Tom DeLay indicted

[sodaseller]

You are conflating two points - whether the indictment discloses the direct evidence (if any) behind the indictment of Delay as criminal coconspirator (it does not), and whether that signals anything about the quantum of actual evidence on that point. It does not. And that's nothing unusual. In fact, as explained above, presuming that there is any evidence, and the more reasonable speculation is that there is at least some, the failure to note it in the unsealed affidavit is actually more favorable to Delay in the court of public opinion, a contrast to some of the ethically challenged prosecutors of a few years ago. There is no chance Delay will face trial without a detailed understanding of the precise evidence against him, and this saves him from having to respond to select tidbits during the media frenzy

All is speculation now - what you deem a Hail Mary is just as likely to be the equivalent of a QB sneak for an inch against a prevent defense, as both are at equally high ends of the diistribution curve. You are presuming there is no evidence, which belies logic.

As for Delay, this prosecution is largely irrelevant to his reputation. The article you trumpet makes that point:

He is, as we said last year, an ethical recidivist -- unabashed about using his legislative and political power to reward supporters and punish opponents, and brazen in how he links campaign contributions and political actions.

It is truly life imitates art - sympathy for the Devil, to suggest that Tom Delay be viewed as unjustly victimized

 

[sodaseller]

BTW, the wording of the WaPo piece itself may disclose something negative for Delay, to wit:

For Mr. DeLay to be convicted, prosecutors will have to show not only that he took part in the dodge but also that he knew it amounted to a violation of state law -- rather than the kind of clever money-trade that election lawyers engineer all the time.

The first one makes sense, as I noted above. But to claim that DeLay may assert that he did not know such a practice was illegal is absurd. Does that mean that WaPo is hearing whispers among the Capitol cognoscenti that Delay will argue that the violation was not knowing, which means that he will argue that he didn't realize that his home state where he served six years in the State House forbade corporate contributions? If that is what they are hearing, then Delay's position is weak. Of course, Delay has disclaimed any reliance on a technical defense, and said he will be vindicated at trial (snarky query, if he's not disclosing specifically how at this time, does that mean he must have no defense?).

WaPo is famous for hinting at gossip, but if that is a defense, he's in trouble.

 

[bsnyder]

You are conflating two points - whether the indictment discloses the direct evidence (if any) behind the indictment of Delay as criminal coconspirator (it does not), and whether that signals anything about the quantum of actual evidence on that point. It does not. And that's nothing unusual. In fact, as explained above, presuming that there is any evidence, and the more reasonable speculation is that there is at least some, the failure to note it in the unsealed affidavit is actually more favorable to Delay in the court of public opinion, a contrast to some of the ethically challenged prosecutors of a few years ago. There is no chance Delay will face trial without a detailed understanding of the precise evidence against him, and this saves him from having to respond to select tidbits during the media frenzy

All is speculation now - what you deem a Hail Mary is just as likely to be the equivalent of a QB sneak for an inch against a prevent defense, as both are at equally high ends of the diistribution curve. You are presuming there is no evidence, which belies logic.

As for Delay, this prosecution is largely irrelevant to his reputation. The article you trumpet makes that point:


It is truly life imitates art - sympathy for the Devil, to suggest that Tom Delay be viewed as unjustly victimized

Delay is toast, regardless of the outcome of the indictment.

The bigger question remains to be seen - did the Democrats overplay their hand, yet again. I think given the history of this prosecutor, it belies logic not to at least acknowledge that he may in fact have nothing of substance here and that throwing Delay into the indictment was purely political..

 

[sodaseller]

Delay is toast, regardless of the outcome of the indictment.

The bigger question remains to be seen - did the Democrats overplay their hand, yet again. I think given the history of this prosecutor, it belies logic not to at least acknowledge that he may in fact have nothing of substance here and that throwing Delay into the indictment was purely political..

If Delay's defense counsel agree with your compelling logic, they can waive arraignment, post bond and demand speedy trial and be exonerated in no time! We'll see if they see things as you do

 

[Charade]

Vote Republican...Continue the Culture of Corruption.



You guys are too much.

How can that be???

If he's CONVICTED more DEMOCRATS than Republicans, doesn't that mean there are more corrupt Dems??

You can't make this stuff up!! (ha! broke myself up with that one!)

 

[Charade]

Ok, we've confirmed that Earle's a slimy politician as well, but does that really have anything to do with this? Seriously, when the best people can come up with is that the DA is biased, how bad is that?

That's because he's knows that just an indictment will get Delay to step down from his leadership position. This is an election cycle and it's starting to smell.

 

[eclectics]

The bigger question remains to be seen - did the Democrats overplay their hand, yet again. I think given the history of this prosecutor, it belies logic not to at least acknowledge that he may in fact have nothing of substance here and that throwing Delay into the indictment was purely political..

Again, it will have to be proved. I hate to bring up Ken Starr again (I know he wasn't a elected official), but the Democrats tried their best to prove political bias but they didn't have any hard evidence to pin on him. If nothing comes of this indictment, I suspect the same outcome here.

 

[ThAnswr]

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.

It never ever occurs to the "moral values" party that something could be just plain wrong?

It never occurs to the "family values" party that however the hell someone gets rid of a scumbag like Delay is doing us and the country a favor?

It's all bare knuckles politics to these people and to the victor goes the spoils.

Hey, newsflash here, so do the problems and corruption of the last 11 years and Delay is one of theirs.

 

[ThAnswr]

How can that be???

If he's CONVICTED more DEMOCRATS than Republicans, doesn't that mean there are more corrupt Dems??

You can't make this stuff up!! (ha! broke myself up with that one!)

Old saying in vaudeville: Steal from the best.

 

[ThAnswr]

I don't get it. The Republicans ought to be kissing Ronnie Earle's *** for getting a morally bankrupt scumbag like Delay out of his leadership position.

 

[ThAnswr]

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.

Please, you're killing me.

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.

Delay isn't popular among his fellow Republilcans? You have got to be kidding.

The Republicans kiss Delay's *** every chance they get because Delay delivers the votes and brings in the money. He delivered the Texas state legislature and delivered more Republican representatives to Congress. And the Republicans loved it.

How many times have the Republicans tried to change the ethics rules to accomodate the ethics of Tom Delay?

Anytime the Republicans wanted to get rid of Delay they could've done so. They didn't because he's useful and the Republicans will hold their nose while kissing his ***. So much for the party of moral values.

 

[Geoff_M]

WaPo is famous for hinting at gossip, but if that is a defense, he's in trouble.

You seem to be overlooking a basic fact of our criminal justice system. It's not DeLay's primary task to defend himself, it's the state's task to prove the legal hurdles the WaPost laid out. This was the crux of the editorial. DA Earle seems pretty good at talking his way onto the legal ball field when it comes to his political opponents, but has a history of coming up short when trying to kick it between the goal posts. The Post is saying that he may need a lot of stuff up his sleeves this time from their initital read of the indictment and what is known otherwise about the case.

I also didn't claim that the WaPost piece was a glowing endorsement of DeLay's political demeanor. But that shouldn't have any bearing on the outcome of the indictment.

Innocent or guilty, I'm not going to loss any sleep over the outcome.

 

[Geoff_M]

Delay isn't popular among his fellow Republilcans? You have got to be kidding.

You're right, "The Hammer" is really a term of endearment. You appear to be confusing party leadership with the rank and file.

But hey, whatever gets you through the day...