I notice  you didn’t include these paragraphs from The Austin American Statesman. If you go by what DeLay and his lawyer are saying, sure he's exonorated.

At this point, it seems to be a ”he said, she said” type thing. I’m not saying DeLay is guilty or not guilty, but his rather loudly obnoxious defense is designed, I think, to salvage his political career more than stay out of the hoosegow.



http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/conten.../10/5earle.html

Same link as Aquilla’s post.

In any case the reason DeLay is taking this public is because this is not a legal matter, but rather a political matter as you yourself has tacitly admitted with your comments about being closer to the election. And, that's the whole point and perhaps the topic of a new thread. Do we really want politically motivated prosecutors to use our justice system for political reasons? I'll bet a Republican DA in Orange County or Ventura County, California could find something on Nancy Pelosi's fund-raising efforts to at least get a grand jury indictment against her. Especially if that DA took multiple bites of the apple doing it with several grand juries. Hell, Ronnie Earle didn't just take another bite, he made applesauce. DO we really want this to happen? I sure don't.

Well, I don't know if it's criminal or not, but it sure ought to be.  It's beginning to become increasingly obvious that this is nothing but an out of control liberal democrat DA on a political witch hunt shopping around for an OJ jury in Travis County.  This whole thing really stinks and in the long run, Texas Republicans could end up making political gains from this whole thing.

 
I do think this investigation will continue, though. Really, the idea that it is only political is mostly coming from Delay and his defenders. They may be right, but they may be wrong. The grand jury coming out with the felony money-laundering charge did so quickly. Could be they were persuaded, could be that there is some evidence that makes the case clear cut. We just don't know. Hopefully we will soon. 

WASHINGTON -- A Texas prosecutor tried to convince a grand jury that Representative Tom DeLay gave tacit approval to a series of laundered campaign contributions, and when jurors declined to indict, he became angry, according to two people directly familiar with the proceeding. 
[...] 
The two people interviewed, who commented anonymously because of grand jury secrecy, said Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle became visibly angry when the grand jurors last week signed a document declining to indict, known as a ''no bill." 
 
One person said the sole evidence Earle presented was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor, in which DeLay said he was generally aware of activities of his associates. He is charged in an alleged money- laundering scheme to funnel corporate donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law. 
 
The person said that Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay ''didn't say 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval." 
 
After the grand jurors declined to go forward, the mood ''was unpleasant," the other person said, describing Earle's reaction.

From the start, I've been critical of Earle and his tactics and intentions. Delay may be guilty, but all signs as of now point to a weak case. The premise of 'tacit approval' is going to be difficult to prove without a smoking gun, and if Earle has a smoking gun, theoretically, he would have been able to convince Jury #1 of more than conspiracy, and convince Jury #2 of something. I was hoping our legal eagles on  would show up, but they've been scarce of late. It certainly seems mighty suspicious when analyzing the timeline of grand jury seatings and indictments rendered. It looks like nothing more than jury shopping. 

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) met for at least 30 minutes with the top fundraiser of his Texas political action committee on Oct. 2, 2002, the same day that the Republican National Committee in Washington set in motion a series of financial transactions at the heart of the money-laundering and conspiracy case against DeLay.

During the meeting at his Capitol office, DeLay conferred with James W. Ellis, the head of his principal fundraising committee in Washington and his chief fundraiser in Texas. Ellis had earlier given the Republican National Committee a check for $190,000 drawn mostly from corporate contributions. The same day as the meeting, the RNC ordered $190,000 worth of checks sent to seven Republican legislative candidates in Texas.

Getting back to why the whole "weak case" mantra is complete bunk, if the folks repeating that had any understanding at all of how indictments are handed down and what a grand jury requires to hand them down you'd realize that is a fallacious argument.  For your reference an article on wikipedia about Grand Juries and Prima Facie Cases.  

"Indict a Ham Sandwich"
This famous modern legal term began in New York. It was immortalized in the Tom Wolfe novel, Bonfire of the Vanities (1987).

I spoke with Sol Wachtler, the former New York State chief judge, and he admitted that the phrase was his and was coined during a lunch interview with Marcia Kramer of the New York Daily News.
<snip>
From the New York Daily News, January 31, 1985, pg. 3:

New top state judge: Abolish grand juries & let us decide
By MARCIA KRAMERand FRANK LOMBARDI
IN A BID to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions, Chief Judge Sol Wachtler has proposed that the state scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments.

Wachtler, who became the state’s top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”

When you present evidence to a grand jury they don't just hand down an indictment because they like you or because they really want you to be right - the prosecutor has the burden of presenting a prima facie case meaning that in the absence of a defense the evidence presented has to be sufficient to prove the facts of the case.  If the grand jury is not satisfied then you don't get your indictment, period.  

A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.

In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.

Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.

The conspiracy charge is the easier one to prove but money laundering requires a decent amount of evidence.  It is also not common for the prosecutor in a case to share all of his or her evidence with the blogosphere so just because you haven't read the full scoop on your favorite weblog or seen it on CNN doesn't mean he has no case.  The fact that he has been able to get indictments handed down is pretty serious - it doesn't mean he'll win but it means he has sufficient evidence.  Whether it is politically motivated is completely irrelevant, he has enough evidence to get an indictment.

Ok so let me get this straight.  I have presented the textbook definition of what an indictment entails and you refute that by providing some editorial comments from one judge, from 1985, in New York?

Man I should just go ahead and concede my argument....    I think you are going to have to do a much better job than that if you want to just toss out an entire legal definition.

Increasingly, the high public profile of a target or the attention-grabbing nature of the alleged wrongdoing may have more to do with a matter's "prosecutorial merit" than the strength of the evidence or the seriousness of the crime. It is axiomatic by now that whenever prosecutorial effort becomes more focused on "getting" a particular person than pursuing a particular, identifiable allegation, as is increasingly the case, it alters the very architecture and mission of the prosecutor's office. The personalization of prosecution -- "let's get this guy" -- invites excess.
-----
[on Grand Juries - carlito]
the inherent nature of the grand jury process itself, although far from being "new," has departed so far from its original purpose as a restraining influence on the British Crown, that it has been taken to new limits as a tool to sculpt indictments, with little critical supervision from any source.

Technically, judges supervise grand juries and are available to hear motions challenging a prosecutor's conduct. But judges do not oversee day-to-day operation of the grand jury, and abuse is an open secret that defense lawyers are often powerless to combat. Representing witnesses before a grand jury, or the person being investigated, has become a well orchestrated, even cynical, minuet.

Counsel for witnesses probe their client for "dirt" they may have on other bigger fish. Grants of limited immunity and potentially far-reaching plea bargains are powerful incentives for witnesses to be "cooperative;" and threats of prosecution for "perjury" based on often minor inconsistencies in testimony all combine to make grand jury presentations a modern version of Kabuki Theater. Do all these threats and inducements motivate a witness to "tell the truth" or to tell the prosecutor what he or she wants to hear?

At this point it is cliche to see through the transparency of the grand jury as a protector of the innocent: "The grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor, who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody at anytime, for almost anything.

Grand Jury Reform Urged To Counter Prosecutorial Excesses

Washington, DC, April 2, 1998 -- In the wake of widespread and intense scrutiny by the media and American public of the Whitewater grand jury proceedings, major reforms are in order to avert future abuses and restore the institution of the grand jury to its original role as a protector of fundamental citizen rights, the President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers says in a lead article published today.

"Over the past several months, the American people have been exposed daily to the innards of the grand jury process, and it's clear that they don't like what they see. It smacks of abuse and intimidation. And what's happening in the nation's capital is being repeated a thousandfold, out of public view, in secret grand jury proceedings in every city and hamlet across the nation. In its present form, the grand jury is a veritable Star Chamber," NACDL President Gerald Lefcourt explains in the featured article in the April 1998 issue of The Champion, the association's monthly legal journal.

In the memorable words of one noted former judge, "A good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich!" Lefcourt concurs, noting that "The grand jury no longer performs its function, as originally conceived, of protecting citizens. It has become a powerful tool used by some prosecutors to trample upon the rights of ordinary Americans."

Just as an update, Tom DeLay won an early round yesterday when the judge in his case was forced to recuse himself.  It appears that the judge, Bob Pickering, has a history of political contributions to the Democratic Party and to sympathetic groups such as moveon.org.  Judge Pickering was forced to step aside by a district judge only after he refused to recuse himself.

DeGuerin said the next motion to be heard in the case by a newly appointed judge will be a request to move DeLay's trial out of heavily Democratic Travis County.

Perkins voluntarily stepped aside in a 1994 case against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison ® because he had made a $300 contribution to her political opponent, but had declined to recuse himself in DeLay's case.

A history of political contributions? Please. You (and DeLay for that matter) make it sound like he is the George Soros of the judicial world. This was a legal maneuver by DeLay and he happened to win. This is really what they are after - stacking the deck in Delay's favor by putting it in a Republican district with a Republican judge:

Most of Perkin's money went to John Kerry, I hardly see how that has any relevance against DeLay.

This is really what they are after - stacking the deck in Delay's favor by putting it in a Republican district with a Republican judge.

You don't have a problem with a politically charged Republican, like Tom DeLay, being charged by a Democrat, judged by a Democrat, with a jury full of Democrats? Surely you can see why DeLay's lawyers are trying to change the makeup of this trial.

Tom DeLay is a politically divisive figure, as this very thread demonstrates. Any inkling of political bias by those involved in a trial that is intended to be fair should be considered very seriously. The judge that removed Pickering made the right call. I personally think it would be just as reprehensible if the court were stacked with Republicans. I really do hope that the replacement judge has a clean history of impartiality.

You don't have a problem with a politically charged Republican, like Tom DeLay, being charged by a Democrat, judged by a Democrat, with a jury full of Democrats? Surely you can see why DeLay's lawyers are trying to change the makeup of this trial.

*Oops, Sorry about that kmsouthern

However, if this judge or a judge grants a venue change on the basis that the district leans democratic that will set a really bad precedent.

Judges that make contributions to a party must immediately have their ability to remain impartial questioned on the very likely possibility that he sits in judgment of an accused from the other party even if the judge doesn’t have a personal relationship with the defense, the prosecutor, or the defendant.

Here again, Tom DeLay isn't your ordinary Republican from off the street. The call should be for an indubitably fair trial, not one in which either side can claim was a "setup". The precedent of a fair trial should trump concerns about precedent of venue.

Here again, Tom DeLay isn't your ordinary Republican from off the street. The call should be for an indubitably fair trial, not one in which either side can claim was a "setup". The precedent of a fair trial should trump concerns about precedent of venue.

In an unprecedented move, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle filed a motion Thursday asking a Republican presiding judge to remove himself from the decision about who will be the trial judge in the conspiracy case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.

Earle, a Democrat, argued that Judge B.B. Schraub, the presiding judge for the 3rd Administrative Judicial Region, should step aside for the same reasons that state District Judge Bob Perkins, a Democrat, was removed from hearing DeLay's case: Both had given political donations.  In the retaliatory motion, Earle wrote that he was using the same rationale that DeLay's lawyers used to get Perkins removed from the case. He said Schraub of Seguin, like Perkins of Austin, is a fair and impartial judge with a "sterling reputation" of honesty and integrity.

But Earle wrote that's "unfortunately no longer the standard in our state for the judiciary."

According to Earle's motion, Schraub has given $5,600 -- roughly the same amount as Perkins -- to Republican candidates, including President Bush, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, Gov. Rick Perry, state Sen. Jeff Wentworth and state Rep. a central player in DeLay's successful attempt in 2003 to have Texas congressional districts drawn to his liking.[/b] As governor, Perry called the special legislative sessions where the districts were redrawn to shift the balance of power in the congressional delegation from Democrats to Republicans.

For example, a person accused of a crime is a Democrat and is called before a judge who is a Republican (and who has donated to the Republican party), does that person have a right to change venue?  Does political affiliation automatically mean that that person will be judged unfairly?  What happens to crimes that have already been adjudicated?  Can a person having been found guilty request a new trial due to the judge being of a different political party?  The can of worms here is rather large and wriggly...

So far there have been no dangerous precendent set by this trial.  I agree that there are limits, Cube Jockey, but nothing has been done that is either illegal, unethical, or completely out of the ordinary.

I believe this is a dangerous precedent and without some standards we erode the effectiveness of judicial branch.  If the "appearance" of political bias is the standard by which we assess "fairness" in the absence of any other evidence of unfairness, then we have essentially poisoned the judicial system.

The administrative judge who was to pick a new trial judge for U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay withdrew today because of a challenge to his impartiality and turned the selection over to Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson — who was endorsed by the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority in 2002.

This is not precedent - it's statutory. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 18(ba)2(a) states that a judge should recuse himself in cases where "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" - an "appearance of bias" test.

So, I suppose you would support CJ's argument that if a black person is accused of a crime in Texas, then the judge should recuse herself if she is not black.

Does party affiliation or donations/membership to a political group mean that it is an "appearance of bias"?

Are you now or have you ever been a communist?

Does party affiliation or donations/membership to a political group mean that it is an "appearance of bias"?

No. I would excpect a judge to be recused who has provided financial support for an organization who's high-profile financial appeals include rhetoric such as "your contribution will help us defeat the corrupt and criminal black person."

General political advocacy - no.
Financial support of general political advocates - no.
Advocating the charges that are before the court - yes.
Financial support of advocates of the charges before the court - yes.

Not any more persuasive than the race-baiting above. What I quoted was not my opinion or that of any political party - it's a standard rule of court procedure that exists in every state. This motion does not cast aspersions on Judge Perkins' integrity. It's a judicial protection. The Rule doesn't affect Perkins' freedom of speech, it affects what cases he can hear.

How would you feel if a judge hearing a criminal charge against you paid for ads that portrayed you as a criminal?

Judge Perkins had every right to support MoveOn but it also affects his ability to hear certain cases just like any other tie a sitting judge forges.

You seem to support a blanket policy where: "political party affiliation is not reason to recuse oneself." The problem with such a policy is that it does not fit every circumstance. For example, is it fair to have someone from the Nazi Party as a judge over an accused Jew? Under your blanket policy it would be.

Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson late Thursday chose semi-retired Senior Judge Pat Priest— a Democrat.

DeLay says he’s innocent of conspiracy and money laundering charges related to campaign contributions for 2002 legislative races.

DeLay also wants his trial moved from Austin.

~snip~

Schraub today stepped aside and asked Jefferson — a Republican — to pick a presiding judge.

This picture of DeLay's remove from key events changed in August, when he met secretly with Earle for an hour and a half at the offices of Earle's public integrity unit in Austin. DeLay did not speak under oath at the meeting. He accepted Earle's request that the meeting would be transcribed by a court stenographer, and he was relaxed and garrulous, according to three sources familiar with the session.

Asked what his role was in creating TRMPAC, DeLay said it was his vision and his idea, the sources said. But he reiterated that he knew only in general terms about its day-to-day operations. DeLay said he was also generally aware of a plan to shift money between Texas and Washington. It called for pulling together $190,000, sending it up to Washington and getting the same amount sent back to Texas for state election campaigns.

According to matching accounts provided separately by the sources, DeLay was asked whether such a deal happened and responded yes. Asked if he knew beforehand that the deal was going to happen, DeLay said yes. Asked how he knew, DeLay said that his longtime political adviser, Ellis, came into his office, told him it was planned and asked DeLay what he thought. DeLay told Earle that he recalled saying, "Fine." He added that he knew it was corporate money but said it was fine because he thought it was legal.

So he is on record as admitting to every aspect of the crime from what I can tell.  The "I didn't know it was illegal defense" is not a defense.  This is almost too good to believe, I'm wondering where the holes are.

Actually, for some crimes, the "I didn't know" defense is a good defense.  I believe for money laundering, it is considered the primary defense.

He didn't say he didn't know he was laundering money, he said he didn't know it was illegal. Just because he didn't know does not excuse him from the crime by any criminal code I'm familiar with. It also isn't very plausible when you think about it. If he didn't know what he was doing was illegal then why not just contribute that $190,000 directly to the Texas race? Why go through the trouble of sending it to Washington and sending it back? The only logical answer is that he knew exactly what he was doing.

This proves, in DeLay's own words, that he is guilty. The only question is how this will play out in court.

He didn't say he didn't know he was laundering money, he said he didn't know it was illegal. Just because he didn't know does not excuse him from the crime by any criminal code I'm familiar with. It also isn't very plausible when you think about it. If he didn't know what he was doing was illegal then why not just contribute that $190,000 directly to the Texas race? Why go through the trouble of sending it to Washington and sending it back? The only logical answer is that he knew exactly what he was doing.

This proves, in DeLay's own words, that he is guilty. The only question is how this will play out in court.

The principal reason the deal foundered was that DeLay's attorneys wanted to postpone his plea until after the Texas appellate courts had ruled on the validity of the state election law provisions at issue, the sources said. Under their proposal, if the courts agreed the law was invalid, then all charges would be dismissed and the promise of a plea forgotten. For the two years it might take to resolve the issue, DeLay would be able to keep his post.

