• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Tom Delay re-indicted + new indictment.

Status
Not open for further replies.

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
They cleared up a clerical issue with the original indictment and they added MONEY LAUNDERING charges. So much for the slap on the wrist he was looking at... this one carries serious jail time with it.

If you didnt know, Delays lawyers were trying to get the charges thrown out because they claimed that the laws werent on the books when it happened... so instead they get a clarification on the original indictment and a new one. Allsome.
 
It's spreading through quite a few sources, but I don't know that the nightly news broadcasts can carry it in time. The AP is carrying it, so everyone is getting it sooner or later.
 
I live in Austin, the local news was all over it as soon as it happened. They were doing one of their normal "A kitty in a tree can draw with its tail" stories then broke to this.
 
BUT HES INNOCENT RITE? THIS IS JUST A CHEAP SHOT BY DEMOCRATS... some dumb whore in one of my classes said that last week. it took every ounce of energy in my body to keep from just tearing her apart.

"Oh yeah, you're totally right. The Democrats put that money into his bank account and forced him to steal campaign funds to go on vacations, while using the resources of the people that finance your party to take your vacations after those lonnnnggg spells of voting for and sponsoring bills that only direct them in the first place. Those dirty dirty democrats!"
 
Anyone who says he is innocent is a freakin tard. I don't get why ANYONE would back this guy up.

Check out a portion of a transcript from Meet the Press.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9542948/

MR. RUSSERT: This is not Mr. DeLay's first encounter with ethical violations. This is only an allegation in court now, but what I want to read now is not an allegation. Here's how USA Today demonstrated and portrayed it. "DeLay has been admonished more by the House Ethics Committee than any sitting member of Congress. Last year, the bipartisan panel--the only House committee with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats--unanimously criticized DeLay for three things. It said a golf fund-raiser with executives of an energy company created the appearance that he was giving donors special access. It said he improperly tried to have the Federal Aviation Administration find Texas legislators who were hiding in Oklahoma to thwart action on his plan to redraw the state's congressional districts. And it said he promised a retiring House Republican he would endorse the man's son to succeed him if he voted for Bush's Medicare drug plan. In 1999, the committee warned DeLay after he threatened the Electronic Industries Alliance, a trade group, for hiring a former Democratic congressman as its president. And it cautioned him in 1997 about creating the impression that campaign contributions would bring `official action or access.'"

Three times unanimous, Democrats, Republicans, admonished Tom DeLay. Isn't there a string of ethical violations here which should bring about his leaving Congress?

REP. REYNOLDS: Well, the Ethics Committee did render a decision of admonishment which isn't even in the House rules. It's I guess the lowest form. It certainly sounds like a tough word, but it's the lowest form of a message the Ethics Committee can give out. The important thing here is, yes, the question on an indictment, should he resign, and I don't believe he should. I think he'll beat that indictment. I think when you look at--even the Houston Chronicle which is DeLay's home paper, the comments were that there was real caution on what this district attorney did in a very political indictment- -or the district attorney rather.

MR. RUSSERT: Rahm Emanuel, Mr. DeLay was on CNN on Thursday, and I want to read this exchange. DeLay: "Ronnie Earle does this to all his political enemies. ...And particularly in my case, he did it in conjunction and working with the Democrat leadership here in Washington, D.C." Question: "Well, that's an explosive charge you make, that there was some sort of collusion or conspiracy between Ronnie Earle and Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the Congress. What evidence, if any, do you have to back that up?" DeLay: "It's very good evidence, that they announced this strategy publicly, they put it on their website. And this strategy is in their fund-raising letters." Question: "Who specifically--who announced this?" DeLay: "The DCCC, the Democratic Campaign Committee, run by Chairman Rahm Emanuel. ..." Question: "What evidence is there they consulted with Ronnie Earle, that they talked to him or they had any dealings with him whatsoever." DeLay: "That evidence is coming."

REP. EMANUEL: Tim, let me--this may come as breaking news. Web sites don't indict members of Congress. Grand juries. Web sites don't admonish a member not once, not twice, three times, which is what happened to Tom DeLay. The highest ranking official in the history of the House of Representatives to be indicted. All that Web site does is reflect a culture, in my view, of corruption and cronyism that pervades the political system.

And I find it ironic that here we are on the 11th year anniversary, this week that just passed, of a Contract With America, where the Republicans said, "We're going to clean up Washington and clean up the mess and bring fiscal responsibility to Washington." The House majority leader, indicted. Senate majority leader, under question. Other members of Congress like Congressman "Duke" Cunningham, a Republican from San Diego, is not going to seek re-election because of a company that does business in front of a committee. He sold his house at inflated prices.

There is a culture of cronyism. And what's interesting under one of those admonitions--and I also need to back up a little, on that Contract With America, when you look at it--and this week is one way of--this anniversary--they would be sued for breach of contract for what's happened.
 
actually, what's funny about this, is that the first indictment was only for conspiracy charges. it wasn't until he went on television afterwards to denounce them, saying something about how it was perfectly natural for him to take money from one person and hold it for them in safekeeping until they wanted it back.

a few days later? BANG... money laundering. what a dumbass.
 
AB 101 said:
Well, we can't get Bush so we will get someone in the meantime. :)

Waiting to see who is next.
Whoever else deserves it, hopefully.
 
This is just awesome. I watched this on hardball but now it just seems so appropriate to post.

Transcripts from hardball with chris mathews.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9530048/

MATTHEWS: The charge from the prosecutor down there, which the grand jury acted on, was that a bunch of people got together, including you, and sent, had a bunch of corporate checks up to the RNC in Washington. That‘s corporate contributions, illegal to use in Texas legislative races.

In exchange, you said, OK, you said, now send that same money down.

You earmarked it for these legislative races, thereby circumventing the

spirit of the law, which is no corporate contributions,

Is that a fair estimate of the charge?

DELAY: I don‘t know. It is not in the indictment. I don‘t know what he‘s charging me with.

MATTHEWS: Well, I‘m reading it from it.

DELAY: And—you did not read that from it.

MATTHEWS: Well...

DELAY: And what you just gave us...

MATTHEWS: “Texans for a Republican Majority did tender cause to be delivered and delivered to the Republican National Committee a check in the amount of $190,000, the check being for the same bank...”

DELAY: Wait. Wait. Chris, Chris, that‘s TRMPAC. That‘s not me.

MATTHEWS: OK. So, that‘s it.

DELAY: TRMPAC—TRMPAC is a separate entity. I had no fiduciary responsibilities. I had no managerial responsibilities. I had nothing to do with the day-to-day operation.

I was simply, along with four other elected officials, on an advisory board. They used my name as headliners for fund-raisers.

MATTHEWS: Right.

DELAY: And I had no idea what they were doing.

MATTHEWS: So, if corporate money was laundered through the Republican National Committee, you had nothing to do with it?

DELAY: That‘s exactly right.

But that—but that‘s not what they did. And they did it all within the law. They did—they—what they did—and I know what they did now.

MATTHEWS: Right.

DELAY: They did it completely within the law.

The Democrat parties and the Republican parties do the same thing over and over again. You take soft money. Those were the days of soft and hard money.

MATTHEWS: Sure.

DELAY: You take soft money and use it for legal stuff. And if you have more than you need, you send it to one of your friends. It‘s like your brother-in-law sending you money to pay your rent. And then you send back hard money that can be used in the races. It is not a quid pro quo. In fact, the amount of money you‘re talking about is different.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

Well, let me ask you this. Let me ask—because Tom Davis is going

to be on this show. And the argument we‘re getting from other people is

that there‘s nothing wrong with you urging some corp or anybody that your -

your former PAC—putting the—the PAC you‘re on the board of—to give, say, give a bunch of money to the RNC. They need money. And it‘s a good Republican cause, and then calling up the Republican National Committee and say, why don‘t you give some money to these legislative candidates? We‘d like them to win down there.

That‘s legal.

DELAY: Yes. It‘s totally legal.

MATTHEWS: So, what is illegal here?

DELAY: And everything TRMPAC did—and I insisted on—to even be on their board of advisers.

Now, TRMPAC was my idea. I wanted—I wanted the Texas House to be a Republican majority. And I went down there and worked with them to do that. And we were successful. And from that, we redistricted Texas. And the Republican Party better represented the values of the people of Texas, because we gained five seats.
MATTHEWS: You‘re a Texan.

Texas law says corporations can‘t give to legislative candidates.

DELAY: That‘s true.

MATTHEWS: If anybody, not you or anybody—just, if anybody sends money, says, give the corporate maybe to the RNC or the DNC and, by the way, send some of that money back and pay for these races down there, that would maybe be legal. Would it avoid—would that break the spirit of the law, which is no corporate contributions?

DELAY: No, it wouldn‘t, because—because, in Texas, you can raise corporate and union money for administrative purposes, to pay your rent, to pay your salaries...

MATTHEWS: Right.

DELAY: ... and that kind of stuff.

You just can‘t take that money and put it in somebody else‘s campaign. That—everything TRMPAC did, they did it with lawyers‘ blessings and accountants‘ blessing. This is not anything to do with money laundering.

MATTHEWS: OK.
 
I saw that Chris Matthews interview the day he was indicted. I was surprised that he wasn't charged with money laundering THEN.
 
whytemyke said:
:lol
God damn... Texas is really starting to make me want to call Mexico and offer it back to them.

I dunno seems like TX is about to clean house. Maybe we should let them hang around for a little while more. ;)
 
demon said:
Whoever else deserves it, hopefully.


Its not all nuns on the left either.

There is corruption all around.

If one really cleaned house in DC, there would not be many left.
 
Today was the first day at my new job. Know how I got through it?

"I have no right to complain about stress, at least I'm not Tom DeLay."
 
According to The Houston Chronicle, DeLay's new indictment comes from a different, newly formed grand jury.

DeLay and two political associates are accused of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.

The money laundering charge was the first action from a new Travis County grand jury, which started their term today. It came just hours after DeLay's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case.


Houston Chronicle.
 
Just to be very clear on one thing, Ronnie Earl isnt a Democratic hack who is going after Delay because he is a republican.

Ronnie Earl has indicted 3 Republicans, 14 Democrats and himself (for filing papers past a legal deadline) in his role as DA of Travis County.

Plus, the Juries haded down the indictment... not Earl.
 
AB 101 said:
Its not all nuns on the left either.

There is corruption all around.

If one really cleaned house in DC, there would not be many left.
Yeah, them librals are probably gettin blowjobs left and right.
 
StoOgE said:
Just to be very clear on one thing, Ronnie Earl isnt a Democratic hack who is going after Delay because he is a republican.

Ronnie Earl has indicted 3 Republicans, 14 Democrats and himself (for filing papers past a legal deadline) in his role as DA of Travis County.

Plus, the Juries haded down the indictment... not Earl.

Devil's advocate question: Earle's indictments on these have dated as far back as the 1970s. Before people like Bush and DeLay, Texas was mostly Democratic in all elected branches. Isn't that bound to skew Earle's record?
 
Lo-Volt said:
Devil's advocate question: Earle's indictments on these have dated as far back as the 1970s. Before people like Bush and DeLay, Texas was mostly Democratic in all elected branches. Isn't that bound to skew Earle's record?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.
 
Lo-Volt said:
Devil's advocate question: Earle's indictments on these have dated as far back as the 1970s. Before people like Bush and DeLay, Texas was mostly Democratic in all elected branches. Isn't that bound to skew Earle's record?

Someone posted this earlier.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0rQBlgcHhFwJ:www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/09/22EARLERECORD.html+%22Past+prosecutions+by+Ronnie+Earle%22&hl=en&client=safari

(And these are just some)

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, 1994: Acquitted of official misconduct and records tampering after Earle dropped the case during the trial.

Former state Rep. Betty Denton, D-Waco, 1995: Sentenced to six months probation and fined $2,000 for listing false loans and contributions on campaign finance reports.

Former state Rep. Lane Denton, D-Waco, 1995: Sentenced to 60 days in work-release program and six years probation, fined $6,000 and ordered to pay more than $67,000 restitution after being convicted of theft and misapplication of fiduciary property for funneling money from the Department of Public Safety Officers Association to a Denton company.

House Speaker Gib Lewis, D-Fort Worth, 1992: In plea bargain, Earle dropped more serious charges when Lewis pleaded no contest to failing to disclose a business investment. Lewis was fined $2,000, and the judge said he took into consideration that Lewis was retiring from public office.

Attorney General Jim Mattox, Democrat, 1985: Acquitted on felony bribery charges. Won re-election.

State Rep. Mike Martin, R-Longview, 1982: Pleaded guilty to perjury after lying about having himself shot to gain publicity. Did not run for re-election.

State Treasurer Warren Harding, Democrat, 1982: Pleaded no contest to official misconduct and dropped re-election bid.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough, Democrat, 1978: Sentenced to five years for lying to a grand jury and forgery. Gave up seat.

And somewhere I had read (and I believe it went back to an LA Times article I haven't managed to dig up) that he's prosecuted 15 public officials, 12 of them being Dems (...and there are two Reps on that list).
 
Hitokage said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

The only people Earle could indict back then were Democrats, since they were in the majority (weren't they in the majority in Texas back then?). If the Democrats were in the clear majority in the Texas government, doesn't that mean that more corruption would come out of Democrats as a result? And doesn't that skew Earle's record, since there were more Democrats to indict than Republicans for much of his career?
 
Lo-Volt said:
The only people Earle could indict back then were Democrats, since they were in the majority (weren't they in the majority in Texas back then?). If the Democrats were in the clear majority in the Texas government, doesn't that mean that more corruption would come out of Democrats as a result? And doesn't that skew Earle's record, since there were more Democrats to indict than Republicans for much of his career?
Yeah, but the only reasonable conclusion from that line of thought is that it doesn't necessarily matter to Earle who is in power or not, which is hardly a Devil's Advocate position.
 
Hitokage said:
Yeah, but the only reasonable conclusion from that line of thought is that it doesn't necessarily matter to Earle who is in power or not, which is hardly a Devil's Advocate position.

From now on, I'm sticking to bad jokes.
 
MIMIC said:
I saw that Chris Matthews interview the day he was indicted. I was surprised that he wasn't charged with money laundering THEN.
I saw the interview on both Fox and MSNBC (DeLay was on Fox, then MSNBC just a few minutes later). I was surprised to see that Brit Hume was actually tougher on DeLay than Chris Matthews. Hume was asking him some pressuring questions, whereas Matthews was pretty laid back and didn't mind rubbing in the fact that some Democrats declined to show up, allowing DeLay to use that as a reason to say they're just playing games and don't have anything that would seriously nail him.
 
DeLay claims it's just a democratic witch-hunt. Which may be true, but if so then the man's clearly a witch.
 
Even with my disdane for his polices I'm going to be the one person on this board to say innocent until proven guilty.

I mean if MJ can get off then anyone can. When money is involved then none of these cases are a slam dunk.
 
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Even with my disdane for his polices I'm going to be the one person on this board to say innocent until proven guilty.

I mean if MJ can get off then anyone can. When money is involved then none of these cases are a slam dunk.
Damn dirty politicians. See, they have to be careful of how much pressure they put on.. or else it will come back to haunt them when their scandals are revealed. They all have something.

That said, I hope Delay burns for it.
 
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Even with my disdane for his polices I'm going to be the one person on this board to say innocent until proven guilty.

I mean if MJ can get off then anyone can. When money is involved then none of these cases are a slam dunk.
Nobody brings charges up against politicians like this, criminal charges, unless they're almost positive that they're going to be found guilty. So the fact that they're even bringing charges against such a high-profile politician is pretty much a conviction as it is. The rest is just a formality.

I've been hearing shit since the beginning of the year about how DeLay was incredibly crooked and most republicans have been distancing themselves from him for a good long time now. I mean, christ, the man even admitted in his interviews that he's guilty of money laundering.
 
I also love how the right says it's a witch hunt and they make Earle out to be a partisan hack. But the reality of it is that the man has gone after more Democrats than Republicans in his career.
 
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Even with my disdane for his polices I'm going to be the one person on this board to say innocent until proven guilty.

I mean if MJ can get off then anyone can. When money is involved then none of these cases are a slam dunk.

Yeah, but MJ wasnt a high profile republican going on trial in a highly democratic county.
 
Oh please. Anyone knows you can re-indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to.

Delay did nothing wrong. He's just a poor little pussy getting fucked by big partisan dicks. Poor guy.
 
Excuse my ignorance... but at any point during this front process does DeLay actually ever get arrested and put in handcuffs and see even a few minutes behind bars?
 
bob_arctor said:
Oh please. Anyone knows you can re-indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to.

Delay did nothing wrong. He's just a poor little pussy getting fucked by big partisan dicks. Poor guy.
does it hurt when you think? I'd say the evidence pretty much shows Delay's wrong and that the investigation isn't partisian.
 
bune duggy said:
does it hurt when you think? I'd say the evidence pretty much shows Delay's wrong and that the investigation isn't partisian.

Are you re-sarcasming my initial sarcasm? Or does it hurt when you think? :)
 
DarienA said:
Excuse my ignorance... but at any point during this front process does DeLay actually ever get arrested and put in handcuffs and see even a few minutes behind bars?
Yes, I thought of that Dave Chappelle sketch too. :lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom