Say Anything Blog

Here’s the link to CNN.com.

WASHINGTON (AP)—A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.

DeLay, 58, was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay’s national political committee.

“I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today,” DeLay said. (Watch CNN initial reporting on indictment—3:38)

GOP congressional officials said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties. Some of the duties may go to the GOP whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. The Republican rank and file may meet as early as Wednesday night to act on Hastert’s recommendation.

Criminal conspiracy is a state felony punishable by six months to two years in a state jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The potential two-year sentence forces DeLay to step down under House Republican rules. (Watch CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin’s explanation of charge—2:59)

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president still considers DeLay a friend and effective leader in Congress.

“Congressman DeLay is a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people,” McClellan said. “I think the president’s view is that we need to let the legal process work.”

The indictment accused DeLay of a conspiracy to “knowingly make a political contribution” in violation of Texas law outlawing corporate contributions. It alleged that DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee accepted $155,000 from companies, including Sears Roebuck, and placed the money in an account.

The PAC then wrote a $190,000 check to an arm of the Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they were supposed to receive in donations.

The indictment included a copy of the check.

“The defendants entered into an agreement with each other or with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas election code,” says the four-page indictment. “The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election.”

The indictment against the second-ranking, and most assertive Republican leader came on the final day of the grand jury’s term. It followed earlier indictments of a state political action committee founded by DeLay and three of his political associates.

Kevin Madden, DeLay’s spokesman, dismissed the charge as politically motivated.

“This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat,” Madden said, citing prosecutor Ronnie Earle, a Democrat.

Madden later added: “They could not get Tom DeLay at the polls. They could not get Mr. DeLay on the House floor. Now they’re trying to get him into the courtroom. This is not going to detract from the Republican agenda.”

The grand jury action is expected to have immediate consequences in the House, where DeLay is largely responsible for winning passage of the Republican legislative program. House Republican Party rules require leaders who are indicted to temporarily step aside from their leadership posts.

However, DeLay retains his seat representing Texas’ 22nd congressional district, suburbs southwest of Houston. He denies that he committed any crime.

Democrats have kept up a crescendo of criticism of DeLay’s ethics, citing three times last year that the House ethics committee admonished DeLay for his conduct.

“The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom Delay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California.

As a sign of loyalty to DeLay after the grand jury returned indictments against three of his associates, House Republicans last November repealed a rule requiring any of their leaders to step aside if indicted. The rule was reinstituted in January after lawmakers returned to Washington from the holidays fearing the repeal might create a backlash from voters.

DeLay, 58, also is the center of an ethics swirl in Washington. The 11-term congressman was admonished last year by the House ethics committee on three separate issues and is the center of a political storm this year over lobbyists paying his and other lawmakers’ tabs for expensive travel abroad.

Wednesday’s indictment stems from a plan DeLay helped set in motion in 2001 to help Republicans win control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections for the first time since Reconstruction.

A state political action committee he created, Texans for a Republican Majority, was indicted earlier this month on charges of accepting corporate contributions for use in state legislative races. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used to advocate the election or defeat of candidates; it is allowed only for administrative expenses.

With GOP control of the Texas legislature, DeLay then engineered a redistricting plan that enabled the GOP take six Texas seats in the U.S. House away from Democrats—including one lawmaker switching parties—in 2004 and build its majority in Congress.

Here’s the link to CNN.com.

You forgot the bottom modern instances.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Next time just post the link and a snippet or two.

DeLay will be OK. This will be decided by his friends.

Gov. Rick Perry today tapped a former adviser to President Bush with no judicial experience to serve on the Texas Supreme Court.

Don Willett of Austin, chief legal counsel to Attorney General Greg Abbott, will fill a vacancy left by Priscilla Owen, who resigned earlier this year to join the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Perry cited Willett’s background as a deputy U.S. attorney general and adviser to Bush, for whom he worked in Austin when Bush was governor and later in the White House’s Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/08/24willett.html

This is the Democrats taking advantage of the higher standards set by the Republicans.  Specifically, it only takes an indictment for a Republican to be required to step down.  For the Democrats, a conviction is required.  Normally, I would support the higher standard, but not in this instance.  The constitutional standard is: “...due process of law.” While indictment is one step in the due process, it isn’t the whole thing.  I think that the Republicans should adopt a constitutional standard here.  The Democrat attack machine is continuing to target every possible member of this administration, and will continue to do so.  We should simply accept this as reality and act accordingly.

I’m all for them throwing the book at Delay… but they shouldn’t stop there… There are several more to get after this one is done… from both sides of the aisle

Hannnity was going on this today (of course).

He said that this prosecuter Earl indicted Kay Baily Hutchinson (spelling) three times.  (She kept winning).

When it finally got to court he chose not to pursue his case. 

That’s his history.  Time will tell, but at this point given the history Delay has a right to innocence until PROVEN guilty.

robert108 said, This is the Democrats taking advantage of the higher standards set by the Republicans. Specifically, it only takes an indictment for a Republican to be required to step down.

Exactly!

For the Democrats, a conviction is required.

And even then it’s usually not enough.

Sorry bout posting the whole thing, I was in a hurry.

MikeA:  You may be right in your generalized blaming, but this is a specific case, and should be ajudged on its merits or lack of them.  Anything else is lynching. I rather think that Tom DeLay will be cleared of all this, but the damage will already be done, which is probably the real goal of this indictment.

I’m with you Seth. Delay is innocent til proven guilty but the culture of corruption, which includes both sides of aisles all over the world, has to stop. Pie in the sky no doubt but if people don’t speak up then there is no chance of curbing it.

My statement describes the technique called “mudslinging”.  The object is to get some dirt on your opponent, whether he is innocent or guilty.  I haven’t prejudged the case, although you are welcome to.  I am simply expressing my opinion.  I do notice that liberals would like to take that freedom away from conservatives.  Thanks for your example.  My values are not in any way dependent on yours, as yours seem to be dependent on mine, according to your statement.

I rather think that Tom DeLay will be cleared of all this, but the damage will already be done,

Either it’s “innocent until proven guilty” or it isn’t.  If you are going to pre-judge the case before the evidence is presented, then why shouldn’t I?

So you have already determined that the indictment is simple “mudslinging,” that there couldn’t possibly be any validity to it.  Just as I cannot assume that he is guilty, you cannot assume that it’s not possible that he could be.

I am simply expressing my opinion.

Exactly.  And I’m pointing that out.  It is your opinion that this is a case of political skullduggery.  You should not be surprised, then, if someone else expresses an opinion contrary to yours.  If you truly believe that he is “innocent until proven guilty,” but then judge the case to be “skunky” in the first place, then you really don’t believe that opinions should be withheld before the facts are known.

I do notice that liberals would like to take that freedom away from conservatives. Thanks for your example. My values are not in any way dependent on yours, as yours seem to be dependent on mine, according to your statement.

It is possible, you know, to conduct a debate without wandering into the forest of paranoia.

Making an observation about mudslinging is part of my assumption of innocence.  Clear?  I never said there couldn’t be any validity to it.  I assume he is innocent, therefore I don’t think the indictment is valid.  ipso facto.  I have other reasons for believing that, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.  All I need is assumption of guilt. 
Observing behavior over time and describing it isn’t paranoia.  Personal attack is so boring.
I never used the term skullduggery; you did. Nor did I use the term skunky. I applaud you on your creative imagination. 
No, I don’t believe opinions should be withheld before the facts are known, as long as they are identified as opinions.  You have a strange concept of free speech.
If I believe that one is innocent until proven guilty, I might rightly feel that opinions about guilt should be withheld, but I don’t support that position either. I think all ideas should compete in the arena of discourse.  Don’t you?

My first thought is that this charge involves money given to advance a political purpose.  It is a shame that the US Congress has passed a law restricting this obvious first amendment right (McCain Feingold) and many states have laws restricting the same.

This two bit prosecutor in Texas is picking on a good man because he is effective.  Its a shame.

Are they conservative Democrats, or liberal Democrats?

http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=571&pf=1

From the conservative Houston Chronicle…

During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts.

A March 6, 2005 article in the conservative El Paso Times states:

“(Ronnie) Earle says local prosecution is fundamental and points out that 11 of the 15 politicians he has prosecuted over the years were Democrats.”

That’s just offhand.

