This is encouraging to read. I hope this turns out to be a tempest in a teacup, and that the Dems all get tea stains.
"This is encouraging to read. I hope this turns out to be a tempest in a teacup, and that the Dems all get tea stains."
It wont matter if it is a tempest in a tea cup...how long is this process going to go on...Tom has already stepped down has majority leader..if this drags on into next year it could cost him his seat. After that even if he is aquited it doesnt matter the damage is done.
The important thing to remember is that he is not being charged with the underlying matter...but rather conspiracy. Conspiracy cases are extremely difficult to prove....because it requires the procecutor to prove "specific intent" on the part of the conspirators to commit the crime alleged.
I haven't seen the comments of Former DOJ official Barbara Comstock (from Michelle Malkin's site) posted on FR. These comments show that there was no crime at all, zero, nothing. Here are those comments:
Ronnie Earle argues that Tom DeLay conspired to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the facts. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the law.
According to the indictment, the conspiracy was to unlawfully make a political contribution of corporate funds to a political party within 60 days of an election.
The Texas Election Code clearly states that "A corporation or labor organization may not knowingly make a contribution [to a political party] during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election." Title 15, Texas Election Code, § 253.104. Texas law also states in part that "A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed: (1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and (2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement."
The Problems with Earle's case:
In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over DeLay, Earle charges that because Congressman DeLay may have known about the transaction before it occurred, he was then part of a conspiracy.
However, Earle's office has sworn testimony and other exculpatory evidence showing that Congressman DeLay did not have knowledge of the transaction.
In addition:
No corporation or labor organization was indicted in this conspiracy. Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor organization.
No corporation or labor organization made a contribution during 60 days of an election.
What constitutes a contribution under the Texas Election Code is not strictly defined.
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?
"tempest in a teacup"
I predict that this will be a tempest in a tea spoon. =]