Talk About Grasping At Straws
Rep. Tom DeLay was hit with an indictment from the State of Texas today. The charge? Criminal conspiracy. Travis County DA, Ronnie Earle, convinced a grand jury of knowing malfeasance on Rep. DeLay’s part, and the indictment was handed down.
A Texas grand jury indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) yesterday on a charge of criminally conspiring with two political associates to inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 state elections that helped the Republican Party reorder the congressional map in Texas and cement its control of the House in Washington.
The criminal indictment forced DeLay, one of the Republicans' most powerful leaders and fundraisers, to step aside under party rules barring such posts to those accused of criminal conduct. House Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the third-ranking leader, was elected by Republican House members yesterday afternoon to fill the spot temporarily after conservatives threatened a revolt against another candidate considered by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).
Although the indictment had been rumored for weeks among top Republicans, based on what several described as a difficult meeting in August between DeLay and the Texas prosecutor behind the case, it shook the GOP political establishment and posed new problems for the party as it heads into the midterm elections next year.
DeLay bitterly denounced the charge as baseless and defiantly called the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, "an unabashed partisan zealot" engaging in "personal revenge" because DeLay helped elect a Republican majority to the Texas House in 2002. "I have the facts, the law and the truth on my side," DeLay said, reading from a prepared statement, before declining to answer questions.
But the indictment, which comes after three rebukes of DeLay in 2004 by the House ethics committee on unrelated matters, poses a major political problem for the 58-year-old Bush administration loyalist, 11-term congressman, and self-described champion of free enterprise and deregulation. DeLay also faces a likely inquiry by the House ethics committee into a series of foreign trips he took that were initially partly paid for by lobbyists.
The indictment specifically alleges that DeLay, who helped organize the Texas political committee at the heart of the charge, participated in a conspiracy to funnel corporate money into the 2002 state election "with the intent that a felony be committed."
Using corporate funds for state election purposes has long been illegal in Texas, as it is in 17 other states. Earle's probe of the contributions began after 17 Republicans who received the committee's funds were elected, giving the party control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years. One year later, following a roadmap that DeLay and his political aides drafted from Washington, the Texas House approved a sweeping reorganization of the state's congressional district map meant to favor Republicans.
Then, in 2004, five more Texas Republicans were elected to Congress, enlarging the Republican majority in the House .
The facts of one of the central transactions at issue in the case -- the transfer in September 2002 to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington of $190,000 in corporate funds collected by the committee in Texas and the subsequent donation by the RNC arm of $190,000 to seven Texas House candidates on Oct. 4, 2002 -- have never been in dispute.
Earle has long alleged that this transfer was intended to circumvent the Texas law. A copy of the relevant check from the Texas committee has been in his hands for more than a year, and he has repeatedly said the committee supplied the RNC with a list showing which Texas candidates should eventually be paid the funds.
Some evidence collected in a related civil case has pointed to heavy involvement by DeLay in the operations of the Texas committee. Its start-up was financed by a transfer of corporate funds from his leadership fund. He was a member of the Texas committee's advisory board in 2001 and 2002, participated in its strategizing, appeared at its fundraisers, and signed its solicitations. He also attended dinners with corporate donors that agreed to contribute tens of thousands of dollars to it; his fundraisers recorded the favors that donors sought.
But DeLay has long denied participating in its day-to-day operations and said that its activities were vetted by lawyers. As a result, the key question in Washington and Austin has been whether DeLay knew about the $190,000 transactions -- an allegation that lawyers say could be proved only by documentary evidence, such as an e-mail, or in grand jury testimony by one of those involved.
DA Earle has a lot to prove against DeLay, or like his case against Rep. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, it will be dismissed. Both Thomas and I have read the indictment, which presents nothing against Rep. DeLay. This is hearsay and innuendo. None of it can be proven. Consequently, DA Earle has had an ax to grind against Rep. DeLay for years. And he has used it in a extremely partisan fashion. He even went so far as to use his political ax in a Democrat fundraising campaign.
Captain Ed points out that the ABA has stated that DA Earle has violated three areas of the Canon of Ethics. Those are as follows:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005526.php
(A) A lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation of a criminal matter shall not make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that does more than state without elaboration:
(1) Information contained in a public record.
