Posted on 10/03/2005 3:16:22 PM PDT by Racehorse
AUSTIN — A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering.
A different grand jury whose term ended last week indicted him on a conspiracy charge, forcing DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.
Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.
I found a Democrat laundering money to the Clintons here. No indictment.
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.
" 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.
Do these grand juror's have to swaer they are not moveon.org mebers or bloggers on DemocratUnderground?
Even so, the two accounts were separate.
This has been a very stressful day. I can't even watch TV, or listen to talk radio.
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.
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.
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?
Not even thin ice --- he knows that.
He's doing his damage now with the indictments.
Or else he thought he was pushing it to try to get the second indictment from the former GJ.
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
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.
Where are the charges against the dims - who did exactly the same thing? I know, dumb question.
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.
What silver lining is that?
What silver lining is that?
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.