Haven't heard from the Hammer in a while. But we have some progress in his glacially slow legal showdown with prosecutor Ronnie Earle.
Tom DeLay's lawyers prevented prosecutors from reinstating a tossed conspiracy charge, on the simple grounds that the law in question didn't exist when DeLay was accused of violating it. It's a little more complicated than that, but apparently not complicated enough for Texas' highest court to reverse earlier rulings.
Next up: resolving arguments about the validity of the two remaining charges. And then -- assuming the charges hold up -- maybe we can finally set a trial date.
Tom DeLay, politics, midtopia
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
DeLay update
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
If it goes to court---Ronnie Earle loses.
Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for a crime that didn't exist and wasn't even on the books. Proving once and for that this was politically motivated.
Ronnie Earle and Patrick Fitzgerald should meet the same fate as Nifong met recently. And both Libby and Delay should turn around when this is over and sue them and see if they can bring criminal charges.
JP5
JP5: I seem to recall you making the same prediction about the Libby case....
The fact that one charge was thrown out doesn't prove the whole thing -- or even that charge -- was politically motivated. Especially because Earle had what the courts considered strong enough grounds to allow him to continue appealing up the chain.
Might the whole thing be politically motivated and entirely baseless? Sure. But we won't know unti it comes to trial and we see the evidence he's got.
Ronnie Earle and Patrick Fitzgerald should meet the same fate as Nifong met recently.
Considering Fitzgerald won his case, that's unlikely. With Earle it will once again depend upon what he brings to the table, evidencewise.
No. My prediction for the Libby case was that he'd never get a fair trial in Washington D.C. I was correct on that point.
And yes, there's no question Tom Delay's case was politically motivated. All the talk here in Texas by the Dems after the redistricting fight was that they would "get Delay." All they had to do was find a willing D.A. and start the witch hunt. And they did just that in Ronnie Earle. All that's left on the charges is money laundering and conspiracy to launder money. You must have "dirty" money before you seek to launder it. This money wasn't dirty. It was legitimate contributions to the RNC. And the RNC made legitimate transfers to the Texas candidates.....just as the RNC did for numerous other state candidates. Republicans do it all the time....and so do Democrats. That's because it's legitimate.
"Considering Fitzgerald won his case, that's unlikely."
But he withheld the FACT that he knew who leaked the information about Wilson's wife to Novak. AND what's more---he asked that the person NOT reveal it either. Therefore, the guy was afraid to go public with it at the time. He also put a reporter in jail for 85 days KNOWING that it was Armitage who was the leaker. AND he said publically that Libby was the FIRST leaker---when it KNEW that wasn't the case.
So, yes---I think he absolutely is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct....to say the least.
JP5
No. My prediction for the Libby case was that he'd never get a fair trial in Washington D.C. I was correct on that point.
Obviously a matter of opinion. I gave my analysis here. The claim that he didn't get a "fair trial" is a rather extremist one, IMO -- one that relies on generalities that don't seem to apply rather than actual evidence.
And yes, there's no question Tom Delay's case was politically motivated.
I'm sure there were plenty of people wanting something to take DeLay down. The question is whether they found something or just made it up. We won't know that until trial.
It was legitimate contributions to the RNC. And the RNC made legitimate transfers to the Texas candidates.
As I understand it -- and this is off the top of my head; it's been a while since I dug into it -- the issue is this:
I can't give $50,000 to an individual candidate. But I can give $50,000 to the national or state party. What would be illegal is using that difference to get around the first prohibition -- by giving $50,000 to the RNC, for example, with the understanding that the RNC would then send $50,000 to the candidate.
This, IIRC, is precisely what DeLay is charged with.
One might argue that this example points up the silliness of the original prohibition, because it's so easy to circumvent. But that's beside the point.
As for Fitzgerald, I'm sure if your points had any validity that Libby's lawyers would be pursuing it. I await their filing.
The RNC---like the DNC---are not required to separate funds. Therefore, the money the RNC sent back to Texas could have come from donations that came from any other state for that matter.
What do you want to bet that Texas businesses have sent the DNC money and they've turned around and sent money back to their candidates as well?
JP5
I agree it's an easy crime to cover up. I think in the DeLay case they're talking about provable links, like a $4,362 check coming in on Monday and a $4,362 check being cut to a candidate on Tuesday -- stuff like that.
So? Then they should have changed the amount by a small amount like the Dems do. It's still the same thing. Bottom line is.....you have a right to contribute to the RNC. At that point, it's THEIR money. And the RNC has the right to send some of THEIR funds back to certain state candidates.
Just think about it. Had they truly believed that was illegal, would they have been so blatant? I don't think so. I think it's been done for years and years by BOTH political parties.
And be careful what you wish for. If Delay gets found guilty, then you can bet your bottom dollar that each Democrat leader will be examined with a fine-tooth comb in this area. He...or she....will then be forced to give up their leadership position and resign from the Congress, Senate, or Presidency.
JP5
So? Then they should have changed the amount by a small amount like the Dems do.
Like I said, one can certainly argue that the law itself is silly. But the fact remains that the law exists, and if DeLay acted as described, he broke it. Either brazenly or stupidly.
And be careful what you wish for.
While I think DeLay was and is hardball sleazy, I'm not actually wishing for anything. Simply explaining why your broad assertion that there was no crime isn't necessarily accurate.
Post a Comment