DeLay INDICTED!!!!!!

[Gotrox]

The unknown is ..... will we win before most of the world is destroyed?

Answer----no.

We've been set up for the "bird flu"
Watch the news.

[Jon-Marcus]

DeLay INDICTED!!!!!!

Well, it's about darned time.

Just one catch; Indicted is not the same as convicted.

If, [ foghorn leghorn voice] I say, IF he's convicted, then let's throw a big freakin party.

If.

For a small word it sure is heavy , isn't it?:(

Yeah, I know. I'm a party-pooper.

[Joolz]

Naw, you aren't a party-pooper, JM. That's cuz I firmly believe in the concept of PARTYing. You see... I can party now, and then party again with you when you throw your "big freakin party." (Although, of course, I do get your drift... and yes, "IF" is a weighty word.)

[aussiegirl]

Originally posted by Cherry K
-

In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over DeLay, Earle charges that because Congressman DeLay may have known about the transaction before it occurred, he was then part of a conspiracy.
However, Earle's office has sworn testimony and other exculpatory evidence showing that Congressman DeLay did not have knowledge of the transaction.

Ok neo-cons, stop with the "Earle is doing all this" defense, and understand a jury decided there was evidence of a crime.
-

No corporation or labor organization was indicted in this conspiracy. Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor organization.

Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were agents for the corporations and meet every test as such. They were, in effect, subcontractors used to ensure the funds went where Sear's and ITT and others wanted the money to go.

No corporation or labor organization made a contribution during 60 days of an election.

Um...yeah...because the way you launder corporate money in TX is to pass 190,000 to the PAC, and a different 0,000 – from a separate, noncorporate account – is then distributed to state political candidates. The later met the time test, I think.

Also. this time/laundering issue has already been ruled on in a civil case and it lost there too.

In Paul Clayton, et al v. Bill Ceverha & Texans for a Republican Majority, TRMPAC already lost a lawsuit brought by losing Democratic candidates over how 0,000 raised from corporations was used against them.

In May, state District Judge Joe Hart ruled that the Democrats were damaged by TRMPAC's improper use of corporate money.

"TRMPAC as a whole was an illegal entity," said Cris Feldman, a lawyer representing the Democrats.

He also pointed out that in the ruling, Judge Hart weighed the 0,000 transaction and included it as part of the improper donations, which was used to determine the damage award.

"It's implicit recognition that it was money laundering," Mr. Feldman said.

What constitutes a contribution under the Texas Election Code is not strictly defined.

Huh? So then it is broadly defined? My guess is cold hard cash would fit a strict or broad definition. Not like they funneled a cow thru some PAC.

Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is. Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.

This was rejected by Judge Hart in the civil case. Stare decisis says it will lose again. A concept you guys like, I thought.

They are agents of political parties. Also, when 190,000 goes from a corporation to a PAC, then the exact same 190,000 pops out of the PAC and into the pockets of repug candidates, this is money laundering to anyone with a IQ above 75. It still is the corporations donating to repug candidates thru the conduit of the named conspirators, in an agency relationship.

There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?

A grand jury found probable cause that a crime was committed.

[drnewel]

"This is a suprise...to be sure..."
Senator Palpatine - Naboo Senator - Imperial Senate to the Supreme Chancellor.

I am suprised that a Texas grand jury would do this?

[Rombaldi]

I am suprised that a Texas grand jury would do this?

Don't be, in the reality of things, Texas would be considered a 'light blue" state. I was not until DeLay's ILLEGAL redistricting of the state that the Texas Legislature had a Republican Majority, the FIRST time since reconstruction....

[Cherry Kelly]

aussie -- the entire post was a c/p (that I had posted)
ask yourself why it took Earle until the 6th grand jury to get an indictment... matter of record he tried WITH THE SAME "evidence" and all prior grand juries threw it out. bit odd don't you think??

===
Rommie -- stop making false statements about "illegal" stuff when you have no proof other than your personal opinion. Redistricting is often done to reflect the population changes -- just look at some of your DEM states and see where it also exists... odd now isn't it unless you want to call what the DEMS do to redistrict as illegal as well.

[Rombaldi]

Rommie -- stop making false statements about "illegal" stuff when you have no proof other than your personal opinion. Redistricting is often done to reflect the population changes -- just look at some of your DEM states and see where it also exists... odd now isn't it unless you want to call what the DEMS do to redistrict as illegal as well.

Ms Parrot, I suggest you close your mouth about things you know NOTHING ABOUT except your ReichWing Talking Points.

REDISTRICTING is done EVERY TEN YEARS, right after the CENSUS. Delay and his CRONIES instituted a REDISTRICTING after TWO YEARS. TWO YEARS. Can you count? And if you look at the redistricting you can see it's so blatenty a case of jerrymandering (like one district in the Austin area that is exactly ONE STREET WIDE for 12 miles long to force all the dem voters into a tiny spot while making a NEW heavily repub disctict. It was done with ZERO effort toward population density and ALL EFFORT toward PARTISAN density.

I LIVE HERE, you DON'T. And on this subject I will shove your morning talking point back down your throat.

[aussiegirl]

aussie -- the entire post was a c/p (that I had posted)
ask yourself why it took Earle until the 6th grand jury to get an indictment... matter of record he tried WITH THE SAME "evidence" and all prior grand juries threw it out. bit odd don't you think??

Yeah, I know that piece was authored by (Dollars for Dismissals, National Review, June 20, 2005). Sorry if I made it sound like I was addressing you. I wasn't. I was just addressing the NR paste. The "strictly defined" part by them made me snicker. haha.

CK, as I'm sure you already know, we aren't privy to the evidence because it isn't required to be made public in TX grand jury proceedings. I think the ruling in the civil case, along with Ellis and/or Colyandro looking to cut a deal may have something to do with it. New evidence comes to light all the time. Some after the trials, sadly. But you don't know what the evidence is and I don't know what the evidence is. If there are leaks of it in the days to come, even that needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

CK, intution tells me he is in deep deeeep do-do. He has just an astounding historical train of systematic political abuse at every level of government. Looks to me like poetic justice dun pucked him by the dirty shirt collar....

finally.

[Cherry Kelly]

Rommie - I don't give a whit about where you live besides I have numerous relatives in TX as well. AND redistricting IS done more often than just after a census. But then I chat with people from all OVER the USA and don't limit it to just ONE or TWO States. And BTW its done by both DEMs and the GOPs - whoever has the power.

===
Aussie - DeLay is different type person. Neither of the two indictments will stick. First one IF - conspiracies - IF - thing is when you dig into it and see how many times it was tried - really makes ya wonder. (Then of course checking Earle's other so-called indictments that have been thrown out.) The second one - is a really strange one considering the law which Earle claims was broken didn't exist until the following year.
The other thing about indictments -- called something about having YOUR say at such things - "day in court" so to speak. Its like someone in podunk junction declaring an indictment against a person but never even telling the person that a hearing was even going to be held. (there is a question about its legality)