Posted on 09/28/2005 1:32:07 PM PDT by wcdukenfield
The "facts" in the indictment do not make a case for illegal contributions by the corporations because the indictment doesn't even allege that the corporate contributions were made within 60 days of an election. The essential argument is that a contribution was made to the RNC from a Texas PAC, which had received these corporate contributions (the dates of which we don't know), and certain candidates in Texas received money (presumably from the RNC), although not necessarily tracking with the corporate contributions to the PAC. If this sounds convoluted, it is. Based on this information, I see no illegal contribution, let alone no tie to Tom DeLay. I also note that none of the corporations that made contributions have been indicted. (And, by the way, the Texas conspiracy statute requires evidence that those charged actually intended to commit a crime. So, the bar for the government is significant.) The more I analyze this, the more outrageous this appears. I only hope the mainstream media will do a better job reporting on this than on Hurricane Katrina. Posted at 03:47 PM
So - let me get this straight -
Tom DeLay is accused of impropriety in a stock trade - that is based on pretty thin accusations, although it is possible he is guilty of something..... But the media has already jumped on this on a scale FAR more grand than they have EVERY jumped on Clintoon family fundraising and Hitlery's HIGHLY questionable investments - and she is not only up for re-election to the SEnate, but is the leading RAT candidate for Pres. in '08.
Old Teddy murdered a girl - and never paid a price of any kind. The double standard has been around a long time.
Now - if DeLay really did do something wrong - he needs to step up to the plate and admit it. On the other hand, if these allegations are simple partisan head-hunting - then this has already received FAR too much press.
Found this from the once-conservative Judicial Watch:
http://www.judicialwatchsouthwest.org/032404a.htm
...Recent news accounts surrounding Travis County District Attorney, Ronnie Earl’s, investigation into various aspects of campaign funding during the 2002 Texas legislative elections, reveal possible violations of federal law. It has been widely reported that $190,000.00 was exchanged between TRM and the RNC during the fall of 2002. Just two weeks later, seven checks totaling $190,000.00 were allegedly sent back from the RNC to candidates for the Texas House of Representatives.
If, as has been alleged, the $190,000.00 initially sent to the RNC was received by TRM as so-called “corporate money,” the funds are prohibited under Title 15 of the Texas Election Code for use as political contributions or expenditures. It appears that the seven checks paid to the Texas candidates by the RNC were used for political purposes.
If so, these activities may have been orchestrated to subvert Texas law prohibiting the direct use of corporate funds for political purposes. Such a scheme, intending to obtain illicit money for political benefit by laundering campaign funds through the RNC, thereby defrauding the public and violating state election laws, would, if true, potentially violate, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (mail fraud), 1956 (money laundering) and 1962 (racketeering).
You have been directed by Attorney General Ashcroft that:
It is the policy of the Department of Justice that federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case…
We hereby request that you implement Department of Justice policy and pursue any and all appropriate charges with respect to this matter.
The possible subversion of state election laws by holders and seekers of public office is no petty crime — a truth so inherent in our democratic process that it can be ignored only at the peril of our great nation and its institutions of self-governance. These allegations go to the very heart of our democratic process.
This is not about politics — it’s about the American public’s right to be governed by those who are not only honest, but also free from undue corporate influence. Even the appearance of impropriety in the electoral process casts dark shadows over those in public office.
No one is above the law.
Respectfully Submitted,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
_______________________________
Russell J. Verney, Director
Southwestern Region
We know their tactics. Does the GOP have the ba*lls to fight back?
The response is critical for the life of the Republican Party.
he hopes the MSM will report better?!!! ROFLOL!!!!!!
Why? Because Earle files bogus charges (remember, Earle went through six grand juries to get these charges), and dropped charges against companies that made the donations in return for donations to Earle's favorite charities.
In Texas, corporate money can go to PACS. There is no evidence any of these went to candidates.
I'm not a big fan of DeLay's, but knowing this DA's history, one has to at least consider that this is a partisan indictment.
Of course, as in the case of Kay Hutchison, if they are bogus, Austin will continue to elect Earle to office.
How can we do that? I'm ready!!!!
Has anyone asked RE if he wants fries with that ham sandwich yet?
Commonly referred to as San Francisco, TX by the locals here.
Yes, and there will be much talk in the MSM about the "legal problems of Delay and Frist" so it's almost a two-fer, as they throw Frist's name around as well.
According to Smoking Gun, the indictment mentions a 3 year statute of limitations. The check in question was written on 9/13/02, and the indictment is dated exactly 3 years later. Apparently, Earle waited until the last moment to file the indictment in order to gain the most political advantage for the 2006 elections and to pile more crap on the Republicans at a time when the media is criticizing them for the hurricanes.
You a member of the Donner Party...or the cut-and-run boys?
In Texas...we stand by what is right, no matter the price! Delay is a Texas hero.... I will be waiting & watching for any RINO that sticks a knife in his back....
It wouldn't have mattered. DeLay announced earlier this year that he would waive the statute of limitations in any case, in order to clear himself.
SirJohnBarleycorn: Yes, and there will be much talk in the MSM about the "legal problems of Delay and Frist" so it's almost a two-fer, as they throw Frist's name around as well.
And every mention of Delay from now on will be followed by the remark, "who was indicted for campaign finance violations."
Actually, I remember this well, as I found it very interesting at the time. Earle didn't drop the charges- he brought it all the way to trial, at which point the judge looked over the evidence (which was, of course, overwhelmingly positive for Senator Hutchison). I'm not quite sure what the proper phrasing here is, but the judge issued a "directed aquittal"- in other words, he didn't just dismiss the case, but made it impossible for her to be harrassed on the subject again!
The truth of the matter is that the Republican leadership cannot defend itself too rigorously without the argument devolving into an unholy and confusing mess. The Democrats want the Republicans in Congress to wast their time defending themselves to the public because a rigorous defense would appear coordinated and the media would pounce on it.
Take the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as an example of how the media mischaracterizes attacks on the honesty of Democrats. Instead of focusing on the preponderance of evidence that the SBVT was telling the truth, and after several reversals by the Kerry campaign in his story, the media continued to harp on the idea that the Swift Boaters were part of a vast coordinated smear campaign on their candidate.
The fortunate aspect of the SBVT was its timing, the scope of the lies made by Kerry, and his subsequent corrections... these did not escape notice by the general public and the shift in opinion against Kerry due to the group's revelations became permanent.
The Democrats use unsubstantiated charges against Republicans on a regular basis. In the long run, this can't work out well for the Democrats. When De Lay is exonerated, De Lay will likely make sure that the Democrats responsible for the smear campaign on him get their due in the press and alternative media.
So we have to push for a swift conclusion and a publication of the evidence. I'm convinced after looking at what appears the basis for the case that the grand jury came to its decision based on a misrepresentation of the evidence. The charge is not supported by the evidence on which De Lay has been indicted, which may mean that the indictment might even be tossed out, but even if it isn't, and since De Lay is likely to be found innocent, the case should proceed forward because the full disclosure during a trial would embarrass the prosecution to no end, and make the Democrats look like partisan patsies yet again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.