Tom DeLay: Indicted on conspiracy charges

  • News
  • Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date
  • #26
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Manchot said:
I have never understood this "cost to the taxpayers" argument. The judges, prosecutors, bailiffs, and clerks are paid regardless of whether they are prosecuting Tom DeLay or not.

On a side note, according to MSNBC, the grand jury's foreman, William Gibson, had this to say:
I think that was in reference to the cost of investigations:

Since then, 21 special investigations have been launched, with seven leading to convictions and five still active. The total cost passed $166 million through the last fiscal year.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/30/ic.history/index.html
 
  • #28
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
I'm going to have to cast my bet in the hat that says nothing happens to DeLay. As rotten as he may be, he doesn't seem to be guilty of conspiracy. After watching several channels of partisan bickering, Dan Abrams finally gave a legal analysis of the indictment and called it one of the weakest he's ever seen. DeLay is almost certainly guilty of bad ethical practices, but it seems his campaign used legitimate loopholes that everybody was using and there is no evidence of his personal involvement.

I wouldn't start the cheering just yet. Earle could very well just be making a damn fool of himself. Good luck to him, though.
 
  • #29
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
rachmaninoff said:
That's the total cost of the Independent Counsel Act, over the past 27 years.
And getting more and more expensive:

The Clintons' lawyer, David Kendall, called the report "the most expensive exoneration in history. Their investigation was unprecedented in its seven-year length, $70 million expense and unremitting intensity. But it ends as it began: with no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons." The investigation began in 1994 and ended in 2000.
http://multimedia.cbs.com/stories/2002/03/20/politics/main504201.shtml

I suppose $70 million isn't much these days, but multiply that by what ever number of investigations may be ongoing at any given time (unfortunately often overlapping) and ask the tax payers how they feel about it.
 
  • #30
rachmaninoff
SOS2008 said:
And getting more and more expensive:

http://multimedia.cbs.com/stories/2002/03/20/politics/main504201.shtml

I suppose $70 million isn't much these days, but multiply that by what ever number of investigations may be ongoing at any given time (unfortunately often overlapping) and ask the tax payers how they feel about it.

Don't multiply it by more than two - the total 27-year cost you posted above was $166 million. Sounds reasonable to me; the GAO audits everything, of course (try googling "GAO financial audit independent counsel" to get a list of audits).
 
  • #31
rachmaninoff
Here's a gem:

""What we do here is more important than who we are..."

-Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the new House majority leader replacing DeLay, on his indictment
New York Times, 9/29
 
  • #32
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
rachmaninoff said:
Don't multiply it by more than two - the total 27-year cost you posted above was $166 million. Sounds reasonable to me; the GAO audits everything, of course (try googling "GAO financial audit independent counsel" to get a list of audits).
The first post was between Watergate to Whitewater. How many investigations are there at this time? At least five, maybe ten? As stated, it's not a lot in comparison to other issues such as the cost for Iraq, but there is a cost.
 
  • #33
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
19,264
2,761
Manchot said:
I love how Delay's lawyers love to put the blame on an "overzealous prosecutor," but they ignore the fact that the grand jury also decided to indict him.
Ronnie Earle may be zealous - but it was a Grand Jury which indicted Delay. Obviously Earle made a reasonable case to the Jury.

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/district_attorney/default.asp

http://www.ronnieearle.com/index2.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
310
Not to mention that he has prosecuted 12 democrats, and 3 republicans. The case is more easily made that he's working against the democrats.
 
  • #35
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
When DeLay's defense attorney was on the Abrams report, he explained that he is contending Earle goes after his political enemies, not Republicans specifically.
 
  • #37
468
4
loseyourname said:
When DeLay's defense attorney was on the Abrams report, he explained that he is contending Earle goes after his political enemies, not Republicans specifically.
Well, do you think that Earle would be a Democrat if he had many political enemies who were also Democrats? :rolleyes:

Oh, by the way, I found one line of this article extremely funny:

But Earle also likes to say that power cannot be abused by those who lack it, and for much of his career, Democrats dominated Texas politics. His supporters cite a list of Democratic officials who were convicted or pleaded guilty after Earle prosecuted them. They include a state legislator from El Paso in 2000, and two from Waco in 1995; a San Antonio voter registrar in 1992; and the state treasurer in 1982. Earle even prosecuted himself in 1983, paying a $212 fine for tardy campaign finance disclosure filings.
LOL! On a serious note, this guy seems like a very straight shooter. I just hope that the spin machine doesn't completely ruin his career.
 
  • #38
691
1
And now for something completely different---Money Laundering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/p...&en=4f9466e0dd81f78c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Man, those partisan Grand Juries (plural as in more than one as in multiple juries with an S) are just out of control!!! How dare those democrats pack Juries (with an S) with nothing but democrats hell bent on slandering Tom DeLay. How dare they go after poor poor Mr. Innocent DeLay---He was only abmonished for ethics violations three times give a guy a break!
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Informal Logic
faust9 said:
And now for something completely different---Money Laundering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/p...&en=4f9466e0dd81f78c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Man, those partisan Grand Juries (plural as in more than one as in multiple juries with an S) are just out of control!!! How dare those democrats pack Juries (with an S) with nothing but democrats hell bent on slandering Tom DeLay. How dare they go after poor poor Mr. Innocent DeLay---He was only abmonished for ethics violations three times give a guy a break!
Yet DeLay vows he will continue leadership in the GOP (I understand he keeps a little blackmail book, so who knows). Even if he is never convicted, Republicans are growing tired of the liability. I hope the charges keep coming until there is a conviction to wipe that cocky grin off his face.
 
  • #40
691
1
Informal Logic said:
Yet DeLay vows he will continue leadership in the GOP (I understand he keeps a little blackmail book, so who knows). Even if he is never convicted, Republicans are growing tired of the liability. I hope the charges keep coming until there is a conviction to wipe that cocky grin off his face.

I think this indictment along with the revelation that Earle has prosecuted mor dems than elephants is enough to wipe the grin off of the exterminators face.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/03/delay.indictment/index.html

CNN said:
In a written statement, DeLay called the indictment another example of "prosecutorial abuse" by District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

"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 are totally manufactured and illegitimate," said the Texas Republican. "This is an abomination of justice."

The fact that the first Grand Jury foreman said "Hey moron! We, the Grand Jury, indicted you not Earle!" or something like that hushed Delay initially. His grandstanding immediatly following the indictment died down to a dull roar following the Foreman's statements. I think this second little briar patch of trouble will hush DeLay a little more. Hopefully he will become Kryptonite to DC movers and shakers over the next day or three.
 
  • #41
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
19,264
2,761
Yet another indictment. I heard the money laundering indicment came from a different grand jury.

Grand Jury Indicts DeLay on New Charges ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051004/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment [Broken] )
AUSTIN, Texas - Rep. Tom DeLay was indicted for a second time in less than a week by a Texas grand jury looking into campaign contributions, a development the former U.S. House majority leader called "an abomination of justice."

Defense lawyers asked a judge Monday to throw out the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that didn't take effect until 2003 — a year after the acts in question.
Can't prosecute DeLay if that is the case. Ex post facto.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
691
1
More trouble for DeLay?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/04/MNGNDF28O21.DTL

The new indictment was issued as Bush administration officials confirmed news reports in London that the Justice Department has asked British police to question former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about the circumstances of her meeting in 2000 with DeLay during a lavish trip to Britain organized by Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The interview request was the first publicly disclosed evidence from the Justice Department that DeLay is under scrutiny in the department's wide-ranging corruption investigation of Abramoff.

This is simply HILARIOUS !!!

The sequence of Monday's events make clear that neither side is prepared to back down from confrontation. At about noon, DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin wrote in a letter to Earle: "I request . . . you immediately agree to dismiss this indictment so that the political consequences can be reversed." The response, from Earle, was instead to expand the allegations.
 
  • #43
kat
26
0
curious....what's the difference between this investigation and that of Peolosi's?
 
  • #44
Informal Logic
kat said:
curious....what's the difference between this investigation and that of Peolosi's?
Originally Posted by kat
Just curious...for those who've had more time then I lately...
Who on the GOP side has been indicted other then Delay....and how many have been convicted in the last year?

and then..on the Dem side?

pattylou said:
It sounds like you know the answer.

This is the sort of thing I am asking for. (The OP says something like "I am sure there are democratic examples as well") By all means, you are under no obligation to add the information you have. But if you would I'd appreciate it.

thanks Kat.
:rolleyes:

Here's a link: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050504-122024-4420r.htm

"The Republicans are yet again attempting to muddy the waters to divert attention from their pattern of abusing of power," spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said yesterday.
Perhaps Pelosi is being a hypocrite...or is this more of the 'he is bad, but so are they' type of argument, and a very old one.
 
  • #45
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
82
DeLay has been charged with a criminal offense. Pelosi's offense would be more similar to an NCAA rules violation. Actually, you could slam a great deal of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and, yes, even Naderites, if you went through the entire FEC audit list.

Edit: By the way, DeLay isn't actually guilty of a criminal offense, yet. On the surface, it sounds more similar to other FEC violations unless some more incriminating details emerge.
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
310
Apparently he could get up to life in prison!!! :surprised
 
  • #47
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
82
If you read the indictment, it would be hard to categorize it as an accidental technical rules violation. When they sent the corporate money to the RNC, they were very specific about who and how much each RNC check to Texas candidates should be. It would be hard to consider it anything besides an intentional circumventing of Texas law.

If it is a legal loophole, it pretty much makes Texas campaign laws (and other states campaign laws) a meaningless exercise in futility.
 
  • #48
691
1
BobG said:
If you read the indictment, it would be hard to categorize it as an accidental technical rules violation. When they sent the corporate money to the RNC, they were very specific about who and how much each RNC check to Texas candidates should be. It would be hard to consider it anything besides an intentional circumventing of Texas law.

If it is a legal loophole, it pretty much makes Texas campaign laws (and other states campaign laws) a meaningless exercise in futility.

I.E. Conspiracy and money laundering :approve:. I had a much longer response to your original post but the god forsaken Windows PC locked up when I was in the middle of typing(I blame MS for an error that was most likely related to UG:grumpy:).
 
  • #49
691
1
In his radio comments on Tuesday, Mr. DeLay offered a new insight on the case, saying he made a mistake in a voluntary interview with the prosecutor's office a few weeks ago that helped prompt the indictments.

He would not discuss his mistake in detail, but it apparently concerned the $190,000 check that is central to the case. Mr. Earle charges that the money, which included money from corporate interests in Texas, was turned over to the Republican National Committee with instructions to return $190,000 to designated candidates for the Texas Legislature. The accusation is that the transaction was intended to circumvent a prohibition on the use of corporate money in state races.

"I misspoke one sentence, and they have based all of this on one sentence," Mr. DeLay told Mr. Limbaugh. "They think that before the check was cut and sent to the national committee that I approved this check. I didn't know this went on until well after it happened."

Riiiight...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/politics/05delay.html
 

Related Threads on Tom DeLay: Indicted on conspiracy charges

  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
56
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
S
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
M
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top