0
   

why 3 grand juries

 
 
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 03:18 am
This is a long article,from a subscription site,but here is the link to the article...
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/10/5earle.html

"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.

In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret.

DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.

"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"

The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.

The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.

According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."

It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.

Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.

Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.

When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.

About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.

DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.

"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."

Question,if the evidence was so strong,why did it take 3 grand juries?
Why did the first one refuse to indict?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,367 • Replies: 91
No top replies

 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 05:45 am
Not sure of the answer and I'm trying to be objective as possible here and not indulge in partisan politics. I understand that a grand jury has a certain life. It looks like the "second" grand jury was due to complete its sittings on the Friday and I suppose when it rose (do they "rise" like a court?) that was it. But then apparently over the weekend there was new evidence (?) so a new "third" grand jury got to hear the evidence.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 05:58 am
Don't get your panties in a knot, mysteryman. The courts will sort it all out. You know as well as I that panels are made of people with partisan views. The first that refused to indict may have been all fanatical Delay supporters.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 06:27 am
there is an old saying.

A Prosecutor can indict a Ham Sandwich if they try hard enough.

Looks like the DA is trying very very hard.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 06:59 am
Don't forget that this is really the lesser of DeLay's problem; the Jack Abramoff case is by far the more serious one that DeLay is deeply connected with...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 07:05 am
Gee, what a surprise, Politicians involved in campaign finance fraud.

My position is this. Any politician directly or indirectly involved in any fraudshould be immediately impeached and removed from office.

That includes Delay, Clinton, Kerry...ANY OF THEM!!!

Republicans do not own the "fraud market". Democrats are knee deep also. The only difference is the liberal media reports only republican "mishaps" more aggressively then they report democrats.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 07:06 am
The idea of Ronnie Earl being incompetent is a laugh. Those of us here in Austin/Travis County know better. He's an idealist, not an ideologue. He's prosecuted both Democrats and Republicans.

DeLay and Co. are trying damage control on a national level, but the real fight is going to be in the courtroom.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 07:16 am
DrewDad wrote:
The idea of Ronnie Earl being incompetent is a laugh. Those of us here in Austin/Travis County know better. He's an idealist, not an ideologue. He's prosecuted both Democrats and Republicans.

DeLay and Co. are trying damage control on a national level, but the real fight is going to be in the courtroom.


Sure he is. That's why he asked for a no-bill from one GJ.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 07:22 am
<sigh>

The liberal media is a myth. Check out the other thread on it.

And I agree that all at fault should be indicted. Feel free to write your local prosecuting authority.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 07:29 am
DrewDad wrote:
<sigh>

The liberal media is a myth. Check out the other thread on it.

And I agree that all at fault should be indicted. Feel free to write your local prosecuting authority.


Sure...
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 08:58 am
Wish I had ten dollars everytime the right uses their pathetic "everybody does it defense."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 09:04 am
DrewDad wrote:
The idea of Ronnie Earl being incompetent is a laugh.


What about the rumor that the law DeLay was charged with in his first indictment -- conspiring to violate campaign finance laws -- was based on a statute that didn't take effect until 2003, a year after DeLay's alleged acts. Can you say ex post facto? I haven't investigated this deeply, but if true, it sounds fairly incompetent to me. You disagree?

-----

So what do we have: Earle's first indictment falls apart, even though he had a very good foreman -- did you see/hear that guy's comments? -- so Earle goes shopping for another grand jury, which refused to indict. Then his third grand jury indicts DeLay before they've had a chance to get a cup of coffee, based on "new evidence."

Plus we've got the comments he made to the Democratic fund raiser about the DeLay case, the deal he worked out with the eight corporations that if they'd donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to a cause of his choosing he'd drop the charges, and the comments he made to the film crew he let follow him around during his crusade against DeLay. Not to mention his lack of pursuit against similar Democratic activities.

I'm not a close follower of Texas politics, but I'd be surprised if this obviously over-zealous prosecutor wasn't himself investigated following this debacle.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 09:26 am
Quote:
What about the rumor that the law DeLay was charged with in his first indictment -- conspiring to violate campaign finance laws -- was based on a statute that didn't take effect until 2003, a year after DeLay's alleged acts. Can you say ex post facto? I haven't investigated this deeply, but if true, it sounds fairly incompetent to me. You disagree?


Shrug. Not incompetence, just a matter of nailing down a crime syndicate. It's tough work; these guys have had plenty of time to cover their tracks and all the connections in the world to throw wrenches into the case.

You should note that the specific allegations that Delay is charged with aren't really being denied; just that DeLay himself did anything wrong.

Once again, remember that this is the lower of DeLay's problems; the Jack Abramoff case is going to be much, much worse.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 09:48 am
The specific allegations that DeLay is charged with ARE being denied, I believe. Regarding the corporate contributions, that's only not permitted in 18 states, and the Democrats in Texas did the same thing, it appears. Some "crime syndicate." Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 09:53 am
Keep on rolling your eyes, Tico; the Money Laundering that DeLay and the RNC and TRMPAC engaged in is well-documented with paper trails. The only question is whether or not DeLay himself knew what was going on.

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/005104.html#5104

Quote:
According to a copy of memos now circulating DeLay was involved in day to day decisions about Texans for a Republican Majority, something he has repeatedly denied.

These memos implicate DeLay in coordinating strategy, raising money, taking checks and approving guest lists. They show that he was kept up to date as a high priority - and that steps were taken to screen his involvement through third parties.

The first is from state representative Dianne Delisi to Boon Pickens, and is on TRM letterhead. The first memo was on targetted races for the committee:

"House Majority Whip Tom DeLay agreed to help us and has been an ardent advocate for us by raising money, making phone calls, serving as a special gest at events and providing assistance with leading strategists."

The second, from "federalistgroup" to "goptoday", saying that companies with "big asbestos problems" will line up.

"I finally have the 2 checks from Rellant, Will deliver to TD next week."

The third indicates that lobbying was being done on corporate time, and that:

"DeLay will want to see a list of attendees for this event."

Consideration, communication, coordination.

The prosecutor clearly has a case.


But, yeah, it's all a partisan witchhunt and DeLay is as pure as the driven snow. Noone's buying that, Tico...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:02 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
But, yeah, it's all a partisan witchhunt and DeLay is as pure as the driven snow. Noone's buying that, Tico...

Cycloptichorn


Of course it's a partisan witchhunt. Why else is Earle saying the things he's been saying at the Democratic fundraisers? Why does he appear so desperate to indict DeLay, particularly when it appears he hasn't got much of a case against him? Why is he apparently not interested in indicting any Democrats?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:17 am
Quote:
Other jury declined to indict DeLay
Texas prosecutor described as angry


By Larry Margasak and Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press | October 6, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A Texas prosecutor tried to convince a grand jury that Representative Tom DeLay gave tacit approval to a series of laundered campaign contributions, and when jurors declined to indict, he became angry, according to two people directly familiar with the proceeding.

The grand jury was one of three that considered whether there was probable cause to indict DeLay. Two other grand juries did indict the former House majority leader, who had to step aside temporarily under Republican rules.

Both indictments focused on an alleged scheme to provide corporate political donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The two people interviewed, who commented anonymously because of grand jury secrecy, said Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle became visibly angry when the grand jurors last week signed a document declining to indict, known as a ''no bill."

One person said the sole evidence Earle presented was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor, in which DeLay said he was generally aware of activities of his associates. He is charged in an alleged money- laundering scheme to funnel corporate donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

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

After the grand jurors declined to go forward, the mood ''was unpleasant," the other person said, describing Earle's reaction.

DeLay and political aides Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were indicted last week by another grand jury, accused of criminal conspiracy to violate Texas election laws.

After the second grand jury declined to indict, a third grand jury brought money laundering charges against DeLay on Monday.

Dick DeGuerin, attorney for DeLay, sought to have the original conspiracy charge dismissed Monday by arguing in a court filing that contended the indictment was based on a law that the Legislature changed in 2003. The original indictment alleges that the illegal acts date to 2002.

Earle said late Tuesday that he sought the second indictment of DeLay on Monday because he became aware of additional evidence.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:26 am
Quote:
Of course it's a partisan witchhunt. Why else is Earle saying the things he's been saying at the Democratic fundraisers? Why does he appear so desperate to indict DeLay, particularly when it appears he hasn't got much of a case against him? Why is he apparently not interested in indicting any Democrats?


Um, because Earle is a Democrat. That doesn't make it a witch-hunt when he's doing his job.

He's indicted more Democrats than Republicans over his career by a significant margin. Just because it is a Republican this time doesn't make it a 'Witch-hunt.'

You can cry partisanship all day long, Tico, but it will avail neither DeLay nor you...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:43 am
Seems to me Ronnie Earle is an opportunist. He found a big fish to fry and he will try his best to get it done. I believe it is more personal, then partisen. Maybe he wants to run for a higher office sometime soon.

Delay, however, does not have clean hands here.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:46 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Of course it's a partisan witchhunt. Why else is Earle saying the things he's been saying at the Democratic fundraisers? Why does he appear so desperate to indict DeLay, particularly when it appears he hasn't got much of a case against him? Why is he apparently not interested in indicting any Democrats?


Um, because Earle is a Democrat. That doesn't make it a witch-hunt when he's doing his job.

He's indicted more Democrats than Republicans over his career by a significant margin. Just because it is a Republican this time doesn't make it a 'Witch-hunt.'

You can cry partisanship all day long, Tico, but it will avail neither DeLay nor you...

Cycloptichorn


How might it have appeared if Ken Starr had appeared at a Republican fundraiser during his investigation of Clinton, and called Clinton a "bully"? Might that give one pause to suspect partisanship?

Why did Earle write the op/ed piece replicated below for the New York Times? Did that forward his investigation of DeLay, or did it push his political agenda?

Quote:
A Moral Indictment
By RONNIE EARLE

Published: November 23, 2004

Austin, Tex. ?- It is a rare day when members of the United States Congress try to read the minds of the members of a grand jury in Travis County, Tex. Apparently Tom DeLay's colleagues expect him to be indicted.

Last week Congressional Republicans voted to change their rule that required an indicted leader to relinquish his post. They were responding to an investigation by the Travis County grand jury into political contributions by corporations that has already resulted in the indictments of three associates of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader.

Yet no member of Congress has been indicted in the investigation, and none is a target unless he or she has committed a crime. The grand jury will continue its work, abiding by the rule of law. That law requires a grand jury of citizens, not the prosecutor, to determine whether probable cause exists to hold an accused person to answer for the accusation against him or her.

Politicians in Congress are responsible for the leaders they choose. Their choices reflect their moral values.

Every law enforcement officer depends on the moral values and integrity of society for backup; they are like body armor. The cynical destruction of moral values at the top makes it hard for law enforcement to do its job.

In terms of moral values, this is where the rubber meets the road. The rules you apply to yourself are the true test of your moral values.

The thinly veiled personal attacks on me by Mr. DeLay's supporters in this case are no different from those in the cases of any of the 15 elected officials this office has prosecuted in my 27-year tenure. Most of these officials - 12 Democrats and three Republicans - have accused me of having political motives. What else are they going to say?

For most of my tenure the Democrats held the power in state government. Now Republicans do. Most crimes by elected officials involve the abuse of power; you have to have power before you can abuse it.

There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules. Congress may make its own rules, but the public makes the rule of law, and depends for its peace on the enforcement of the law. Hypocrisy at the highest levels of government is toxic to the moral fiber that holds our communities together.

The open contempt for moral values by our elected officials has a corrosive effect. It is a sad day for law enforcement when Congress offers such poor leadership on moral values and ethical behavior. We are a moral people, and the first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt.

Ronnie Earle is the district attorney for Travis County, Tex.


Earle's pursuit of DeLay may or may not be purely partisan ... but it sure smells it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » why 3 grand juries
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/20/2026 at 03:27:23