From ABC News:

According to current House GOP Rules, any member of leadership that receives an indictment is required to temporarily leave their post until the case is resolved.

Questions for Debate:
1) Will Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert enforce House GOP rules and require DeLay to step down? Should he? (edit: feel free to ignore this one since he has already stepped down)

2) Do you think DeLay will keep his house seat in the 2006 election as a result of this? Or will he even run?

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?

1) Will Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert enforce House GOP rules and require DeLay to step down? Should he?

He should and he has. Apparently David Drier (R- CA) will become the new majority leader.


2) Do you think DeLay will keep his house seat in the 2006 election as a result of this? Or will he even run?

Yes to both. If this is, as DeLay alleges nothing more than politics there should be no reason for him to leave his seat or not run for re-election.


3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?

They'll no doubt try, but I don't think this thing has any legs quite frankly. There's an old saying in politics that goes along the lines of "Sure my politician is a crook, but he's my crook". Quite frankly, outside of a few political nerds nobody really knows nor cares who Tom DeLay is.

Asked and answered by Aquilla.


Should I consult my crystal ball? The Tarot cards? Or just flip a coin?

Since I have to guess, I suppose if he is found to be innocent, he will run and win re-election and might even resume his position as Majority leader having been vindicated. If he is found to be guilty, he probably wouldn't run. If the case is still pending prior to the election, I'd say he may or may not run and may or may not win re-election. Incumbancy is a powerful asset. Constituents like having their Congressperson in leadership positions.


The Democratic Party will use anything and everything under the sun to mount a "challenge" to the current GOP majority. That's their job. How "serious" that challenge will be remains to be seen.

1) Will Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert enforce House GOP rules and require DeLay to step down? Should he?
I'll ditto Aquilla. Denny Hastert has already named Dreier.

2) Do you think DeLay will keep his house seat in the 2006 election as a result of this? Or will he even run?
Why wouldn't he keep his seat? Texas is still a heavily Republican state. The prosecutor is from Travis County, which leans Democrat, but it's a lonely county......

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?
That's not likely to hinge on his indictment, but his conviction or acquittal. Delay claims it's a partisan witch hunt. And judging by the comments made by Ronnie Earle at a recent Democratic PAC fundraiser, he may be correct. The left has more ammo in other areas than Delay to try and win back the House.

on edit: After doing some reading and thinking driving back to work, something started to crystallize.......we're about a year out from the 2006 elections. Senate Majority Leader Frist is under fire, House Majority Leader Delay under indictment, black Republican Lt. Gov Michael Steele (considering a Senate bid) has Schumer-hired snoops stealing his credit record........I guess somebody's pulling out all the stops to try and ensure that one party doesn't become the permanent minority party........

Call me crazy, but isn't it premature for everyone so quick to dismiss a grand-jury indictment as a political witchhunt? I'm no lawyer, but from what I've read DeLay's actions can clearly be proven (the AP story mentioned they had a signed cheque as proof), and those actions can be easily interpretted to violate Texas state law. Lets put away the tinfoil and start judging the facts.

I think at this point question 1 is moot, but two certainly isn't. It's hard to answer, but if you'll permit me a cynical digress, I'm not sure that even being convicted would keep DeLay from winning. Americans are by-and-large the most forgiving voters I have ever encountered (next to Italians, who simply suffer from corruption fatigue) in a properly functioning democracy. The only way that DeLay loses the next election is if the political landscape of his district changes. I mean, why would anyone's vote change when it's pretty clear that everyone has already decided for themselves whether he's innocent or guilty.

I can't speak for the Democratic Party either, as there doesn't appear to be any clear strategy at the moment. If they are going to chase the "corruption" angle, Delay is only a piece of the puzzle. I think you're more likely to see them pursue issues that seem to matter to those few undecided voters that are left, and outside of Iraq there aren't that many that resonate in every district.

Well I would never call you crazy UltimateJoe, but who is this "everyone" you are refering to? No one here has said that.

Tom Delay said that. But I wouldn't expect him to say otherwise (guilty or innocent). He is one of the few people who really knows if it is a "witch hunt" or not. Myself and a few others here are just waiting for more facts and perhaps (shocking though it may be) a finding of guilt or innocence.

Regarding "grand jury indictments", I seem to recall Democrat apologist defense attorneys refering to a prosecutors "ability to indict a ham sandwich" whenever one of their own are indicted.

