0
   

why 3 grand juries

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 12:53 pm
Earl's doing his job.

1st, the law preventing corporate donations for state races has been in place for over half a century, if I recall correctly. Possible since the early 1900s. This may not be the law Earl indicted under, but there is such a law.

2nd, Earl's been planning to retire; this is the case that he's finishing up his career on. If he wanted to run for higher office, I'm certain he could have done so before now.

Go do some real research instead of regurgitating press releases. Sheesh.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 01:05 pm
woiyo wrote:
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...

<sigh>
There's liberal media.
There's conservative media.
There's moderate media.

An analysis of political stories does not support the thesis that the media is liberal. Such an analysis refutes it, in fact.

If you feel that the media is overwhelmingly liberal then yYou might consider the possibility that you are out of the mainstream, rather than the media.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 01:23 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Earl's doing his job.

1st, the law preventing corporate donations for state races has been in place for over half a century, if I recall correctly. Possible since the early 1900s. This may not be the law Earl indicted under, but there is such a law.

2nd, Earl's been planning to retire; this is the case that he's finishing up his career on. If he wanted to run for higher office, I'm certain he could have done so before now.

Go do some real research instead of regurgitating press releases. Sheesh.


You do some research if you want to disprove the press releases. And, no, I don't consider your searching your memory to be research. I've got plenty of research to do on other matters, should I be so inclined.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 01:28 pm
I'm regurgitating the press releases I've heard, too, frankly. However, I suspect that I've heard far more about Ronnie Earl of the years than you have....
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 01:33 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Earl's doing his job.

1st, the law preventing corporate donations for state races has been in place for over half a century, if I recall correctly. Possible since the early 1900s. This may not be the law Earl indicted under, but there is such a law.

2nd, Earl's been planning to retire; this is the case that he's finishing up his career on. If he wanted to run for higher office, I'm certain he could have done so before now.

Go do some real research instead of regurgitating press releases. Sheesh.


You do some research if you want to disprove the press releases. And, no, I don't consider your searching your memory to be research. I've got plenty of research to do on other matters, should I be so inclined.




Yeah, Delay's press releases must be correct. Never mind the law. Look to the press releases. Delay's "press release" said the law wasn't passed until after the alleged crime was committed. That is so much BS.. A law was in place at the time of the crime. A later law was passed that would have also applied. Just because a later law didn't exist at the time of the crime doesn't make the first law not apply.

"Your honor, the law against beating my wife wasn't passed until after I had beat her to death so the prosecutor can't charge me with murder because the law against beating her was not yet implemented."

C'mon Tico. You know better.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 02:08 pm
Quote:
October 06, 2005, 7:33 a.m.
Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor
The abuses of power in the Tom DeLay case should offend Democrats and Republicans alike.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 02:35 pm
Quote:
DeLay's fellow Texan, Republican Rep. John Carter, says whether the law was broken depends on what your definition of "administrative" is.

"No court has actually defined clearly what administrative purposes is," says Carter.

60 Minutes showed him TRMPAC's brochure with the statement of how the corporate funds would be spent.

"Active candidate evaluation and recruitment. Message development. Market research and issue development," says Stahl. "I mean, how is that administrative?"

"Active candidate evaluation and recruitment, that's a party of administrative procedure," says Carter. "That's a party function."

"I thought administration was the running of the office. The Xerox machine. Paying bills," says Stahl.

"This is what the court has to rule on," says Carter. "If they find all these things are administrative, there'll be no convictions in this case."

Would this be considered a technicality - a way to revolve around a definition of administrative?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678234.shtml

Same source:
Quote:
Stahl: Can I ask you about Ronnie Earle? What is your real charge here? You're, you seem to be suggesting he's doing a whole investigation just to get Republicans. Is that really what your charge is?

DeLay: I know CBS likes to create news. But we're here to talk about childrenÂ…

DeLay ignored Stahl's question, and Rep. Mark Foley of Florida stepped in: "We'll ask those questions and answer them later. Â… We're not talking about Mr. DeLay today."

Stahl said: "Well, we are. I'd like to know when you're going to answer the questions?"

"Thank you very much," said DeLay. "You ought to be ashamed of yourself."

Earle has been attacked as a self-promoter and a "crackpot," hard sells in Texas, where he has a reputation as a "Mr. Clean."
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 02:37 pm
Here's more:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/28/truth-ronnie-earle/

Quote:
The Truth About Ronnie Earle
You'll hear plenty from DeLay et al. about Ronnie Earle. Here are the facts:

EARLE HAS PROSECUTED FOUR TIMES AS MANY DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANSEARLE HAS REPUTATION FOR RESPECTING THE RULESHOUSTON CHRONICLE: ALLEGATIONS OF PARTISANSHIP NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS: Chronicle editorial: "The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts." [3/17/03]

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 02:39 pm
I liked this one, too:

"Being called vindictive and partisan by Tom DeLay is like being called ugly by a frog," says Earle.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 05:25 pm
parados wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Earl's doing his job.

1st, the law preventing corporate donations for state races has been in place for over half a century, if I recall correctly. Possible since the early 1900s. This may not be the law Earl indicted under, but there is such a law.

2nd, Earl's been planning to retire; this is the case that he's finishing up his career on. If he wanted to run for higher office, I'm certain he could have done so before now.

Go do some real research instead of regurgitating press releases. Sheesh.


You do some research if you want to disprove the press releases. And, no, I don't consider your searching your memory to be research. I've got plenty of research to do on other matters, should I be so inclined.




Yeah, Delay's press releases must be correct. Never mind the law. Look to the press releases. Delay's "press release" said the law wasn't passed until after the alleged crime was committed. That is so much BS.. A law was in place at the time of the crime. A later law was passed that would have also applied. Just because a later law didn't exist at the time of the crime doesn't make the first law not apply.

"Your honor, the law against beating my wife wasn't passed until after I had beat her to death so the prosecutor can't charge me with murder because the law against beating her was not yet implemented."

C'mon Tico. You know better.


Actually,thats not quite true.
There MAY have been a law already on the books,but the law DeLay is being accused of did NOT exist at the time he committed the alleged crime.
Now,a prosecutor has to be specific about the crime he accuses someone of,or his case can get blown out of the water.
I dont know if DeLay is guilty of anything or not,but to charge him for breaking a law that didnt exist at the time is just plain wrong.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 06:01 pm
"The RNC says the checks sent to Texas were drawn on a different account than the one that received the money from Texas, making the transactions legal. But Earle claims the use of the two accounts was nothing more than an illegal dodge." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401637.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 09:29 pm
The law didn't exist mysteryman? Says who?

The indictment cites 253.003, 253.094, 253.104
http://www.npr.org/documents/2005/sep/delay_indictment.pdf

The Texas code lists 253.003 as being last amended in 1995 and 253.094 and 253.104 as being last amended in 1987.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/el.toc.htm

The illegal contributions happened in 2002.

The laws cited in the first indictment OBVIOUSLY existed prior to the contributions in 2002. Anyone claiming they didn't exist is full of crap.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 07:12 am
DeLay Meeting, RNC Actions Coincided
Financial Transactions Began on Day Texan Met With Fundraiser

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; Page A05

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) met for at least 30 minutes with the top fundraiser of his Texas political action committee on Oct. 2, 2002, the same day that the Republican National Committee in Washington set in motion a series of financial transactions at the heart of the money-laundering and conspiracy case against DeLay.

During the meeting at his Capitol office, DeLay conferred with James W. Ellis, the head of his principal fundraising committee in Washington and his chief fundraiser in Texas. Ellis had earlier given the Republican National Committee a check for $190,000 drawn mostly from corporate contributions. The same day as the meeting, the RNC ordered $190,000 worth of checks sent to seven Republican legislative candidates in Texas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601903.html
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 08:00 am
The fact of this October 2nd meeting does not support a charge of conspiracy or money laundering, since the critical actions taken by DeLay, if any, that might prove his guilt, must have taken place well before October 2, 2002.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 08:02 am
Right, right. Mmm hmm.

Why are you defending this scumbag? I understand party loyalty and all, but DeLay is just dragging you fellows down....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 08:16 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Right, right. Mmm hmm.

Why are you defending this scumbag? I understand party loyalty and all, but DeLay is just dragging you fellows down....

