Posted on 12/05/2005 1:38:06 PM PST by John Jorsett
No further info available yet.
Any word on the so-called "money laundering" charges based on a law that didn't even exist at the time when the so-called crime occurred?
Plus, from the legal opinions I've seen, I think the money laundering charges are the most easily defended. They could well be dropped in early days since their basis in fact is very, very, very shaky. Apparently Earle cannot even produce the evidence he told the GJ about in order to get this charge on an indictment. Texas legal eagles say the charge is shaky even if Earle had the "list" which is supposedly "proof".
With all respect to Judge Napolitano, I disagree that it was a defeat -- see post #160.
LOL.....I find it very difficult to respect Napolitano!
They can't; he's apparently still charged with a felony...."money laundering."
Yes, I agree. I think this is the key to the whole thing. I'm getting the impression that the judge is more than a little curious about Earle's methodology in his quest for Truth, Justice and the Democratic Way, and the only way this was going to be explored was if there was still something hanging in the fire for Delay.
No matter how you cut it, this is worse - much worse - news for Ronnie Earle than it is for Tom Delay. He cannot be at all pleased with this ruling.
CA....
Looks like the Judge denied the Change of Venue.
How can you have money laundering if the money in question was not earned from a crime?
It's my understanding that getting a dismissal of charges is VERY difficult, so I think it is a small victory for Delay and a huge defeat for Earle. Priest took one of Earle's indictments and said "nope" before any hearings started. There was no change of venue, so that might not be good, but if Priest is intending the full smackdown of Earle, including prosecutorial misconduct, we are on that road now.
Basically isn't he accused of doing the same thing that all the Democrat 527's were doing last year?
Namely, flipping money which TRM couldn't legally spend for money that it could? That doesn't sound like money laundering in my definition.
After all, weren't the 527's all flipping money with eachother in order to get around the fact that they could only spend half of their money on Federal Campaigning?
LOL
Too dense.
Does post 160 mean that since the charges were upheld, the judge will consider prosecutorial misconduct arguments?
Bottom line, it is some good news for DeLay, some bad. That is the way it goes some days. You don't always hit the ball out of the park. The bad news is the refusal to change venue. Given what we know about the grand jury members and their motivation for indicting DeLay, there is no way he can get a fair trial.
Are we sure he is still yet to rule on the two remaining issues: change of venue and prosecutorial misconduct?
§ 34.02. MONEY LAUNDERING. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly
(1) acquires or maintains an interest in, receives, conceals, possesses, transfers, or transports the proceeds of criminal activity
(2) conducts, supervises, or facilitates a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity; or
(3) invests, expends, or receives, or offers to invest, expend, or receive, the proceeds of criminal activity or funds that the person believes are the proceeds of criminal activity.
See post 160 and 226.....seems to be the essence of this. Good news, may become great with the next motion.
That's true however didn't earle go to a 2nd grand jury that give him a no bill...then he went to a 3rd GJ. Which is not legal in Texas after the 2nd gave him a no bill....It should have been thrown out because of that and that alone. Somethin' smells...hoping DeLay appeals and goes to the Texas Supreme Court...they'll throw it out.
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.