DeLay Indicted

Remove all ads!

Granted, this is only the first phase of the legal process. An indictment means that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to a formal trial. It is NOT the same thing as being found guilty. If convicted, DeLay could receive a prison sentence of two years. In the meantime, he's stepping down from his position as House Majority Leader.

Read the full story here

 

I was going to post on this because I mentioned it in another thread.

I am certain that Tom DeLay is going to be found completely innocent.

There are not many politicians for whom I would make that prediction -- off the top of my head I can think of exactly zero, actually. But contrary to press reports, DeLay is a genuinely decent guy. His greatest failing seems to be that he has not handled the press well. It might be that he did not choose his friends well either in the case of this indictment.

If I am wrong, I will be glad to come back to this thread and face the music.

 

Well, since St. James said so it must be so!

Actually DeLay is a rather interesting guy. Some things I remember from watching a biography about him: He shares Mr. Bush's evangelical Christ-given freedom from alcoholism and drugs. The other fact I found rather...odd...he absolutely refuses to talk to his mother (his father died I think?..), nor will he talk to his siblings either. In fact, he has spoken to neither since he left for college. Rather strange, huh? That must have been one hell of a home back then!

 

Well, DeLay might be a pretty decent guy if you are one of his business friends (I understand he treats them with golf trips to swanky locations... or is it the other way around ). Or if you are a Rparty member. Or if you don't care very much about the democratic process - does anybody remember that redistricting stuff in Texas?

He might be found not guilty on the specific charges under consideration (I would think conspiration is pretty tough to prove). However, he's no lily-white innocent.

 

What?!

Are you serious? Good God - I shudder to think who fits your definition of a "prick" then. Seriously. This man is the very epitomy of the corrupt American politition, and I say this as an independent. And to the contrary - he handles the press EXTREMELY well, which is part of why he's been able to get away with as much as he has for so long.

Even the most die-hard Republicans can admit this man is a cancerous cyst on the ass of our government. And those who don't can IMO be fairly accused of putting party loyalty over the good of the country.

He may beat the charges, sure - in fact I'll be even more shocked if he and his cohorts don't find a way to get the case dismissed. But Tom DeLay is anything but innocent.

 

One of the proudest moments of my life was the day I walked into a voting booth in Clear Lake, Texas, and had the honor of voting against this person. He is in my opinion - and this is only my opinion - one of the worst examples of a politican currently that lurks in the halls of the capitol building. And, IMO, he represents everything that is wrong with our political system.

I don't know if he will be convicted or not; hopefully, if the system works as it should, the evidence will decide that, but just seeing that smirk on his face today, assured me that he could care less about our laws, our justice system, and his own personal integrity. There are few things in this world that are more important than a man's character, and it's quite clear that Delay has no regard for his own.

 

@ DR, Chandos: Please, guys, don't hold back; tell us what you really think!

It will be interesting to see what happens here. From all reports and indicators (at least, from over this side of the Pacific), DeLay is a party machine man, through and through. I do not doubt that he could have done this - and I think his comments about his accuser indicate that he's opting for the old switcheroo by trying to paint the DA as having a vendetta against him. In other words, he's resorting to smearing the name of the DA to limit his credibility, rather than demonstrating his innocence. Not a good first impression to make, methinks.

There's no way - not a chance in hell - that the DA would go after a person like DeLay without a strong case. Like the old saying goes, you don't take a shot at the king if you don't think you can kill him, and Earle would be playing Russian roulette with his career if he put DeLay up on a sham charge. At a guess, depending on the weight of evidence, I'm predicting that DeLay will deny knowledge of any such alleged misappropriation of funds and foist responsibility off onto either his co-accused or some other unfortunate stool pigeon.

I'll say this much for sure - Earle has stones the size of grapefruits for doing this. I wonder if he truly appreciates what he may have gotten himself into, but kudos to him for doing it, even if DeLay is innocent. That someone is powerful should be no reason not to hold them accountable.

My money's on his lawyers calling for a mistrial on the grounds that "the left-wing mainstream media" has prejudiced the outcome.

EDIT: The whole scenario reminds me of a cartoon on my desk calendar, entitled "How You Know It's Time To Update Your Resume": a boss is addressing his board, saying "By the way, if anyone asks, I wasn't here and have no idea how my company operates, okay?"

[ September 29, 2005, 04:50: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

For those unfamiliar with the American system, I should point out that a jury handed out the indictment for DeLay. Which means that the prosecutors presented the evidence they had, and a jury decided that's enough to warrant a criminal investigation. So it is not so easy to say this was a politically motivated prosecution, as the persons speaking for DeLay maintain.

Good one, DR

 

The case will not be dismissed. That's basically the purpose of the grand jury system. It prevents the defendant from having to stand trial if there is insufficient evidence or if the charge is frivolous. The grand jury phase of prosecution is considerably different from a standard jury trial. Some of the main differences between a grad jury and a traditional jury:

1. Only the prosecution gets to present evidence. The defense does not. This is because the purpose of the hearing is not to prove guilt or innocence. It is where prosecutors must prove they have sufficient evidence to warrant a full trial.

2. The standard of proof is much lower. It's not beyond reasonable doubt, but rather just cause. Basically, if you think the facts presented could cast guilt on this person, that enough to indict.

