Redstate

The money laundering charge may be tough to prove . . . we'll have to see what the opinion says.

Just a note that this indictment was thrown out based on a technicality.  It is illegal now, but it wasn't illegal when he committed his crime.  So I don't think we should be too happy about it.  I for one would much rather have people in office who don't commit crimes or come close enough that they get off only on technicalities.  We definitely need less corruption in congress.

Is one WHOPPER of a technicality. A constitutionally protected technicality, even. Kind of like the technicality where you don't have to incriminate yourself at trial.

In other words, your characterization of this as a "technicality" is flat wrong, and frankly shocking. You'd be comfortable if, after a law was passed, we went around and rounded up all the people who had violated it in the past, even though it wasn't illegal at the time of their actions?

it simply was not against the law. What you are apparently upset about is the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. I don't think we should all be happy, and relieved, when a lawless prosecutor is at least partially brought to heel.

the base charge was doing illegal things with money, the conspiricy was based on that alleged illegality.  So if what was alleged to be illegal was legal, then of course you can't conspire.  Odd that the conspiracy got thrown out but the other didn't.

Is the claim that it was legal to conspire then but its not now?

it is a clear ex post facto thing, and Delay shouldn't be nailed on that.  The money laundering thing is still a big deal, and given the evidence out there, he could still get nailed for this (the exact matching amounts getting moved around provides a pretty strong presumption for the prosecution, and jurors confronted with big amounts of money moving around that match each other would easily buy a money laundering explanation).  However, the judge was absolutely right to throw out the conspiracy charge under the TX election statute.

the dismissal for ex-post facto applied to conspiracy.  But there is only a conspiracy to commit some underlying illegality.  So what was it that was legal then but is not now?    Clearly not conspiracy, had to have been something else.

It is illegal now, but it wasn't illegal when he committed his crime.

I'm speechless -- I can't think of a polite way to tell you how stupid that statement is.

If the actions he took (or allegedly took) were legal when he took them, then it is obvious to the most casual observer that those actions did not constitute a crime.

but didn't we know this would happen? wasn't this why the grand jury had to meet a second time to come up with some charges?

to a layman. But a layman would have known this was a political prosecution from the beginning.

still something odd here.   A conspiracy only could exist to do something illegal.  The fact that some charges still stand means that whatever the conspiracy was attached to was actually legal.   So no conspiracy.

But some charges still stand - there was just no conspiracy?  Just odd.

then all charges should have been dismissed.  What gives?

at the time of the alleged money laundering, dismissing the conspiracy charge without commenting on the underlying charge is consistent.

It would not matter if DeLay is guilty of the money laundering charge with respect to the "conspiracy" charge.  The fact that judge is allowing the ML charges to go to trial isn't a commentary on the validity of that charge, it's simply a finding that the charge should go to trial.

He had an earlier indictment for something that wasn't a crime at the time (probably this), so he had to rush back to get this money laundering indictment.

It's a whopper insofar as obviously the law doesn't apply but it's not like the judge is saying there is no basis for thinking Delay committed the act, an act which is bad enough that they made a law against it and is probably morally wrong.

I would also note that there was some question about whether the state law was new (and thus creates the ex post facto problem) or just clarified the old state law (which would have allowed a charge to go forward).  The judge agreed with Delay's attorneys that the state law was new unto itself, and as they say, thems the brakes.

The conspiracy charge that was dismissed was for conspiracy to violate election laws; a law that was put into affect in 2003.

The money laundering charge (and conspiracy to commit money laundering) is a compeltely different crime that was already on the books.

That the judge didn't dismiss it means that he sees some basis in the facts for a jury to conclude that the crime was committed.

If you're not a lawyer, visit Wikipedia to review these terms.

It seems Mr. Delay, in this case at least, is clearly in the world of the criminalization of politics.

It's interesting and noteworthy that the political grandstanding from the left has moved on to other matters, and I wonder whether their own counsel are closely examining these remaining charges and comparing them with extant practices of their own. I'd wager Mr. Delay's practices are hardly unique, even considering some of the peculiarities of Texas law.

It's a shame justice will be delayed here, but what will be said if a politically minded right wing prosecutor convenes a grand jury sometime next summer, in, say, Nevada or California?

the amount of the checks disbursed to the individual candidates is "not" the same as the check from TRIMPAC, even when totaled.  Total disbursements are 'greater' than the original check.    

he committed no crime.

If a state has no speed limit it doesn't mean no one drives fast.

Is that if I drive down I-65 at a speed of 70mph, and next year they lower the speed limit to 55mph, and a police officer charges me with driving 70mph on I-65 in 2005, I won't get off on a "technicality."

Unless it's the "technicality" that what I did wasn't legal.

Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean it shouldn't be the subject of criminal law.

No, wait, it is. It's just on suspension until the Roe regime is up. Can we then prosecute baby murderers by the dozen for crimes during Roe's tenure?

And with no state speed limit, I'm not sure how you reach the idea of "fast."

regarding money laundering, on the books at the time of the alleged crime, concerned cash transactions only.  Checks were used 'throughout' the transactions in question to provide a clear paper trail and proper disclosure for FEC purposes.

and it would be incorrect to conclude that you don't "fast". In the case of Delay, that charge was thrown out doesn't mean he didn't do the things that were against the statute; which regardless of the existence or outcome of the case, is important.

has been around longer than speed limits.

In the case of Delay, that charge was thrown out doesn't mean he didn't do the things that were against the statute; which regardless of the existence or outcome of the case, is important.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. The only way that this could possibly apply is if there were some universal moral principle to which you were alluding here - such as, yes, DeLay committed murder, but due to some oversight by the state legislature, murder wasn't illegal.

Applied to campaign finance law, you are making a very thin argument indeed.

Has not.

When this came out... it was stated that this was hypocrisy since the Dem's have done the same thing as DeLay. If true, the Dem's should be rung up on these charges as well.

At some point in history, going over 20mph was considered being 'a speed demon'.

My source... the TV show 'The Waltons'. I distinctly remember the mother freaking out that one of her kids was driving too fast.

I rest my case.

Isn't that the meaning of the prosecution?  Three men conspire to legally transfer funds amongst seperate organizations, just as you might conspire to with your wife to engage in interstate transport on a holiday by taking the kids to grandma's.  

Oh, but wait, the purpose of the funds was to elect Republicans, this is a violation of mainstream norms (at least in Travis County).  It matters not one wit what words are used to write the law, what matters is that 12 liberals good and true can be made to believe evil has been done.  

So obey the laws if you want to, but remember that conservatives are tolerated only to the extent they remain a foil for radical democrats.  Think of it as the political version of the Globe Trotters and the Generals... play as well as you can, but if you win too much you can be replaced.. or jailed.

Anyone have a link to the decision itself?

anymore than what every other political group in America does in gathering and distributing money in a legal fashion.

Ronnie Earle is offended because the Republican majority in Texas actually elected a Republican majority.

The money laudering claim is false, Ronnie knows it and the charges will ultimately be dropped.

the other indictment, the one that Ronnie got from a new jury in 6 hours after the informed jury turned it down, is going to have a hearing abot its dismissal. the motion to toss it out was not denied.

for the entire ruling posted at Fox.  Hard to read though - it's a pdf file of a fax.

... is a key phrase. I have no direct experience laundering money, but it seems to me that only illgotten money can be laundered. If the donations sent to the RNC, and then redistributed back to Texas and other areas, were legal donations then there can be no laundering.

Yes, it was right to be thrown out.  I totally agree with the judge and no I would never ever say that we need to round up people based on new laws.  I am saying though that maybe we shouldn't tout this as such a great thing.  I want ethical congressmen, not ones that are maybe ethical by law, but aren't really clean.

It is obvious that he is tied up in something dirty.  So why would we defend him? Don't we want a clean congress? I say if a congressman has taken money or is not ethical, get rid of him.  I don't care if he is a democrat or a republican.  We should be for clean, transparent government!

Okay, I'm confused.  

Under the Texas Statute, money laundering requires some activity relating to "the proceeds of criminal activity."  So, putting aside the "activity," which is broad enough to include most any act, there are two requirements:  (a) that there be some "criminal activity" and (b) the crminal activity result in "proceeds."

First, what is the "criminal activity"?  If the conspiracy count was dismissed because there was no underlying criminal act, how can this be any different for the money laundering count?

Second, under the statute "proceeds" means "funds," which is defined as =coin or paper money, US silver certificates, US Treasury or Federal Reserve notes, and foreign bank notes.  It does not include checks.  So the receipt or payment of "checks" is not included under the statute.

Can someone smarter than me explain what in the indictment constitutes the "criminal activity" and what qualifies as "proceeds"?

Suppose you and I were political enemies, and I were in a position of authority in law enforcement. Suppose further that I was able to persuade a grand jury to indict you even though, in addition to other irregularities, another grand jury had already refused to indict on the same charge.

When the indictment was handed down, your associates required you to step down from a leadership position, and the press published your mug shot on the front page.  Weeks later, one of the charges against you was dismissed because, as it turns out, the law you allegedly violated wasn't even passed into law until after the date of your supposed transgression.

In light of these circumstances, would you be justified in expecting your friends and associates to stand by you and grant you presumption of innocence? At least until you've had your day in court?

If it were you, wouldn't you expect at least that?

It appears that there's a niche market for liberals that ask daft questions on this site, and that's fine. Hopefully, with time, you will learn from flyerhawk and actually contribute substantively to the debate on occasion. You've got a long way to go, but don't lose heart.

However, I've done a cursory review of your posting history, and your usage of the word "we" in the comment qualifies as de facto mobying. That is likely to get you harpooned sooner rather than later.

Just be yourself, it's okay.

I'm not a lawyer, just one that is seriouly interested in constitutional law.

Re: Cash Transactions - It seems that recent effort has been made to clarify what constitutes 'monies' for purposes concerning the Texas Penal Code, and I may have been mistaken regarding the cash transactions.  

... that he has done anything wrong or illegal. That's why he is defended. All congressmen and representatives take money. It's what is needed to run a campaign. Elections aren't cheap. It's how they win. And it's legal.

conspiracy only.  Earle figured out that he goofed at the last minute and that the charge would be dismissed for the very reason it was.  So, he went to a second grand jury with the money laundering charge.  They laughed him out of the chamber (or at least refused to indict).  He went to a third grand jury and represented the ML charge and got an indictment.  Ref old story about grand juries and ham sandwiches.

DeLay's lawyers filed for dismissal on both charges and filed prosecutorial misconduct against Earle for grand jury shopping.  The "conspiracy" charge got tossed as expected.  The judge still has to hear the misconduct allegation against Earle.  If he is found to be guilty of misconduct, the ML charge goes away.  If not it will go to trial, absent new motions from DeLay's attorneys.

then repeal all of the "campaign finance" laws and opt for full and complete reporting of all contributions, cash, soft money and in-kind.  Post the reports on the internet in a search engine so all can fully access the information.

... "conspiracy theory". Could it simply be that the charges were never meant to stick? Is it possible that the true target has already been destroyed? Tom Delay is no longer House Majority Leader, and if there is a leadership vote in January, will probably never be again. Without the "hammer", The House will be in disarray.

I believe that campaign finance laws (of any kind) are a restriction on free speech in today's society. I believe the US Constitution should be amended to reflect the relationship between money and political speech.

Example: let's say I (an unknown) decide to run for the US Senate. I want to contact as many people as possible during my campaign - so how do I do that? I mail letters, make billboards, buy airtime on television and ads in papers. All of these things cost money. Laws that restrict how much money I can receive - by default - restrict how much political speech I can make.

Now, I fully believe that I should have to declare all money received - so that voters know who financed my campaign - but how much I receive and from whom should be up to me (and the donors).

Campaign finance reform was instituted to prevent big organizations (companies and unions) from "buying" their representation in Congress. This leads me to believe that "buying" political favors is immoral.

However, no one complains when elected officials "buy" votes from their constituents. I would offer as an example Sen. Stevens (R-AK) and the $250M "bridge to nowhere."

I believe that I can accept money from anyone - in any amount - and remain at least as objective as any current politician. All the current campaign finance laws do is secure the incumbency of elected officials.

The bottom line: I don't believe Mr. Delay (even if he had violated Tx law) did anything morally wrong. Raising money to pay for political campaigns is as American as apple-pie and personally I would like to see these laws repealed.

nub of the argument.  X is illegal.  I conspire to do X, but don't actually do X, and to conspire to do so is not illegal.  After I conspire to do X it becomes illegal to conspire to do X.

So the question is, really, what is "X"?  

X is, AFAIK, corporate contributions to TX state political campaigns, and a crime.  But to conspire to do so is not a crime.  I applaud the judge for dismissing the charge, to do so is right and just, it does not mean Tom DeLay is the same.

The conditions placed upon the State concerning the money laundering charge is probably the most relevant portion of today's ruling as far as I can tell.  Except of course, granting the motion to quash on the conspiracy charge.

If the State can prove that funds were obtained from corporate contributors by these

defendants with the express intent of converting those funds to the use of individual

candidates, or if the States can prove that these defendants entered into an agreement to

convert the monies already on hand, though originally received for lawful purposes, to

that use by sending the money to the Republican National State Elections Committee

with an agreement that funds of the same amount would then be made available by that

committee to individual candidates for Texas political office, and can prove that funds in

the same amount were in fact contributed to individual candidates by the Republican

National Elections Committee, then they will have established that money was laundered.  

The money would have become "dirty money" at the point that it began to be held with

the prohibited intent.  Of course, if the State cannot establish that beyond a reasonable

doubt, then the defendants will be entitled to be acquitted.

Ronnie Earle is not out of the woods either:

Note: At least one motion to dismiss upon the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct was filed by Defendant Delay and is presumed by the Court to have been adopted by defendants Colyandro and Ellis.  This motion may require the hearing of evidence (a matter not yet resolved), and it is not included within the ambit of the present rulings.

The Yahoo home page has the following Delay headline:

Delay's money laundering charges upheld.

Yeah.  That best reflects the judge's actions today.  /sarcasm

It was clearly old news that the conspiracy charges didn't apply; or do you want to wake up to the newspaper each morning exclaiming "Sun Rises in the East!"

but because it was not illegal in CA, and more importantly there was also a Dem DA, nothing was done about it.  

The MSM asked her about it, she said it wasnt the same thing because it wasn't illegal, and they just moved on.  Pelosi at her finest.

the news of course, is that charges have been tossed.  

The AP headlines it "DeLay's money laundering charges upheld", and make sure to mention that the "more serious ones" are the ones that stuck.

It is getting to the point of absurdity in the MSM.

BTW, other headlines to accompany it are the "Velcro VP" and "FEMA knew response broken" and it turns out they are talking about LA.  The headline implies FEMA was broken.  Outrageous.  

If it was old news the story wouldn't be there... The story is about the proceedings today where the other charges were thrown out. AP had to think long and hard to come up with a negative headline based on today's events but they managed to pull it off.

Prosecutors, however, said the crime of conspiracy was already on the books, and could be applied to the election code even though such uses were not explicitly in state law at the time.

The judge was unpersuaded by that argument and dismissed the conspiracy charge. But the judge upheld charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Those charges involve an alleged attempt by DeLay to conceal the source of the campaign contributions by funneling the money through his own political action committee and then an arm of the Republican National Committee

The defense motion was to dismiss all the charges. The most important charges in the indictment were upheld.These are the charges that will send Delay to Jail.

it is a clear ex post facto thing, and Delay shouldn't be nailed on that.

I don't think the parent commenter was arguing that Delay should have been nailed for it, just that we shouldn't be happy that the only reason he wasn't prosecuted for doing something wrong was because it wasn't illegal when he did it.

Let me put it another way. A law was passed saying that X was is against the law. Presumably, this means we are recognizing that X is objectively wrong to do, whether or not it is against the law.

So if someone did X before it was against the law, then they have not broken the law--but that doesn't mean they haven't done something wrong.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? It's the distinction between what is legal versus what is right.

placed upon the State regarding the money laundering charge are restrictive, explicit and actually come down in Delay's favor (see my post #52 above).  Earle's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt got measurably more difficult.  Earle is still facing charges of prosecutorial misconduct, and an evidentiary hearing to decide that particular outcome.

If Delay's charge of prosecutorial misconduct against Earle is upheld, the case against Delay will be dismissed.  The demo/media can spin today's ruling all it wants, Ronnie Earle was the real loser.

Tom DeLay had a role as chief fundraiser of the Texas Republicans ... raise as much money as possible for partisan purposes while not violating various State and Federal Election laws.

No different I might note than what the Democrats in Texas did, just at somewhat higher amounts.

As such his aggressive fundraising is no different than Al Gore's in the 1996 Campaign, and IMHO the same thing. Each had a mission to accomplish and seems to have accomplished it.

The money laundering charge is as bogus as the Buddhist Temple charges against Gore in 1996. Politics runs on money, the idea that it is morally wrong to raise it is for utopian and naive Platonists looking for a Philosopher King to rule them (i.e. most Democrats). Dear Leader and Fidel Castro make sure money stays out of politics.

I'll take Tom DeLay and Al Gore thank you.

It is akin to prosecuting the Sierra Club for running ads against Candidate A prior to the enactment of McCain Feingold. Something perfectly legal and what many advocacy groups like the NRA, NAACP, Urban League, and ACLU have done to get their message across about candidates.

