Centerfield

There's no doubt that DeLay has had less than savory dealings, but much the same can be said of members of both parties. That aside, I'll wait for the trial to see if this stands. After all, this is the same guy who indicted Kay Bailey for allegedly hitting a staff member with a clipboard.

Regardless of whether it stands or not; however, I'm glad to see DeLay out of leadership (temporarily, at least). The GOP needs to get their act together pretty damn quick or November 2006 will see them in flames.

I don't like deLay. And I find his demeanor weasely and self-serving; untrustworthy. If he goes down, I won't miss him.

But I have to admit that I find laws of the sort he is alleged to have violated to be peculiar and arbitrary, both in the ways that that they try to remedy the perceived problem of campaign finance abuse, and in the ways in which they are selectively enforced.

For example, I am a little bit dumbfounded by following idea:

A state political action committee he created, Texans for a Republican Majority, was indicted earlier this month on charges of accepting corporate contributions for use in state legislative races. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used to advocate the election or defeat of candidates; it is allowed only for administrative expenses.

It doesn't seem right to me that corporations are precluded from candidate advocacy or dis-advocacy. I understand the problem of monied corporations being able to buy an overwhelming voice for their viewpoint, but making it illegal for such entities to act and speak in their own interess feels distinctly un-American to me....we need to find ways to ensure some semblance of equal voicing, not censorship of one type of particular views.

Good points both... Delay is indicted... blah, blah, blah... Who hasn't been these days?

You can find the actual indictment here.

BK-
Reading your comments about restricting corporate money reminds me of something. ;)

Todd;
Is it a thread or a rope?

Pretty much what ABel and BK said. DeLay probably has tons of skeletons in the closet, but Ron Earle has a history of getting some very iffy indictments of political opponents that don't pan out.

Not that anyone is all that likely to miss DeLay. He is not exactly loved on his own side of the aisle.

Yes Simon, it's a curious question. I wonder whether you think that spending money counts as speech. I don't think that it does, I think that free speech relates to a person's right to speak their mind in public or in the privacy of their own home.

I'm less certain that people have the inherent right to pay money to spread their message via the mass media. To mass proseltyze, in other words. (At least not over public airwaves, even though this is becoming an archaic and meaningless/useless distinction)

But I also think that if some people are allowed to, say, buy airtime to express their opinions, then for the most part, all ought to be allowed to. And if there are going to be limits imposed upon the ability of individuals or entities to buy airtime in order to proseltyze for whatever their cause is, this ought not to be done on the basis of ideology but rather upon some combination of egalitarianism and community standards. Which of course, is a very vague description of an idea that would be extremely messy to implement.

What do you think? Are you certain that freedom of speech was intended to cover the right to overwhelming mass dissemination regardless of the people's views? is the right of the public to regulate trumoped here by the individual right to express?

c3,

See here. I'm trying not to recycle bad lines.

Plus, I don't expect that the fair-minded people here are going to jump to conclusions on substance so quickly. But it is not too soon for me to boldly predict that DeLay will never recover.

Pretty much what ABel and BK said. DeLay probably has tons of skeletons in the closet, but Ron Earle has a history of getting some very iffy indictments of political opponents that don't pan out.

Has he had a lot of Democratic opponents?

Oh, DeLay can recover, but there's a lot of folks praying he won't. (And there are a lot of smart Reps among them).

Whether the law makes sense or not, it is the law and it is Delay's obligation to obey it. If I understand it correctly, the allegation is that he essentially laundered a contribution from Sears through the PAC and distributed the money to Republican candidates. I don't know how the law is written, but this seems to be more than a technical violation or something that Delay can chalk up to the complexities of the law.

As for Ron Earle prosecuting opponents, perhaps he has brought some iffy indictments, but he is really treading on thin ice if that's what he did here. If this is a political prosecution and it came out that it was, it would sink him and the Democrats in Texas forever. That's why I suspect it is not.

Um, Marc? You may not know Texas very well. At least twice in the past Ron Earle has obtained indictments against prominent state Republican politicians that have been dismissed on directed verdicts on the first day of trial. Earle's an active Dem party fundraiser, his daughter is employed by the county party, etc. I don't think Earle's in any danger of losing his Travis County job, no matter what the outcome.

Maybe he has something solid on DeLay. Maybe not. But his track record isn't one that inspires confidence, and the charges look more technical than substantive at this point. To be sure, the indictment has DeLay's name on it but doesn't actually detail any actions on DeLay's part at all, just accuses him of "conspiring."

Now, if someone could get Abramoff to open up about "The Hammer," there could maybe be some really fun charges. The current indictment just doesn't look like much.

bk, while the rationale for forbidding corporate political contributions as campaign finance reform is dubious, it does have a rationale: By financing a particular party, the corporation's management is using money which does not belong to them, but rather to the owners of the company. Who may have different opinions of which candidates or parties they would like to give THEIR money to.

The point being, Texas may have done the right thing, even if they did it for the wrong reason.

Um, Marc? You may not know Texas very well. At least twice in the past Ron Earle has obtained indictments against prominent state Republican politicians that have been dismissed on directed verdicts on the first day of trial. Earle's an active Dem party fundraiser, his daughter is employed by the county party, etc. I don't think Earle's in any danger of losing his Travis County job, no matter what the outcome.

And the vast majority of those Earle has gone after are Democrats.

Here's a good analysis from Captain's Quarters, edited for brevity:

The Democrats in Texas used the exact same manuever in the same election cycle, that Delay is now being charged for. The Texas Democratic Party sent $175,000 to the DNC and got $195,000 in return in three pairs of matching transactions between June 2001 and October 2002, all pairs occurring on the same date.

"If what Earle alleges that DeLay did amounts to money-laundering -- which Earle charged the other conspirators with committing, but not DeLay -- then why not the Democrats as well? If in fact both violate Texas law, then both groups should face prosecution. Did Earle present that to the grand jury, or did he just limit it to DeLay and the GOP? Earle's use of this case as a stump speech for Democratic Party fundraising this past May indicates that he had little motivation for equal application of the law -- which gives the understandable impression that Earle acted out of political malice and not a desire to see justice done.

If DeLay broke the law, then he needs to face trial for it and answer for his actions, no question. If he conspired to launder money through a series of illegal transactions, then he should not only lose his leadership post but should get booted from Congress altogether. But like the Washington Post, I remain deeply skeptical about a criminal complaint concerning what appears to be a manuever used openly by both political parties and only one of them being held accountable for it -- by an activist for the other party."

Here's The Moderate Voice take on this.

No doubt Earle has some political motivations. But despite the cliche about ham sandwiches, there's at least smoke, if not fire. If the prosecutor had been a Republican, I'm sure there would have been no indictment. The GOP doesn't indict its own people. But that doesn't put Earle in the wrong. It's why we need two parties.

LOL, Carla. This is the same Ron Earle who was publicly comparing DeLay and his associates to Mussolini and the fascists in fundraising speeches for the Dems last spring. How could I ever doubt the purity of his intentions?

Yep, he's prosecuted Dems. As Travis County DA for 30 years and head of the state's Public Integrity Unit for the same period he'd better have--until the last decade Texas had very few Republican office holders to prosecute. But it's notable that the political prosecutions he loses tend to be against his political enemies on both sides of the aisle. Like his prosecution of Texas Atty. Gen. Jim Mattox in the 1980's, when Earle's ally Ann Richards was challenging Mattox for state party leadership. (Mattox was acquitted and won re-election, then lost the Governor's primary to Richards next round.)

This is nothing new--LBJ clawed his way to the top of Texas politics on the (figurative) bodies of his Dem rivals. Anyone who thinks that "political opponenets" are only on the other side of the aisle is incredibly naive.

Great point, Tully. LBJ was a very manipulative politician who only hugged someone if he felt he could then use their body to stop a bullet heading his way.

My predictions:
Delay will be acquitted.
Delay does not return as majority leader.
Delay remains a rep. for years to come after suffering minimal damage.

You people (no offense) never cease to amaze me with your depth of knowledge of the political goings-on around the nation. It's almost sickening. Anyway, I've come to know that I'm the (well, maybe "a") representative of the "Joe Six-packs" of the world, at least within the context of this blog. As such, I want it to be clear that any way DeLay goes down is fine with me. I think the guy is poison, not because he's a powerful Republican, but because he's just plain bad. He represents for me the worst in American politics. He's the poster child for the disease that seems to afflict either party when they've been in power for some unspecified amount of time. If it sticks, good riddance. Good night, thanks for coming, and I'm glad you liked the show.

I'd extend Wes's first prediction this far: DeLay wins an acquittal or an appeal on these charges. (Methinks the boy has other problems in other places.)

Technically speaking, it's the grand jury that returned the indictment, not Earle, and I doubt the entire grand jury was composed of partisan Democrats. But technicalities do bedevil us all; after all, Al Capone went down for income tax evasion.