3. The grand jury consists of 23 persons, and instead of needing a unanimous verdict in the case of a standard jury, all that is required is a simple majority to indict (so at least 12).

Given all of this it is very premature to engraving DeLay's tombstone, and that's not even considering that you can bet he'll hire the best attorney American taxpayer money can buy.

 

That's true, but there are still a few other on going investigations that DeLay might have to deal with. The odds of his returning to his former political glory have been greatly reduced. He will probably never have the same clout in Washington again.

 

Some interesting commentary on the response of the Republican party to these developments:

from Slate

I was myself surprised about how fast DeLay stepped down, and how fast his successor was chosen. That explains it . Say what you will about Republicans, their political machine is top notch.

Aldeth: thanks for the details about the grand jury stuff. I knew there were some differences, but not exactly what.

 

If DeLay did the crime he should do the time. However, if Vegas was taking odds I would bet he beats the rap. From what I have read this looks like possibly a hall of fame level political attack by the District Attorney (A Democrat in case you couldn't guess)

 

Of course the GOP had planned for this. They knew about the grand jury. No conspiracy there.

NonSequitur's reasoning is disproven by the fact that Ronnie Earle did something similar to Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Now I want to ask you people why you loathe Tom DeLay so much. Are you simply believing what you read about him in the press? What exactly has he done? Give me specific examples. Death Rabbit, please tell me what Tom DeLay has "gotten away with."

Personally, I think most of you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

A Democrat who has prosecuted 11 Democrats and only 4 Republicans in his career?

Political attack? Ya sure?

I'd also like to point out that this endictment wouldn't have even pass if a majority on the jury didn't think the evidence was credible. Is it realistic to think Ronnie Earle loaded the jury with partisan Dems? Is he really that powerful?

@ St. James

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but here are some of "decent guy" DeLay's greatest hits (Chandos, if you're reading this, I'm sure you can give me an assist here, fellow Houstonian):

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110601/

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9537

There are plenty of politicians on both the left and right whom I strongly disapprove of, but very few of whom I would go so far to declare absolute corruption on than one Tom DeLay. The man makes my skin crawl. I used to live in his district, and I've seen first-hand how he operates. He kisses babies in his TV commercials, claims "the evil liberal media is out to get me" as his defense for everything (rather than actually refute the accusations, mind you) and is widely regarded by most in Washington (on both sides) as probably the most ruthless and amoral SOB ever to step foot in the house. If this is all completely news to you, I really question the wisdom of statements like this...

Careful there - this comes dangerously close to being one of those "glass house" kind of comments.

[ September 29, 2005, 20:09: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

What exactly did he do, St James, and what part of my reasoning does it undermine? I'm not baiting you, I'm curious - this is something which I hadn't heard of thus far (and which wasn't a big enough story to make it across the Pacific in Australia). Since I've only got a few sources to base my comments on, I'd appreciate anything you could give me.

This is more or less the extent of coverage it's getting here... so I'd appreciate anything that could be added to that.

Hammer's fall hits Republicans

Hammer blow to Bush ally

Bush ally on criminal charge

 

The other thing that should be pointed out is no matter what this DA's personal motivations are, they are irrelevant to the fact the DeLay was indicted. For starters, the DA presents evidence with a judge present. Anything that does not merit evidence is barred from the court. Thus, it's not like the DA could have made a personal attack on DeLay or insult him in some way to make it seem to the jurors that he deserved to be indicted.

Secondly, as I also previously pointed out, it's the jurors who hand out the indictment, not the DA. If the DA's case was pure bupkis, then it wouldn't have been indicted by the grand jury. The DA had to convince at least 12 of the 23 grand jurors that he was onto something here. Like I said though, since no defense is presented, there could well be an explanation that clears him of his charges. We likely won't find anything out about it though until it proceeds to trial.

 

St. James: I am to lazy to compile a list of DeLays misdeeds myself, but here is a succint summary

I've forgotten myself about the Smith business. (you remember the Medicare bill? the one for which DeLay and company had to keep the roll call open till like 4 in the morning, trying to twist enough arms for votes to pass the bill). Also, note that this quote is from an editorial in the New Republic (which some might call a liberal newspaper). However, every one of those things is well documented, and it got some exposure in press at the time. Nobody really seemed to care, though.

 

Another great article here:

Read the whole article. It provides a very nice run down on such a decent guy. But then, it does come from "the press," so...

 

Blunt is a terrible choice as his successor indeed. His wife is a lobbyist for crying out loud. After all the stuff that his come up with DeLay why in the world would you pick someone as a replacement who's wife IS a lobbyist? It's not a rule that you couldn't pick him, but come on, it already has the look of a conflict of interest.

 

And since when are the current Republican crop concerned with ethics or conflicts of interest? Anyone who considers themselves true Republicans should be ashamed of these jokers, and demanding their heads. But they don't, and that's depressing. This is a key example of why I steered away from my support of Republicans a few years ago. By continuing to support them while still refusing to hold them accountable for their misdeeds, Republicans give guys like DeLay and Blunt all the rope they need, and yet still don't complain (or even seem to notice) when the noose hangs them all.

[ September 30, 2005, 22:25: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]