was actually committed.                              

(d)  An offense under this section is one category lower than

the most serious felony that is the object of the conspiracy, and if

the most serious felony that is the object of the conspiracy is a

state jail felony, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994

Whether Earle can prove the elements remain to be seen, but it was last revised in 1994 and applies to all felonies in the state of Texas. That's all Dix was saying.

You display a seething hatred toward Earle. I don't know the guy. I know he has served for almost thirty years and if he was truly dirty, there have been more than a few Republican Attorney Generals who could have investigated him. I also know what one of the Republicans who knows him best says:

"He's just not your typical prosecutor, and Ronnie would be the first to agree," said state Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, who was an assistant district attorney under Earle for eight years and who found him "an outstanding boss and a very good model as an ethics mentor."

While Keel strongly disagrees with Earle's pursuit of the DeLay associates and the resulting indictments, he said he is certain "what Ronnie is doing is what he believes is the right thing. ... He determines what he believes is right and stays on that course, no matter what."

Keel said he owes his political career to Earle. Keel was elected the first Republican sheriff of Travis County since the Civil War because of his success in the Repeat Offender Unit, a team Earle appointed him to lead.

"He sees the role of a prosecutor as a weaver of society's fabric," Keel said. "His philosophy is to place limits on immoral activity and to determine what constitutes appropriate intervention by a prosecutor, which doesn't always jibe with the view of a 'law-and-order' prosecutor."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/stategov/...e.11b1a088.html

Such pronouncements are typical Earle, says Texas Rep. Terry Keel ®, who served under Earle for nearly nine years before seeking public office himself.

"Ronnie has a very deep philosophical belief about good and evil," Keel said. "He sees corporate involvement in politics as an evil to be attacked at any costs."

…

Keel questions whether the D.A. had enough legal grounds to indict DeLay.

"He has clean motives. I just don't think the facts back him up," Keel said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0101471_pf.html

Keel's a loyal Republican. He disagrees with Earle on this case. But he doesn't find it necessary to demonize him to do so.

I don't know what will happen in this case. It appears to me that the broad outlines of the case are at least there. Whether Earle can connect the dots to the satisfaction of a jury remains to be seen.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Here's the LATEST news, which offers more insight into how Earle got a GJ to indict DeLay: Link

The Chronicle obtained the grand jury list on Tuesday under the Texas Open Records Act. State District Judge Mike Lynch had ordered it sealed.

Seven of the 12 grand jurors have voted in Democratic primaries in recent years, according to Travis County records. One grand juror voted in Republican primaries.

The other four grand jurors either had no history of voting in primaries or could not be positively identified.

I have never said Ronnie Earle was dirty. I have maintained all along that lately he has become the puppet of the Democratic Party, that he has to use underhanded machinations, the power of the media and a shaky interpretation of the law in a desperate effort to try and make something - ANYTHING - stick. Toeing the party line is not illegal. He is zealous and a loose cannon.

I am sure Earle may be a nice guy in person - everyone says Bill Clinton is one of the nicest guys in person that you could ever hope to meet. Doesn't mean he is still isn't a whoredog scumbag.

When example after example after example is offered to show his fanatical zeal in attempting to prosecute people, usually without success, doesn't that make even you question his motives? The facts are out there.

While I commend him for going after power and corruption, he needs to make sure that there is actually something there and that he has a case before he brings in the media. He opens himself up to this kind of bashing by his own actions! I respect zealous prosecution - but there is a fine line between prosecuting good cases and making an ass of yourself. And when prosecutors bring bad case after bad case, people lose faith in the system. THAT is what bothers me.