What DeLay did was no different except for greater amounts of money than Dems in Texas under their PACS; that DeLay and not Dems were indicted leads one to conclude logically that the objection was DeLay was a Republican and therefore "evil" while Dems were good BECAUSE they were Dems.

DeLay did what he was supposed to do, raise the maximum amount of money under the law. Dems also do this (I know this may shock you) and folks like Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Kerry, Dean, and so on raise lots of money for Dems. AS I might point out is their right under the Constitution.

A law was passed saying that X was is against the law. Presumably, this means we are recognizing that X is objectively wrong to do, whether or not it is against the law.

So what happens when a if the law against X is repealed? Does that mean it was never objectively wrong to do X?

This is where you go wrong. There have been plenty of laws passed where right and wrong didn't even enter into the discussion. You can't automatically equate morally right and wrong and the law in any way.

the only reason he wasn't prosecuted for doing something wrong was because it wasn't illegal when he did it. ... A law was passed saying that X was is against the law. Presumably, this means we are recognizing that X is objectively wrong to do, whether or not it is against the law.

You presume wrong, committing three (count em, 3!) separate errors of law and logic.

On "only reason he wasn't prosecuted" you have no logical basis for assuming that the dismissed prosecution would have been valid if DA Ronnie Earle hadn't violated the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto.  When ruling on the validity an indictment, if the judge sees a no-brainer reason that the indictment must be dismissed, that's the end of the story and there's no need to delve into other more complicated arguments about whether the indictment is invalid. If the indictment hadn't been blatantly illegal on the ex post facto issue, the judge would have had to consider the other arguments for dismissing the indictment.

Your error #1: In reviewing the indictment, the judge has to hypothetically assume that all the prosecution's factual claims about the defendant's conduct are true, and then determine whether it can be credibly charged that the conduct violates the statute in the indictment. You have no basis for assuming, if the indictment hadn't already been ruled illegal, the judge would rule that the Delay's alleged conduct was arguably illegal under the statute.

Your error #2: (If I was more generous, I'd count this as two separate errors): If the judge finds the defendant's alleged conduct was illegal, he must consider whether adequate evidence was presented that the alleged conduct really occurred, to justify going to trial.  This is usually a high hurdle for dismissal, with the Grand Jury's finding given considerable deference; but Ronnie Earle's Ahab-like obsession with pinning something on Delay undermines that deference; and if Earle's antics are found to constitute "prosecutorial misconduct", forget about the the indictment. You have no basis for assuming, if the indictment hadn't already been ruled illegal, the judge would rule that Ronnie Earle presented enough evidence of the factual allegations to proceed to trial, and you have no basis for assuming the judge wouldn't dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct (we'll see about the misconduct issue later on the other count).

Your error #3: You're flat wrong to assume that outlawing conduct X implies that it was morally wrong to engage in conduct X before it was outlawed. For some activities legislatures outlaw (e.g. pornography, wife beating), it's believed (at least by the people passing the law) that the people who do that are morally bad even if the activity is legal. There are other laws regulating competition, between merchants or between politicians, where it's recognized that competitor's must engage in activity X if it's legal in order to be viable (e.g. milk producers must sell it at the market price, unless the law forbids selling below a mandated higher price); they outlaw the conduct X that would otherwise be moral and necessary to practice, so that there will be a level playing field where you can survive without practicing X.

They weren't thrown out on one defense motion doesn't mean anything is going to come of them. That is why the headline is so bogus. The other charges WERE thrown out. That is the story. The fact that the other counts are still ongoing is hardly the story. Is there going to be a story every day from this point forward that the court case is still moving forward?

The judge didn't do anything to validate the other charges except in an extremely narrow way by not throwing them out on the single issue the defense raised. That doesn't mean they won't be thrown out later, or even if they are, it doesn't mean they will lead to a conviction.

was NOT broken? If you are under that impression, can you respond to how you maintain that view, in spite of the numerous memos now unearthed both by FEMA personnel, investigative agencies, and released by the Louisiana governor?

or are you jsut a troll looking for a bridge?

Let's look at Prohibition, legal drinking age of 21, and the 55 mph speed limit as cases in point.

Nothing objectively wrong with either having a drink or having a drink at 19 (check the average age of enlisted soldiers in Iraq) or driving 65.

