Is the Delay Case Falling Apart?

[brerrabbit]

The two articles below are an Editorial from the Austin American Statesman and a short article off of a Radio Station web site KLBJ 590 in Austin. I find these interesting for two reasons, first the Austin American Statesman is a traditionally Liberal paper and they are questioning Ronnie Earls methods and motives, secondly the guy in the second article also said in his radio interview yesterday that he "knew Delay was guilty in 2002" Last time I went for jury duty they told me if I could not have a fair and open mind about the case I was about to hear that I should dismiss myself before serving. I guess this guy missed that part of the discussion. Further such comments almost open the guy up to prosecution because essentially he perjured himself by admitting he knew Delay was guilty before he was seated as the Foreman of the grand jury. I don't like Delay, even though he is my Congressman. I did not vote for him in the last election. Even so, when this many questions start arising around the case, you have to wonder what the heck is going on.

Oh and one last thing I'll throw in for my more conservative friends so you can beat the Libaughs, and Hannity's of the world to the question, "why is mainstream media not reporting on this?"

Earle's actions, movie add erratic element
Editorial Board Austin American Statesman Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has added several more acts to the already circus-like investigation of alleged Republican campaign funding illegalities.
The latest act unfolded on Tuesday afternoon when Earle disclosed that he had gone grand jury shopping on Friday after an indictment against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, which was returned last Wednesday, was questioned for its legality.
Working on its last day, a second grand jury declined to indict DeLay on Friday. Earle's office said it received new information over the weekend, so it went to yet a third grand jury empaneled on Monday, the last possible day under the statute of limitations. That grand jury returned the new indictments.
Earle's panicked rush lends credence to those who complain that he is a partisan playing politics with the grand jury, and it gives ammunition to critics who argue that he has been hapless in his three-year probe.
Earle also didn't help himself by becoming Austin's newest movie star, allowing a documentary crew to film his pursuit of possible financial wrongdoing by Republican operatives in 2002.
Earle had to know he would be summoning a GOP storm by investigating the party's powerful lobbying and fund-raising organizations. After all, he's been there before. Since Earle's failed prosecution of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in 1994, he has been saddled with the "partisan Democrat" label. He must have realized he would face the same wrath if DeLay's political action committees and the GOP business lobby were indicted.
Yet none of that history caused him to doubt the wisdom of inviting a documentary crew to film his probe of GOP fund-raising. It should have. News of the independent film crew's two-year-long access to Earle and his inner sanctum did not serve him well.
Earle disagrees, saying that he was just doing his job. Sorry, but his job is to prosecute, not be red meat for filmmakers looking for a big score. By starring in "The Big Buy," a documentary, Earle gives every appearance of having scripted a vendetta against one of the most powerful Republicans in the country.
It might not have been unethical for the district attorney to give such unprecedented access to a documentary crew, but it wasn't wise. Earle should have known better than to make himself the focus of attention.
His profile has been elevated throughout the long investigation stemming from the 2002 campaign, when DeLay helped fashion a GOP effort to take over the Texas House. The strategy worked, and DeLay forced a mid-census redistricting that gave him more Texas Republicans, and more power, in Congress.
Earle's high profile includes interviews in Esquire magazine and on television's "60 Minutes" — and a speech with a gratuitous slap at DeLay during a Democratic fund-raiser in Dallas in May.
Earle would have served the public and his investigation better with less publicity and a cleaner, calmer and less controversial grand jury presentation.
His intent all along has been to get to the bottom of controversial corporate donations to political campaigns, which in most cases is illegal in Texas.
He should have kept his attention there, and not on publicity.
Earle planted his seeds in a most public way. Now the nation will be watching to see what he harvests.


FOREMAN OF DELAY GRAND JURY MADE MIND UP BEFORE TESTIMONY

THE FOREMAN OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY GRAND JURY THAT INDICTED CONGRESSMAN TOM DELAY SAYS HE FELT THERE WAS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY SURROUNDING DELAY, THE PAC TEXANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY AND THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS LONG BEFORE HE WAS TAPPED TO SERVE ON THE GRAND JURY. WILLIAM GIBSON TOLD THE NEWSRADIO 590 KLBJ MORNING SHOW HE HIMSELF HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ADS CONCERNING THE TEXAS LEGISLATIVE RACES IN 2002.

 

[wvrevy]

Is it falling apart ? Hardly. Didn't they just come back with two more indictments a few days ago ? From a second grand jury ?

Why isn't the "main stream" media reporting on this ? Maybe because it's mere speculation ? But I'm sure Faux will lead with this for the next week.

Delay is a crook, plain and simple.

 

[Cosmic_Charlie]

:
Delay is a crook, plain and simple.

Why is he a crook?

 

[wvrevy]

Oh, and all of the whining about Earle being a "partisan attack dog" and such are pure nonsense. Of the 15 politicians he's prosecuted over the years for curruption, guess how many have been Republicans ? A whopping grand total of 3. If he's a democratic attack dog, he sure has a habit of attacking the hand that is supposedly holding the leash.

Yet another reason why stories like this have no credibility.

 

[wvrevy]

Why is he a crook?

I dunno, you'd have to ask him. My guess is out of pure greed for money and power...that's what usually turns politicians into unethical crooks.

 

[Cosmic_Charlie]

No, what has he stolen?

 

[brerrabbit]

Don't disagree that Delay is a crook for a minute. But the press here in Texas is saying that the first indictment is meaningless because they indicted for commiting a crime in 2002 that was not illeagal till the law went into effect in 2003. So the first indictment is pretty much dead. Then on the last day that a indictment could be returned before the statute of limitations ran out a Grand Jury that was seated that day returned two more indictments with something like two hours of evidence being presented. This after two years and six grand juries that could only produce one indictment that as it now turns out was wrong because of the timing of the law. I am not a Delay supporter, but in the end if you believe in the American judicial system you have to question the things that are going on. I am trying real hard to step back without a blinding hate, or a blind devotion to Delay as many here and elsewhere have and say wow, something about this just doesn't look right.

 

[wvrevy]

No, what has he stolen?

Umm...nothing, that I know of.

You are aware that he's been sanctioned by the House ethics committee more than any other congressman, aren't you ? And that by his own party ? You are aware of the charges in the current indictments, right ? You are aware that his best golfing buddy - lobbyist Jack Abramoff - paid for any number of trips for Delay to travel around the world...and is currently under a felony indictment ? You are aware that violating federal campaign finance laws is a crime, right ?

Do you really think that all of these ethical problems are nothing more than partisan attacks ? Even though the formal reprimands came from the Republican controlled ethics committee ?

 

[brerrabbit]

wvrevy, you say stories like these have no credibility and I will agree that a lot of stories today have no credibility. However, I would point out to you that the one article is an editorial from a known and proudly Liberal Newspaper's Editorial Board. The second article has no credibility issues with me because I heard the entire interview with the guy who was the Foreman of the first Grand Jury that indicted Delay. I heard his words and believe me whats written here and what I commented on are nothing compared to all the things he said during the course of the interview.

 

[Cosmic_Charlie]

Umm...nothing, that I know of.

Then it makes no sense to call him a crook does it?

 

[wvrevy]

Then it makes no sense to call him a crook does it?

If he's broken the law - and I believe he has - then he's a crook. He doesn't have to "steal" anything to earn that title.

wvrevy, you say stories like these have no credibility and I will agree that a lot of stories today have no credibility. However, I would point out to you that the one article is an editorial from a known and proudly Liberal Newspaper's Editorial Board. The second article has no credibility issues with me because I heard the entire interview with the guy who was the Foreman of the first Grand Jury that indicted Delay. I heard his words and believe me whats written here and what I commented on are nothing compared to all the things he said during the course of the interview.

I guess I just don't put all that much weight into editorials, regardless of the source. An editorial is nothing more than the author's opinion, and that opinion may be based on erroneous information. It's the reason why I joke all the time about Faux (Fox) News. They present every story with a pro-Bush slant, so I see it as nothing more than a glorified editorial.

