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

[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_Topic&message.id=199017&page=2, 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_0758, scroll down a bit). Could they be right?

[skooooo]

1. Well, it's a Grand Jury Indictment..

...so they must have thought they had "proof."

[oldtime dfl_er]

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

[displacedtexan]

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.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. How many indictments is this for the hammer?

I would think his past history would speak volumes here.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Jon and crew had fun with his history on last night's TDS. See it here

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/headlines/index.jhtml

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. I saw that last night.

It was hilarious.

[FVZA_Colonel]

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.

[EstimatedProphet]

23. Of course

No one is claiming automatic guilt. IT's the Repiglicans that are claiming automatic innocence.

[Dora]

6. No evidence?

I guess that will have to be determined when he is TRIED IN COURT!!!
:bounce: :rofl:

[FVZA_Colonel]

8. But the counterargument

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.

[jobycom]

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.

[AX10]

10. The grand jury did find 'probable cause'.

There is enough evidence to go to court.

[sandnsea]

11. What's your point?

Why do you help Republicans?

[FVZA_Colonel]

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.

[sandnsea]

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.

[FVZA_Colonel]

19. I have made my case, with the help of stopbush.

Take a look here: http://boards.1up.com/zd/board/message?board.id=Off_Topic&message.id=199017&page=2, if you wish.

[sandnsea]

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.

[stopbush]

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

[FVZA_Colonel]

16. Thank you very much

This will prove highly useful.

[spanone]

14. We'll See.

[glitch]

17. What the hell does Delay's indictment have to do with Novak? nt

;)

[Bridget Burke]

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.

[FVZA_Colonel]

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.

[Bridget Burke]

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?

[0007]

24. Cough, cough......

Hummmmmm. Mary Flood is an interesting person to say the least. As passionate about her work as John Bolton.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

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.