Cycloptichorn


If he's guilty of a crime, he'll go down. But I believe the process should be fair. If this "scheme" is illegal, than everyone who utilizes it should be prosecuted as zealously and vigorously as Tom DeLay, including Democrats in Texas. I don't believe that's happening because Earle has his sights set on DeLay, whether DeLay committed a crime or not. Earle was obviously desperate for an indictment.

Why do you hate Tom DeLay?

And why aren't you insisting on the same treatment for the leftists in your state?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 08:19 am
Did you see the post about Earl prosecuting four times as many Democrats as Republicans?

Earl is giving the same treatment to everyone. It's a shame that you can't accept it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 08:25 am
DrewDad wrote:
Did you see the post about Earl prosecuting four times as many Democrats as Republicans?

Earl is giving the same treatment to everyone. It's a shame that you can't accept it.


When's the last time he prosecuted a Democrat? I accept that he's prosecuted Democrats in the past, but that doesn't mean he's evenhanded. Why don't you explain to me why he's not pursuing Democrats today?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 08:28 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Right, right. Mmm hmm.

Why are you defending this scumbag? I understand party loyalty and all, but DeLay is just dragging you fellows down....

Cycloptichorn


If he's guilty of a crime, he'll go down. But I believe the process should be fair. If this "scheme" is illegal, than everyone who utilizes it should be prosecuted as zealously and vigorously as Tom DeLay, including Democrats in Texas. I don't believe that's happening because Earle has his sights set on DeLay, whether DeLay committed a crime or not. Earle was obviously desperate for an indictment.

Why do you hate Tom DeLay?

And why aren't you insisting on the same treatment for the leftists in your state?


Let's see, why do I hate DeLay?

He's a mobster parading as a politician. Literally. He controlls the flow of money from the lobbyists to the politicians, and strong-arms his own party into falling into lockstep, or they don't recieve any money, so they can't get re-elected. This has a lot to do with the 'Republican solidarity' that you've seen over the last few years; non-mainstream Republicans better have their own financing.

He is morally bankrupt; this is the man who stood up at a prayer meeting after the Tsunamis this year and read a passage stating that those who don't believe in Jesus will have thier houses washed away, and rightfully so in his opinion.

He fetches money for the oil industry. He exemplifies Cronyism and corruption.

Mostly, however, he worked closer with one Jack Abramoff than anyone else to steal money for the Republicans. Just wait; that's the big case that DeLay is involved in. Abramoff was the Bag Man for DeLay's regulatory schemes of bilking money out of those scared of regulations; a classic organized crime setup, a protection racket.

All around, he's a scummy guy. It's no surprise that Earle is going after him; a high-profile case against a crook like DeLay is too tempting to pass along. You can't count on the local guys to go after him (he brings the money in, year after year) so what else are ya gonna do?

I haven't seen any information showing the kind of collusion about Money Laundering that DeLay has engaged in from Democrats. If I did, I would demand their heads just the same. The law applies equally to both parties, after all.

I love how the excuses change with you fellows. Let's see, we've heard:

- it wasn't a crime at the time (bs)
- Earle is just a partisan (bs)
- Democrats do it too (maybe bs, but a BS excuse for sure)

What's the excuse gonna be next week? Hmm?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 08:30 am
Isn't this interesting? I wonder who's going to prosecute Earle?

Quote:
DeLay accuses Earle of taking corporate funds
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 7, 2005

Rep. Tom DeLay said District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who is prosecuting him for trying to involve corporate money in Texas politics, has taken such contributions himself.

"It's real interesting he has this crusade against corporate funds. He took corporate funds, and he's taken union funds, for his own re-election. That's against the law," Mr. DeLay told The Washington Times yesterday.

A review of Mr. Earle's campaign-finance filings in Texas shows that he has received contributions from the AFL-CIO, including a $250 donation on Aug. 29, 2000. He also has received contributions listed on the disclosure forms only as coming from the name of an incorporated entity, often a law firm.

Mr. Earle has said repeatedly that state law bars corporate and union contributions. Attempts to reach Mr. Earle yesterday for comment, including a phone message left on his assistant's voice mail detailing Mr. DeLay's charge, were unsuccessful.

The prosecutor for Travis County, Texas, has secured indictments against Mr. DeLay on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign-finance laws, money laundering and conspiracy to launder money.

He argues that a political action committee founded by Mr. DeLay and run by associates of his collected corporate money and sent a check for $198,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), an arm of the Republican National Committee. The RNSEC then contributed money to state candidates in Texas -- donations that Mr. Earle says were an attempt to funnel corporate contributions into state races.

Mr. DeLay followed House Republican rules and stepped down as majority leader after the first indictment Sept. 28.

Party leaders have said he will return to his leadership post if he defeats the charges, but Mr. DeLay said he intends to run for the House again even if he is not majority leader.

"That's up to the people I represent, but I'm confident they'll send me back to do their work," he said. "No matter what title they give me back in Washington, I'm 'congressman' first. I intend to run, I intend to run harder than ever before, and I intend to win."

Mr. DeLay was interviewed by The Times in the majority leader's room just down the hallway from the front entrance to the House floor. He said he is eager to advance House Republicans' agenda and said for now he will fill the role of adviser to the leaders.

He said he and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, have forged a long partnership.

"He has expressed it this way -- I have institutional knowledge that's valuable. I have an energy level that's valuable. I have assets that are valuable. The leader's staff is still in place," he said. "I think most of the members will find there's not much, as far as their ability to have input into the agenda and into the leadership, it's not going to change a whole lot. So the Democrats did not win."

Mr. DeLay said the House will tackle most of the major issues that leaders have set out including reducing entitlement spending through the budget process, cutting taxes, passing new energy legislation and approving "a strong border-security bill and a bill that forces the government to enforce our immigration laws."

The Texan said his legal defense is simple.

"Money raised legally by corporations was sent to the RNSEC. They took that money -- what is it, Texas is only one of 16 states that forbids corporate funds to be in campaigns, the vast majority of the country's campaigns can accept corporate money -- that money went to them," he said. "In fact, $1.4 million was sent to Texas [by the RNSEC], not just $198,500."

Mr. DeLay said it's up to his lawyers whether to ask for a change of venue from Austin, a liberal enclave in the midst of one of the country's most conservative states.

Asked whether Mr. Earle should be disbarred, Mr. DeLay said he "ought to be held accountable."

"I don't know how, but there's all kinds of avenues, I'm told," he said. "You just think about how he has abused his power, how he has undermined the criminal justice system, how he is undermining the election system by criminalizing elections and dragging them into criminal courts, it's incredibly dangerous to our representative government. And if he's not held accountable, then other DAs who would like to do this can feel they can freely do it."

Mr. DeLay said he is convinced that Mr. Earle has coordinated with national Democratic officials, and said the same thing happened with outside groups when a Democratic member of Congress brought ethics charges against him last year.

"It was all set up with [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] -- they're out there doing the media stuff, paying for ads," he said. "One ad would start, stop at the end of the week, a new ad from another organization would start up -- my, isn't that a coincidence? That would go on for weeks."

He said he does not know whether Mr. Earle is taking orders from Washington, but said the entire situation is collaboration.

"If you step back and look at his operation for three years on this particular issue, talking to the press, of course he's talked to the Democratic leadership. I don't know who. But he's a political animal; he's not a district attorney," he said.

He also said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee "was shopping the story" that Mr. DeLay was about to be indicted a day before the Sept. 28 indictment was handed up, which Mr. DeLay implied means that the DCCC had knowledge of secret proceedings.

"How did they know it was the deadline, number one, and how did they know I was going to be indicted the next day?" he said. "Isn't it amazing how much information they have when they're spinning you? All of that is coordinated."

Democrats have consistently said there is no basis to Mr. DeLay's charges.

"I know that Tom DeLay may find himself distracted by conspiracy-related issues, but I'm being honest when I say that there are no local or federal jurisdictions that allow the DCCC to indict anyone," DCCC spokesman Bill Burton said yesterday. "At some point, Tom DeLay is just going to have to come to grips with the fact that it's the evidence that did him in, not Web sites or newspapers or the staff of the DCCC."
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
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 03:56:06