Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A way to counter this argument: there are no facts in DeLay's indictment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:23 PM
Original message
A way to counter this argument: there are no facts in DeLay's indictment?
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:59 PM by FVZA_Colonel
I have looked through the indictment (http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/delay/delay92805ind.pdf ) carefully, and from what I can tell, it seems to be very clear and concise. This charge, that there is no evidence, seems to be being raised by conservative defendants of DeLay (examples here: http://boards.1up.com/zd/board/message?board.id=Off_Top... here: http://j_wizzle.blogspot.com/, and an article arguing that DeLay is just fine here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#9_8_04... scroll down a bit). Could they be right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, it's a Grand Jury Indictment..

...so they must have thought they had "proof."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldtime dfl_er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. An indictment is a clear indication
that there is at least enough evidence to pursue the issue. There must be more than we can discern.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/658010
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Looks pretty damned clear to me.
Add the fact that Bug Man has been incriminating himself day & night since the indictment, saying he was proud that he had founded the PAC which put so many Repukes in the TX state lege.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. How many indictments is this for the hammer?
I would think his past history would speak volumes here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Jon and crew had fun with his history on last night's TDS. See it here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. I saw that last night.
It was hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. A piece on grand juries from the University of Dayton website
here: http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/feedback/feedbak5.htm

Does a grand jury referral establish a prima facie case?

Also, if a case has been referred to the grand jury, is that an indication that a prima facie case has been established?

Response: No--the purpose of the grand jury is to decide if there is probable cause to believe one or more crimes have been committed. In this regard, the grand jury functions very much like a detective: The detective investigates to determine if a crime has been committed and, if he/she finds that a crime has been committed, the detective decides who did it and should be charged.


Regardless of DeLay's actuall guilt, the Grand Jury has decided that there is probable cause to warrant an investigation, but this does not confirm automatic guilt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
23. Of course
No one is claiming automatic guilt. IT's the Repiglicans that are claiming automatic innocence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. No evidence?
I guess that will have to be determined when he is TRIED IN COURT!!!
:bounce: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. But the counterargument
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:40 PM by FVZA_Colonel
is that the grand jury never had enough evidence to even issue an indictment. I do not agree with that in any way, but that is the counterargument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. That's why we have a court system
If Delay is innocent, he'll be found innocent in court. Of course, this is Texas, so if he's guilty, he'll be found innocent in court, too.

He's guilty of much more than one count of conspiracy. The grand jury showed great restraint or Republican partisanship in not indicting him on several counts of fraud and obstruction as well as one half-assed state conspiracy charge. I was close to some of the campaigns he sabotaged. There is no doubt he's guilty. The only question is whether it can be proven in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. The grand jury did find 'probable cause'.
There is enough evidence to go to court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. What's your point?
Why do you help Republicans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Bite your tounge!
I am just annoyed that some people refuse to see that, even if it is proven DeLay is innocent, there was probable cause for a grand jury indictment, and that they claim the grand jury never had enough evidence in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Why don't you make YOUR case then
And not theirs. I am so sick of people using right wing talking points as a basis for some sort of "important" debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I have made my case, with the help of stopbush.
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:56 PM by FVZA_Colonel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. I'm talking about THIS thread
And concocting some cocknbull story about Delay's indictment. It is what it is, focus on the corruption of Tom Delay and that the evidence will be presented in court. Why in the world would you want to get involved in any other right wing discussions when there is SO MUCH SHIT you can say about Tom Delay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. Media Matters has a good piece on this today:

Commentators and journalists falsely attacked the indictment handed down against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) by claiming that it cites little or no specific evidence to support the charge that he conspired to violate Texas campaign finance laws. Attacks appearing on Fox News took two forms: 1) that the absence of evidence in the indictment is highly unusual; and 2) that it implies a weak case. In fact, Texas law requires only that specific allegations be presented in the indictment, not the specific evidence to back up those allegations. Moreover, contrary to the claim that the indictment's lack of evidence is highly unusual, prosecutors in Texas rarely include such evidence .

Under Texas law, an indictment only must include the specific allegations which, if proved at trial, would constitute a violation of the law. According to Texas' Code of Criminal Procedure, "verything should be stated in an indictment which is necessary to be proved" -- in other words, all the specific statutory elements of the crime need to be alleged against the defendant. Regarding the Texas conspiracy statute DeLay is accused of violating, the indictment needed to allege the following: that DeLay and his charged co-conspirators, James Ellis and John Colyandro, agreed to work together in order to violate Texas' ban on corporate contributions (a felony), and that at least one of the group then "performed an overt act" to try and fulfill the agreement.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509300006
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Thank you very much
This will prove highly useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. We'll See.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. What the hell does Delay's indictment have to do with Novak? nt
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. Two of your links are dead...
I looked at one. Right Wing Idiots looking for any excuse.

The facts will be determined in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I fixed one
but the other still doesn't work. You're not missing much, it's the same "there were no facts" argument as before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Thanks.
We'll all have a chance to see what facts come out.

Sounds like these idiots are really desperate. The link I did check mentioned that DeLay didn't seem really concerned. If so, why did he hire a $700 per hour lawyer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
24. Cough, cough......
Hummmmmm. Mary Flood is an interesting person to say the least. As passionate about her work as John Bolton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
25. This is a case of conspiracy. They probably have at least one party
that said, let's make a deal. You can't see that in the indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 17th 2014, 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC