0
   

why 3 grand juries

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:06 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He wasn't telling anyone anything they didn't know already. And you know it!

His actions, whether they be appropriate or not, have no bearing on DeLay's guilt or innocence.

Cycloptichorn


I didn't say his actions did have such a bearing, but the certainly do call into question Earle's impartiality and judgment in this case, which is the issue I was addressing.

Let's look at Earl's entire 27-year record, and then you can tell me if his judgement is suspect.

Oops. You can't do it, can you? He's been the County District Attorney for Travis County for the entire time I've lived in Texas. His judgement is certainly not suspect by anyone here.

Would you think my views of Kansas politics better than your own? Somehow I doubt it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:17 am
parados wrote:
OK.. present your evidence of Dems doing the same thing before you complain that everyone needs to be prosecuted. If Dem did it then tell us about it. The FEC requires filings and should be easy enough to point to contributions in kind.

Otherwise it sounds like arguing that we can't charge a murderer until everyone else is charged with murder.


An Institute on Money in State Politicsstudy revealed that on Oct. 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic party did essentially the same thing as DeLay is alleged to have conspired to do when it sent $75,000 to the DNC, and received $75,000 back from the DNC the very same day.

Stephen Spruiell writes: "Just to put this $190,000 deal into perspective and demonstrate the petty, vindictive nature of this partisan investigation, the study also reveals that Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans." Source.

Quote:
Texas Smear Machine Targets DeLay
By Peter Flaherty
Published 9/23/2004 12:09:06 AM

If nothing else, you have to give Travis County Democrats credit for thinking big, like real Texans. Apparently undaunted that the assault on President Bush's National Guard service blew up in their faces, they are now trying to bring down House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

All roads in the CBS memo scandal traverse Travis County. Dan Rather was the special guest at a 2001 fundraiser for the Travis County Democratic Party, and his daughter is active in the organization. Former National Guardsman Bill Burkett, the unstable Bush-baiter, who now claims he was the source of the forged documents, is represented (and many believe directed) by David Van Os, the former Travis County Democratic Party chairman.

Now Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat with a history of bringing politically motivated indictments, has indicted three DeLay aides who ran a political action committee called Texans for a Republican Majority PAC. Perhaps recognizing that indicting DeLay himself 41 days before an election would be just too transparent, Earle instead indicted the three underlings for allegedly directing corporate contributions to Texas legislative candidates in 2002.

At stake in 2002 was control of the Texas legislature, which was to redraw congressional district lines. Corporate contributions to legislative candidates are illegal in Texas. The DeLay aides stand accused of violating that prohibition, along with eight companies like Sears Roebuck that provided the funds. The corporate money, however, never went to the candidates. Instead, it went to a much larger fund for state elections controlled by the Republican National Committee in Washington. That committee made contributions to Texas legislative candidates, constituting what Earle now charges is "money laundering."

The only problem is that similar transactions are conducted by both parties in many states, including Texas. In fact, on October 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party sent the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $75,000, and on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $75,000. On July 19, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000 and, again on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000. On June 8, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000. That very same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000.

EARLE'S LAST FORAY INTO politicized prosecution in 1993 turned into a huge embarrassment when he went after Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who was then Texas Treasurer. Earle made a series of trumped-up charges, including that the demure Hutchison had physically assaulted an employee. Earle dropped the case during the trial.

DeLay has been the target of previous legal harassment. Four years ago, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, under the chairmanship of Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), filed a lawsuit under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. RICO was designed as a tool against organized crime, but Kennedy argued that DeLay's relationships with Washington lobbyists amounted to "extortion." Even some liberal commentators criticized the suit as frivolous. It was eventually thrown out.

This year, lame duck Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX), who lost a March primary, filed a Complaint with the House Ethics Committee, citing many of the same circumstances in the Earle indictments. For good measure, Bell echoed Kennedy's "extortion" allegations and claimed DeLay "misused" his office by asking the Federal Aviation Administration and Justice Department to help find Texas legislators who fled to Oklahoma to deny Republicans a quorum needed to pass the redistricting plan. Since Bell had, in effect, been redistricted out of his seat, his allegations were colored, but did not stop the media from repeating them.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:24 am
DrewDad wrote:

Let's look at Earl's entire 27-year record, and then you can tell me if his judgement is suspect.