I saw plenty of headlines in the MSM that Delay charges were dropped.  A more accurate headline all around would have been "Split Decision on Delay" because one charge was upheld (which is big news) and one charge was dismissed (which is big news).

information regarding the charges of prosecutorial misconduct?  I'm interested in learning more about that.  I have a hard time buying your assertion that if the charges against Earle are upheld, Delay gets off.  If Earle did engage in misconduct that doesn't exculpate Delay for any violations of the law.  The charges against him don't rise and fall based on Ronnie Earle's conduct.

that the charges were upheld is big news.  

The judge didn't do anything to validate the other charges except in an extremely narrow way by not throwing them out on the single issue the defense raised.

Do you seriously believe that Tom Delay's lawyers had a better argument in their pocket that they didn't assert before the court?  Delay needed to beat these charges outright to have a good shot at retaining his leadership position.  I am sure that his lawyers brought everything they had to the table in their motion to dismiss.  The fact that they couldn't marshal an argument to get the charges dismissed is big news, whether you want to admit it or not.  The fact is that Earle obtained an indictment against Delay that was sufficiently substantive to get to trial.  Maybe he won't be able to prove his case at the end of the day, but the charge is going to trial and that's big news.

I read a little more about the motion to dismiss on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct.  I don't know anything about Texas law, but I have a hard time seeing a case dismissed based on prosecutorial misconduct.  I think the conduct would have to be far beyond the pale to justify dismissing criminal charges based on the prosecutor's actions and, from what I've read about this case, I'm not sure Earle's actions rise to that level.

First, the most important memo requesting Fed help by the LA governor has now been shown, by her office, NEVER TO HAVE BEEN SENT!!!

She asked for help?  Maybe she should have sent the request:  from the MSNBC story (oyes, that Bush backing network)

"Three days after the storm, Blanco wrote Bush asking that the 256th Louisiana National Guard Brigade be sent home from Iraq to help. The governor also asked for more generators, medicine, health care workers and mortuaries.

Five days later, Bush assistant Maggie Grant e-mailed Blanco aide Paine Gowen to say that the White House did not receive the letter."

She posted it on her website instead.  Classic.

Second, we now have proof that the supplies waiting, yes waiting, to be sent to the Superdome were ordered to NOT be sent there by LA officials,  Didn't want to draw more people there afterall.  To say that FEMA was broken is a very nice talking point, but not the whole story.  The lack of leadership by Gov Blanco is a major part of it.

There are other examples of overwhelming incompetence on her part, and her refusal to go to Congress and answer questions about her role when Chertoff, Nagin, Brown etal did screams louder than any answer she could have given.  Why not her?  Do you have ANY questions you can ask her?

FEMA was proven to be EXACTLY what it wasnt supposed to be:  a first responder.  Even the LA Governor's office memeos are showing that the majority of the ineptitude was state and local, not federal.  FEMA had problems, to suggest that a disaster of this magnitude would be handled perfectly is wishful thinking.  And now that we see that the majority of MSM coverage was complete Bulls*** about Katrina (i.e. gunfights, beheaded children, bodies being eaten by alligators, etc), you should rethink your conclusions.

And how come we never hear about the problems in FL, AL, and MS from FEMA?  They were hit hard, S. FL had people without power for three weeks after Rita, not a peep from the MSM.

Is it troubling that Blanco hired a PR guy before she hired a relief co-ordinator, remember that?  And how she did a document dump to try to boost her image.  Maybe FEMA should also to counter another partisan hack job by a Dem.  

is that there is a prosecutor run-amok that is either too stupid or zealous to realize there was no law against these things at the time?

Why doesnt anybody talk about THAT (Im not referring to RedStaters BTW)?

It has been damaged frankly by both the MSM and W's lack of leadership in standing up to the MSM and the race baiting trash like Kenye West, etc.

I jsut glanced through a 'documentary' time has done on Katrina; a magazine that purports to show the timeline.

they call Sunday, the day before the storm, as 'day 1'.

Time misleads at every opportunity about the time involved and the amount of relief that was delivered.

It is disgusting what a free press can do when it decides to trash itself and the nation that preserves its freedoms.

the entire ruling on each of the motions to dismiss, then you are aware that Delay's allegation of prosecutorial misconduct by Ronnie Earle is still pending.  An evidentiary hearing to decide the merit of that allegation is probable.

If it's found, as Delay alleges, that the outstanding indictment was obtained through prosecutorial misconduct (Two different grand juries had previously refused to indict Delay.  Earle was successful in obtaining the indictments from the 'third' grand jury, but neglected to inform said jury of the two failed attempts.), the charges against Delay will be dismissed.