As for the interview...obviously, I didn't see it, so it's hard to comment upon.

 

[BostonTigger]

I'll say this about Tom Delay...if he's guilty then he's guilty and needs to be dealt with accordingly. However, it does look a little funny on my end having to go to three different grand juries before getting an indictment. Just my opinion.

 

[brerrabbit]

Feel the same way about editorials, however the "facts" they present are pretty well document by numerous sources so the only question in my mind at that point is what are the conclusions the editorial is coming to and do they fit the facts. Well knowing the facts I can draw my own conclusion without the editorial and at this point the facts say to me that something pretty weird is going on and although I think Delay is crooked I think this case is very weak and will fall apart along the way and then I wonder, why now?

 

[WDWHound]

I'm not a big fan of Tom Delay, but I'm also not a big fan of Ronnie Earl. He ethics and motives have long been supect down here, regardless of whether he is going after a democrat or a republican.

If one looks these indictments, they begin to smell Imediately. For example, the first time Ronnie Earl brough the money laundering charges aginst Delay to a grand gury, they refused to indict him, so Earl simply summoned another grand jury which finally gave him the indictment he was after. As was noted before, one of the acts Delay is charged with was not illegal at the time it took place. Aslo, people who were formally indicted by Earl are now coming forward saying that Earl offer to lesson their charges if they would make the the type of corporate contributes to Delay that Earl is now charging him with accepting (can you say entrapment?).

Again, I don't have a high opinion of Delay, but I trust absolutely nothing that comes out of Ronnie Earl's offiice. The may nail Delay on somtething else, but these indictments will, get thrown out.

 

[sgtdisney]

If he's broken the law - and I believe he has - then he's a crook. He doesn't have to "steal" anything to earn that title.

What happened to the pretense of innocent until proven guilty. I mean even some left wingers think Clinton is innocent when he was proven guilty, right?

If he broke the law, and it is proven, then he should be punished. If he didn't, then no amount left wing posturing should punish him.

 

[MizBlu]

Is it falling apart ? Hardly. Didn't they just come back with two more indictments a few days ago ? From a second grand jury ?

Why isn't the "main stream" media reporting on this ? Maybe because it's mere speculation ? But I'm sure Faux will lead with this for the next week.

Delay is a crook, plain and simple.

Well, Faux's been leading the charge "this is a thin indictment because it doesn't present any evidence". Faux's own judiical shill, Andrew Napolitano, made the statement to the effect that in federal court and most state courts, evidence has to be presented with the indictment. Heavy on the "most state courts".

Newsflash: Texas isn't one of those places.

Thank God Napolitano's pimping for Faux instead presiding on the bench.

I don't care if Delay gets convicted of felony jaywalking. He's a blot on American politics and a disgrace to the Republican party.

When did staying just this side of legal become the moral standard in this here United States of America?

 

[MizBlu]

What happened to the pretense of innocent until proven guilty.

That's only in court.

In the court of public opinion, you can be tried, convicted, hanged, drawn and quartered.

 

[sgtdisney]

That's only in court.

In the court of public opinion, you can be tried, convicted, hanged, drawn and quartered.

Oh, so it is an opinion that he is a crook. Ok. I understand now. I just thought it was being presented as factual information. You know, like the fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath.

 

[MizBlu]

Oh, so it is an opinion that he is a crook. Ok. I understand now. I just thought it was being presented as factual information. You know, like the fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath.

It's not an opinion, it's my opinion, and I sincerely hope it will be opinion of the jury that hears the evidence.

As far as Bill Clinton, he was tried in the Senate and, based on the evidence, they decided not to convict.

 

[sgtdisney]

As far as Bill Clinton, he was tried in the Senate and, based on the evidence, they decided not to convict.

Yes, President Clinton was Impeached and the Senate decided not remove him from office, that is true. He did lose his ability to practice law for a number of years as a result of his perjuring himself, however.