By financing a particular party, the corporation's management is using money which does not belong to them, but rather to the owners of the company. Who may have different opinions of which candidates or parties they would like to give THEIR money to.

A fair point. Yet I have my doubts that this law was enacted to protect corporate shareholders. If shareholders felt that a company's officers, lobbyingwise, were unable to determine on which side their bread was buttered, there are several forms of recourse. One is to replace them. Another is to pass corporate governance rules precluding the corporation from making political contributions. A 3rd is to sell your stock if you disagree with how the company is being run.

I have no recollection of widespread dissatisfaction of shareholders with the ways in which dollars are spent for lobbying and other forms of political support. AND, presumedly such people would be even more troubled by the continuing of the practice of contributions for administrative purposes and NOT ideological purposes. Wouldn't a shareholder rather the money be spent for something instead of for nothing?

I'm sorry, that rationale just doesn't pass the sniff test.

I largely agree with the substance of Susan's post. If we are sure this is criminal, convict DeLay and convict everyone else who's guilty too. Or change the law.

How fun would it be to appoint an independent commission to identify and indict every politician who could conceivably be charged with a conspiracy to commit the crime of funneling finance dollars through various committees to subvert the intent of campaign finance laws? "We're gonna need a bigger penitentiary."

Blue Jean,

I'm no lawyer, but I've always been told it is notoriously easy for a prosecuter to get a grand jury inditement.... I'm sure some of our legal scholars here could enlighten us more on the particulars of that if they wanted.

I've said it elsewhere but it it's wrong to presume guilt just because an indictment was obtained. Let Delay have his day in court...and if he's guilty the evidence will be there for the world to see. Until then, I think it's only fair to give the guy the presumption of innocence... even if you really dislike him.

Well, as has been pointed out, we are in the "War on Terror" and that the war has no boundaries. In military tribunals, you're guilty until proven innocent and certain rights can be removed.

Note: I don't believe Delay should be judged already or have any rights removed for him. I just couldn't resist the comment.

The indictment is based on differences in Texas campaign finance law that makes corporate donations illegal where federal law does not. The claim is that the defendants conspired to siphon money through to Texas candidates via national party PAC accounts to evade the state restrictions on corporate donations. The party PACS are allowed to donate to the individual candidates.

It's an old dodge, both parties do it, and it may only be illegal if the start of the money chain, the actual corporate donors, intended the money to be used for those individual candidates when they donated it. How the PACs use their money to make legal donations is a fuzzy area. PACs can donate to the candidates. You can argue that they should keep corporate money seperate from individual donations or donations from other PAC's, but it's a losing game because money is fungible.

It's also the kind of campaign finance violation that (when it can be established at all) is normally dealt with through civil actions and fines. I believe the only criminal element in the indictment is the purported conspiracy, not the donations. The only specific alleged against DeLay is that he waived the statute of limitations. No other presentation of evidence is offered to support the indictment.

Earle will need substantial evidence that a crime actually occured, and even more substantial evidence that there was a conspiracy to commit it and that DeLay was involved. It'll take more than prosecutor's allegations, or even the testimony of a single co-conspirator, to prove a "beyond a reasonable doubt" case. And even harder to get one to hold up on appeal, as the whole chain from A to Z has to be shown. Tough. VERY tough.

I agree with Tully's comments.

I feel I should also point out that the charge is on conspiracy which is widely regarded as being a lesser charge, or that the prosecutor in the case felt that the higher charge wouldn't have been able to stick at all.

Yep. Have to prove they knowingly conspired to commit a crime, and actually did commit the crime (or at least took substantial acts towards committing one).

Sorry, Tully, but I'm afraid you've misstated the law. It's not true that "the only criminal element in the indictment is the purported conspiracy, not the donations." In Texas, it is a felony offense for a corporation to make an election-related contribution. (That's Section 253.094 of the Texas Election Code.) DeLay is charged with entering into a conspiracy to violate this offense. The prosecutor must show (1) DeLay agreed with others to have a corporation make donations to the 2004 election, and (2) someone -- not necessarily DeLay -- took steps to carry out this agreement. That's all.

And cengel, it may normally be the case that it's easy for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to indict. But this is not a normal case. It's a high-profile case against a nationally-recognized figure. Assuming that Mr. Earle is a rational person, it would be the height of folly to go forward with an indictment without having enough evidence to convict.

I would watch out for what the other grand juries that Earle has operating. I don't think we've seen it all.

My prediction:
DeLay gets sucked into the Abramoff vortex of doom and faces more than just the Earle indictment. Will he get convicted on the current indictment? As Molly Ivins put it it's awfully hard to violate any campaign law in Texas. I'll give him a 50-50 on that particualr charge.

Politically the tide has turned more than just a nudge. Look for lots of lurid details in the news about DeLays other dealings and junkets, the dealings of other GOP politicians including Frist. There may not be enough to convict in a court of law but certainly a turnoff for the public as to the integrity of the GOP. Will it be enough to turn over the GOP majority I don't think so. Will they be so wounded that their power is significantly weakened? I think very much so. Santorum will not be re-elected. Others may fall too. The K Street project where corporations are 'encouraged' to donate only to the GOP may be one of the casaulties. How would you like to be a corporate lobbyist, looking at what is the very least a minor meltdown (Frist I think has a better chance of going than DeLay) and realizing that the Democratic party - having to rely on mostly noncorporate contributions the past few years may not only no longer need you as much, that even if you make a significant contribution they will remember what you did before and bygones will not be bygones for a while.

Just as an addenda - I thinkt he GOP can raise lots of cash from Democrats if it puts out for sale an autographed copy of DeLay's mugshot.

I'm not sure Republicans will be all that sad is DeLay "goes down". I think they will be sad if a "party of corruption" label sticks and hurts them in '06.

I don't believe so, Dan. Conspiracy is not an easy case in the first place. But I've read that section and the other two mentioned in the indictment as the grounds for the indictment, and the "crime" alleged requires that the corporation in question knowingly made an (otherwise allowable) Chapter 257 contribution in violation of the 60-day pre-election "blackout" period with the intention of circumventing the 60-day rule. If the corporation didn't knowingly make such a contribution inside the window, the chain never gets started.

I don't know what evidence Earle has to prove the "chain," but it looks tough from here. Like stringing fog into necklaces. Just the chain of allowable jurisdiction is formidable. If the contributions were legally made in the venue they were in at the time they were made, legally contributed to another org out of the jurisdiction, and then contributed to Texas candidates during the 60-day blackout window as an otherwise legal contribution, it's a very tough case to prove.

Assuming that Mr. Earle is a rational person, it would be the height of folly to go forward with an indictment without having enough evidence to convict.

Two huge assumptions there. One that Earle's rational, the other that it's the height of folly for him to proceed without a good case. Why would it be folly? He's done it before, and suffered no penalty for doing so. (Nor should he, unless there's a very clear case for prosecutorial misconduct.) But it's obvious he will suffer no personal or political penalties at all as long as he does it by the forms.

But if the defendants did everything by the forms, then they're simply being accused of knowingly and intelligently using a legal loophole to conform to the letter of the law. If it conforms to the letter of the law it isn't a crime. Like the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Right now, we have little to go on but that brief indictment paper.

My prediction: DeLay gets sucked into the Abramoff vortex of doom and faces more than just the Earle indictment. Will he get convicted on the current indictment? As Molly Ivins put it it's awfully hard to violate any campaign law in Texas.

Yep, Marcus. I don't give Earle even remotely close to 50/50 against DeLay on this one. Certainly not through appeal. But the Abramoff vortex is hovering over Washington, and the rumored list of possible suspects is a long one.

LOL, Carla. This is the same Ron Earle who was publicly comparing DeLay and his associates to Mussolini and the fascists in fundraising speeches for the Dems last spring. How could I ever doubt the purity of his intentions?

Few people have complete purity of intentions..and that's not what I'm driving at.

A good friend of mine is a fundraiser for Republican House members and candidates. He's told me many times that DeLay's tactics are ruthless and scornful...without going into great detail. I'm unaware of Earle's "Mussolini" comment...but frankly given the stuff that Republicans are willing to say about DeLay..I find it tough to believe that it's terribly far off.

Yep, he's prosecuted Dems. As Travis County DA for 30 years and head of the state's Public Integrity Unit for the same period he'd better have--until the last decade Texas had very few Republican office holders to prosecute. But it's notable that the political prosecutions he loses tend to be against his political enemies on both sides of the aisle. Like his prosecution of Texas Atty. Gen. Jim Mattox in the 1980's, when Earle's ally Ann Richards was challenging Mattox for state party leadership. (Mattox was acquitted and won re-election, then lost the Governor's primary to Richards next round.)

It's my understanding that Earle has had at least some success in his prosecutions of politicos..including a Dem State legislator from El Paso in 2000 and two from Waco in 1995. He also had success in going after a Dem San Antonio voter registrar in 1992 and the State Treasurer in 1982. I have no idea if any of these people were his political opponents/enemies. But clearly he's willing to go after both sides of the aisle.