(2) That the investigation is in progress.
(3) The general scope of the investigation including a description of the offense and, if permitted by law, the identity of the victim.
(4) A request for assistance in apprehending a suspect or assistance in other matters and the information necessary thereto.
(5) A warning to the public of any dangers.
(B) A lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense of a criminal matter shall not, from the time of the filing of a complaint, information, or indictment, the issuance of an arrest warrant, or arrest until the commencement of the trial or disposition without trial, make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that relates to:
(1) The character, reputation, or prior criminal record (including arrests, indictments, or other charges of crime) of the accused.
Above was clause DR7-107, Section A and B (1) of legal ethics. Below is Clause EC-8-8. The link to the Canon of Ethics is below.
Lawyers often serve as legislators or as holders of other public offices. This is highly desirable, as lawyers are uniquely qualified to make significant contributions to the improvement of the legal system. A lawyer who is a public officer, whether full or part-time, should not engage in activities in which his personal or professional interests are or foreseeably may be in conflict with his official duties.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/mcpr/MCPR.HTM
Michelle Malkin put down her two cents in an e-mail she received from Barbara Comstock, a former Dept. Of Justice official who commented on the affair in the following:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003628.htm
Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.
Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.
There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?
In short, DA Earle does not have a leg to stand on, and my very well be risking his career on a witch-hunt. This hunt is now at a crescendo, and he may not be able to stop it aside from dropping Rep. DeLay from the indictment. Now, I am not a kool-aid drinker here, so I will state this as plainly and precisely as I possibly can: IF (and that is a big "if" right now) Rep. DeLay broke the law, he should be tried and convicted just like anyone else would be. NO ONE is above the law.
However, were I on DeLay’s legal team, I would call attention to the handling of DA Earle’s case. I would draw the attention of the judge, and have him do a careful review of the facts surrounding the indictment. At this point, there are no hard, solid facts. Rep. DeLay faces circumstantial evidence, at best. Concocted evidence, at worst. I expect that Rep. DeLay will be exonerated soon enough, and back in the House driving the Left nuts.
The Bunny ;)
Rep. Tom DeLay was hit with an indictment from the State of Texas today. The charge? Criminal conspiracy. Travis County DA, Ronnie Earle, convinced a grand jury of knowing malfeasance on Rep. DeLay’s part, and the indictment was handed down.
A Texas grand jury indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) yesterday on a charge of criminally conspiring with two political associates to inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 state elections that helped the Republican Party reorder the congressional map in Texas and cement its control of the House in Washington.
The criminal indictment forced DeLay, one of the Republicans' most powerful leaders and fundraisers, to step aside under party rules barring such posts to those accused of criminal conduct. House Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the third-ranking leader, was elected by Republican House members yesterday afternoon to fill the spot temporarily after conservatives threatened a revolt against another candidate considered by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).
Although the indictment had been rumored for weeks among top Republicans, based on what several described as a difficult meeting in August between DeLay and the Texas prosecutor behind the case, it shook the GOP political establishment and posed new problems for the party as it heads into the midterm elections next year.
DeLay bitterly denounced the charge as baseless and defiantly called the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, "an unabashed partisan zealot" engaging in "personal revenge" because DeLay helped elect a Republican majority to the Texas House in 2002. "I have the facts, the law and the truth on my side," DeLay said, reading from a prepared statement, before declining to answer questions.
But the indictment, which comes after three rebukes of DeLay in 2004 by the House ethics committee on unrelated matters, poses a major political problem for the 58-year-old Bush administration loyalist, 11-term congressman, and self-described champion of free enterprise and deregulation. DeLay also faces a likely inquiry by the House ethics committee into a series of foreign trips he took that were initially partly paid for by lobbyists.
The indictment specifically alleges that DeLay, who helped organize the Texas political committee at the heart of the charge, participated in a conspiracy to funnel corporate money into the 2002 state election "with the intent that a felony be committed."
Using corporate funds for state election purposes has long been illegal in Texas, as it is in 17 other states. Earle's probe of the contributions began after 17 Republicans who received the committee's funds were elected, giving the party control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years. One year later, following a roadmap that DeLay and his political aides drafted from Washington, the Texas House approved a sweeping reorganization of the state's congressional district map meant to favor Republicans.