He probably couldn't get re-elected anywhere but Travis County. After his case against Kay Bailey Hutchison got tossed, it's like he snapped and became major left-wing. He and his Democratic friends can't stand the fact that Tom DeLay and the Texas Republican Party got the best of them! The whole re-districting thing just about killed them, and they have tried to find anyway they can to regain control. They have yet to learn that political power is not a birthright in this state - the people elected Republicans. Get over it!! Their hatred of DeLay is second only to their hatred of GWB. Dems in Texas have become much more radicalized since the R's took over - and it is that exact partisan behavior that is going to sink Earle's case against DeLay. I would not be surprised if DeLay is not only acquitted, but is also re-elected.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

When example after example after example is offered to show his fanatical zeal in attempting to prosecute people, usually without success, doesn't that make even you question his motives? The facts are out there.

While I commend him for going after power and corruption, he needs to make sure that there is actually something there and that he has a case before he brings in the media. He opens himself up to this kind of bashing by his own actions! I respect zealous prosecution - but there is a fine line between prosecuting good cases and making an ass of yourself. And when prosecutors bring bad case after bad case, people lose faith in the system.

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.

“The facts are out there”. Although they have yet to appear on this thread. There is no evidence of “example after example after example” of Earle bringing baseless cases that has been shown yet. There are zealous partisan charges by zealous partisans that he is a zealous partisan. And yet, Republican Terry Keel worked as Earle’s right hand man for years, was supported by Earle for Sheriff of Travis County and this partisan Republican doesn’t question Earle’s motives at all. In fact, Keel is now a Republican state rep who voted to redistrict Texas in Republicans' favor and he still calls Earle "an outstanding boss and a very good model as an ethics mentor." He praises Earles ethics. He knows him far better than I. Delay and the Republican partisan spin machine is demonizing Earle, but actual hard facts that support it are in short supply based on what I've seen so far.

The fact that a prosecutor fails to get a conviction is hardly proof of the accused’s innocence. That is why the finding is “not guilty” as opposed to “found innocent”. A prosecutor has to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and he must do it with the evidence a judge allows. Great evidence may be kept out of a case on what conservatives are fond of calling a “technicality.” That is what saved Kay Bailey. What were that judge's motives? Maybe they were pure-- I don't know enough about him to judge his intent. But I don’t want prosecutors that only try the easy cases and refuse to even try those they believe are guilty because they are afraid of what a loss might do their win/loss record or public perception.

There was ample evidence against Kay Bailey. The only jury that ever saw it, however, was the grand jury. Why did Hutchinson plead the 5th to the grand jury? How could she have even possibly incriminated herself if she had done nothing wrong?

Kay Bailey’s first attorney even tried to avoid indictment by reimbursing the state almost $11,000 for state employee’s time used for her personal and political benefit. Why would he do that if she had done nothing wrong? When she was indicted she changed attorneys and got the same pit bull David Koresh had, and now Delay has. Here is a refresher on Sen. Hutchinson's case:

One day late in the spring of 1992, then-Texas State Treasurer Kay Bailey Hutchison cornered one of her subordinates, R.T. Burkett, in a hallway.

An exacting boss, Hutchison wanted to know how much progress Burkett, director of information resources at the Treasury, had made on the "special project" she had assigned. She fired questions fast and furiously. How was he coming? Was he 20 percent through -- or 30 percent? On what day might he finish?

The 54-year-old computer technician, a veteran of 23 years in state government, had never before received such attention from Hutchison. The state treasurer, who kept no computer on her own desk, had previously graced his office with a visit only once.

But it wasn't just the novelty of Hutchison's intense interest that troubled Burkett. It was the nature of her "special project." Hutchison had ordered the purging of backup computer tapes containing political and personal documents her executive staff had produced. She had pursued the deletion of records even after the treasurer's office faced criminal investigation for misusing state employees and equipment.

This meant that the treasurer of the state of Texas was ordering subordinates to destroy what was likely to become evidence.

Burkett and the staffer he had assigned to the project, programmer-analyst Wesley McGehee, nervously resolved to carry out Hutchison's instructions -- but also to protect themselves. They carefully logged every request tied to the deletion of records. And instead of purging the material entirely, they secretly made two copies of everything.

