Posted on 09/28/2005 11:07:04 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
DELAY [Mark R. Levin] Here's my first take on this indictment (I've only read the indictment and nothing more for now): The indictment is three pages in length. Other than a statement that "one or more" of 3 individuals, including Tom DeLay, entered into an illegal conspiracy, I can't find a single sentence tying Tom DeLay to a crime. That is, there's not a single sentence tying DeLay to the contribution. The indictment describes the alleged conduct of two other individuals, but nothing about DeLay. You would think if Ronnie Earle had even a thin reed of testimony linking DeLay to the contribution, it would have been noted in the indictment to justify the grand jury's action. Moreover, not only is there no information about DeLay committing acts in furtherance of a conspiracy, there's no information about DeLay entering into a conspiracy. I honestly believe that unless there's more, this is an egregious abuse of prosecutorial power. It's a disgrace. I understand that not everything has to be contained in an indictment, but how about something! Posted at 01:58 PM
What good is DeLay?" you say. For one, I don't think I've seen him backing down on social issues at all.
You trash him as if the man represents nothing that you stand for.
And what do you stand for if this is a smear job and you just say good riddance?
I haven't seen the comments of Former DOJ official Barbara Comstock (from Michelle Malkin's site) posted on FR. These comments show that there was no crime at all, zero, nothing. Here are those comments:
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?
"tempest in a teacup"
I predict that this will be a tempest in a tea spoon. =]
Pinging blurblogger: catch Doneel's post 322. =]
I think this entire mess is backfiring the same way NOLA did.
There's a big feud between DeLay supporters and Tancredo supporters. Just as Trent Lott found little support, DeLay will find less and less conservative support in future years. I like DeLay, a conservative of the Old Guard. I also like Tancredo, conservative of the New Guard. I wish those two guys could just shake hands and agree to disagree.
FRegards....
You found some important material here, I think. Good find! Michelle Malkin is doing great work these days, and FReepers are swamped right now. She's absolutely on target to quote an authority on Texas law. That's critical on the DeLay matter. Blurblogger just pinged your post to some heavy hitters on another thread.
It's very foturnate I stumbled into it.
FRegards....
If DeLay had simply bribed that creep, he wouldn't be in any trouble right now. Only men of integrity get in trouble with that goon.
What has happened is the logical extension of judicial activism. If the judges can get away with making their own law based on what they want the world to look like why can’t a district attorney do so too? After all we all know that an attorney is just a juvenile form of a judge, aren’t they? (For proof of statement try to identify the total number of judges who aren’t members of the Bar and hold law degrees.)
Levin ought to stick to conservative judicial commentary and quit shielding every corrupt politician with an R in front of his name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.