From: "Mark" 

My point is, it was merely on the return of the indictment that Delay had
to give up his leadership position in the House. The ability of a DA in any
backwater jurisdiction anywhere in the country to affect the operation of
the US Congress merely because of an indictment is not right.

Perhaps Delay deserves both that and an ouster from the House altogether --
the trial, if it's ever brought forth, will ultimately determine that. In
the meantime, why does Delay have to act guilty?

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:433b55bb{at}w3.nls.net...
> You lost me with "target of the indictment having to act
guilty".  Will
> DeLay not get his day in court?
>
> The press has a field day with scandals concerning the rich and powerful
> but the Clintons used that excuse so I guess DeLay can use the same tired
> refrain.
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:433b5219{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> Rich, I don't care if he prosecuted Dems at a 10:1 ratio over Reps, I
>> take issue with the target of the indictment having to act guilty before
>> the indictment is proven. > Dems were in control, so it's obvious that they'd be indicted at a higher
>> rate --  simply because they're politicians and were in power -- and none
>> of those should have had to act guilty before the fact either>
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:433b4cf4{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> The partisan DA has prosecuted 3 times more Democrats for violating
>>> fundraising rules in Texas. Now Delay is blaming a newspaper for putting
>>> pressure on the prosecutor.
>>>
>>> http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/12766399.htm
>>>
>>> AUSTIN - U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, in responding to the conspiracy charge
>>> against him, blamed a newspaper for putting pressure on a Texas
>>> prosecutor to indict him.
>>>
>>> "It was this renewed political pressure in the waning
days of his hollow
>>> investigation that led this morning's action," DeLay said Wednesday
>>> after a grand jury indicted him on a criminal conspiracy charge.
>>>
>>> The indictment accuses DeLay of conspiring to violate political
>>> fundraising laws with two associates. DeLay temporarily stepped aside as
>>> majority leader to fight the charge, which could result in a state jail
>>> term of up to two years if he's convicted.
>>>
>>> The Austin American-Statesman, which published an editorial Sept. 11
>>> questioning why Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's
>>> investigation had recently been resulting in indictments of
>>> organizations and not individuals, appears to be the newspaper DeLay was
>>> criticizing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:433b42fd{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>I don't particularly care for Delay all that much, but it
disturbs me in
>>>>a general way that some partisan DA from Anytown, USA can get use an
>>>>indictment to force a congressman out of his position in the house --
>>>>since when are you guilty when charged and must act as if you are
>>>>guilty? That rule should be changed by the GOP from indicted to
>>>>convicted.
>>>>
>>>> I have little interest in exploring the merits of the
case, the charges
>>>> will be either be dismissed or a trial will go forward
with the finding
>>>> of the jury the ultimate arbiter.
>>>>
>>>> "Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
>>>> news:op.sxua54veeipai0{at}news.barkto.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:38:36 -0400, Randy H
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, the irony of it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge">
>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:433adeec{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> Oh joy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so fast.  This prosecutor has a pretty colorful
history of his
>>>>> own:
>>>>>
>>>>> * * *
>>>>>
>>>>> Former DOJ official Barbara Comstock e-mails this
legal analysis:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ronnie Earle argues that Tom DeLay conspired to make a
contribution to
>>>>> a
>>>>> political party in violation of the Texas Election
Code. There was no
>>>>> contribution to a political party in violation of the
Texas Election
>>>>> Code.
>>>>> There was no conspiracy. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the
facts. Ronnie
>>>>> Earle is
>>>>> wrong on the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the indictment, the conspiracy was to
unlawfully make a
>>>>> political contribution of corporate funds to a
political party within
>>>>> 60
>>>>> days of an election.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Texas Election Code clearly states that "A
corporation or labor
>>>>> organization may not knowingly make a contribution [to
a political
>>>>> party]
>>>>> during a period beginning on the 60th day before the
date of a general
>>>>> election for state and county officers and continuing
through the day
>>>>> of the
>>>>> election." Title 15, Texas Election Code, $
253.104. Texas law also
>>>>> states
>>>>> in part that "A person commits criminal
conspiracy if, with intent
>>>>> that a
>>>>> felony be committed: (1) he agrees with one or more
persons that they
>>>>> or one
>>>>> or more of them engage in conduct that would
constitute the offense;
>>>>> and (2)
>>>>> he or one or more of them performs an overt act in
pursuance of the
>>>>> agreement."
>>>>>
>>>>> The Problems with Earle's case:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition:
>>>>>
>>>>> No corporation or labor organization was indicted in
this conspiracy.
>>>>> Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor
>>>>> organization.
>>>>>
>>>>> No corporation or labor organization made a
contribution during 60
>>>>> days of
>>>>> an election.
>>>>>
>>>>> What constitutes a contribution under the Texas
Election Code is not
>>>>> strictly defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Comstock adds:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ronnie Earle has a history of using his office for
attacks on his
>>>>> political
>>>>> and personal enemies.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Travis County, Texas, prosecutor
investigating Mr. DeLay has a
>>>>> history
>>>>> of using his office for partisan
ends."(Congressional prerogative, The
>>>>> Washington Times, November 19, 2004)
>>>>>
>>>>> Earle has demonstrated a past zeal for indicting
conservative figures
>>>>> and
>>>>> even liberals with whom he has personal or
professional disagreements.
>>>>> (Target: DeLay, National Review, April 11, 2005)
>>>>>
>>>>> Earle's partisan prosecutions - which have frequently
failed - are
>>>>> designed
>>>>> for political harm, not legal harm. Earle is the same partisan
>>>>> prosecutor
>>>>> who politically indicted and failed to convict:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
>>>>>
>>>>>   Conservative Democrat Bob Bullock (when he was
Comptroller - later
>>>>> he was
>>>>>   Lt. Governor)
>>>>>
>>>>>   Democrat Attorney General Jim Mattox
>>>>>
>>>>> Ronnie Earle's three year political vendetta against
Rep. DeLay has
>>>>> been
>>>>> marked by:
>>>>>
>>>>> Illegal grand jury leaks, A fundraising speech by
Earle for the Texas
>>>>> Democrat party that inappropriately focused on the
investigation,
>>>>> Misuse of
>>>>> his office for partisan purposes, and Extortion of
money for Earle's
>>>>> pet
>>>>> projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing
indictments he
>>>>> brought
>>>>> against them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ronnie Earle has been frequently criticized for his methods:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Dallas Morning News criticized Earle in the Hutchison case:
>>>>>
>>>>> "the impression of partisan unfairness has
certainly been reinforced
>>>>> by the
>>>>> leaks and public comment about Hutchison's case from
the District
>>>>> Attorney's
>>>>> office throughout the summer. That the Grand Jury
investigation has
>>>>> been
>>>>> conducted with so much fanfare such as the tip-offs to
the new media
>>>>> when
>>>>> key records were seized from the former treasurer's
office has added a
>>>>> darker tone to the cloudy proceedings."
(Hutchison Probe; Fair and
>>>>> Speedy
>>>>> trial is essential, The Dallas Morning News, September 28, 1993)
>>>>>
>>>>> The Houston Chronicle called into question Earle's
impartiality and
>>>>> judgment:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his
blunder and would do it
>>>>> again
>>>>> calls into question whether he has the necessary
impartiality and
>>>>> judgment
>>>>> to conduct the investigation that to a great extent
will determine
>>>>> whether
>>>>> Texas election campaigns will be financed and perhaps
determined by
>>>>> corporations or by individuals."
>>>>>
>>>>> (Self-inflicted wound; District attorney's poor
judgment in speaking
>>>>> at a
>>>>> Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost for DeLay's
>>>>> defenders.,
>>>>> The Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2005)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gary Wiltshire
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5