After they completed the two-month job, McGehee taped the cassette-sized computer tape containing his copy of the purged records to the underside of his office desk. Later, he would discover that the tape had been mysteriously erased. Burkett took his copy of the tape home and hid it in his garage.

For more than a year, as Hutchison launched the campaign that would elevate her to the U.S. Senate, Travis County prosecutors conducted a low-level investigation into rumors of abuses by her staff. But given the lack of physical evidence, the probe was going nowhere.

Then, on June 9, 1993, that suddenly changed. Four days after Hutchison's victory in the U.S. Senate runoff, McGehee, racked by guilt, went to the D.A.'s office with his stunning revelation: the newly elected U.S. senator had ordered the destruction of embarrassing state records. Burkett would later produce evidence of this: his tape, which he carted into a Travis County grand-jury room in a pizza box.

The two men told their story behind closed doors to the grand jury that would later indict Hutchison. But they never had a chance to unburden themselves in open court, before a trial jury in Fort Worth.

This February, during pretrial procedural wrangling, Judge John Onion announced that he would make no decision before testimony began on the admissibility of evidence --including material from the "pizza-box tapes" -- that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle considered critical. If the trial began and Onion refused to let the jury see the physical evidence, Earle believed, it could torpedo his entire case. The D.A. made a fateful decision: he declined to move forward with the senator's prosecution. He later explained that he hoped to do so later, presumably before a more receptive judge.

Judge Onion, though, wouldn't give him that chance. Onion instead swore in a jury, then immediately ordered the panel to acquit the first U.S. senator from Texas ever to come under criminal indictment. The abrupt court-ordered acquittal left the voluminous evidence of exactly what it was that Hutchison did -- evidence that fills four walls of shelving in a locked, windowless room in the Travis County D.A.'s office -- largely hidden from public view.

In the court of law, Kay Bailey Hutchison's acquittal had closed those files. Whatever she had done, the judicial system had judged her innocent.

This allowed Hutchison, who has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, to emerge the victor in a political and legal war that had lasted for more than a year. Proclaiming the forced verdict proof of her innocence, she emerged from the crisis primed to trounce any opponent the Democrats might put up against her.

…In turn, Hutchison and her handlers -- including attorney-husband Ray and crack Houston criminal defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin -- carried out her aggressive defense more in the political arena than in the courtroom. Recognizing how much hung in the balance, they mobilized the entire machinery of the Texas Republican party, from fellow U.S. Senator Phil Gramm all the way down to local precinct chairmen.

…

For 12 hours one day this March, D.A. Earle granted a reporter from the Dallas Observer, a sister paper of the Houston Press, unfettered access to the Hutchison files: hundreds of internal documents and private memos, a stack of depositions and thick volumes of grand-jury testimony. ... Having lost in court before having a chance to throw a punch, he is eager to justify the time and expense his investigation of Hutchison required.

From the beginning, Hutchison has been scornfully dismissive of the charges against her. She claims that Earle was the frontman in a political conspiracy, fed by a few unworthy Treasury subordinates, but calculated from the start to reclaim her Senate seat for the Democrats. … 

The Hutchison files also make clear that the senator's claims about the political origins of her prosecution are nonsense.

Beginning in June 1993, 33 witnesses testified under oath before the grand jury. Most of them were Republicans, and were her own hand-picked aides and associates; 26 worked at the Treasury.

Collectively, the files describe an obsessive, demanding and paranoid woman who was at times brutal to her staff, berating and pinching aides, and even, in one now-legendary incident, whacking a subordinate on the shoulder with a notebook.

More important, the Hutchison files reveal how one of Texas' top elected officials carried on extensive political operations out of the Treasury -- ignoring, several staffers testified, repeated complaints that the practice was improper. They also show that, after her office's political activities were partially revealed, she personally directed a laborious effort to cover up evidence of wrongdoing.

While contemptuous in public of the charges against her, the senator adopted a different tone behind the closed doors of the Travis County grand jury.