Then, in 2004, five more Texas Republicans were elected to Congress, enlarging the Republican majority in the House .
The facts of one of the central transactions at issue in the case -- the transfer in September 2002 to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington of $190,000 in corporate funds collected by the committee in Texas and the subsequent donation by the RNC arm of $190,000 to seven Texas House candidates on Oct. 4, 2002 -- have never been in dispute.
Earle has long alleged that this transfer was intended to circumvent the Texas law. A copy of the relevant check from the Texas committee has been in his hands for more than a year, and he has repeatedly said the committee supplied the RNC with a list showing which Texas candidates should eventually be paid the funds.
Some evidence collected in a related civil case has pointed to heavy involvement by DeLay in the operations of the Texas committee. Its start-up was financed by a transfer of corporate funds from his leadership fund. He was a member of the Texas committee's advisory board in 2001 and 2002, participated in its strategizing, appeared at its fundraisers, and signed its solicitations. He also attended dinners with corporate donors that agreed to contribute tens of thousands of dollars to it; his fundraisers recorded the favors that donors sought.
But DeLay has long denied participating in its day-to-day operations and said that its activities were vetted by lawyers. As a result, the key question in Washington and Austin has been whether DeLay knew about the $190,000 transactions -- an allegation that lawyers say could be proved only by documentary evidence, such as an e-mail, or in grand jury testimony by one of those involved.
DA Earle has a lot to prove against DeLay, or like his case against Rep. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, it will be dismissed. Both Thomas and I have read the indictment, which presents nothing against Rep. DeLay. This is hearsay and innuendo. None of it can be proven. Consequently, DA Earle has had an ax to grind against Rep. DeLay for years. And he has used it in a extremely partisan fashion. He even went so far as to use his political ax in a Democrat fundraising campaign.
Captain Ed points out that the ABA has stated that DA Earle has violated three areas of the Canon of Ethics. Those are as follows:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005526.php
(A) A lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation of a criminal matter shall not make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that does more than state without elaboration:
(1) Information contained in a public record.
(2) That the investigation is in progress.
(3) The general scope of the investigation including a description of the offense and, if permitted by law, the identity of the victim.
(4) A request for assistance in apprehending a suspect or assistance in other matters and the information necessary thereto.
(5) A warning to the public of any dangers.
(B) A lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense of a criminal matter shall not, from the time of the filing of a complaint, information, or indictment, the issuance of an arrest warrant, or arrest until the commencement of the trial or disposition without trial, make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that relates to:
(1) The character, reputation, or prior criminal record (including arrests, indictments, or other charges of crime) of the accused.
Above was clause DR7-107, Section A and B (1) of legal ethics. Below is Clause EC-8-8. The link to the Canon of Ethics is below.
Lawyers often serve as legislators or as holders of other public offices. This is highly desirable, as lawyers are uniquely qualified to make significant contributions to the improvement of the legal system. A lawyer who is a public officer, whether full or part-time, should not engage in activities in which his personal or professional interests are or foreseeably may be in conflict with his official duties.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/mcpr/MCPR.HTM
Michelle Malkin put down her two cents in an e-mail she received from Barbara Comstock, a former Dept. Of Justice official who commented on the affair in the following:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003628.htm
Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.
Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.
There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?
In short, DA Earle does not have a leg to stand on, and my very well be risking his career on a witch-hunt. This hunt is now at a crescendo, and he may not be able to stop it aside from dropping Rep. DeLay from the indictment. Now, I am not a kool-aid drinker here, so I will state this as plainly and precisely as I possibly can: IF (and that is a big "if" right now) Rep. DeLay broke the law, he should be tried and convicted just like anyone else would be. NO ONE is above the law.
However, were I on DeLay’s legal team, I would call attention to the handling of DA Earle’s case. I would draw the attention of the judge, and have him do a careful review of the facts surrounding the indictment. At this point, there are no hard, solid facts. Rep. DeLay faces circumstantial evidence, at best. Concocted evidence, at worst. I expect that Rep. DeLay will be exonerated soon enough, and back in the House driving the Left nuts.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:56 PM
1 Comments:
I have to side with Rep. Delay. The indictment doesn't pass the smell test. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home