This is nothing new--LBJ clawed his way to the top of Texas politics on the (figurative) bodies of his Dem rivals. Anyone who thinks that "political opponenets" are only on the other side of the aisle is incredibly naive.

Please. Anyone who defends Tom DeLay from "partisans" is a joke, first of all. They don't get any more ruthlessly partisan than DeLay. Further, Earle has quite obviously gone after people who weren't his political opponents...the guy even prosecuted HIMSELF, for failing to properly file campaign disclosure finances.

This idea that Tom DeLay is somehow fighting against a hard-bitten, ruthless partisan whose out to get him is a farce.

What, Carla? A political hatchet man using ruthless tactics? Perish the thought.

I'm not defending DeLay at all. I've repeatedly stated that he's a sleaze, probably has a closet full of skeletons, and that no one will miss him when he's gone. I'm pointing out that on the surface of it, by the available facts, there doesn't really seem to be any "there" there in Earle's indictment of DeLay. After three years of investigation and six grand juries, we have a near content-free indictment.

You, on the other hand, are most definitely defending Ronnie Earle. Before attempting to paint Earle as a White Knight, a modern-day Chevalier de Bayard, if you don't know what's wrong with him using his investigation as a fundraising device and making prejudicial statements to the public, I suggest you consult the American Bar Associations Canon of Ethics. In particular EC5-1, EC8-8, DR7-107, and DR7-108.

Or we can wonder why Earle has made no attempt to investigate or indict Texas Democrats for the exact same kind of hard-for-soft money swaps, as the Dems did the same thing in the same election. I'm not arguing that Earle should indict TX Dems, because as near as I can tell from reading the statutes, none of the underlying transactions on either side were illegal! Under Texas law, the RNC, DNC, and RNSEC were all legally PACs, able to receive donations from whomever, and make donations to whomever. We may find the political shell games used by both parties to keep to the letter of the law disgusting, but being disgusting is not an indictable offense.

Byron York of National Review has just published an article that shows he's been checking up on Earle. Seems that the corporate defendents in the case were told they'd be let off the hook, but only if they donated large chunks o' cash to some of Earle's favorite institutions. Dismissals for Dollars. Ronnie Earle may be sans peur, but he's hardly sans reproche.

I have no objection to hanging DeLay for real crimes he has actually committed. Heck, I'd pull the trap release--my respect for political thugs and hatchet men is somewhat lacking, being confined to staying out of their sights when not wearing full body armor. I suspect the Abramoff investigations will provide some solid rope for the DeLay scaffold. But as you know, I object quite a bit to lynch mobs. Trial first, then verdict and sentence. That DeLay is defending himself against a "hard-bitten, ruthless partisan whose out to get him" is quite likely indeed, and is not altered at all by the fact that DeLay himself is a "hard-bitten, ruthless partisan."

Cengal,

While it's true that a grand jury "could prosecute a ham sandwich" in most cases, in this one I'm just quoting William Gibson, the foreman (foremember?) of the grand jury.

Au contraire, mon frer, there's nobody who's a bigger fan of "innocent until proven guilty" than me. I just find it endlessly amusing that the same folks who spent most of the '90s cheering on Ken Starr and gleefully accusing the Clintons of everything from drug running to murder are now suddenly muttering darkly about "flimsy indictments", "rights of the accused", and "out of control partisan prosecutors".

Perhaps if it's true that "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.", then "a liberal is a conservative whose ally has been indicted." :-)

P.S. Speaking of punishing people just because they hold views you dislike, check out this golden oldie from Tom DeLay, when he said he pursued Clinton's impeachment because Bill held "the wrong worldview."

What a mess. DeLay's a scumbag, but possibly not guilty of the charges in question. Fishing expeditions based on vague and under-substantiated charges are anathema to good government, but (a) DeLay IS dirty, and the country would be better off without him, and (b) Ken Starr set a standard for partisan inquiry, which the Democrats can either adopt or reject on principle. If they reject them, they, end up in an asymmetrical political war that they proably can't win. Of course, if the DO adopt these tactics, they'll be told that they are just as bad as the Republicans. Which, of course, will be true if use the tactics long enough...

God, how I hate politics.

Not a bad nutshell description at all, Winston. You could reduce that line of argument even farther to "He hit me first!" When they've both been beating on each other for eons.