This article contains a list of Earle’s previous prosecutions. Look at the letters. Not many R’s on there.

If he’s a partisan Democrat, he must be the worst one in the world.

I assume he is innocent, therefore I don’t think the indictment is valid.

As it is assumed that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty, it is also assumed that the indictment is valid until proven false.  That’s the blind spot I keep pointing out.

This two bit prosecutor in Texas is picking on a good man because he is effective. Its a shame.

Who got the memo?

Are they conservative Democrats, or liberal Democrats?

The waters of denial run deep.

The waters of denial run deep.

Very.

Not to muddy the water, but…

The innocent until proven guilty is a judicial standard, not an individual one.  And even then innocent is a misnomer.  No one has ever been found innocent in court, although people are routinely found not guilty. Case in point, O.J. was found not guilty, but that didn’t necessarily make him innocent.

In discussions like this one, making the ‘presumption of innocence’ caveat is an okay thing to do, but it’s rather gratuitous.  If you believe that the average person should make that presumption then there can be no discussion about guilt/innocence until the case is adjudicated. After all, if I am held to the caveat I (much like a jury, and as a matter of law) can’t even begin to form an opinion until I’ve heard all the evidence

On the other hand, if the ‘presumption’ is merely a judicial one, meaning it applies only in the courtroom, then my opinions about what I believe may/may not be going on have legitmate force and value.

Mixing the two, presumption and opinion, is like rocking in a rocking chair; it gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you anywhere.

Regards…

The waters of denial run deep.

Heh.

That posted was claiming that, although this judge clearly prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans, he’s STILL a partisan smear-merchant, because they were CONSERVATIVE Democrats?

That posted was claiming that, although this judge clearly prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans, he’s STILL a partisan smear-merchant, because they were CONSERVATIVE Democrats?

Exactly.  If he’s really that partisan, he wouldn’t prosecute ANY Dems.

Damn straight!

Ronnie Earle is no partisan.  He’a a greasy-publicity-whore-extortionist-Frank Burnsish-beehotch.

Oh, and a snappy dresser.

Dave said, That posted was claiming that, although this judge clearly prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans, he’s STILL a partisan smear-merchant, because they were CONSERVATIVE Democrats?

One can be “partisan” to political parties or an ideology. Therefore modern instances’s snotty dismissal of “The waters of denial run deep.” and MikeAdamson’s agreement is null and void. Just answer the question next time.

I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers by asking if the Democrats Earle persecuted were conservative Democrats or liberal Democrats.  How come?  Do you know the answer to that question? It might have some significance.  In the past, there were no Republicans in Texas politics, and so the conservative Dems were the opposition for the liberal Dems.  If Earle went after the conservative Dems at that time, it might just indicate a liberal bias in his persecutions.

If that question made you uncomfortable, here are some more:  How many of Earle’s indictments of politicians went to court?  How many of those resulted in convictions?  To be fair, if we are judging DeLay because Earle has indicted him, we should also judge Earle’s performance as a prosecutor, especially his conviction record of other politicians he has indicted for alleged improprieties.  Doesn’t that make sense?

It goes to motive.

If Earle went after the conservative Dems at that time, it might just indicate a liberal bias in his persecutions.

Exactly. This comment’s point is now null and void.

Unless you attribute infallability to either Earle or to prosecutors in general, it is relevant to examine them when considering their indictments, especially when they are indicting their political rivals.
I didn’t ask about all his indictments, only the record of the ones of his political rivals.  What he does with pickpockets and car thieve isn’t relevant to this thread.

My original point was that Earle might be taking advantage of the higher Republican standard for stepping down, which is indictment, not conviction.  Therefore, it is relevant to examine Earle’s motives for bringing the indictment.  Not only that, but his patterns in bringing indictments in the political realm are also relevant, as well as his success rate at bringing those he has indicted to court, and his success in obtaining convictions of those indictments brought to court.  A low success rate in both those areas would indicate mudslinging as a motive, rather than seeking justice. A record of indicting conservative politicians, either Dem or Rep, would also indicate mudslinging.  Before we can evaluate Earle’s actions in indicting Tom DeLay, those questions about Earle’s history need to be answered.
If DeLay ever goes to court on this one, of course, the evidence will speak.

