Conflicting stories on Delay's indictments, TMP is all over it...

[RSchewe]

1st post

A second DeLay indictment: Money Laundering.

Details soon.

Late Update: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_DeLay_Indictment.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild98=DBrPdFMP73s5ZxZO16t0j2DsBAJMrcYjSk5OrRh0pNaxTDGBNPL7!-527664949&UrAuth=aNaNUOcNWUbTTUWUXUTUZTZUTUWU^U%60UZUaU]UcTYWYWZV&urcm=y">More from the AP.

Later Update: Also note this clip from a http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/10/4delay.html">piece in the Austin American-Statesman that ran only a bit earlier this afternoon ...

A criminal conspiracy charge against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay should be dismissed because conspiracy laws did not apply to the state election code during the 2002 election, DeLay's lawyers argued in a brief filed today. The filing represents an attempt at a quick knockout of the case against DeLay, who was indicted last week by a Travis County grand jury. The term of the grand jury ended last week and a deadline to indict DeLay might have expired since then.

DeLay's lawyer Dick DeGuerin said "rumors are flying" that prosecutors were trying to find a sitting grand jury, who hadn't heard any of the DeLay case, to return a new money-laundering indictment. In a letter to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie 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.

A lot obviously happened today. I'm sure we'll hear more soon.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_10_02.php#006682


The follow up...

DeLay beats the rap on a technicality?

A new piece just out from the Austin American-Statesman provides more details. According to the new article, the original indictment was flawed (a claim pushed by the defense, but contradicted by other

Advertisement
published reports: see below). The conspiracy statute in question didn't come into effect until 2003. So the prosecutors, it seems, reindicted DeLay under a different statute, but on the same facts.

See the http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/10/4delay3.html">piece for more details.

On the contrary, the Houston Chronicle http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3380481">interviews a law prof at UT who says that DeLay's lawyers' contention that the original indictment is flawed is itself bogus ...

George Dix, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who is an expert in criminal law and procedure, said he doesn't believe changes made to the Texas election code by the 2003 legislature have any effect on the conspiracy charge.

The penal code's conspiracy charge allows for the charge if the defendants allegedly conspired to commit any felony, including an election code felony.

Just because the election code was "silent" on the penal code provision until 2003, it doesn't mean it wasn't a valid charge before 2003, Dix said.

"To me it just says, 'We really mean what we said implicitly before,' " Dix said.

More soon.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_10_02.php#006683

[skids]

1. Recommended.

Lets put a stop to having Delay's defense team lies and contortions repeated ad nauseum by unwitting DUers. Mod this up.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. I will say this about that:

Back when Clinton was using his White House Counsel, it was conventional wisdom that an attorney-client privilege existed; the Republicans changed that through a court opinion. And back when Clinton was president it was conventional wisdom that you couldn't file a civil lawsuit against a sitting president because it would distract the president from his duties as president; the Republicans changed that through a court opinion.

So, precedent exists for the unexpected to happen.

[rodeodance]

4. looks like DeLay's 'deal' backfired.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Looks more like Delay reneged on his end of the deal

so the prosecutor went after him on the more serious charges that he was originally trying to avoid.

[sendero]

5. The Backlash Cometh..

... indeed. The Repugs burnt down a lot of bridges to "get" Clinton. Now they are going to find those raging waters difficult to cross.

[texpatriot2004]

7. Karma, Karma, Karma...gotta love that GOP Karma eh. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Backlash indeed

Ain't it grand? :)

[BR_Parkway]

14. OMG, more 'activist' judges? Guess we know what OxyRush will be screaming

about this week.

[RSchewe]

3. I just saw this picture over at the MSNBC front page...

(hopefully it will be up long enough for some people to see it.)

[mcg]

8. Texas grand jury indicts DeLay again

It's still there and here's the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9583433/

Former House majority leader charged with money laundering, conspiracy

AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on charges of conspiring to launder money and money laundering after the former majority leader attacked an indictment last week by a separate grand jury on technical grounds.

[pacalo]

13. This paragraph in the MSNBC article makes me wonder...

Is this a political maneuver by the Texas judges to help DeLay:

The judge who will preside in DeLay’s case is out of the country on vacation and couldn’t rule on the defense motion. Other state district judges declined to rule on the motion in his place.

And have they received any contributions from DeLay's shakedown/kickback machine?

[AuntiBush]

9. We Reap What We Sow...

Delay, his cronies & the GOP have a lot of sowing ahead of them... ;)

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. Recommended. Thanks for clearing up Dick Deguerin's remarks

for me. So far, the MSM is not refuting any of Deguerin's claims that the initial indictment was flawed because of Texas Law 2003 conspiracy statute.

[RSchewe]

11. Yeah, it is pretty sad that we need to find out the truth ourselves.

Here's another picture of Delay from MSNBC's front page. One for the road.

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. Gag! What an ugly mug/bug/prick faced thug! Why I log on to DU...

to find out the truth!