Oops. You can't do it, can you? He's been the County District Attorney for Travis County for the entire time I've lived in Texas. His judgement is certainly not suspect by anyone here.


"His judgment is certainly not suspect by anyone" in Austin?
Well then how do you explain this editorial in the Austin American-Statesman:

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:28 am
<yawn> again. OK, you have me on the "anyone" crack. Although it's still hard to understand how this partisan witch-hunter has been re-elected for 27 years, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:30 am
Quote:
Earle planted his seeds in a most public way. Now the nation will be watching to see what he harvests.


My! What a scathing indictment!

Quote:
Earle would have served the public and his investigation better with less publicity and a cleaner, calmer and less controversial grand jury presentation.


Sure sounds like Earl's a bad, bad, bad man.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:32 am
DrewDad wrote:
<yawn> again. OK, you have me on the "anyone" crack. Although it's still hard to understand how this partisan witch-hunter has been re-elected for 27 years, isn't it?


Well, it is Travis County, after all.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:34 am
Quote:
EARLE'S LAST FORAY INTO politicized prosecution in 1993 turned into a huge embarrassment when he went after Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who was then Texas Treasurer. Earle made a series of trumped-up charges, including that the demure Hutchison had physically assaulted an employee. Earle dropped the case during the trial.

My recollection is a tad different...

Earl had her dead-to-rights on misappropriation of state resources (basically she was running her campaign out of her state office). She got off on a technicality that Earl didn't have the "original" E-mails, but only electronic copies or some such.

I'd forgotten about this little gem about our Kay Bailey. Thanks for reminding me.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:34 am
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
<yawn> again. OK, you have me on the "anyone" crack. Although it's still hard to understand how this partisan witch-hunter has been re-elected for 27 years, isn't it?


Well, it is Travis County, after all.

Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

Yes, but it's our Travis County.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:35 am
DrewDad wrote:
Quote:
Earle planted his seeds in a most public way. Now the nation will be watching to see what he harvests.


My! What a scathing indictment!

Quote:
Earle would have served the public and his investigation better with less publicity and a cleaner, calmer and less controversial grand jury presentation.


Sure sounds like Earl's a bad, bad, bad man.


I think the fact that the Statesman said as much as they did speaks volumes, don't you? It does, after all, generally reflect the views of its citizens, who are for the most part very liberal.

Any Conservatives down there?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:36 am
DrewDad wrote:
Quote:
EARLE'S LAST FORAY INTO politicized prosecution in 1993 turned into a huge embarrassment when he went after Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who was then Texas Treasurer. Earle made a series of trumped-up charges, including that the demure Hutchison had physically assaulted an employee. Earle dropped the case during the trial.

My recollection is a tad different...

Earl had her dead-to-rights on misappropriation of state resources (basically she was running her campaign out of her state office). She got off on a technicality that Earl didn't have the "original" E-mails, but only electronic copies or some such.

I'd forgotten about this little gem about our Kay Bailey. Thanks for reminding me.


Right ... "dead-to-rights," except for that little problem of not having any evidence admissible in court. <yawn>
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:38 am
We're all conservatives down here. Well, except for the college students. Some of 'em are from up North.

Your typical Texas Democrat is about as liberal as your typical Northern Republican.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:39 am
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Quote:
EARLE'S LAST FORAY INTO politicized prosecution in 1993 turned into a huge embarrassment when he went after Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who was then Texas Treasurer. Earle made a series of trumped-up charges, including that the demure Hutchison had physically assaulted an employee. Earle dropped the case during the trial.

My recollection is a tad different...

Earl had her dead-to-rights on misappropriation of state resources (basically she was running her campaign out of her state office). She got off on a technicality that Earl didn't have the "original" E-mails, but only electronic copies or some such.

I'd forgotten about this little gem about our Kay Bailey. Thanks for reminding me.


Right ... "dead-to-rights," except for that little problem of not having any evidence admissible in court. <yawn>

At the time, yes. I think the laws on electronic evidence have started to catch up with technology, now.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:42 am
FYI, I know far more about how to validly collect forensic evidence from computers than I ever wanted to know.... I and my modern-day compatriots are the recipients of the wisdom gained when cases like these were tossed out on their asses. Folks just weren't sure how to collect evidence back then.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:43 am
And the fact that he couldn't win his case doesn't change the fact that she did misuse state resources....
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:44 am
Finally, show me someone who doesn't fail from time to time, and I'll show you someone who never does anything. Lord knows I've fallen on my face occasionally.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:56 am
One should note that DeLay's arguments against Earle hold little water, as the statue doesn't apply to law firms.

Quote:
(October 07, 2005 -- 12:18 PM EDT // link // print)

More crackerjack reporting from the Washington Times.

Today's Times runs a piece with the headline "DeLay accuses Earle of taking corporate funds."

The relevant passage reads ...

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 story seems like it has real punch until you realize that the Times decides not to tell its readers that the statute doesn't cover law firms.

The law (see page 24) says ...

§ 253.091. Corporations Covered This subchapter applies only to corporations that are organized under the Texas Business Corporation Act, the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act, federal law, or law of another state or nation.

Texas law firms are incorporated under the Texas Professional Corporation Act.

A bit further down in the statute they make it even more clear ...

(a) For purposes of this subchapter, the following associations, whether incorporated or not, are considered to be corporations covered by this subchapter: banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations or companies, insurance companies, reciprocal or interinsurance exchanges, railroad companies, cemetery companies, government-regulated cooperatives, stock companies, and abstract and title insurance companies.

And if that

Advertisement
Do you have a great idea to make America better? Well, now's your chance to be heard.

Propose your plan to help working Americans. If your idea is voted as best, you could win $100,000!

Visit SinceSlicedBread.com to post your idea andreview everyone else's.
weren't enough the friends of the Times and DeLay at this Texas anti-trial lawyer site say it explicitly: "These corporations are restricted from contributing directly to candidates. Law firms, however, do not have the same impediments to contributions, leaving trial lawyer firms free to contribute as much as possible to their favorite candidates."

I don't know whether the claim about union contributions is equally silly. I'll leave that to folks in Texas who know the statute better. But what does seem pretty clear is that Mr. DeLay made an intentionally misleading accusation. And the good folks at the Times just decided to go along for the ride.

Shocking, just shocking ...


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:58 am
If Earle is so partisan why have the following rulings occurred?

Quote:
By Laylan Copelin

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

State District Judge Bob Perkins today said he believes two officials with Texans for a Republican Majority should stand trial on felony charges of money laundering.

The judge ruled that the state election code is constitutional and said he disagreed with arguments that the money-laundering charges had to refer to "cash" instead of a $190,000 check that the pair is accused laundering during the 2002 legislative elections.


Quote:
In the first civil lawsuit alleging misuse of corporate money in the Texas 2002 state elections to go to trial, Travis County District Judge Joseph Hart today ruled that Tom DeLay's Texas political committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) State violated Texas campaign law when it failed to disclose more than a half-million dollars in corporate contributions during the 2002 state legislative elections.

Judge Hart awarded $196,660 to the five Democratic candidates who lost in 2002.

In reaction to the ruling, Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice said,

"Today's ruling is bad news for Tom DeLay and his TRMPAC cronies. This ruling draws blood from the financial heart of DeLay's corrupt political empire. This is likely to be but the first of many guilty verdicts against TRMPAC and its leaders.
source

There were 5 felony indictments of TAB (Texas Association of Business) and TRMPAC on Sept 8th, 2005
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:07 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
One should note that DeLay's arguments against Earle hold little water, as the statue doesn't apply to law firms.

Quote:
(October 07, 2005 -- 12:18 PM EDT // link // print)

More crackerjack reporting from the Washington Times.

Today's Times runs a piece with the headline "DeLay accuses Earle of taking corporate funds."

The relevant passage reads ...

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 story seems like it has real punch until you realize that the Times decides not to tell its readers that the statute doesn't cover law firms.

The law (see page 24) says ...

§ 253.091. Corporations Covered This subchapter applies only to corporations that are organized under the Texas Business Corporation Act, the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act, federal law, or law of another state or nation.

Texas law firms are incorporated under the Texas Professional Corporation Act.

A bit further down in the statute they make it even more clear ...

(a) For purposes of this subchapter, the following associations, whether incorporated or not, are considered to be corporations covered by this subchapter: banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations or companies, insurance companies, reciprocal or interinsurance exchanges, railroad companies, cemetery companies, government-regulated cooperatives, stock companies, and abstract and title insurance companies.

And if that

Advertisement
Do you have a great idea to make America better? Well, now's your chance to be heard.

Propose your plan to help working Americans. If your idea is voted as best, you could win $100,000!

Visit SinceSlicedBread.com to post your idea andreview everyone else's.
weren't enough the friends of the Times and DeLay at this Texas anti-trial lawyer site say it explicitly: "These corporations are restricted from contributing directly to candidates. Law firms, however, do not have the same impediments to contributions, leaving trial lawyer firms free to contribute as much as possible to their favorite candidates."

I don't know whether the claim about union contributions is equally silly. I'll leave that to folks in Texas who know the statute better. But what does seem pretty clear is that Mr. DeLay made an intentionally misleading accusation. And the good folks at the Times just decided to go along for the ride.

Shocking, just shocking ...


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Cycloptichorn


Were all of his contributions from law firms? What about the contribution from the AFL/CIO, which is a "labor organization" under the statute, it would appear.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:10 am
parados wrote:
If Earle is so partisan why have the following rulings occurred?

Quote:
By Laylan Copelin

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

State District Judge Bob Perkins today said he believes two officials with Texans for a Republican Majority should stand trial on felony charges of money laundering.

The judge ruled that the state election code is constitutional and said he disagreed with arguments that the money-laundering charges had to refer to "cash" instead of a $190,000 check that the pair is accused laundering during the 2002 legislative elections.


Quote:
In the first civil lawsuit alleging misuse of corporate money in the Texas 2002 state elections to go to trial, Travis County District Judge Joseph Hart today ruled that Tom DeLay's Texas political committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) State violated Texas campaign law when it failed to disclose more than a half-million dollars in corporate contributions during the 2002 state legislative elections.

Judge Hart awarded $196,660 to the five Democratic candidates who lost in 2002.

In reaction to the ruling, Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice said,

"Today's ruling is bad news for Tom DeLay and his TRMPAC cronies. This ruling draws blood from the financial heart of DeLay's corrupt political empire. This is likely to be but the first of many guilty verdicts against TRMPAC and its leaders.
source

There were 5 felony indictments of TAB (Texas Association of Business) and TRMPAC on Sept 8th, 2005


As you know, you can indict a ham sandwich ... or had you forgotten that?

What I'm saying is that based on everything I'm aware of, Earle's pursuit of DeLay demonstrates a bias, and a lack of restraint and good prosecutorial judgment. The cases against the Republican PACs may be good cases, in which case the indictments are proper. My next question is when will he begin his investigation of the Democratic PAC contributions?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:12 am
Hmm, I don't think Labor organizations are prohibited either; the article doesn't state that they are.

DrewDad brings up a good point, Tico, that all the other members of TRMPAC have been indicted (or many of them, at the least). There's no way that this would have happened without proof of some wrondoing; the only problem that Earle has been having is trying to link DeLay to all the actions of his subordinates.

DeLay was, naturally, careful about this; the bosses of crime organizations always try to set things up so that they personally cannot be linked to the crime. How is this surprising?

Cycloptichorn
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 4
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 03:39:03