Redstate

Prior to the announcement, DeLay's attorney, Bill White, speaks:

"It's a skunky indictment if they have one. Like a dead skunk in the middle of the road. It stinks to high heaven."

Remember, folks, presumption of innocence.

... he has actually been indicted then I think he should formally stand down from his role as majority leader pending the conclusion of the judicial process.

for a House member under indictment? Does he have to step down as leader?

I remember the hullabaloo over the changes the GOP made to the Ethics rules before--what happens when the Majority leader is actually under indictment?

After his attempt to prosecute Kay Bailey Hutchison was tossed out on its ear, he should have been run out on a rail.  Why is such an out-of-control prosecutor allowed to stick around?

...the citizens of Travis County keep voting for him?

That I hate Austin.

He'll have to step down until he gets the indictment tossed or he's acquitted.  The speaker will appoint someone to play the role of Majority Leader in the interim, and if DeLay is able to return, he can do so without needing to go through a leadership election.

He has beaten trumped-up charges by liberals before.  

What I worry about is what the liberal MSM is going to say.  If they start up, Delay is going to need all of our prayers.

According to the rules, Tom DeLay must now step down as Majority Leader.

I declare myself president of the Houston, Texas chapter of Jeff Flake for Majority Leader Campaign!

to fill the job temporarily

...if it weren't for the lakes in the beautiful Texas Hill Country and Longhorn Football & Basketball, Austin would be worthless.

It is GOP Conferece rules, not House rules, that call for the Leader to step down upon endictment.

He is very soft on immigration and there are some details concerning his personal life that are a big concern to me.

I am disappointed that DeLay is being indicted on trumped up charges.  I was hoping he'd be indicted for saying "There is no fat left to cut in the federal budget".  

how Earle stacked the grand jury with 12 rabid democrats and got them to return a bogus indictment?  Anyone have any ideas??

It's Texas in name only, in a lot of ways. No stacking would be needed.

Tom Delay has been good for the Republican Party....but, arrogance and greed eventually poison the values of individuals when they have been in Washington too long.....If Delay had run a clean ship he would not have this problem now.....excursions, appearances are all things to be mindful of.....

I am a conservative Republican, but have no tolerance for greed!!!!!!!...When greed enters in, we part company!

How would the right wing of the GOP feel about having a gay majority leader?  I think it wouldn't go over too well..

Twenty square miles surrounded by reality.

And what would those "details" be?

Yes, he will be the nation's first openly gay House Majority leader.  I think the country will be far more excepting of a gay House leader who is a Republican than one who is a Democrat.  Is he really soft on immigration, or was that just campaign talk from the last cycle?  This was never all that clear to me.

I just find that sort of rumor-mongering disgusting.  His private life is his business - and shouldn't be splashed out for someone else's political gain.

That way when Ronnie Earle comes after you, I can step up and take over ;)

openly gay.

The nation?  I don't think most people would care much either way.  It's not like we don't have a bunch of gay representatives and senators anyway, in varying degrees of closeted-ness.  The conservative Republican base would freak out, though!

And lives with his male partner.  He's pretty gay, dude.

the People's Republic of Austin for nothing.

However I think we should add the $749 Billion Medicare prescription drug benefit to the list of charges.

to decide based solely on the facts (assuming they even get all the facts), and not let their personal biases influence their decision.

Except in death penalty cases.

He's in the closet.

The immortal words of Raymond J. Donovan:

"Give me back my reputation!"

Following acquital of larceny and fraud charges.

Just in case, you know, Delay beats the rap.

He's what polite people used to refer to as "a confirmed bachelor."  Not out, but not fooling anybody, either.

in direct violation of Texas law.  There is a lot of published evidence of the corporate solicitations and what they were used for.

Apparently, the grand jury has now found enough evidence to indict Delay for the planning of this fundraising.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/delay/delay92805ind.pdf

I know some of you want to "stand by your man", but please review the facts before defending DeLay.

Are not exactly on-topic here, folks. Move along.

This applies to everyone.

that's why we're standing by DeLay.