If Earle went after the conservative Dems at that time, it might just indicate a liberal bias in his persecutions.

And if he went after the black Dems at that time it might just indicate racial bias in his “persecutions”.

But I don’t have any evidence for my belief, and you don’t have any evidence for yours. So why hold them?

Most of Earle’s indictments were sentenced or pleaded out.  Of course he’s not going to have a 100% sentence record.  But a majority of the time he has gotten a conviction.

But that just plays into the strategy of attacking the proscecutor instead of examining the evidence being submitted to the court.  DeLay is not being judged because of the prosecutor who indicted him, but by the court.  The identity of the prosecutor is not on trial.

Oh, yes.  Evidence doesn’t require belief, either.

Life experience.  I have seen this one over and over.  When they can’t win at the ballot box, they use any means whatsoever.
BTW, beliefs don’t require evidence.  In fact, they are two different things.

From an older article,

In 2001, DeLay helped form a political action committee—Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (TRM-PAC, pronounced “trimpac"). The PAC proved extraordinarily effective, helping the GOP win 18 of 22 targeted House races in 2002. That success gave Republicans majority control of the state House and the opportunity to redraw congressional districts.

Remember that? That was when the Democrats ran across state lines like little girls to prevent a quorum. Democrats had proved once again that they are afraid of that democracy.

DeLay says the indictments are politically motivated—an attempt to reverse by dubious legal means the outcome of the 2002 state elections.

Dan Allen, a spokesman in the House Majority Leader’s office, on March 8 provided Citizen a white paper entitled “What you should know about Ronnie Earle.” The paper attempts to illustrate the prosecutor’s record of “vindictive” and “partisan” prosecutions.

Among the items listed is an account of Earle’s indictment of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Republican, soon after her election in 1993. Once he got to court, Earle abruptly dropped the case when the defense challenged his evidence.

Earle has also targeted conservative Democrats. Former House Speaker Gib Lewis of Fort Worth, indicted by Earle in 1993, said the prosecutor is “grossly unfair … The press has let this guy get away with murder.”

Hmmm...You don’t say. Imagine that!

What’s Tom Delay even indicted for? Can anybody answer that?

When the legislature wrote the rules Tom Delay is accused of circumventing (which are modelled after the unConstitutional McCain-Feingold Bill), it left in a loophole that corporations can make contributions to a local PACs, which can make contributions to a national PAC, which can then send the money back to a local races to be distributed. If the legisture wanted to prohibit what Tom Delay is accused of doing, it would have spelled it out in the legislation. It did not.

Basically the corporate money went from Delay’s PAC, to the GOP, and then back to the state candidates. What the Democrats and prosecutor Ronnie Earle are claiming is that Tom Delay entered into an agreement with others to violate or circumvent Texas election laws. In other words: a “conspiracy” to commit an act that isn’t illegal.

That is the gist of it as explained by Judge Napolitano. To me the whole thing smacks of Democrat desperation to get an effective leader out.

You know, if the coach calls for a replay and there is no reversal, he is then charged with a time out.

Shouldn’t an indictment that fails to hold up result in some sort of penalty for the overzealous prosecutor?  Say........caning?

DeLay is facing 6 mo to 2 years on this charge, and he owns Tejas. Doubt he would do any time if found guilty.

In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls.

Lenny Bruce

An interesting interpertation:

DeLay entered into a meeting with Ronnie Earle and the Public Integrity unit of the Travis County DA’s office on August 17. This would be more than three years after most of the events surrounding the money laundering operation would have taken place and thus, the statute of limitations would have already run out on the conspiracy charge.

Why would his attorney advise him to waive the statute of limitations on a charge when the statute of limitations had already run out? ........ were far more serious charges with a much longer (or no) statute of limitations and he was entering into a plea bargain.

http://walt-starr.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/29/11568/3496

Shouldn’t an indictment that fails to hold up result in some sort of penalty for the overzealous prosecutor? Say……..caning?

Sure, sounds good.  ‘Course, then there’d never be any indictments . . .

Maybe if we just canned prosecutors who file indictments that fail and we disagree with??? 

/sarcasm

The caning thing wouldn’t work with the masochist prosecutors.