cicerone imposter wrote:Excuse me? I was describing my own experience in the Grand Jury here in California. I' have never worked in a federal grand jury. What's your confusion?
I understand that for some reason you feel compelled to describe your experiences in the Civil Grand Jury in California, and I've no idea why you feel that should be compared to the Criminal Grand Jury in Texas. You are the one who keeps bringing it up.
And I said nothing about your being involved in a federal grand jury. Who's talking about a federal grand jury? There's no federal grand jury involved here. What's your confusion?
Has any of you actually read the indictment?
I just finished reading it,and to be honest it seems fairly weak to me.
I saw nothing in it that actually could be proof that Delay committed any crime.
I also know that the Texas election allows corporations to contribute to PACs at any time,and it allows PACs to contribute to individual campaigns.
BUT,there is no evidence (from reading the indictment) that any corporation gave money to the DeLay campaign.
I will say that the indictment does not pass the "smell test",but I am willing to wait to see if there is a trial and all the facts to come out.
If he is convicted,I hope he gets the maximum sentence he can legally be given.
I just hope those of you on the left are willing to wait for a trial,instead of demanding that he be executed now.
I think it's a moot point, he has to step down while under indictment. That's just the way it is. If he is found innocent he can regain his position as leader. He doesn't have to resign as a Representative from Texas.
glitterbag is right; we just have to wait and see what happens from here.
Indictments can go either way.
Interesting analysis from Barbara Comstock, a former DoJ official:
Quote:Ronnie Earle argues that Tom DeLay conspired to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the facts. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the law.
According to the indictment, the conspiracy was to unlawfully make a political contribution of corporate funds to a political party within 60 days of an election.
The Texas Election Code clearly states that "A corporation or labor organization may not knowingly make a contribution [to a political party] during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election." Title 15, Texas Election Code, § 253.104. Texas law also states in part that "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."
The Problems with Earle's case:
In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over DeLay, Earle charges that because Congressman DeLay may have known about the transaction before it occurred, he was then part of a conspiracy.
However, Earle's office has sworn testimony and other exculpatory evidence showing that Congressman DeLay did not have knowledge of the transaction.
In addition:
No corporation or labor organization was indicted in this conspiracy. Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor organization.
No corporation or labor organization made a contribution during 60 days of an election.
What constitutes a contribution under the Texas Election Code is not strictly defined.
Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.
Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.
There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?
As I said, interesting. And as c.i. said, we'll have to just wait and see. Hopefully the trial will come sooner than later.
I just heard DeLay talking on Fox News. After hearing DeLay's side of the story, I'm very anxious to see what evidence Earle might have supporting the allegation of conspiracy. DeLay has apparently retained the attorney who represented Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
DeLay provided more information about Hutchinson's experience with Earle that I wasn't aware of. He brought the indictment against her right after she'd been elected Senator, and refused to present his case to the jury, so the judge dismissed the case. After Hutchinson was acquitted, Earle held a press conference where he presented his "evidence" to the media. He sounds like a POS political hatchet man, pure and simple.
Merely one small corner of a vast left wing conspiracy.
Ticomaya wrote:Interesting analysis from Barbara Comstock, a former DoJ official:
Quote:Ronnie Earle argues that Tom DeLay conspired to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the facts. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the law.
According to the indictment, the conspiracy was to unlawfully make a political contribution of corporate funds to a political party within 60 days of an election.
The Texas Election Code clearly states that "A corporation or labor organization may not knowingly make a contribution [to a political party] during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election." Title 15, Texas Election Code, § 253.104. Texas law also states in part that "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."
The Problems with Earle's case:
In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over DeLay, Earle charges that because Congressman DeLay may have known about the transaction before it occurred, he was then part of a conspiracy.
However, Earle's office has sworn testimony and other exculpatory evidence showing that Congressman DeLay did not have knowledge of the transaction.
In addition:
No corporation or labor organization was indicted in this conspiracy. Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor organization.
No corporation or labor organization made a contribution during 60 days of an election.
What constitutes a contribution under the Texas Election Code is not strictly defined.
Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.
Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.
There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?
As I said, interesting. And as c.i. said, we'll have to just wait and see. Hopefully the trial will come sooner than later.
The problem is that Barbara Comstock didn't bother to READ the indictment it appears. The indictment LISTS the companies that illegally contributed abbetted by the conspiracy. Anyone can go read it. Funny how she first claims there was no contribution then claims the party it was contributed to was not covered under Texas law. Seems a little too much of a weasel argument to me. Either there was or there wasn't a contribution if there wasn't then you can't argue about who it was contributed to.
Ticomaya wrote:I just heard DeLay talking on Fox News. After hearing DeLay's side of the story, I'm very anxious to see what evidence Earle might have supporting the allegation of conspiracy. DeLay has apparently retained the attorney who represented Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
DeLay provided more information about Hutchinson's experience with Earle that I wasn't aware of. He brought the indictment against her right after she'd been elected Senator, and refused to present his case to the jury, so the judge dismissed the case. After Hutchinson was acquitted, Earle held a press conference where he presented his "evidence" to the media. He sounds like a POS political hatchet man, pure and simple.
The rewrite of what happened in the Hucthinson case has to be the funniest tall tale ever told by the RW spinners.
What do you refer to it as when a judge doesn't allow certain evidence in a case Tico? Would you normally call it a refusal by the prosecutor to present his case?
parados wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I just heard DeLay talking on Fox News. After hearing DeLay's side of the story, I'm very anxious to see what evidence Earle might have supporting the allegation of conspiracy. DeLay has apparently retained the attorney who represented Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
DeLay provided more information about Hutchinson's experience with Earle that I wasn't aware of. He brought the indictment against her right after she'd been elected Senator, and refused to present his case to the jury, so the judge dismissed the case. After Hutchinson was acquitted, Earle held a press conference where he presented his "evidence" to the media. He sounds like a POS political hatchet man, pure and simple.
The rewrite of what happened in the Hucthinson case has to be the funniest tall tale ever told by the RW spinners.
What do you refer to it as when a judge doesn't allow certain evidence in a case Tico? Would you normally call it a refusal by the prosecutor to present his case?
If the judge refused to allow my evidence, and I thought the judge was in error, I'd appeal his or her decision to the Court of Appeals. I wouldn't run out and try my case in the press .... unless I was a partisan hack, of course.
Parados, I don't think your take on the Hutchison case is incompatible w/Tico's take. As I understand it, Earle dropped the case after the judge determined that a piece of evidence was inadmissible. Source:
csmonitor. Even if that evidence was solid gold (and I doubt that), Earle should have known better than to base a high-profile case on such limited and possibly inadmissible evidence. Moreover, as Tico said, he could have appealed after trying (and presumably losing) the case.
Anyway, I agree that it's hard to get past the spin - why, for instance, is Comstock implying that a conviction for conspiracy requires a completed primary offense? But spin aside, this is just a GJ indictment, and it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility of political motivation from Earle, even if you don't like DeLay.
On the whole, I don't think the indictment means much, not yet anyway. It's certainly not time to bring out the scarlet "A."
Yeah, the legal-begals will do their thing with this indictment, and until such time they pass muster, it's useless to add more spin.
For those interested, here is where you can watch video of Delay appearing tonight on Fox News'
Special Report, and
Hannity and Colmes.
Hi there, Steppenwolf. Long time no see. How 'ya been?
Yeah, it's been a while. I'm been pretty busy right now, but I thought I'd drop by A2K to get my jollies. How has everything been here the last couple of months?
Good to hear.
Everybody at A2K has been well-behaved and minding their Ps & Qs during your absence.
Barbara Comstock, right-wing hack
mediamatters.org
Fox failed to mention Comstock's ties to pro-Roberts group whose ad was highlighted
The August 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume featured a segment by reporter Megyn Kendall on the ongoing controversy over a NARAL Pro-Choice America ad that criticizes Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. for allegedly supporting violent anti-abortion protesters. The segment included comments from Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft. But Kendall failed to identify Comstock as a strategic adviser to Progress for America (PFA), a right-wing group actively campaigning for Roberts's confirmation. On August 9, the day after the NARAL Pro-Choice America ad was first released, Progress for America unveiled an ad defending Roberts, part of which was spotlighted during the Fox segment. In addition, PFA has launched a pro-Roberts website, and assembled a coalition of conservative groups to advocate for Roberts's confirmation.
During CNN's July 19 coverage of Roberts's nomination, Comstock appeared on CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown and defended Roberts as a "consensus, mainstream candidate" for the Supreme Court. CNN host Brown identified her as "a strategic adviser to Progress for America." The St. Petersburg Times referred to Comstock as an "attorney[] affiliated with the Republican-leaning group Progress for America" in a July 21 article, and C-SPAN has identified her as an "advisor for PFA." But during her August 10 appearance on Fox News, Comstock was identified only by the onscreen text "FMR JUSTICE DEPT OFFICIAL."
The segment can also be found on the Fox News website as an August 11 news story, titled "Groups Reject NARAL Characterization of Roberts."
From the August 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
KENDALL: The case, which went up to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, was about whether a 19th-century anti-discrimination law could be used to stop abortion protests. The solicitor general's office filed a friend of the court brief, arguing the law did not apply, maintaining such protests had nothing to do with gender discrimination, a position with which the Supreme Court agreed.
COMSTOCK [clip]: What they said, regardless of what your position is on abortion or abortion protesters, those who protest about the issue are not engaging in sex discrimination.
KENDALL: The ad's sponsor, NARAL Pro-Choice America, says, despite the ad's language, NARAL does not believe Judge Roberts condones clinic violence.
NANCY KEENAN (president of NARAL Pro-Choice America) [clip]: I know he said he finds bombing and murder abhorrent.
KENDALL: A point Roberts made clear at oral argument in the case, when he told the court the Justice Department did not support violent protests, saying, "The United States appears in this case not to defend petitioners' tortius" -- or improper -- "conduct but to defend the proper interpretation" of the statute. Still, NARAL says the position Roberts took paved the way for continued protests at a dangerous time for abortion clinics.
KEENAN: The groups he sided with were engaged in horrific, a horrific campaign of violence.
KENDALL: Roberts advocates were quick to respond. The conservative Progress for America unveiled an ad dismissing NARAL's assertion as part of a liberal witch hunt.
NARRATOR [clip of Progress for America ad]: A far-left Democratic group is making a desperate and false attack, recklessly distorting John Roberts' record.
Well, you had in American more recent history Richard Nixon's "I'm not a crook". And Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
And now DeLay did nothing "unethical" and nothing "unprecedented". Might well be, his statement is to be seen different.
And it seems to be a hard job to threaten an elected Republican in a red state with a small staff as well.
<edited: typos corrected>
Walter beat me to it. I watched Delay's comments to the press, and I thought, Isn't this his version of "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" Only now, it's a vast left wing attack on poor old Tom. I am sick to death of elected officails, how about you?
This might be the typical political response to allegations of wrongdoing, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. After all, what do innocent people say when accused of conspiracy? I'm guilty? Nothing? No comment?
You can't draw much of anything - positive or negative - from a statement of innocence.