Earle insisted instead that DeLay enter a plea with the court immediately. He was willing only to defer punishment until appeals related to the validity of the law were exhausted; striking any other deal would show undue favoritism to DeLay, several sources said he argued. But DeLay's defense team felt such a decision would gravely damage the majority leader's political standing.

As for this Delay case, there are two things playing here.  First, the charge of money laundering.  As I said before, the classic defense for those not actually laundering the money (i.e. the donors) is the "I didn't know" defense.  It can be risky, but then money laundering is a hard charge to prove regardless.

Already we have Democrats convicting Tom DeLay as guilty before the trial. To be honest I don't care about Tom Delay and don't quite understand the vitriol against him from the left (it existed long before these accusations). I also don't quite understand the vitriol against Harry Reid from the right. I guess I just get tired of the politics every once in a while. If I had to rate this indictment it would be 95% political, 5% substance.

Forgive my cynicism, but given the apparent vague and weak case cited in the indictment, given the on the record remarks by Earle concerning Delay, given that Earle conducted a corporate shakedown Jesse-style in 2004 for donations to a favorite organization, given that Earle has gone through several grand juries and three years of investigations........to finally render an indictment just before a three year statute of limitations expires at the end of this month.....and just in time for the 2006 election cycle........
I have the gut reaction that politics is the only force at play here. I have the gut reaction that the movie is driving the case more than the case is driving the movie.

all i have to say about the DeLay indictment is that it is flimsy. nothing i read in the indictment even has any evidence that he was involved. i'm not here to say he is guilty or not just that it is so politically motivated.

Back to reality here. Now Earle has to not only prove a conspiracy to committ a felony, but he also has to prove that a felony actually happened. And he can't. That's why he didn't include that charge in the first indictment. It's just a political game being played by a political hack. Same kind of crap he tried against Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

I believe the amount of money involved in the DeLay indictment was $190,000, pocket change compared to the amount of money flowing into Texas from both national parties. So, it does seem to me that in the grand scope of things, DeLay has been singled out by Ronnie Earle.

Just a sampling of some of the comments in this thread alone that are now debunked:

[snip]



And they got Al Capone on Tax Evasion, what is your point?

One would think based on your declaration of "victory" that this should have been a slam dunk.  But no....  Instead, it took three Grand Juries, the last one empaneled for a mere few hours in order to secure an indictment.  Debunked?  I don't think so.

DeLay said he was also generally aware of a plan to shift money between Texas and Washington. It called for pulling together $190,000, sending it up to Washington and getting the same amount sent back to Texas for state election campaigns.

According to matching accounts provided separately by the sources, DeLay was asked whether such a deal happened and responded yes. Asked if he knew beforehand that the deal was going to happen, DeLay said yes. Asked how he knew, DeLay said that his longtime political adviser, Ellis, came into his office, told him it was planned and asked DeLay what he thought. DeLay told Earle that he recalled saying, "Fine." He added that he knew it was corporate money but said it was fine because he thought it was legal.

Scholars who specialize in the history and operations of Congress say that given the brazenness of Mr. Abramoff's lobbying efforts, as measured by the huge fees he charged clients and the extravagant gifts he showered on friends on Capitol Hill, almost all of them Republicans, the investigation could end up costing several lawmakers their careers, if not their freedom. 
 
    The investigation threatens to ensnarl many outside Congress as well, including Interior Department officials and others in the Bush administration who were courted by Mr. Abramoff on behalf of the Indian tribe casinos that were his most lucrative clients. 
 
    The inquiry has already reached into the White House; a White House budget official, David H. Safavian, resigned only days before his arrest in September on charges of lying to investigators about his business ties to Mr. Abramoff, a former lobbying partner. 
 
    "I think this has the potential to be the biggest scandal in Congress in over a century," said Thomas E. Mann, a Congressional specialist at the Brookings Institution. "I've been around Washington for 35 years, watching Congress, and I've never seen anything approaching Abramoff for cynicism and chutzpah in proposing quid pro quos to members of Congress."

(See NYT Article).

Quite a list of Republican scandals that are finally reaching the point of public awareness: stove piping intelligence; misusing intelligence; exposing under cover agents; perjury; facilitating prisoner abuse and torture; and violations of Texas campaign laws - to say nothing of violation of House of Representatives ethic standards. Yes, I do think they will be important in the 2006 elections.