Tom DeLay indicted

[sodaseller]

When you say "note" do you mean the actual check?

No - there is supposedly an actual handwritten note breaking down the amounts to go to each candidate. I have not seen it, but I have heard that from numerous sources, and have not seen anyone rebut it. As noted, I found that hard to believe

 

[sodaseller]

It's referenced at the sentence at the bottom of page two going onto page three of the indictment at Smoking Gun

 

[bsnyder]

No - there is supposedly an actual handwritten note breaking down the amounts to go to each candidate. I have not seen it, but I have heard that from numerous sources, and have not seen anyone rebut it. As noted, I found that hard to believe

What sources? And if truem how is it relevant to the case and the Texas law.

What I'm asking is - is it your interpretation that the note, with the individual names directing the funds to is the actual violation, rather than the back and forth of the entire sum of money (which both sides did routinely in that same election cycle).

 

[sodaseller]

What sources? And if truem how is it relevant to the case and the Texas law.

I don't know Texas law, other than the general prohibitions against direct contributions from corporations, whish seems undisputed. But the relevance is that the money came from corporations like Sears into TRMPAC. So far, nothing illegal. TRMPAC cannot directly donate to candidates, however. So they send money to the RNC, which then goes to candidates. Again, nothing illegal or unusual. Many times there is an understanding to that extent, though nothing specific. I myself have maxed out on candidate only to have them direct me to a state party that I know means they will support that candidate (I don't do it).

But in this case, there is a big difference in the way of legal proof. The check from TRMPAC to RNC was $190,000 - that's attached to the indictment. There was also a written note directing which state campaigns to use it for in the total amount of $190,000 or something close to $200,00 (I have seen both) - the description in the indictment. So now you have proof that it wasn't just a contribution from TRMPAC to RNC that they had no knowledge or control over where it might be used or for what, but one with specific instructions to direct contributions to specified candidates in specified amounts, thereby circumventing the prohibition directly and knowingly,

 

[brerrabbit]

Texas law as well as laws in 17 other states say that not corporate contributions can be given to political candidates. The Texas corporate money was sent to the RNC and then alledgely returned to the Texas Republican party who then distributed it to candidates in the state races. If a note exsists that can be directly linked to the corporate money sent to DC and then back to Texas and who that money should be distributed to then there is indeed a smoking gun that would incriminate Delay if it can be linked to him. What I have read locally in Texas is that the only way they can win at trial is that they have either testimony or direct evidence that shows Delay's involvemnet. Numerous attorneys here who practice in Texas have said that without that direct testimony or evidence they will never make the case against Delay. Speculation is that the only reason Earl filed the indictment was that he had that linking evidence or testimony. Otherwise without it he is just spinning his wheels and the indictment was more politically motivated. We will have to wait till the trial to see for sure.

 

[swilphil]

Oh please! The anger at what Delay did with redistricting is that he had the political wherewithall, and he succeeded.

Did it occur to you that maybe the anger comes from the fact that what Delay did was WRONG? Even Texas Republicans are saying as much.

 

[sodaseller]

What I have read locally in Texas is that the only way they can win at trial is that they have either testimony or direct evidence that shows Delay's involvemnet. Numerous attorneys here who practice in Texas have said that without that direct testimony or evidence they will never make the case against Delay. Speculation is that the only reason Earl filed the indictment was that he had that linking evidence or testimony. Otherwise without it he is just spinning his wheels and the indictment was more politically motivated. We will have to wait till the trial to see for sure.

Agree completely

 

[swilphil]

A question for sodaseller: Have you read the indictment?

Sodaseller has. Have YOU read the indictment?

 

[sodaseller]

The indictment is also at Findlaw, but also in PDF, so I cannot C&P. Look at the bottom on page 2 going onto three to see the note described

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/delay/delay92805ind.pdf

 

[bsnyder]

I don't know Texas law, other than the general prohibitions against direct contributions from corporations, whish seems undisputed. But the relevance is that the money came from corporations like Sears into TRMPAC. So far, nothing illegal. TRMPAC cannot directly donate to candidates, however. So they send money to the RNC, which then goes to candidates. Again, nothing illegal or unusual. Many times there is an understanding to that extent, though nothing specific. I myself have maxed out on candidate only to have them direct me to a state party that I know means they will support that candidate (I don't do it).

But in this case, there is a big difference in the way of legal proof. The check from TRMPAC to RNC was $190,000 - that's attached to the indictment. There was also a written note directing which state campaigns to use it for in the total amount of $190,000 or something close to $200,00 (I have seen both) - the description in the indictment. So now you have proof that it wasn't just a contribution from TRMPAC to RNC that they had no knowledge or control over where it might be used or for what, but one with specific instructions to direct contributions to specified candidates in specified amounts, thereby circumventing the prohibition directly and knowingly,

They took in corporate contributions, sent them to the national committee, and got the same amount of money (roughly) back on the same day. Both parties have done that. It is commonly done to convert corporate money. So the crime is what? That they didn't engage in the usual bi-partisan subterfuge?

And then they still have to prove conspiracy on the part of Delay.

That's why I called it flimsy. Do you agree, or disagree?

 

[sodaseller]

They took in corporate contributions, sent them to the national committee, and got the same amount of money (roughly) back on the same day. Both parties have done that. It is commonly done to convert corporate money. So the crime is what? That they didn't engage in the usual bi-partisan subterfuge?

And then they still have to prove conspiracy on the part of Delay.

That's why I called it flimsy. Do you agree, or disagree?

How can I agree or disagree without knowing the evidence linking Delay (getting the point yet?)

Plus, even on the first point, you left out about the note and the direction to specified races. Other than that, how was the theatre, Mrs Lincoln?

 

[bsnyder]

. Otherwise without it he is just spinning his wheels and the indictment was more politically motivated. We will have to wait till the trial to see for sure.

And there is a history of that exact scenario with this prosecutor, hence the "politically motivated" charges against him.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

And there is a history of that exact scenario with this prosecutor, hence the "politically motivated" charges against him.

Ah ha!! The "vast left wing conspiracy" raises it's ugly head!! So Democratic prosecutors should not be able to indict any politicians who happen to be registered Republicans because they don't agree with their political views, and vice versa? So much for our legal system on the whole! Lets just king all of our political leaders right now and kiss freedom goodbye. An indictment is not a verdict...it still has to go to court and be proven before anyone is found guilty or innocent, Bet, so your main man DeLay still has a fighting chance!

 

[bsnyder]

How can I agree or disagree without knowing the evidence linking Delay (getting the point yet?)

Plus, even on the first point, you left out about the note and the direction to specified races. Other than that, how was the theatre, Mrs Lincoln?

We're talking about what is presented in the indictment. We can argue the strength of the evidence when (if) we ever see it. Get the point yet?

 

[bsnyder]

So Democratic prosecutors should not be able to indict any politicians who happen to be registered Republicans because they don't agree with their political views, and vice versa? So much for our legal system on the whole! Lets just king all of our political leaders right now and kiss freedom goodbye. An indictment is not a verdict...it still has to go to court and be proven before anyone is found guilty or innocent, Bet, so your main man DeLay still has a fighting chance!

Where did I ever say anything remotely like this?

I said

the indictment is incredibly flimsy

And I stand by that.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Where did I ever say anything remotely like this?

I'm saying that you seem so caught up with the fact that, in your opinion, the prosector seems to be acting out of political motivation, that you refuse to accept that Tom DeLay might have actually broken Texas election laws.

Cases have gone before the Texas legal system, such as legally ******** people being brought to trial for, and convicted of, murder, that were a lot more flimsy than the DeLay indictment to be sure!! Take it to the judge and lets see where the chips fall!

 

[sodaseller]

We're talking about what is presented in the indictment. We can argue the strength of the evidence when (if) we ever see it. Get the point yet?

Then every indictment is flimsy, unless the Confrontation Clause was recently abrogated without notice.

You are talking about issues you don't understand, and I know why, because some RW websites have been disseminating this attack today. To avoid further embarrassment, you may want to read up on what an indictment actually does. Here's a hint - look up the role of a "superseding indictment."

Plus, if it's as bad as you say, then his able counsel can move for greater specificity. But I suspect they will not, for two reasons. It's likely specific enough. But even if it weren't public figures usually want it like this. The mark of a prosecutor playing unfair against a public figure are those that list some specific incriminating evidence, knowing that the media will read and repeat those, and that the defendant risks trial strategy if they specifically rebut. Since criminal defendants have no evidentiary burden, they try to keep all cards close to the chest until trial as per their right to keep the prosecution off guard. If the prosecutor puts in select incriminating facts without context, he leaves the public defendant with the proverbial Hobson's choice of revealing how they will attack that in the court of public opinion, something they would otherwise be able to spring at trial. Delay's attorney's will know the prosecution's case in fair detail long before the trial per the rules of criminal procedure (via, at a minimum, the superseding indictment), while they will have to reveal almost nothing.

IOW, without realizing it, you are repeating attacks that, properly understood, undercut your attacks on Earle. But you don't even realize it.

 

[brerrabbit]

And there is a history of that exact scenario with this prosecutor, hence the "politically motivated" charges against him.

I am not arguing this point at all, I live in Texas, I know Mr. Earl's history. However he has prosicuted Democrats as well and has a decent record prosecuting crime in Travis County. He is in the unique position of being the DA in the State Capital which gives him jurisdiction into all things political in the state of Texas. His pursuit of Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the early 90's is well documented. I think he also stepped out of line when he made comments about the Delay investigation while speaking at a fundraising breakfast in Dallas. Dispite these actions he is still well within his rights and jurisdiction to have pursued this case. Only time and the final outcome will tell if was the right course of action.

 

[eclectics]

Personally, I think that these days, DeLay does more harm than good to the Republicans and any time that this man is shown in the news, it's good for Dems nationally. I say the Republicans should make him their posterboy as an example of quality Republican leadership in 2006. He seems to garner a lot of respect from a couple of posters here!!

Even Ann Coulter had a hard time keeping her spin last night and she hesitated enough to actually take a human breath between sentences. Somethings up..... Some interesting political days ahead! I look forward to seeing how this is going to affect strategies on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Geoff_M]

You are talking about issues you don't understand, and I know why, because some RW websites have been disseminating this attack today.

It isn't just RW sites that question whether or not there's any fire behind the DA's smoke. The Washington Post isn't quite sold the notion either: Editorial

Personally, I'm not getting excited about all of this. I think there's a very good chance, given Earle's track record, and the hurdles he faces in this case as pointed out by the WaPost, that in the end DeLay will likely being doing a "Donovan" and asking "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" after the jury fails to convict. If this were an election year, I might be more concerned, but it ain't. Even if Earle manages to complete a "Hail Mary" against DeLay, other than ruining DeLay's chances in 2008, I can't see it having much impact politically. In a country where a large percentage of the public can't even name the Vice President, how many people (other than political junkies) are going to know or care who Tom DeLay is?

Also, as others have pointed out, he isn't all that popular even among this party members. He isn't exactly a party figurehead that the GOP rallies around.