Texas Prosecutor Cites New Input on DeLay

[Rose Siding]

Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A02

The Texas prosecutor overseeing an investigation of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) fired back yesterday at criticism by DeLay's lawyers that he brought a new indictment against the powerful legislator on Monday to fix a legal flaw in the first indictment of DeLay last week.

Travis Country District Attorney Ronnie Earle said in a written statement released late yesterday that the new indictment charging DeLay with the criminal felonies of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering was based on new information that "came to the attention of the District Attorney's Office" last weekend.

The statement did not elaborate on whether the new information consisted of testimony, documents or insight, explaining that "because of the laws protecting grand jury secrecy, no other comments can be made."
....
This third grand jury "declined to indict on the last day of its regular term," Earle said. Then his office acquired "additional information" over the weekend and succeeded in getting the indictment on Monday. There is no law in Texas barring prosecutors from presenting a case to different grand juries, DeGuerin explained.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401637_pf.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. kick

[gratuitous]

2. How would DeLay's lawyers know anything?

After all, their boy didn't even appear before the grand jury, whose proceedings are secret. Are DeLay's attorneys saying that they've breached the confidentiality of the proceedings?

Just wondering.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

3. One of Delay's lawyers...

... shot his mouth off on Nightline last week, admitting that corporate moneys given to the Texas GOP were "handed up" to the national office, who then sent it back to the local Texas GOP offices for state campaigns. Koppel laughed when the lawyer denied that such an act was improper/money laundering.

Is that the "new input" Ronnie Earle is citing?

[Kagemusha]

4. I doubted out of natural skepticism but, it's looking like it

More and more, anyway. Between DeLay and what his lawyers have been saying. I mean, Koppel was right to laugh. And there's a simple reason why. This was, bluntly, concealing the origin of funds. That is, explicitly, money laundering. "But it's for a cause protected by the First Amendment" is not a proper legal excuse because the courts have not ruled that a ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional, and even if it had done so, concealing the source of the donations would be money laundering...

I'd throw around the fancy latin terms for the blatantness of this but I'm not a fancy lawyer who knows them offhand and by heart :)

[DU9598]

5. Did someone turn on DeLay?

I am wondering if one of the co-conspirators has turned on DeLay. If I was the prosecutor I would let the underlings walk and get DeLay on these big charges. Life in prison, or 20 years. Wow.

Anyone else think a co-conspirator turned on DeLay over the weekend?

[dennis00]

6. latin terms are

Fucanibus youum. Mi nominum est delaytorium. Capisch?:grr: