FNC: Judge in Texas throws out Part of charges against DeLay(Upholding charge on money laundering)

Fox News

[John Jorsett]

No further info available yet.

[nopardons]

bttt

[Brilliant]

I don't see how he can uphold the money laundering charges and throw out the conspiracy. The money laundering charges are predicated upon a violation of the campaign finance law, and if there is no underlying crime, then money laundering doesn't work.



But that'll just guarantee that the jury will rule in DeLay's favor in the end.

[msnimje]

Seems to me the Conspiracy Charge being dismissed is very good news as it shows there was no malicious intent.

Then they should have a very hard time proving the money laundering charge without intent to do so. I'm hoping anyway.

[scott7278]

Fox News' Banner reads:

TX Judge Refuses to Dismiss Delay Money Laundering Charges.

[Matchett-PI]

Hannity just said that the main charge was thrown out and at the end of the day he predicts that all the charges will be thrown out.

[Dog Gone]

If the conspiracy count is dropped, then only money laundering remains, and DeLay never touched the checks personally. In fact, it's impossible to tie him to them unless he somehow conspired to do it with others.

It looks to me like the case has been completely undercut.

The judge is a Democrat, in case anyone doesn't know.

[marajade]

Would someone please tell me why FNC never has an attorney reading these decisions?

[Liberty Valance]

I am surprised the money laudering count was tossed, if it was

The money laundering charge still stands...the conspiracy charges were thrown out. There will still be a trial.

[LdSentinal]

The money laundering charge still remains

For mow. DeLay's lawyers will probably ask again for this charge to be dismissed.

[ncpatriot]

That is so cool.

[scott7278]

I don't see how he can uphold the money laundering charges and throw out the conspiracy. The money laundering charges are predicated upon a violation of the campaign finance law, and if there is no underlying crime, then money laundering doesn't work.

Southack made a good point in #160.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

In quashing the indictment, the judge rightly ruled that there was no law against what was allegedly done. Therefore, there was no basis for the indictment in the first place. That doesn't prevent the Court from affirming the indictment on any remaining charge but dismissing on other grounds.

[BJClinton]

The DUmpster reactions will be predictable: 1) Frothing-at-th-mouth glee that something may actually go to trial and 2) Moonbat conspiracies that the judge/system is rigged a la Diebold.

[msnimje]

Oh, and this is for you Ronnie Earle!

[PresidentFelon]

This was posted on this page. It is the last sentence from a news story that just hit the wires.

"DeGuerin had asked to have the indictments dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Priest said he would hear that motion only if he upheld the indictments against the legal challenges"

This paragraph indicates that the judge could still throw the remaining indictment out due to the "prosecutorial misconduct" issue on which he has yet to rule. If the prosecutor indeed acted in the manner that has been publicized, this other indictment could easily go bye-bye also.

PresidentFelon

[yield 2 the right]

Is that the most serious charge? If the answer is already posted, re-post please, thanks in advance.

[AmishDude]

So, if I'm following all of this, the judge dismissed the conspiracy indictment. This has to be considered a slapdown to Earle. Did he do this for just Delay or for all of them?

Now, the laundering indictment was upheld, but that means Judge Priest will now consider the prosecutorial misconduct charge. This could be great news. Perhaps Judge Priest is looking to do the full bodyslam on Earle.

[ncountylee]

DU post

Hmm...didn't Cheney just have a visit in Houston? Now we hear this? Very fishy!

[jellybean]

The Hammer

[Plutarch]

wonder how big the coverage on this will be vs the initial charges by frauddy earle

Something makes me think that the number of columns, size of photograph, and the font size of the headline in tomorrow's NYT will not be quite so large.

And I won't expect to see a headline such as: "For Democrats, a Swelling Sea of Troubles".