Posted on 09/30/2005 7:35:03 PM PDT by anymouse
The 12-member grand jury that indicted U.S. Rep. Tom Delay, R-Sugar Land, faces scrutiny from critics who say they are lackeys for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
Foreman William Gibson lives in a Northeast Austin neighborhood.
It's been his philosophy not to have his picture taken because he doesn't want to be harassed, Gibson said.
Gibson isn't really afraid of that. He did his duty and that bound him to look at Tom Delay as just another Texan accused of criminal conspiracy, he said.
"I like his aggressiveness and everything, and I had nothing against the House majority man, but I felt that we had enough evidence, not only me, but the other grand jury members," Gibson said.
The grand jury foreman also takes great exception to accusations that he and 11 other grand jury members followed the lead of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle instead of following the evidence.
"It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us," Gibson said.
On Wednesday, Earle would not go into details about any potential evidence against Delay. But he did describe the scheme he's accusing Delay of coordinating.
"The indictment describes a scheme whereby corporate money, which cannot be given to candidates in Texas was sent to the Republican National Committee where it was exchanged for money raised from individuals and then sent to those Texas legislative candidates," Earle said.
Gibson thinks there is enough evidence to convict Delay.
"We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed the man, if we didn't feel there was sufficient evidence," said Gibson.
The evidence is there to prove Delay was involved in wrongdoing and also prove that he and his fellow grand jurors acted independent of political influence, Gibson said.
"It wasn't Mr. Earle that indicted the man. It was the 12 members of the grand jury," Gibson said.
Gibson is a former sheriff's deputy and a former investigator for what is now the Texas Department of Insurance.
As we see the crapola boil up, the stench is spreading.
If he is in the insurance business, he should know that election law is mainly about keeping money in the appropriate accounts. If the coporate money went into a fund that wass spent on candidtates in another state, then that freed the RNC committ to use money from oither souces to send to Texas candidates. Such indirect action is not prohibited by Texas law.
Isn't Earle the twit who tried this same crap with Kay Bailey Huctchison?
Who would have to prosecute this guy?
In NH the State Attorney General would do it. In Texas?
Just can't believe a Grand Jury member would give an interview. It makes no sense.
And my conclusions match yours 100%, I had arrived at the same when I read that snippet.
My Spanish is limited to just a few words, but I was down in Mexico during Hune and Huly.
Yes. He included, in one of her indictments, an accusation that she had "assaulted" one of her employees.
The only thing is, there was no employee who made such an accusation, there was no evidence at the time that there was such an assault, and no evidence has been presented since by anyone that such an assault ever took place.
Ronnie Earle lied like a dog to get those indictments against Kay Hutchison, as was shown when he refused to even present his case to a jury.
The man has been using the power of his office in an abusive way – many prosecutors do -- and the fact of the matter is you want to defend Ronnie Earle, somebody call and defend for me extorting corporations he has indicted. He has indicted corporations and if they have agreed to contribute to pet causes of his he has dropped the indictment, dismissed charges. You know where he is, he's in Travis County. Remember I once said, "All roads leave to Travis County?" It's where Bill Burkett is. It's where the forged documents story started, with Bush being AWOL from the National Guard. All roads lead to Travis County. That's where Ronnie Earle is. In fact, Dan Rather's daughter has appeared at fund-raisers for Ronnie Earle. He's elected. Dan Rather's daughter, Robin, has appeared at numerous fund-raisers. Don't try to tell me he's not a partisan hack.
So, he is the Michael Moore of the legal profession.
Most men in his circumstances like to believe they are fair and impartial. it annoys him to hear criticism of his decision because he really thinks he did a bang up great job listening to all sides. The plain fact of the matter is, he did not hear DeLay's defense; he did not hear the prosecution witnesses subjected to hard and aggressive cross-examination. So, he's coasting along on a river of half-light and partial ignorance, completely oblivious to the fact that he doesn't really know what he thinks he knows.
In his ignorance, he's offended. That's why he's popping off.
The TX dems did exactly the same thing, I would suggest all TX pubbie DA's bring similar charges against every RAT party functionary within their jurisdictions. The RAT squeals of outrage would be delicious to the ears.
"Just can't believe a Grand Jury member would give an interview. It makes no sense."
All I can think is he might get away with it because if he was prosecuted the MSM would swarm to his defense and claim intimidation. But hopefully, this reasoning is wrong and he will be prosecuted.
Earle had some of his evidence excluded I think against Hutchison, and he punted. The judge in an extraordinary move then ordered the jury to make a not quilty verdict, which I don't understand at all, but then I don't do criminal law. But it seems odd. How can a judge order a jury to make any finding or verdict?
Yes he tried this same Pcra_" on Kay B.H. and when she asked for a jury trial he dropped all charges
Directed Verdict
http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/directed_verdict
Probably the article I read was poorly worded, and it was indeed a directed verdict. Just when a DA can abandon a case as opposed to hit the directed verdict wall, I don't know.
I believe this foreman was once in law enforcement and he knows better. Plus he should have been instructed that their duty was only to find probable cause and here he says there is enough evidence to convict. He is as full of crap as he can be.Everyone in law enforcement knows that a grand jury can entertain hearsay evidence and a lot of other evidence that is not admissible in court and that is a fact.Plus there are rumors that the case may have gone before 5 or more grand juries. Most people do not realize that even if a grand jury no bills a case a prosecutor can bring it before another grand jury as many times as he likes.
I thought that the slimeball's name was familiar.
Typical bully; he runs when confronted by someone with cajones.
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.