Personally I think we'd all be better off without DeLay, regardless of how (criminally) dirty he is. I'm not fond of Frist either. Both of them being accused of the thin and piffling at the same time suggests a timed and coordinated pre-emptive strike. The timing is exactly right for a unity-disrupting attempt to get the House and Senate majority leaders on shakier (and thus less effective) ground through the Xmas recess. When the session resumes after Xmas, the focus on both sides will be on posturing for the fall elections. At that point the leaders don't have nearly as much control anyway, because the members have to posture for their district's voters instead of for the party.

Just one cynic's speculative assessment, of course. YMMV considerably. But it's worth thinking about.

You, on the other hand, are most definitely defending Ronnie Earle. Before attempting to paint Earle as a White Knight, a modern-day Chevalier de Bayard, if you don't know what's wrong with him using his investigation as a fundraising device and making prejudicial statements to the public, I suggest you consult the American Bar Associations Canon of Ethics. In particular EC5-1, EC8-8, DR7-107, and DR7-108.

Did you cut and paste that directly from Captain's Quarters or did you change around some of the sentences? LOL

Legal ethics is a very opaque area of the law and not something that comes across directly at first blush. For example, how is it concluded that Earle violated one or more of these canons? Further, does the state of Texas use the ABA "canons" (which is in essence the ABA code, promulgated in 1969). Thirdly..the canons were replaced years ago by the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (circa 1983) which for some reason..you're not citing. Incidentally..some states don't use these canons at all..California being one such example. Often states have their own rules.

Further, if stumping politically were cause for a conflict, it would impinge Earle's right to free speech which is why the Code and the Model Rules don't have rules to prevent political speech by prosecutors. On the other hand, the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct (which may be what Tully is referring to because they are called the "canons" for judges?) does prevent speeches for political organizations by judges or candidates for judicial office.

Or we can wonder why Earle has made no attempt to investigate or indict Texas Democrats for the exact same kind of hard-for-soft money swaps, as the Dems did the same thing in the same election.

It's not about a "hard" for "soft" swap. It's about corporate donations..which are specifically forbidden under Texas Law. And frankly it's just about the only campaign finance law they seem to have.

Byron York of National Review has just published an article that shows he's been checking up on Earle. Seems that the corporate defendents in the case were told they'd be let off the hook, but only if they donated large chunks o' cash to some of Earle's favorite institutions. Dismissals for Dollars. Ronnie Earle may be sans peur, but he's hardly sans reproche.

If Byron actually has evidence that Earle was attempting to extort defendants...he should turn it over to Justice. I'm curious as to why he hasn't....aren't you?

Both of them being accused of the thin and piffling at the same time suggests a timed and coordinated pre-emptive strike. The timing is exactly right for a unity-disrupting attempt to get the House and Senate majority leaders on shakier (and thus less effective) ground through the Xmas recess.

And would you like two steel balls to spin while you're at it? ;-)

I said it was a speculative assessment, Jean. Clearly labelled as a toss-out, not a conclusion or allegation, based solely on the timing of the two allegations. It would be a downright plebian garden-variety tactical maneuver at the national level. They get much more Machiavellian than that up on the Hill.

LOL, Carla. I didn't say Earle did anything illegal, did I? I said there was substantial reason for doubting his motivations, and listed some. Remember reasonable doubt? Would you say there is NO reasonable doubt that Earle lacks ulterior motivations?

Earle didn't just stump for the party--something I have no real objection to, although the Texas version of the ethics code might disagree as regards conflicts of interest in ongoing cases. He cited the apparent object of an ongoing investigation by name, referring to his "character, credibility, reputation or criminal record," offered "opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration," and referred to "information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial."

That's an apparent violation of ethics for a Texas prosecutor no matter how we slice it, whether he's stumping or not, whenever he does it in public or has any reasonable expectation of it being reported in public. Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct III.3.07, since ya wanna be nit-picky about whether it was a substantive ethical breach under Texas Bar conduct codes. As compared to the previously cited American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Responsibility and the Disciplinary Rules upon which the Texas rules are based. The ABA model codes remain the ABA standard, of course.

Not that I really care, as I'm just pointing out the obvious, not trying to get Earle indicted or disbarred. Namely, I'm making the obvious point that Earle is not at all above reproach and has given many indications over the years that he's politically selective in what he wants to indict for, regardless of the evidence. That he is not, as I said, a White Knight. That he has given solid public indications that he is a committed partisan, has actively worked for the Democratic Party, and was so doing when committing ethical breaches regarding DeLay.

I find no mention at all in the indictment that at any time did any of the corporations knowingly make a time-banned Chapter 257 contribution inside of the 60-day window, the subject of the law(s) cited. There's no mention of when the corporate donations were made, and it's a key element.

Once the money is out of the corporate hands, it's no longer corporate money. It's PAC money, and the PAC contribution rules apply. Which brings us back to the beginning--was a crime even committed, much less conspired? The only evidence offered in the indictment is the check for the hard/soft money swap within the 60-day window--but the window only applies to corporations, not PACs. And the check was between PACs. The Dems did the same thing.

Why go out of your way to jump through the hoops to multiply shuffle the funds when the purportedly illegal donations could have been made legally during the time period in simpler and more direct ways? That's the part that puzzles me. Even if we assume that the "chain" was somehow illegal, it could have been done completely legally in a much simpler fashion--by direct corporate donation to the national PAC. So why bother?

All thin gruel. More and more questions, no answers from the indictment, no additional info likely until it gets to court. But if you like, Carla, I'll offer you another $10-to-charity bet that DeLay is eventually acquitted on this indictment. Care to wager?

LOL, Carla. I didn't say Earle did anything illegal, did I? I said there was substantial reason for doubting his motivations, and listed some. Remember reasonable doubt? Would you say there is NO reasonable doubt that Earle lacks ulterior motivations?

You were citing ABA canons...so it looked to me like you were trying to set up some sort of Bar violation. Further...you seem to be hinting at illegal activity via NRO by saying that Byron has evidence of such by Earle.

Whether Earle is motivated by politics or by justice is rather irrelevant. Quite clearly there was enough evidence for 12 people in a grand jury to indict DeLay. Earle most certainly can't do it by himself.

That's an apparent violation of ethics for a Texas prosecutor no matter how we slice it, whether he's stumping or not, whenever he does it in public or has any reasonable expectation of it being reported in public. Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct III.3.07, since ya wanna be nit-picky about whether it was a substantive ethical breach under Texas Bar conduct codes. As compared to the previously cited American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Responsibility and the Disciplinary Rules upon which the Texas rules are based. The ABA model codes remain the ABA standard, of course.

If this is truely the case, then the Texas Bar will go after Earle at their leisure, I'm sure. Either way..it doesn't negate the indictment of DeLay, when there was clearly sufficient enough evidence to do so according to the GJ.

Not that I really care, as I'm just pointing out the obvious, not trying to get Earle indicted or disbarred. Namely, I'm making the obvious point that Earle is not at all above reproach and has given many indications over the years that he's politically selective in what he wants to indict for, regardless of the evidence. That he is not, as I said, a White Knight. That he has given solid public indications that he is a committed partisan, has actively worked for the Democratic Party, and was so doing when committing ethical breaches regarding DeLay.

I don't know if Earle is above reproach or not. Either he has the goods on DeLay or he doesn't. It looks so far like he does. Grand juries don't normally indict unless there's at least some evidence to do so.

All thin gruel. More and more questions, no answers from the indictment, no additional info likely until it gets to court. But if you like, Carla, I'll offer you another $10-to-charity bet that DeLay is eventually acquitted on this indictment. Care to wager?

If you want...although frankly I don't know that there's enough to convict either, mostly because noone (except the GJ and including yourself) has seen Earle's evidence.

Frankly..I think there's more to get DeLay on the Saipan issue..but noone seems to be able to go after him on that thus far. If Earle does get a conviction..it will be congruent to the Al Capone/tax evasion scenario, IMO.

Either he has the goods on DeLay or he doesn't. It looks so far like he does.

He ran it by five previous grand juries before coming up with an indictment on the final day of the statute, Carla, and still needed DeLay to "toll the statute" to indict him. The only evidence you can muster of "the goods" on DeLay is the indictment itself, and faith in Earle's neutrality and that grand jury's abilities. Because no evidence at all specifically related to DeLay is in the indictment, just a very fuzzy allegation that will be awfully tough to prove.

You seem to have more faith in grand juries than most of us. I don't have much faith at all in them--the reason that over half the states have abandoned the grand jury system in favor of preliminary hearings is that a prosecutor can pretty much get whatever he wants out of a grand jury by manipulating everything that comes before them, and by offering only one side of the case--the prosecutor's. There is no judge to interpret the law, or inform the grand jury of when the prosecutor is misrepresenting it. No representation for the defendents, no assessment of the quality of evidence, no right to rebut, indeed, very few of the rights a defendent enjoys at trial.

The quote "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich" comes from Sol Wachtler, by the way, former Chief Justice of New York. Clearly an ignorant man with no basis for his opinion.

Frankly I expect DeLay will be seeing more idnictments in the future--ones with much more substantial backing. But that's a mug's game, as anything would be more substantial than what we've seen from Earle.

LOL, Tully. And thanks for giving me the source for that quote; I was wondering about it. I still doubt that there's a conspiracy to finger Frist and DeLay at the same time, but I agree about the Capitol's Machivellian machinations. (Say that three times fast...)

He ran it by five previous grand juries before coming up with an indictment on the final day of the statute, Carla, and still needed DeLay to "toll the statute" to indict him. The only evidence you can muster of "the goods" on DeLay is the indictment itself, and faith in Earle's neutrality and that grand jury's abilities. Because no evidence at all specifically related to DeLay is in the indictment, just a very fuzzy allegation that will be awfully tough to prove.

The evidence isn't presented in the indictment, that I can tell and you say it isn't. So in fact you don't know what "the goods" really are. The allegation doesn't look at all fuzzy, in fact. It states that DeLay and the other two in the indictment took corporate money and laundered it through their PAC..and then disseminated it to Congressional candidates. The only way DeLay is convicted is if it can be proved that he had knowledge of the transactions.

The reason that the GJ waited so long to indict, according to the GJ foreman...was because they'd been waiting for DeLay to come in and testify or leave them a statement..which DeLay essentially refused to do.

I don't know if I have faith in GJ's or not. But so far no reason has been expressed to me that the indictment was inappropriate.

Actually the indictment says that the other two conspired to commit a criminal act (that on the surface doesn't appear to actually be criminal) and names DeLay as an indicted co-conspirator, but doesn't say why he's in the list.

The only way DeLay is convicted is if it can be proved that he had knowledge of the transactions.

Nope. Not even that. First they have to show that the transactions were in fact illegal, then they have to show that DeLay was aware of the transactions, knew they were illegal, and "conspired" to facilitate them before the transactions occurred. You can't "conspire" to do something after it happens. (He can conspire to cover them up, but that isn't the charge of the indictment.) Nor do you criminally conspire to commit legal actions. If DeLay found out about the transactions after the fact, he's de facto innocent of any conspiracy to commit them. If he didn't know the transactions were criminal, he's likewise innocent of conspiracy. No intent. If he knew the transactions were criminal before they were made, it gets pretty damn murky and technical and is a very very tough case to prove.

Darn, DeLay's attorney outed my secret weapon for winning that bet with Carla. (Can you say ex post facto? I knew you could!)

Earle has responded to the (obviously) impending dismissal by getting a brand-new grand jury empanelled today and getting new indictments against DeLay out of them in what looks like minutes. Haven't seen the two-count indictment yet, but it's reportedly for money laundering and conspiracy to launder money.

Well, DeLay has been responsible for quite a bit of pork, so he might qualify as a ham sandwich....

The chance that Earle didn't know the first indictment was fatally flawed by nature: zero. The satisfaction of watching Earle demonstrate that it really really IS personal: priceless.

Well, DeLay has been responsible for quite a bit of pork, so he might qualify as a ham sandwich...

More like a Hammer sandwich. ;-)

LOL, Jean. I like that pic. I want a costume like that for Halloween! Get a hammerhead hat and it's perfect....

Earle's had three years and (now) seven grand juries to gather evidence and prepare to prosecute. In the past, every time he's had a solid case against a politician, he tried to rush to trial after the indictments while the defendent tried to stall. Every time Earle's had a truly questionable case, he's gotten the indictments at the last minute possible in the fall before primaries, and then tried to stall going to court for as long as he could. The DeLay indictments have shown up at the last minute the fall before primaries....

Obvious "marker": If DeLay pushes for quick action on the charges and Earle tries to stall, then Earle probably has a weak to non-existent case and you can safely assume that it's a nakedly political move to keep DeLay out of his "Hammer" spot when Congress reconvenes in January.

LOL, Jean. I like that pic. I want a costume like that for Halloween! Get a hammerhead hat and it's perfect....

LOL! Maybe Chevy Chase would lend you his...

Well, Tom DeLay showing up on my doorstep in any guise would certainly scare me. In other parts of Kansas, you could expect large amounts of cash...or a good chewing out if you're in Moore's district. I would suggest you avoid the campuses; you'd just get eaten. (No obscene puns about "tricks and treats" from the peanut gallery, please. ;-)