"Very respectfully," she told the panel on September 9, 1993, in response to Assistant D.A. Claire Dawson-Brown's first question, "I must take the advice of my counsel to assert my right to remain silent under the Constitution of Texas and the United States to each question that you would ask, and I am very sorry to have to do that."

"Is it your intent," the prosecutor asked, "to assert your right to the Fifth Amendment to any further questions this grand jury would ask?"

"Yes, it is," the senator replied.

After a brief pause, Dawson-Brown excused the witness.

"Thank you," the senator said before her exit. "I'm very sorry."

…

According to the testimony of her subordinates, Hutchison early on began turning to her office staff for help handling personal chores in Austin -- such as unlocking a door for a cleaning woman or gardener when she was out of town, arranging for a dress to be altered or previewing houses for possible purchase. At first, the aid was freely offered. But performing nonstate chores for the boss soon became a routine expectation, Hutchison subordinates testified.

Before the grand jury, Executive Assistant Sharon Connally Ammann estimated that she devoted 50 percent of her time at the Treasury to Hutchison's personal or political matters. Secretary Sandra Snead guessed that such tasks consumed 90 percent of her time. As proof, she brought to the grand-jury room telephone numbers from her Treasury Rolodex for Hutchison's yard man, campaign stationery printers, hairdressers, alteration lady and bankers, among others.

…

Four Hutchison aides -- Ammann, Snead, Babin and Berry -- testified that they told their boss she was making them perform too many personal and political tasks on state time. Snead testified that she and Stephanie Nooner complained to Hutchison so frequently, and the treasurer reacted so poorly, that they began flipping a coin to decide who would take on the task of raising the issue yet again.

Snead said she urged Hutchison to install a separate phone line for her personal and political calls -- a change that Hutchison ultimately approved. The treasurer refused, however, to open a campaign office in Austin, as many of her fellow statewide officeholders have done. (She instead instructed staffers, the women testified, to use the Austin office of her husband's law firm for time-consuming tasks.) Nor would Hutchison follow their suggestion to use campaign funds to hire a traveling aide, another common practice among politicians trying to avoid blurring the lines between state and political obligations.

…

But the road to trial proved bumpy. Defense attorneys soon discovered that one grand juror stood charged with theft, forcing Earle to dismiss the charges and obtain a second set of indictments on December 8 from a fresh grand jury.

As the first indictments loomed, John Dowd, Hutchison's Washington-based attorney, sought to play ball with the D.A.'s office. In a September 14, 1993 letter to prosecutors, he noted that Hutchison had repaid the state a total of $10,818.67 in expenses and vacation time. Dowd noted that such a sum could buy the state plenty of goods and services, and went on to cite examples: 569 hours of work from an employee who earned $19 an hour; 54,093 photocopies at 20 cents a page; or 540,934 minutes of state-owned disk memory at two cents a minute.

But after the indictments, Hutchison shucked Dowd -- as well as her initial strategy -- and replaced him with DeGuerin. She embraced the posture that it was all the product of a Democratic political conspiracy -- though, in reality, her critical accusers were either Republicans or apolitical government bureaucrats.

The senator's camp also offered the "everybody-else-does-it" theory as part of her extensive public self-defense. What had she done that every other elected official didn't do?

On September 28, the grand jury handed down its indictments. Hutchison faced two felony counts of official misconduct, one misdemeanor count of official misconduct, one felony count of tampering with government documents and one felony count of tampering with evidence. If convicted, she faced a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

Barron was charged with three felony counts: tampering with records, tampering with evidence and official misconduct. Criss was charged with felony official misconduct. Both Criss and Barron faced sentences of up to ten years.

… As the trial neared, DeGuerin challenged the legality of the seizures in the June 10 raid -- which technically included the "pizza-box tapes." The D.A.'s office had obtained the tapes and much of the other physical evidence in the case with a grand-jury "forthwith" subpoena, instead of a search warrant.