If Tom Delay was found on the shore of a Texas river after running his car off of a nearby bridge with a dead woman in it, he would still be re-elected by his Texas district. So, to clarify, yes, and yes.


Yeah, and why shouldn't they? The Congressional Republicans have been turning a blind eye to DeLay's corruption for months if not years...DeLay is a sad, sad reflection of our government and the Republican party. Hopefully this will hurt the Republicans and get them to care about those...ethics thingies.

CP

1) Will Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert enforce House GOP rules and require DeLay to step down? Should he? (edit: feel free to ignore this one since he has already stepped down)
Yes, rules are rules and if you violate one, you should suffer the consequences of your actions. Else there is no reason to have rules in the first place.

2) Do you think DeLay will keep his house seat in the 2006 election as a result of this? Or will he even run?
Depends on the outcome really. Too early to say if this will be proven true or if it's a witch hunt. The outcome will either cripple him or give him a boost.

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?
If they do they will be making a mistake. There are just as many democrates if not more with skeletons in their campaign finance closet. Best to just let Tom take his lumps.

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?

If Democrats want to out Rove Karl Rove then they need to arrange for DeLay's trial or plea bargain to be postponed until near the election.

DeLay's problems should be left brewing, with only casual mention until the time is right--closer to the 2006 elections. Let the coffee drip with minimal interference.

The good news for now is that "Mr. Bring Back DDT" will no longer be House Majority leader.



The Republicans are in a bad slump, something like 0 for 29. As a Democrat, I think we should tread lightly, but keep the issue alive. Painting a doom and gloom forecast for the Democrats in 2006 for picking on poor Tom DeLay doesn’t make much sense to me.

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?

No, not as a rallying point. Just one more nail for the coffin though.

The behavior of this Congress with the budget is a more likely rallying point. The behavior of this Congress with appointments might be another one. Then there are things like the energy bill, the education philosophy, the labor philosophy, the general attitude as well.

The recent failures of home defense -- maybe not a rallying point, just something that Demos can claim that they can do better.

There's such a rich supply of points to rally around, why go for something this innane? It looks to me that the approach will be smarter than we've seen from the Demos in a long time.

My prediction is that Delay will walk. He is charged with one count of conspiracy. Conspiracy is the easiest charge to indict a person on, and is realistically the only charge Earle could have convinced a grand jury of. Add to that, the fact that Earle (an elected Democrat) badmouthed Delay recently at a Democratic PAC fundraiser in May. Not exactly free of partisan bias.......

Now an indictment doesn't have to include all evidence pertaining to a case........but it has to include something. After reading through the four page indictment found here, what exactly is he guilty of? What exactly is he charged with?
Furthermore, I'm no legal dweeb, but reading through the applicable state statue (which Delay is being indicted under) has jurisdiction over state elected officials, not federal. The text of the statute being applied may be found here, stating:

OFFICEHOLDERS COVERED. a. The provisions of this title applicable to an officeholder apply only to a person who holds an elective public office and to the secretary of state. b. For purposes of this title, a state officer-elect or a member-elect of the legislature is considered an officeholder beginning on the day after the date of the general or special election at which the officer-elect or member-elect was elected. This subsection does not relieve a state officer-elect or member-elect of the legislature of any reporting requirements the person may have as a candidate under this title.

Now please, if I'm off base, tell me. But this case appears W-E-A-K.

To be sure, I don't hold up Delay as being a paragon of virtue (what politician is), this smacks of a political prosecution. He is aggressive, effective and conservative....that equals a trifecta in terms of political targets of the left.

Delay should stand his ground, not resign, and push for an early trial. In the end, unless there is super secret G14 classified evidence that nobody but Earle is aware of..........Delay will walk.

Another anomaly with the statute concerned is the venue provision. Delay is a resident of Harris County.

§ 251.004. VENUE. (a) Venue for a criminal offense prescribed by this title is in the county of residence of the defendant, unless the defendant is not a Texas resident, in which case venue is in Travis County.

Terry Neal of The Washington Post has an interesting take on the DeLay indictment.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...973.html?sub=AR

The question may be whether Republican judgment wins out in a battle over Republican arrogance. Keep circling them wagons boys.

I think questions 1) and 2) have been answered thus far so:

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?

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. But if DeLay ends up as guilty, then he should pay the price. Otherwise, the Democrats will continue to flounder as they seem to move from one pseudo-scandal to the next.

What Democrats are you talking about deerjerkydave?

If you are talking about this board, I can't find anyone who has pronounced him guilty.

I think you are trying to set up a straw man.

The reason some of us from Texas have so much "vitriol" for DeLay, is his role in the state's redistricting. The state legislature is responsible for redawing Congressional districts, yet DeLay, the U. S. House Minority Leader was in the statehouse in Austin helping the Governor, Lt. Governor and Speaker of the Texas House draw up new districts that gave us five new Republicans. And you need to ask?

Answering these questions is akin to crystal ball gazing. I have no idea whether DeLay will be convicted or not or whether the Democrats will benefit. What I do know is that he certainly deserves to be convicted but convictions depend on available evidence, witnesses, and honest jurors. His other vulnerability is his relationship to the lobbysist Abramoff.

Here's a taste of some of Delay's and Abramoff's circle of relationships: Circle of Friends

And Delay's close friend Abramoff is now perched on the edge of a gangland killing: Common Dreams NYT Article

And no, I am not claiming Delay or even Abramoff was involved in the killing, but it does illustrate the kind of circles they move in.

Here is a fairly comprehensive article on Abramoff's scam of Indian tribes.

Hey now Ted, I already used that line! Come up with your own metaphor will ya? :


Your next statement has me a bit confused:

How can you know that he "certainly deserves to be convicted"?

Have you read all of the "evidence"?

Have you heard all of the "witnesses"?

Has an "honest" jury found him guilty of anything?

2) Do you think DeLay will keep his house seat in the 2006 election as a result of this? Or will he even run?

Most likely he will keep his seat. People's memories are short, and the spin machine will be going full tilt to make him look like a poor, put-upon victim.

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?
I hope so, but it's a strategy that can backfire....especially since the Democrats have proven themselves to be whimpering little puppies incapable of taking advantage when the big dog rolls over and offers the vulnerable underbelly.

It seems naming Dreier as DeLay's replacement was a bit premature:

I can't help but wonder if that might have something to do with the rumors swirling around Dreier's sexuality.

And it cracks me up to hear DeLay's bleating about how Earle is a "partisan". Ronnie Earle has probably prosecuted as many Democrats as he has Republicans. Partisan my eye.

The best quote I've heard about this whole mess is this one:

[FONT=Arial]
Are "swirling rumors" about Rep. Drier's sexuality constructive to this debate and the questions asked? Please cite sources about his sexuality and expound upon how it applies to this discussion?

I’ll leave it up to others to determine whether or not it is “constructive”, but I believe it is a factor when the man was (operative word there, "was") being considered for a high visibility position and is a member of a party who is – shall we say – less than tolerant of homosexuality. You can’t stand there with a straight face and tell me a gay House majority leader wouldn’t be considered controversial.

Guys, the questions are designed to avoid some of that. I deliberately did not ask whether he is guilty, would be convicted, etc. I think it is valid consideration of what impact this will have on DeLay's seat in Congress and whether the Democrats are spine-worthy enough to properly seize events like this, Abramoff, and Frist to give a proper challenge to the balance of power for Congress in 2006.

2) Do you think DeLay will keep his house seat in the 2006 election as a result of this? Or will he even run?
I'm not willing to write this off just yet. There is much to be played out but the GOP may be faced with an ugly reality if this albatross is around DeLay's neck as late as May of next year. Fact is, his approval ratings in SugarLand are at an all time low (26% last I checked). SugarLand *is*, however, a heavily Red district thanks to DeLay's gerrymandering efforts courtesy of TRMPAC, so the future is very unclear there. Its worth noting, however, that in spite of the demographics, DeLay's last election returns were only 55-45, his closest race yet.

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?
I'm starting to see rhetoric that gives some indication of this, but the DNC needs to be smart during this time and actually come up with an alternative. As Kerry learned in 2004, simply being "not Bush" isn't sufficient to win an election. This is especially true in Texas. If they can focus on becoming a sort of "reform party" and spell out exactly how they are going to bring some ethics back to the Federal Government*, I think they have a real shot. I realize that is a huge, if, however.

Doc

* in doing so, they likely will be forced to cull some of their own herd to make the effort appear credible. William Jefferson of Louisiana might be a good starting point if his allegations are true.

Because there is ample evidence in the public record concerning the corrupt way Delay exercises his influence. I provided references to a great deal of it. In our criminal justice system, the protection of innocence is presumed to be more important than the punishment of every guilty person. Consequently, there are high hurdles to top before a conviction is reached. If it were not so, O.J. Simpson would be in jail as would Ken Lay and others. That doesn't prevent us from reaching independent conclusions about the guilt of public persons.

I was talking about Democrats in Washington.


This is what the Democrats are all angry about? What is so wrong with this? Texas has been changing politically over last number of years from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican stronghold. The new districts do a better job of representing the political views of the state. So it would seem to me that the anger coming from the Democrats is largely political. They're angry over their loss of power.

Yes, it is a problem. I live in Texas, so it is more of a problem for me than you. If and when something like this happens in California, it will be your call.

It is very simple. The task of drawing up a Congresional map is the duty of the state legislature. Tom DeLay is not a member of the Texas Legislature. So, why was he not in Washington or Sugar Land tending to business he was elected to do, instead of in Austin sticking his evil nose into something he was not elected to do?

It turns out that Ronnie Earle had and still is giving a film crew extraordinary access to make a motion picture about his work on the case against Tom Delay.
Link and Link
This doesn't exonerate Delay for any guilt, if there is indeed any......but it would appear mighty improper in my layman's opinion to turn a case like this into a reality show.
I don't know what the Texas State Bar Association would say about this, but it could seem reasonable that Earle is guilty of the same vagueness of ethics as Delay is charge with the vagueness of conspiracy.

I wonder how Democrats would have reacted if Ken Starr had a film crew tail him during the Clinton investigation.........

I think a film which had extraordinary access to Ken Starr would have been fascinating, although ultimately quite embarrassing for Republicans.

One of the filmmakers said "the film includes interviews with some critics of Earle, as well as lawyers who are representing some of the targets of the investigation."

What exactly is the problem? Do you see an ethical problem with documentaries that show these sorts of processes? Have you seen the film? Perhaps you can tell us if Earle breached any ethics codes or revealed anything illegally to the filmmakers.

I have no idea on earth how you can equate the two (Delay's possible crimes, documentary filmmaking), even as a suggestion.

And the spin machine rumbles up to speed...

True, except a spin machine has already been in full gear, it's just now joined by the Republican spin machine.

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.

I'll start believing the sincerity of rooting out corruption for the sake of clean politics when they look into their own backyard, and at least clean house while speaking of the 'culture of corruption, and the corrupt nature of Republicans (Pelosi).

I found this interesting: Tom DeLay Timeline

1. July 1997: Tries to oust Newt
2. October 1998: Receives rebuke from House ethics committee for attacking the EIA
3. September 2004: Grand jurors in Texas indict three DeLay associates
4. September-October 2004: DeLay is admonished by the House ethics committee on three separate issues.
5. January 2005: House Republicans reverse a rule that would have not allowed DeLay to keep his leadership post if he were indicted.
6. March 2005: Media reports spur Democrats to question DeLay's relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
7. April 2005: House Republicans scrap ethics committee rules that would have made it harder to proceed with an ethics investigation.
8. September 2005: Ellis and Colyandro (associates of DeLay) are indicted on additional felony charges of violating Texas election law.

I'm sure that this is all part of the "vast liberal conspiracy" designed to get DeLay at all costs. Perhaps, these liberal conspirators along with the cabal of global warming conspirators will conspire together to further their conspiratorial aims.

I think this area of our government/society to look at. For one I don't think we pay much heed to ethics, whether it be in the NCAA, the board room, journalism, or in politics.


I think many people draw the line not at ethics but legality and those that can bend the lines the farthest with breaking them or getting caught doing so are rewarded.

I also think that there is another element in play here. Too often ethics all of the sudden become important when one is in a high profile position. And the higher ups of political parties become the targets of hunts for skeletons when they are in their positions of power. This has made politics a much dirtier game.

I think this has given Delay some wiggle worm to try to shake off of the hook. In his case I think he has behaved unethically. I am going to wait on the illegal part.

Oh that brings up another issue that I didn't really expect to see from DTOM (not that I too don't fall into the game sometimes). The consistent tendency of the administration and its frieds accusing the accuser.

Why is the conduct of the prosecutor and not the substance of the prosecution not remaining the focus. These allegations have been around for a good amount of time yet I think most of us have failed to look too closely at them.

Here is my take.
1) The Republicans wanted to gain house seats in Texas, where apportionment of the district was in the favor of the Democratic Party.
2) To do this they wanted to win the majority of the House.
3) To do this, corporate money which could not be received by state Republican candidates was sent to the RNC.
4) Then that money was sent to the local candidates.
5) Delay played a role in making this happen.


If these are the facts it clearly seems unethical to me.
There is a good chance that there is not a convictable case against Delay.

This was kind of what got me to even post in this thread in the first place, I have no special love for Delay. Of course, my bias and politics will cloud pure objectivity.


I don't think I brought forward any questions or opinions in a vein dissimilar to what liberals would ask if the roles were reversed. I just have a gut feeling that because of Earle's past conduct and several coincidental events, past, present and future.....that there might actually be some motivation behind this indictment other than justice.
Until we see a smoking gun brought out in a trial, all we have is speculation. The indictment itself and the relevant facts, as known, make for a mighty weak case against Delay. Especially eyebrow raising to me is the indictment right before the statute of limitations run out. Maybe a legal eagle can tell me that this is SOP, but it gets me thinking suspiciously of the timing.
Unless a bombshell emerges - dead hooker in the trunk style - I predict Delay will walk. But I don't predict that he will regain his leadership position. Trent Lott was run out by his own party for far less than this.

If you are buying into the political motivations thing at this stage of the game DTOM then you are buying into the spin. The only way to "defend" DeLay is to try and villify the prosecutor because his defenders certainly can't use facts to defend him. To suggest there are political motivations with a complete lack of evidence is serious tinfoil territory. DeLay on the other hand warrants being investigated because numerous associates have been indicted on similar charges and one of them has been convicted already. To suggest that he wasn't involved in this would be the same thing as saying that Ken Lay surely wasn't involved in the Enron scandal, he only ran the company and thought everything was on the up and up.

There was an interesting segment on FoxNews of all places by Jim Mattox who has been prosecuted in the past by Earle. View the segment via Think Progress.

It is my understanding that if these corporations had simply donated the money to the RNC, then this would have been legal.

The fact that they donated it to a local PAC, who then gave the money to the RNC seems to be what is against the regulations.

The thing about this indictment is that Delay claims that lawyers and accountants were consulted every step of the way to ensure legality. That seems to negate the criminal conspiracy charges unless the lawyers and accountants are guilty of malfeasance and actual law-breaking.

Delay did not run TRMPAC, he was on the advisory board.

The best defense for Delay I have seen was written by David Frum: DELAY DEFENDED


It goes on:

Funny, I didn't think that bringing up other possible relevancies to the Delay case was 'buying into spin'. I didn't think that the rules of debate were so narrowly focused that we could not discuss the case, and the possible motivations behind it. Like when I stated "Until we see a smoking gun brought out in a trial, all we have is speculation. The indictment itself and the relevant facts, as known, make for a mighty weak case against Delay."

I never said Delay wasn't involved, the question is, is he guilty. And without the evidence you accuse me of not having, you proceed to compare Delay to Ken Lay.

Of course, if I was hell bent to see Harry Reid indicted for financial windfalls to friends and family relative to his The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002.....I might use the buying into the spin line on any one who questioned the motivation too.

I guess we'll find out won't we? That is what a trial is for DTOM. What I was calling you out for was trying to villify the prosecutor. Not only is there zero evidence to support that but it is completely irrelevant to begin with.

Well I guess the question here is, are these the tactics you want associated with your credibility? Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. I guess for me, this type of defense is not much of one.




And this is the, "They do it too" defense. I say go whole hog and investigate Reid. If he's dirty get him drummed out of office. Do it because we don;t want unethical, corrupt, and/or lawbreaking people to represent us. Do we? of course we do. Do we do nothing when when find out? I don't think that's the best course.

Yet, this is the classic combination of deflection defenses. You don't know if Delay is guilty or not. You're undecided if he is involved in wrongdoing. But you're getting caught up with his defense because you don't like the style of some of his accusers and their liberal allies.

If it's simply Pelosi's culture of corruption charge, does it help if I I say that is a partisan hack of a statement?


I just don't see how, "liberals do it too"

and one of their's has something that could be investigated that might lead to an indictment, too, is the best way to go about debating this thread.

Do you think the charge is baseless? I personally don't.

This is an interesting argument -- it shows the prosecution has a difficult case to prove. However, I believe there is more to it (or, rather, other) than that. The prosecutor must prove that there was a conspiracy to redirect the funds in violation of Texas law. The corporations' "motivations" need not enter into this (necessarily). It isn't corporate intentions on trial, it is DeLay's alleged conspiratorial intentions.

