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

Skip to comments.

New Grand Jury Adds Charges Against DeLay
Houston Chronicle ^ | Oct. 4, 2005 | R.G. RATCLIFFE and CLAY ROBISON

Posted on 10/04/2005 12:16:19 PM PDT by anymouse

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
Even the Houston Comical is skeptical of these charges against DeLay.

"Apparently, no one cracked a book before they issued that first indictment," DeGuerin said. "This is a mess. This looks like Keystone Kops."

Earle offered little comment or explanation of the new indictments, and refused to take calls from the Houston Chronicle.

DeGuerin said the new indictment was returned after he filed a motion to dismiss the original indictment against DeLay. The original indictment alleged DeLay was involved in a conspiracy to violate state election laws in a scheme to convert corporate money into cash that was available for 2002 Republican state House candidates.

DeGuerin said the problem with that indictment was state law was not changed to make the conspiracy indictment apply to the state election laws until 2003 — a year after the supposed violation. He said the quick turnaround with a new grand jury showed Earle's case against DeLay was improvised.

"It proves a district attorney can lead a grand jury around like a bull with a ring through its nose," DeGuerin said.

"Ronnie Earle has stooped to a new low with his brand of prosecutorial abuse," DeLay's statement said. "He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a 'do-over' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week were totally manufactured and illegitimate."

Wood agreed with Dix that the conspiracy charge already was covered by the penal code in 2002 but also noted that all nine members of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which would review any convictions, are Republicans.

1 posted on 10/04/2005 12:16:31 PM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: anymouse
The Comical's Front Page Headline for this article is "New, hurried charges for DeLay."
2 posted on 10/04/2005 12:18:38 PM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

The question I have is whether an indictment by a grand jury that did not hear any testimony or see any evidence can be thrown out.


3 posted on 10/04/2005 12:18:40 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
It was merely to correct a technical legal matter; i.e., that the first indictment was for doing something that, technically, wasn't illegal.

The MSM is about to learn something we Texans have known for years: don't hang the hero mantle on Ronnie Earle. He's like Boss Hogg: he's basically a self-aggrandizing buffoon with a title, and if he weren't as entrenched as a tick in his own county, he'd be in jail himself.

4 posted on 10/04/2005 12:20:14 PM PDT by HHFi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

"It was the third grand jury to hear the case."




Sounds like Grand Jury shopping to me. I think that should be added to the list of charges that Earle will face when he loses.


5 posted on 10/04/2005 12:20:55 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
I see a book deal out of this:

"The Grand jury that couldn't indict straight"

6 posted on 10/04/2005 12:22:42 PM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
Anybody know why they were in such a hurry to get these new, improved (sic) charges in place?

Well...

"There also probably will be a fight over whether the three-year deadline for indicting DeLay has expired.

In a letter to Earle, DeGuerin said DeLay is withdrawing his waiver of the statute of limitations to investigate him. Last month DeLay signed that waiver in an attempt to head off an indictment. The date on the $190,000 check to the committee is Sept. 13, 2002. The committee checks cut to candidates were dated Oct. 4, 2002."

Source: The Austin American Statesman.

7 posted on 10/04/2005 12:23:24 PM PDT by lOKKI (You can ignore reality until it bites you in the ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

When the Republicans were going to change their rule about a leader having to step down if indicted and the Dems raised such a rumpus (though they have no such rule for themselves), I really hoped they'd do something in-your-face like amend the rule to " . . . unless the indictment is brought by Ronnie Earle." ;-)


8 posted on 10/04/2005 12:24:33 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
a new grand jury that was impaneled at about noon Monday to reindict DeLay and add the money-laundering charges

LOL! The new grand jury was impaneled at noon, and had the indictments ready by the end of the day.

Did they even bother sitting down?

9 posted on 10/04/2005 12:24:59 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Mr. Delay was also indicted for allegedly failing to keep his peas separate from his mashed potatoes during dinner.

The former majority leader has repeatedly denied charges of mixing his peas into his mashed potatoes in order to eat them with a knife.

Culinary conniving is punishable in Texas with a three-zillion-dollar fine and/or twenty years at hard labor gutting armadillos in Amarillo.


10 posted on 10/04/2005 12:27:05 PM PDT by RexBeach ("The rest of the world is three drinks behind." -Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Earle's office took the case back to a new grand jury that was impaneled at about noon Monday to reindict DeLay and add the money-laundering charges.

I have been told all of my life that the wheels of justice turn slowly. Apparently that is not always true. In fact, it would seem that a grand jury does not have to waste any time considering the evidence before returning an indictment.

11 posted on 10/04/2005 12:27:07 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
"Apparently, no one cracked a book before they issued that first indictment," DeGuerin said. "This is a mess. This looks like Keystone Kops."

Apparently, the same is true as to the 2nd indictment. Even if every allegation in the indictment is true, those allegations do not fit the crime of 'money laundering' because the original source of the money was not illegal.

12 posted on 10/04/2005 12:29:00 PM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
LOL! The new grand jury was impaneled at noon, and had the indictments ready by the end of the day.

"Ham sandwiches" all around, LMAO.

Mark Levin is gonna ruin his day, see breaking newz, woo hoo.

13 posted on 10/04/2005 12:29:48 PM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Minuteman at heart, couch potato in reality))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
RONNIE EARLE'S


14 posted on 10/04/2005 12:32:15 PM PDT by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
RONNIE EARLE'S FAVORITE BAR


15 posted on 10/04/2005 12:34:39 PM PDT by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

***"It was the third grand jury to hear the case."




Sounds like Grand Jury shopping to me. I think that should be added to the list of charges that Earle will face when he loses.***

IIRC, Seventh GJ to hear the case.


16 posted on 10/04/2005 12:37:57 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Note to the MSM - Don't stay stuck on STUPID!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: anymouse; All

Has DeLay been accused of ripping tags off mattresses?

Or has he been accused of having an upaid parking ticket when he was in college?


17 posted on 10/04/2005 12:39:05 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try..."
18 posted on 10/04/2005 12:42:17 PM PDT by luvbach1 (Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Landmark Legal has asked for a FOIR to Earle, his staff, from 2001 - 2005 about any DNC etc. communications, a and phone records from August 2005 - October 2005.

Wonder what they know?


19 posted on 10/04/2005 12:42:49 PM PDT by Yellow Rose of Texas (WAR: 1/3 yes, 1/3 no, 1/3 undecided; So began the American Revolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
IIRC, Seventh GJ to hear the case.

You didn't expect the Comical to actually get the facts right did you? :)

The fact that the Comical isn't calling for DeLay to be drawn and quartered and dipped in boiling oil shows that they are dubious of the legitimacy and sticking power of Earle's case.

20 posted on 10/04/2005 12:49:35 PM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 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