The prosecutors considered the tapes -- and the testimony about how Hutchison had ordered the documents they contained purged -- the linchpin of their case. But Judge Onion refused to rule before trial on whether he would allow the tapes into evidence, prompting the sequence of events that led to Hutchison's dramatic acquittal.

Ronnie Earle subsequently dropped the charges against Barron and Criss, saying it would be unfair to prosecute Hutchison's former subordinates while their boss walked.

http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/1994-06...ws/feature.html

Rest assured that Delay’s attorney will do everything he can to challenge every piece of evidence Earle has to prevent a jury from seeing it. When that happens, take a step back and ask yourself “What is Tom afraid of?”

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Here's the LATEST news, which offers more insight into how Earle got a GJ to indict DeLay: Link

The Chronicle obtained the grand jury list on Tuesday under the Texas Open Records Act. State District Judge Mike Lynch had ordered it sealed.

Seven of the 12 grand jurors have voted in Democratic primaries in recent years, according to Travis County records. One grand juror voted in Republican primaries.

The other four grand jurors either had no history of voting in primaries or could not be positively identified.

I have never said Ronnie Earle was dirty. I have maintained all along that lately he has become the puppet of the Democratic Party, that he has to use underhanded machinations, the power of the media and a shaky interpretation of the law in a desperate effort to try and make something - ANYTHING - stick. Toeing the party line is not illegal. He is zealous and a loose cannon.

I am sure Earle may be a nice guy in person - everyone says Bill Clinton is one of the nicest guys in person that you could ever hope to meet. Doesn't mean he is still isn't a whoredog scumbag.

When example after example after example is offered to show his fanatical zeal in attempting to prosecute people, usually without success, doesn't that make even you question his motives? The facts are out there.

While I commend him for going after power and corruption, he needs to make sure that there is actually something there and that he has a case before he brings in the media. He opens himself up to this kind of bashing by his own actions! I respect zealous prosecution - but there is a fine line between prosecuting good cases and making an ass of yourself. And when prosecutors bring bad case after bad case, people lose faith in the system. THAT is what bothers me.

He probably couldn't get re-elected anywhere but Travis County. After his case against Kay Bailey Hutchison got tossed, it's like he snapped and became major left-wing. He and his Democratic friends can't stand the fact that Tom DeLay and the Texas Republican Party got the best of them! The whole re-districting thing just about killed them, and they have tried to find anyway they can to regain control. They have yet to learn that political power is not a birthright in this state - the people elected Republicans. Get over it!! Their hatred of DeLay is second only to their hatred of GWB. Dems in Texas have become much more radicalized since the R's took over - and it is that exact partisan behavior that is going to sink Earle's case against DeLay. I would not be surprised if DeLay is not only acquitted, but is also re-elected.

Hey, Jenny-- just in case you're lurking around here...you were wrong again.

[SouthLink02 8]

I would not be surprised if DeLay is not only acquitted, but is also re-elected.

Then you really have no clue about what he was indicted with evidence wise and what DeLay's attornies will need to show to have it over-turned

The amount of mis-information and stupidity with right-wingers trying to state that he will get it over-turned is comical

They know absolutely nothing about the Appeals process BUT IT WILL GET APPEALED BECAUSE THE DA IS BIAS!

People that go into court with that line are either laughed at by the Judges or put into jail for contempt due to wasting everyones time

[tiger88 934]

I would not be surprised if DeLay is not only acquitted, but is also re-elected.

Then you really have no clue about what he was indicted with evidence wise and what DeLay's attornies will need to show to have it over-turned

The amount of mis-information and stupidity with right-wingers trying to state that he will get it over-turned is comical

They know absolutely nothing about the Appeals process BUT IT WILL GET APPEALED BECAUSE THE DA IS BIAS!

People that go into court with that line are either laughed at by the Judges or put into jail for contempt due to wasting everyones time

Get a life dude. She hasn't posted here in years. She can't be impressed with your "knowledge". Maybe one day you'll acquire some wisdom.