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. and as for the reason for it is one man who you cant deny has a history of trying to convict political enemies. the district attorney has abused his power in this case. my personal opinion is the whole indictment is illegal. federal law states that an indictment must state exactly what the charges are against him. when i read it i saw nothing in anyway that states that he did anything. keep in mind that i am not a lawyer.

digiman

What? An indictment is just a charge. I wouldn't expect to find much evidence in an indictment.

The evidence either conviting or aquitting DeLay will come out in the trial. That's why we have trials.

Here is the specific charge.

The indictment, in Travis County, which includes Austin, the state capital, accused him of conspiring with two previously indicted aides to violate a century-old Texas ban on the use of corporate money by state political candidates, by funneling thousands of dollars in corporate contributions through the Republican National Committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29delay.html?8bl


We don’t know all the particulars of what Earle has yet, but I think one of DeLay’s associates rolled over on him. As I said once before, the little rats may be throwing the big rat overboard or under a bus or somewhere. It's amazing what people will do to reduce their own jail time. It's rather common.

Here’s an interesting bit from last night’s Hardball.



Hardball Transcript, Thursday, 9-29-05

Delay is not charged with breaking the campaign finance law. He is charged with conspiring with others to abet them in breaking the law. If the corporations did not break the law, then there can be no conspiracy to break the law.

It seems to me that charging conspiracy without an underlying crime is a tenuous charge at best. Even BoF's favorite columnist, Molly Ivins would seem to agree with that. From her column.......



Now perhaps people don't like what TRMPAC did and don't think it was right, but I've got news for you. It wasn't illegal. If it was, then virtually every state party, both Democratic and Republican would be charged with this crime. DeLay and TRMPAC didn't do anything that other PACs and state parties did and if that sounds like an everyone does it defense, so be it. Fact is everyone did do it. The Center for Public Integrity has a pretty good description of what happened in the 2002 election cycle here. From that article we get the following.....



Now remember, the DeLay indictment concerns the 2002 elections, so this is relevant. From the same article, specifically what happened in Texas.....



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. I wonder why......

I think Earle should modify the charge from "conspiracy" to "vast right wing conspiracy" .


There you go again, labeling DeLay as evil. Do you have any other reason to explain your anger about this man? I understand that DeLay plays hardball politics, resulting in toes being stepped on. Perhaps this is the source of your anger?

Amlord and Aquilla make the most compelling arguments. It confirms my suspicions that this is largely if not exclusively political.

It's a bit more complicated than that, though it's important to note, as you already have, that this is a conspiracy charge and not a charge of the actual crime committed (Which would lead me to believe the prosecutors have two hoops to jump through, one to prove a crime happened and the second that Delay was somehow involved).

Delay had an organization called "Texans for a Republican Majority" (TRMPAC). Allegedly, this organization accepted $155,000 from various companies, and then wrote a check to the RNC for $190,000 with instructions to distribute it to seven candidates. This, in effect, gets around a ban restricting corporations from donating to individual candidates.

3) Will the Democratic Party use DeLay's indictment as a rallying point to mount a serious challenge to the current GOP majority in Congress for 2006?

Listening to Tom DeLay’s verbal flatulence the past few days reminds me of the line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." DeLay’s defiance may be more than an exercise in arrogance. It may well limit his future political role. Whatever happened to the days when lawyers advised clients to sit down and shut up? Perhaps DeLay’s handlers should suggest that he ditch his present lawyer in favor of Thomas Mesereau, Jr. After all Mesereau did manage to tone Michael Jackson down, at lest a little.

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi thinks DeLay is playing into the hands of Democrats.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/12804727.htm

Link requires registration.

Molly Ivins usually has something interesting to say:



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...ns/12792255.htm

Link requires registration.

None of this speaks to DeLay’s guit or innocence of the current charge, but allowing him to rant and rave and squeal like a pig stuck under a gate, has to be a positive sign for Democrats as we move toward 2006.



deerjerkydave

You picked one word out of my post to dispute. That word was evil and point out that I am angry with DeLay. My anger with DeLay or evewn hatred for him has no bearing on his guilt or innocence or the impact on the 2006 Congressional elections. “There you go again” was a phrase popularized by Ronald Reagan. It worked for him, but hasn’t done much for anyone since. In response, I’ll paraphrase what Lloyd Bentsen said to Dan Quayle, “You’re no Ronald Reagan.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Bentsen

Further, in getting hung-up on the word evil you failed to provide an adequate answer my question concerning why a Congressman from Sugar Land was in the halls of Texas government directing the Governor, the Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives on the particulars of a redistricting map.





This answer is also lacking. While many Democrats have said some nasty things about DeLay, I can’t remember anyone pronouncing him guilty.

The link below indicates that there are currently about 250 Democrats in the U. S. House and Senate combined. How many of that 250 have actually said DeLay is guilty? Can you provide links to those that you think did?

http://www.gristforthemill.org/Congress_makeup2.html

BTW: DeLay was indicted on another charge—money laundering—today.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/12808692.htm

Link requires registration.

Here's a link with more information from CNN on the new charge that doesn't require registration:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/delay.indictment/

I'm confused on this 2nd indictment as to its purpose. Is this based on statements DeLay made in response to the first indictment? Or is Ronnie Earle flinging more stuff to see if some of its sticks? If DeLay broke the law of course I want him convicted, but I'll have to admit that this second indictment confuses me as to its likelyhood of success.

I kind of wondered about this myself. I haven't seen the second indictment yet, but it sounds like Earle rammed it through a new grand jury on their first day. Took him 3 years to bring the first one and 3 hours with a new grand jury to get the second one? How does that work? Strange if you ask me......

Near as I can tell though from what I've read is that the first indictment was severly flawed. For one, the conspiracy law specific to campaign finance on the books wasn't passed until 2003 and the alleged act took place in 2002. Opps!

And, there was no underlying criminal act charged which would be necessary for a general conspiracy charge under Texas Law to be invoked. So now, apparently Earle has brought a criminal charge of money laundering on this second indictment, but that's pretty dicey as well. A quick look through the Texas State Penal Code and a search on "money laundering" seems to indicate that a fundamental aspect of the crime is that the money in question was obtained illegally. That's not the case here, corporate contributions to political action committees is, or at least was not illegal in Texas in 2002. So I don't know where Earle thinks he's going with this one.

Whether one likes DeLay or not, this is a gross abuse of power by Earle for purely political purposes and runs the danger of turning our courts into partisan "gotcha houses". I would hope that would disturb people. For those who hate Tom DeLay and are cheering this action, you best keep one thing in mind. There are Republican DA's out there too.......

You may have been a tad fast with the "oops!" button.

Do you have a source for this interpretation other than the indicted and his attorney.

I think the Fort Worth Star Telegram quoted a more credible source this morning:



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/12813108.htm

Link requires registration.

Actually yes I do. The Austin American-Statesman (also requires registration) also quotes George Dix although they identify him as an expert in criminal law, not election law.



The problem the fine professor has though with his theory is that no actual felony was charged, only a conspiracy to violate election law. It would be as if I said, "Hey, BoF, let's go rob a bank!" and you said, "Ok!", and instead we went out for a beer and some BBQ. So then, while we're munching down our BBQ, a bank gets robbed. "Ah ha!", says Ronnie Earle, "Aquilla and BoF must have done that! Ah'm a gonna charge 'em with conspiracy, and because ole BoF is a liberal Democrat, I'll offer him a deal to rat out that mean ole conservative Republican Aquilla". And, you probably would. So, I go to trial charged with conspiracy to rob a bank, but not charged with actually robbing a bank. Why not? Welllll, maybe because I didn't do it and that's why ole Ronnie doesn't charge me with it. Think a jury is going to buy that? Think a judge will?

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.

Again, I think you are premature with this take. I haven't declared DeLay either guilty or not guilty, though with all my being I want him to be guilty. Actually, I don't particularly want DeLay to do jail time.

I have an uncle who is a retired Baptist minister. He got through Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary working as an exterminator. I once saw him working at a bowling alley. I asked what he was doing and he said, "saving souls and killing bugs for Jesus." DeLay once owned an exterminating business and is fond of, as Molly Ivins says, "playing the Jesus card." Maybe he can just go back to Sugar Land and live happily ever after as my uncle said, "saving souls and killing bugs for Jesus."

Your wanting him to be not guilty can't be achieved by throwing coins in a fountain any more than my wanting him to be convicted can be achieved by wish.

This is something that will properly play out in the courts, hopefully as near to November, 2006 as possible.

And it just gets dirtier and dirtier......

From today's Austin American Statesman........



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 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.