Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DeLay indicted on money laundering charge
AP ^ | 3 October 2005 | APRIL CASTRO

Posted on 10/03/2005 3:16:22 PM PDT by Racehorse

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: Racehorse
As I recall from discussions re: the Democrats' statements to Delays initial indictment...the commentators (cannot recall which News Network) stated that it sounded as if they (Democratic talking heads) were referencing money laundering charges and not the conspiracy charge as actually in the indictment. So, either they (Democratic Taking Heads) were already aware of this charge or their comments gave Earle an additional angle to go after...

I cannot say I really have liked the image of DeLay (no particular reason...I'd probably vote for him over the alternative if I resided in his district)...but the real story here (to me at least) is the collusion & conspiracy between Earle & the DNC....
21 posted on 10/03/2005 3:39:18 PM PDT by SergeantsLady (I support my soldier by supporting the mission he believes in...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
I think the democrats do it all the time from what I have heard.

I found a Democrat laundering money to the Clintons here. No indictment.

22 posted on 10/03/2005 3:40:54 PM PDT by HAL9000 (Get a Mac - The Ultimate FReeping Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

Money laundering is taking illegally obtained money, and filter it through a legitimate business or organization.

The money from TRIMPAC was deposited into one account, but the check or checks for the candidates were written from a different account. We're talking about different money that wasn't mixed together.

IOW, the GJ is smokin' weed.


23 posted on 10/03/2005 3:44:07 PM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

" democrats do it all the time from what I have heard."

I am sure they do, and you are right.....that ain't no money laundering.


24 posted on 10/03/2005 3:49:33 PM PDT by calrighty (`Nobody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Do these grand juror's have to swaer they are not moveon.org mebers or bloggers on DemocratUnderground?


25 posted on 10/03/2005 3:50:26 PM PDT by oldironsides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Money laundering is taking illegally obtained money, and filter it through a legitimate business or organization.

That's one definition. Another is taking money and moving it between accounts in an attempt to conceal its true source.
26 posted on 10/03/2005 3:59:42 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

Even so, the two accounts were separate.


27 posted on 10/03/2005 4:03:18 PM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

This has been a very stressful day. I can't even watch TV, or listen to talk radio.


28 posted on 10/03/2005 4:07:05 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
I understand. This will probably boil down to a jury's determination of Delay's intent.
29 posted on 10/03/2005 4:10:21 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Petronski; beyond the sea; nopardons; Mo1; onyx

THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE FIRST INDICTMENT AGAINST DELAY WAS BASED ON A LAW THAT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED NON CRIME!!!!!

Delay's lawyers said at the end of last week that the rumors were flying about Earle rushing to find a new grand jury.

The law that is listed in the first indictment....did not become effective until Sept of 2003. The money issues that Earle keeps screaming about (all legal even after 2003 mind you) happened in 2002.

So Earle rushed and got a laundering indictment.

WHICH MEANS HE KNOWS HIS CHARGES ARE ON THIN ICE.


30 posted on 10/03/2005 4:10:55 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Petronski; beyond the sea; nopardons; Mo1; onyx

THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE FIRST INDICTMENT AGAINST DELAY WAS BASED ON A LAW THAT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED NON CRIME!!!!!

Delay's lawyers said at the end of last week that the rumors were flying about Earle rushing to find a new grand jury.

The law that is listed in the first indictment....did not become effective until Sept of 2003. The money issues that Earle keeps screaming about (all legal even after 2003 mind you) happened in 2002.

So Earle rushed and got a laundering indictment.

WHICH MEANS HE KNOWS HIS CHARGES ARE ON THIN ICE.


31 posted on 10/03/2005 4:11:04 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

The evil continues. At what point will the American people and a few others I won't mention realize that the left is out to destroy this country?


32 posted on 10/03/2005 4:12:17 PM PDT by ladyinred (It is all my fault okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmyBratproud


Not even thin ice --- he knows that.

He's doing his damage now with the indictments.


33 posted on 10/03/2005 4:13:09 PM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Joe Cannon

Or else he thought he was pushing it to try to get the second indictment from the former GJ.


34 posted on 10/03/2005 4:13:20 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse; All

Looks like Earle went rushing for a new grand jury last week. He knew the first indictment would not hold up.

Here is the link to the story about the first indictment being based on a law that did not exist until 11 months after the 2002 elections.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1496006/posts?page=13


35 posted on 10/03/2005 4:15:28 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmyBratproud
The law that is listed in the first indictment....did not become effective until Sept of 2003. The money issues that Earle keeps screaming about (all legal even after 2003 mind you) happened in 2002.

The statutory conspiracy link didn't exist until 2003. The underlying laundering satute has been in place for more than a decade. See the April indictment for a rough idea of what today's indictment reads.

The fresh indictment has a huge silver lining.

36 posted on 10/03/2005 4:17:06 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

Where are the charges against the dims - who did exactly the same thing? I know, dumb question.


37 posted on 10/03/2005 4:18:16 PM PDT by mathluv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fizzie
I would think a newly seated GJ would be the perfect situation for this. They have probably been told that the lawyers wouldn't bring in evidence and ask for an indictment unless they were pretty sure they had enough evidence to take it all the way to a conviction.

They tell you all your rights as a GJ and then they let you know that you are supposed to be yes-men. It takes a while to get your footing and develop a personality as a jury and Earle struck before this could happen.

38 posted on 10/03/2005 4:21:16 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

What silver lining is that?


39 posted on 10/03/2005 4:42:59 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

What silver lining is that?


40 posted on 10/03/2005 4:43:01 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson