NationStates Jolt Archive

So, is the DA out to get him or is he a bad guy?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170949,00.html

(Before you attack the source, realize it is an Associated Press by-line.)

DeLay's a crooked piece of shit and has been for years, while Earle has a reputation of going after corrupt politicians no matter their political affiliation.

DeLay's a crooked piece of shit and has been for years, while Earle has a reputation of going after corrupt politicians no matter their political affiliation.

Come on Nazz, you can do better than that. I know you can do it without cussing and you can give me some examples of the Democrats and Independents he has gone after.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/28/truth-ronnie-earle/

If the Republicans had anything proving Earle being partisan, it would be all over rightwing pundit sites, it's not. Instead they are trying to make up magic rules to prove DeLay is innocent.

Come on Nazz, you can do better than that. I know you can do it without cussing and you can give me some examples of the Democrats and Independents he has gone after.

Aw geeze, how can you not be aware that 8 of the eleven politicians Earl has gone after are Democrats? Seriously. Posting the specifics (for the umpteenth time,) isn't going to change your mind anyway.

[edit: oops, 12 of the 15 he's gone after have been Democrats.]

Aw geeze, how can you not be aware that 8 of the eleven politicians Earl has gone after are Democrats? Seriously. Posting the specifics (for the umpteenth time,) isn't going to change your mind anyway.

[edit: oops, 12 of the 15 he's gone after have been Democrats.]

Aw geeze yourself. How can you not be aware that this proscutor attempted to get inditments for the same damn thing from 5 previous grand juries that all denied him?

How can you not be aware that the inditment only lists Delays name as a defendant, yet never mentions him as being involved in the alleged crime in the body of the document, despite laws requiring a greater amount of specificity in cases of conspiracy? (To prevent this very sort of thing)

How can you not be aware that this prosecuter has in the past extorted his targets for huge sums of money in exchange for dropping charges against his targets?

How can you not be aware that Delay is not charged with money laundering as reported by "the mainstream liberal rags"?

I'm not a Delay fan by any strech, but anyone that can't see what is really going on, when it is right in front of their eyes needs to be indited for contaminating the gene pool. This is not only going to not stick. It is going to backfire so badly it is going to gut the demcratic leadership before it is all over. Why else would Delay have waived the statute of limitations? Once again the democrats think they got the tiger by the tail and once again they are going to get bit. Damn those idiots, they play and pander to news and drive people so far away that Republicans are the only choice a rational person can make.

How can you not be aware that Delay is not charged with money laundering as reported by "the mainstream liberal rags"?

Details?

What? A lawyer using the press for his own gains?!? *SHOCK*

[QUOTE]Aw geeze yourself. How can you not be aware that this proscutor attempted to get inditments for the same damn thing from 5 previous grand juries that all denied him?

You have support for this, or are you just repeating "something you heard?" Also, how many indictments did Al Capone beat? No one knows the specifics of the case yet, but it was obviously enough to get a Grand Jury to issue an indictment.

How can you not be aware that the inditment only lists Delays name as a defendant, yet never mentions him as being involved in the alleged crime in the body of the document, despite laws requiring a greater amount of specificity in cases of conspiracy? (To prevent this very sort of thing)

Then your problem is with the Grand Jury. The D.A. only lays out the case, the Grand Jury decides if it's enough to indict.

How can you not be aware that this prosecuter has in the past extorted his targets for huge sums of money in exchange for dropping charges against his targets?

Support for this? Or are you confusing "settling out of court" for "extortion."

How can you not be aware that Delay is not charged with money laundering as reported by "the mainstream liberal rags"?

hahahahahaha! Got that tinfoil hat screwed on real tight, don't you?

I'm not a Delay fan by any strech, but anyone that can't see what is really going on, when it is right in front of their eyes needs to be indited for contaminating the gene pool.

Wow, your debating powers leave me speechless.


This is not only going to not stick. It is going to backfire so badly it is going to gut the demcratic leadership before it is all over. Why else would Delay have waived the statute of limitations? Once again the democrats think they got the tiger by the tail and once again they are going to get bit. Damn those idiots, they play and pander to news and drive people so far away that Republicans are the only choice a rational person can make.

What does the Democratic leadership have to do with a Texas DA and a Texas grand jury? Who exactly is playing up to the press? Who is it who creates smear campaigns whenever someone challenges them? Are you also accusing "the democratic leadership and the liberal press" for trumping charges against Frist? Damn that SEC and their liberal bias.

Details?
Just read the inditement. Its only 4 pages including the cover page. I doubt it will even make it past a preliminary hearing. I've seen probably a thousand of these things in the past 15 years and this one is truely lame.

What? A lawyer using the press for his own gains?!? *SHOCK*

Yeah, Ken Starr would never do such a thing!

Just read the inditement. Its only 4 pages including the cover page. I doubt it will even make it past a preliminary hearing. I've seen probably a thousand of these things in the past 15 years and this one is truely lame.

A preliminary hearing? You mean, like, a Grand Jury?

Your poll needs a "both" option. Obviously, as a congressman, Delay is corrupt. That much is clear. On the other hand, DAs tend to run for higher office in the courtroom. I would imagine that both have shit on their shoes.

In the words of Justice Stang: " I have no problem in you running for a seat in the Senate counselor, but I'm fucked if you are going to do it in my courtroom." Wise words indeed.

Enough of this bullshit--Earle didn't indict DeLay. The Grand Jury did--Earle just asked for the indictment. And if you want to know how the Grand Jury felt about it, here's a report from the foreman of the grand Jury. (http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=146685)
The 12-member grand jury that indicted U.S. Rep. Tom Delay, R-Sugar Land, faces scrutiny from critics who say they are lackeys for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

Foreman William Gibson lives in a Northeast Austin neighborhood.

It's been his philosophy not to have his picture taken because he doesn't want to be harassed, Gibson said.

Gibson isn't really afraid of that. He did his duty and that bound him to look at Tom Delay as just another Texan accused of criminal conspiracy, he said.

"I like his aggressiveness and everything, and I had nothing against the House majority man, but I felt that we had enough evidence, not only me, but the other grand jury members," Gibson said.

The grand jury foreman also takes great exception to accusations that he and 11 other grand jury members followed the lead of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle instead of following the evidence.

"It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us," Gibson said.

On Wednesday, Earle would not go into details about any potential evidence against Delay. But he did describe the scheme he's accusing Delay of coordinating.

"The indictment describes a scheme whereby corporate money, which cannot be given to candidates in Texas was sent to the Republican National Committee where it was exchanged for money raised from individuals and then sent to those Texas legislative candidates," Earle said.

Gibson thinks there is enough evidence to convict Delay.

"We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed the man, if we didn't feel there was sufficient evidence," said Gibson.

The evidence is there to prove Delay was involved in wrongdoing and also prove that he and his fellow grand jurors acted independent of political influence, Gibson said.

"It wasn't Mr. Earle that indicted the man. It was the 12 members of the grand jury," Gibson said.

Gibson is a former sheriff's deputy and a former investigator for what is now the Texas Department of Insurance.
So lay the fuck off of Earle.

So lay the fuck off of Earle.

Looking in my trusty crystal ball, I see this:

This Gibson guy is a fanatic partisan. He's voted to indict Republicans before! The liberal rags are just protecting him!

note: if you do not fit the description of the above quoter, ignore said quote.

Enough of this bullshit--Earle didn't indict DeLay. The Grand Jury did--Earle just asked for the indictment. And if you want to know how the Grand Jury felt about it, here's a report from the foreman of the grand Jury. (http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=146685)

So lay the fuck off of Earle.

I thought people weren't supposed to discuss Grand Jury proceedings.

I thought people weren't supposed to discuss Grand Jury proceedings.

I think they're not allowed to go into specifics like evidence. Defending their reputation agaonst partisan attacks is copacetic though.

I thought people weren't supposed to discuss Grand Jury proceedings.
Once the Grand Jury has completed its service, unless it has has been gagged by a judge, the members are free to talk, as far as I know. It's only during a grand jury that the members can't talk, and the prosecutor isn't supposed to talk either, although as Ken Starr proved, that doesn't always happen. People who testify are free to talk about anything they testified about if they wish.

I think they're not allowed to go into specifics like evidence. Defending their reputation agaonst partisan attacks is copacetic though.

I don't really know about Texas. I know that you're not supposed to discuss anything at all in NY though and have to take an oath of secrecy. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the DA for this, I just don't think the grand jurors should be speaking to the press at all.

In any case, I don't care for either of those two. The best result would be if this brought them both down. Fresh faces! That's what the country needs.

Once the Grand Jury has completed its service, unless it has has been gagged by a judge, the members are free to talk, as far as I know. It's only during a grand jury that the members can't talk, and the prosecutor isn't supposed to talk either, although as Ken Starr proved, that doesn't always happen. People who testify are free to talk about anything they testified about if they wish.

I think that is after the case is over. Otherwise it could be prejudicial, what with the different standards of evidence.

I think that is after the case is over. Otherwise it could be prejudicial, what with the different standards of evidence.
You could be right--I'm certainly no lawyer--but in any case, it didn't sound to me like Gibson was talking about specifics in this interview. There's a link to the video at the site I linked to on the last page if you want to check it out. As long as nothing evidentiary was discussed, I don't see what the big deal would be with the foreman giving an interview.

Whether Earle is partisan in this matter or not, I still find it disturbing that he would have a film crew follow his every move in this particular case. Sounds at the very least like a case of ego, "I'm gonna bring home the big one".

Could you imagine what the MSM would be saying if the GOP had a film crew following the every move of a special prosecutor pursuing corruption charges for someone like, say, Harry Reid, Senate minority whip?

What I also find disturbing is this quote from the film being made about his pursuit of the prosecution of Tom DeLay:

"The root of the evil of the corporate and large-monied interest domination of politics is money," Earle says as he takes the filmmakers on a nighttime drive around Austin. "This is in the Bible. This isn't rocket science. The root of all evil truly is money, especially in politics. People talk about how money is the mother's milk of politics. Well, it's the devil's brew. And what we've got to do, we've got to turn off the tap."

For one thing, he's got his Bible quotes wrong. The Bible says the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. And if some conservative politician said this, he would be decried as some right-wing, evangelical nutcase.

You could be right--I'm certainly no lawyer--but in any case, it didn't sound to me like Gibson was talking about specifics in this interview. There's a link to the video at the site I linked to on the last page if you want to check it out. As long as nothing evidentiary was discussed, I don't see what the big deal would be with the foreman giving an interview.

Hmm, I am of the opinion that even though it probably doesn't cause any harm, it gets you into a gray area, and could in other circumstances lead to problems. After all, the Grand Jurors are not usually lawyers themselves, and probably do not have such a good idea what is, and what is not, acceptable to say. Which could be a potential minefield.

I really think that it would be acceptable to require complete secrecy until the case is completed. Especially as the defendant himself has access to the transcript, and so is not prejudiced by it.

Hmm, I am of the opinion that even though it probably doesn't cause any harm, it gets you into a gray area, and could in other circumstances lead to problems. After all, the Grand Jurors are not usually lawyers themselves, and probably do not have such a good idea what is, and what is not, acceptable to say. Which could be a potential minefield.

I really think that it would be acceptable to require complete secrecy until the case is completed. Especially as the defendant himself has access to the transcript, and so is not prejudiced by it.Well, here's the other reason I don't see it as being a big deal--any evidence presented to the Grand Jury is available to the defense as well, and will presumably be presented at trial, where it will be a matter of public record, so it'll be out there eventually anyway, and in a trial of this magnitude, it'll be out there the second it's presented. Yeah, you could potentially taint the jury pool, but again--nothing prevents the defense from doing precisely that before the trial starts anyway.

Well, here's the other reason I don't see it as being a big deal--any evidence presented to the Grand Jury is available to the defense as well, and will presumably be presented at trial, where it will be a matter of public record, so it'll be out there eventually anyway, and in a trial of this magnitude, it'll be out there the second it's presented. Yeah, you could potentially taint the jury pool, but again--nothing prevents the defense from doing precisely that before the trial starts anyway.

Here's the thing though. The transcript is not public record. It only goes to the prosecutor and the defense. It shouldn't be released, and I am pretty sure the defense is not going to release anything that is prejudicial to the defendant: doubly so if it is probably not competent evidence for a jury trial. I am of the old school that believes that the rights of the defendant are paramount in this respect, and should be placed above consideration of whether or not the trial is politically charged or involves a celebrity. I also believe that the media's right to get a story is not superior to the rights of the defendant. Asking Jurors not to discuss the proceedings at all until the completion of the case seems a fairly reasonable request in light of that. And it doesn't really hurt them in any way.

As I said, I don't blame the DA for the Juror's conduct, after all he can't really do much about it I suppose, but it is a shame that not taking perfectly reasonable precautions seems to have been cast aside. Further, it adds to the general acrimony and partisan bickering. Which is a shame, because at the end of the day it is a criminal trial, alleging specific offences, and should not be colored by political considerations. Once the judicial system starts to go down that road - or actually if it continues down that road - ultimately people will loose any confidence they once had in it.

What I also find disturbing is this quote from the film being made about his pursuit of the prosecution of Tom DeLay:

"The root of the evil of the corporate and large-monied interest domination of politics is money," Earle says as he takes the filmmakers on a nighttime drive around Austin. "This is in the Bible. This isn't rocket science. The root of all evil truly is money, especially in politics. People talk about how money is the mother's milk of politics. Well, it's the devil's brew. And what we've got to do, we've got to turn off the tap."

For one thing, he's got his Bible quotes wrong. The Bible says the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. And if some conservative politician said this, he would be decried as some right-wing, evangelical nutcase.

Oh, come on. No one on the Christian-Right quotes the "camel through a needle's eye" or "root of all evil" parts of the bible.

Whether Earle is partisan in this matter or not, I still find it disturbing that he would have a film crew follow his every move in this particular case. Sounds at the very least like a case of ego, "I'm gonna bring home the big one".

Could you imagine what the MSM would be saying if the GOP had a film crew following the every move of a special prosecutor pursuing corruption charges for someone like, say, Harry Reid, Senate minority whip?

Based on what I've seen from Earle, you may be correct in the first paragraph there. As for the second, all I have to do is point out how much the MSM participated in getting the Swift Boat Vet's story out. The MSM doesn't care, as long as the story is juicy.

Back to Earle though, I can see that the "Boy Scout" description may be right. This guy, from what I see this far, believes what he believes and believes it loudly. He's showy about his moral certainty. If he's overzealous, well, that's what we want in a prosecutor.

Anyway, if there was a person on the right (I'm not saying there isn't,) of similar, he'd be a hero of the conservatives

Based on what I've seen from Earle, you may be correct in the first paragraph there. As for the second, all I have to do is point out how much the MSM participated in getting the Swift Boat Vet's story out. The MSM doesn't care, as long as the story is juicy.

Back to Earle though, I can see that the "Boy Scout" description may be right. This guy, from what I see this far, believes what he believes and believes it loudly. He's showy about his moral certainty. If he's overzealous, well, that's what we want in a prosecutor.

Anyway, if there was a person on the right (I'm not saying there isn't,) of similar, he'd be a hero of the conservatives
The way I read the story was that Earle didn't seek the film crew out--they came to him and he gave them permission to follow him around, which is understandable. Earle is no fool--this is an indictment of the most powerful man in Texas politics right now. It's a big, long-term story. Why wouldn't a documentary crew be interested in it?

Delay... don't forget to pick up the soap once they've locked you up and thrown away the key. Cheers. :D

Aw geeze yourself. How can you not be aware that this proscutor attempted to get inditments for the same damn thing from 5 previous grand juries that all denied him?

Actually, he's charged with conspiracy to money launder. A lesser crime and one much harder to prove without taped conversations which I seriously doubt they have.