[decal]

"...the powerful politician rebuffed a Texas prosecutor's suggestion that he plead guilty to a misdemeanor violation of election law."

S'matter, Mr Earle? Your bluff get called when all you had in your hand was a couple of fake lists?

[barkeep]

This indictment reeks and even Earle knows it. It is starting to dawn on Earle that unlike Sen. Hutchison, who just moved on after Earle's case against her cratered, he is about to find out why they call DeLay the Hammer. Earle will be fighting charges of ethical misconduct if not criminal misconduct.

It may be DeLay's last great contribution to us. This crap from Earle is bemeath contempt, but DeLay is likely to have real problems with the Abramov connection. I truly wish him luck, but on the latter case he is dealing with a broadly written federal statute and worse, a close-mouthed, competent prosecutor.

[Boundless]

> The lawyers said, for example, that the law covered
> the "money laundering of funds" such as coins or
> currency and that the money transfers cited in the
> indictment involved "checks" that were not "funds."

I'm sure the WaPo led with this defense, because on its
face, it sounds laughably like Clintonian parsing.

But I'm wondering if the TX law was specifically aimed
at cash, like the IRS Form 8300 is (for transactions
of $10K or more).

[rface]

Open Secrets.org: Tom DeLay's Judge Donated To Moveon.org, Other Leftwingnuts

MoveOn.org Current Campaigns: Fire Tom DeLay
http://moveon.org/campaigns.html

This judge, holding court on Tom DeLay, must recuse himself. This is big "conflict of interest"

[Oblongata]

"In addition, lead attorney Dick DeGuerin and his two co-counsels filed separate motions seeking to quash both counts of the Oct. 3 money-laundering indictment against DeLay. They cited multiple reasons that the transactions at the heart of the alleged offense were not a violation of Texas law. The lawyers said, for example, that the law covered the "money laundering of funds" such as coins or currency, and that the money transfers cited in the indictment involved "checks" that were not "funds.""

This idiot of a journalist completely leaves out the fact that the applicable laws were not enacted until 2003. That is probably the strongest argument that a crime was not comitted.

[Spirited]

May God the Spirit be his advocate.

[The Red Zone]

The lawyers said, for example, that the law covered the "money laundering of funds" such as coins or currency and that the money transfers cited in the indictment involved "checks" that were not "funds."

Like the WP to pick the silliest sounding argument and use it as their "example"