Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades.
I've reserved judgement regarding the indictments against Tom DeLay, beyond saying that I hoped justice would be done, whatever it is, and commenting at Naked Villainy, reminding Smallholder that DeLay isinnocent until proven guilty.
My friend Vulture Six, on the other hand, has been a staunch supporter of DeLay from the beginning. As a Texan and an active follower of state and national politics, he was convinced the charges were trumped up and politically motivated. He also has a very low opinion of DA Ronnie Earle -- an opinion that is not uncommon in Texas.
Well, it's looking more and morte like V6 was right.
I'll admit that I haven''t followed this issue as closely as many in the blogosphere, so this may come as no surprise to many of you, but here's what has come to light:
There have been three attempted indictments against DeLay.
His lawyer has moved for dismissal of the first, since, apparently, the activities for which DeLay has been indicted for, he engaged in in 2002, but they weren't illegal until 2003. Furthermore, Vulture Siz tells me that the Jury Foreman admitted to Radio Austin that the Grand Jury, which was comprised mostly of Democrats, had decided that they would indict DeLay before it had even heard the evidence.
The second indictment was for money laundering. The heart of this indictment is DeLay's handling of the funds in question AFTER they were raised, while the first had to do with the fundraising activities themselves. However, as an alert Ace reader points out, according to Texas Law, in order to constitute Money Laundering, the money handled has to be acquired illegally to begin with:
As for the third indictment, the Grand Jury rejected it.
It would seem that once again, a rabid leftist has let his eagerness to damage a political enemy cause him to act far too hastily.
Maybe Earle should have talked to Dan Rather.
I've reserved judgement regarding the indictments against Tom DeLay, beyond saying that I hoped justice would be done, whatever it is, and commenting at Naked Villainy, reminding Smallholder that DeLay isinnocent until proven guilty.
My friend Vulture Six, on the other hand, has been a staunch supporter of DeLay from the beginning. As a Texan and an active follower of state and national politics, he was convinced the charges were trumped up and politically motivated. He also has a very low opinion of DA Ronnie Earle -- an opinion that is not uncommon in Texas.
Well, it's looking more and morte like V6 was right.
I'll admit that I haven''t followed this issue as closely as many in the blogosphere, so this may come as no surprise to many of you, but here's what has come to light:
There have been three attempted indictments against DeLay.
His lawyer has moved for dismissal of the first, since, apparently, the activities for which DeLay has been indicted for, he engaged in in 2002, but they weren't illegal until 2003. Furthermore, Vulture Siz tells me that the Jury Foreman admitted to Radio Austin that the Grand Jury, which was comprised mostly of Democrats, had decided that they would indict DeLay before it had even heard the evidence.
The second indictment was for money laundering. The heart of this indictment is DeLay's handling of the funds in question AFTER they were raised, while the first had to do with the fundraising activities themselves. However, as an alert Ace reader points out, according to Texas Law, in order to constitute Money Laundering, the money handled has to be acquired illegally to begin with:
PENAL CODEIf the fundraising wasn't illegal, neither was the handling of the funds "Laundering".CHAPTER 34. MONEY LAUNDERING
§ 34.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:§ 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.
As for the third indictment, the Grand Jury rejected it.
It would seem that once again, a rabid leftist has let his eagerness to damage a political enemy cause him to act far too hastily.
Maybe Earle should have talked to Dan Rather.
No comments:
Post a Comment