Congressman Dreier's an honorable and would probably make a good majority leader.  Even if he weren't, this sort of "whisper campaign" is beneath contempt as is anyone who participates in it.

Tom DeLay abandoned me long before I abandoned him when he abandoned Fiscal Conservatism and declared the current sorry state of federal spending to be a government running at peak efficiency. Then chewing out members of the Republican Study Committee who are actually trying to do some good in this country. Not to mention him being one of the leading architects of getting Medicare Rx pushed through congress. Conservative!? Yeah right...just like Dubya is a Conservative.

It is important to be loyal to those who are loyal. But don't ask me to forgive-and-forget and support Judas when he's in trouble. I'm not as forgiving as Jesus Christ.

I don't give a rat's rear end what team he bats for as long as it isn't shoved in my face.

I care if he does a job or not and if he can be trustworthy.

. . . are in the closet?

Some of them just haven't found the right woman, focus on our careers to the extent their personal lives (read: dating) suffer, or just have given up on meeting the right woman.

Before the inevitable character assassination of Prosecutor Ronnie Earle commences (gentlemen, start your engines), does anyone have a breakdown on the number of Republicans versus Democrats Earle has had indicted?

I recall hearing that it was fairly evenly split, if not more Democrats than Republicans? But I could very well be wrong on this.

The point was made to suggest he wasn't a particularly partisan guy, but rather a relentless, tough prosecutor.

Anyone from Texas have any insight into this breakdown?

Who gets to decide what is or isn't "on topic"?  If Dreier becomes majority leader, do you really think this won't be an issue, both on the left ("hypocrisy!") and on the right ("immorality!")?  Believing it shouldn't be an issue won't make it not an issue.

...among others.

Please tell me he wasn't serious.

But that doesn't mean that we should keep him in a leadership position where he has been so woefully ineffective.

We're in kind of a tricky spot here in that I think we need to remove him for the right reasons (e.g. that he hasn't done a very good job and he's hurt on key issues like the budget) without lending credence to trumped up charges by scumbags like Ronnie Earle who think they've finally got their White Whale.

And unless you can find some Republicans on the record trying to outlaw being a homosexual, it's irrelevant.

It's even more so since the topic of this thread is the DeLay indictment. Rest assured we'll have a thread up about his replacement, if that action commences.

It's well known in california political circles that Drier is gay.  How is that a "whisper campaign"?  It says something about him having to deny who he is in order to climb up the GOP leadership ladder.

He backed his state's "sodomy law" as governor, a "sodomy law" which only applied to homosexual "sodomy".

First, cite things. The internet makes it easy.

Second, criminalizing sodomy does not make it illegal to be a homosexual. Something to chew on.

alone was too much to ask.

I've read the indictment twice now, and I'm still trying to figure out what Delay is accused of. What is he accused of?

The first two readings at least yield the seemingly interesting timing of the indictment on the precise date of the expiration of the statute of limitations, at least as far as I can tell.

Meanwhile - what is Delay indicted for, as opposed to what everyone seems to think he's indicted for?

The only people in any business to 'know' David Dreier's sexuality are himself, any of his intimate partners, and anyone he or his partner(s) have directly told.

The rest of you people who want to track in this type of much are just speculating.

And more to the point, who are you to decide what he is or is not denying about himself for whatever reason?  Let's speculate that he is indeed gay.  Isn't it up to him to decide what he does with that information?  Is there a rule or law that says he has to out himself?

Just because the hard core ultra left movement within the gay subculture has decided that everyone in the world needs to know what they like to do in bed, or taht they identify themselves so strongly with their sexuality, doesn't mean that everyone has to follow that model.  Lots of people don't care so much about sex or their sex lives that they have to share it with everyone the meet and are perfectly content to keep their private lives to themselves.  I suggest you do the same.

(Sorry Leon, I know you banned the topic, but I felt compelled to say something.)

I don't care if he's gay or straight.  I don't care who he has sex with in the privacy of his home.  There is a significant slice of the GOP who DO care, and would judge him (or any homosexual) EXACTLY on what they do in bed and with whom.  I was just trying to point that out..

OK - What threw me off were the very specific and detailed allegations against Ellis and Colyandro (names, dates, amounts, who, what, why, where, etc. . .) and the absence of any of that regarding Delay.

He (Delay) is apparently just charged with generally entering into an agreement to commit a felony, with no further specific allegations or recitiation of evidence.

I suppose this can be read three ways:

1 - The prosecutor is saving the specific allegations for later introduction and plea bargaining purposes:

2 - The prosecutor intends to flip one of, or both, Ellis and Colyandro, and will rely on their testimony as the evidence to draw in Delay.

3 - There is no further evidence, and it's only allegations against Delay so far.

 253.003. UNLAWFULLY MAKING OR ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTION.

(a) A person may not knowingly make a political contribution in violation of this chapter.

(b) A person may not knowingly accept a political contribution the person knows to have been made in violation of this chapter.

(c) This section does not apply to a political contribution made or accepted in violation of Subchapter F.

(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), a person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) A violation of Subsection (a) or (b) is a felony of the third degree if the contribution is made in violation of Subchapter D.

253.094. CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES PROHIBITED.

(a) A corporation or labor organization may not make a political contribution or political expenditure that is not authorized by this subchapter.

(b) A corporation or labor organization may not make a political contribution or political expenditure in connection with a recall election, including the circulation and submission of a

petition to call an election.

(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

253.104. CONTRIBUTION TO POLITICAL PARTY.

(a) A corporation or labor organization may make a contribution from its own property to a political party to be used as provided by Chapter 257.

(b) A corporation or labor organization may not knowingly make a contribution authorized by Subsection (a) during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election.

(c) A corporation or labor organization that knowingly makes a contribution in violation of this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

We don't exactly have an out-of-control prosecutor here, either.  11/15 of the people he's prosecuted have been Democrats.

I'm not a Republican, but at some point, I'd think people who call themselves Republicans might find it odd that we're being asked to believe that the attentions of the SEC on Frist, AG Fitzgerald on Rove, the AG who got the indictment against Abramoff, the prosecutor who had Safavian arrested, and now the prosecutor who's got the indictment against DeLay are all partisan attacks motivated by...I dunno, a desire to please the party that's completely out of power in DC?  

Furthermore, it's not as though these indictemnts are occurring in a vacuum.  They all involve fiscal improprieties, and we've got Republicans in Congress and the Administration making unprecedented handouts to special interests--from pork to sweetheart contracting deals to politically connected firms--and overseeing gross financial mismanagement in all our recent large-scale spending products($8.8 billion simply missing in Iraq?).

At some point, it would be nice if people who call themselves fiscal conservatives and proponents of good-government stopped focusing on who's winning in the "democrats vs. republicans" horserace, and started asking if the party that controls the federal government is implementing policies that are good for America and consistent with their party members' beliefs.

I mean, you've got Congress, you've got the White House--you won.  Did you think this was what it would look like?  Don't you think you should say something?  

Now, based on the 3rd reading, the same logic could probably apply to any number of other individuals. As a parting shot, I'm surprised Karl Rove isn't indicted. Maybe he talked with Delay as well? Inquiring minds want to know.

Having looked at your relatively short set of posts here and the tone of them, I ain't buying that.  Go play conservatives in the mist elsewhere.

That's what Ellis and Colyandro are charged with SPECIFICALLY! See my later comments about Delay. I presume there is more involving him.

11/15 of the people he's prosecuted have been Democrats

He indicted Democrats back when Republicans did not even exist in Texas.  This particular talking point has been debunked 6 ways to Tuesday.

Clean up in aisle 3!

of the Talking-Point-o-Matic™

http://tinyurl.com/c27be

Mark Levin and others in the Corner are onto this:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#077787

I guess we'll await any facts, since they aren't in the indictment about Delay.

You're confusing the term "confirmed bachelor" with being a regular bachelor.  The term, since retired, was a euphemism for a gay man, sometimes used in gossipy newspaper columns and obituaries.

I don't know exactly how they do it in Texas, but grand jury proceedings generally are prosecutorial directed affairs.  Defense attorneys are not allowed, nor is cross examination.  They are entirely secret, and the public is not allowed to attend, nor is the public allowed to know what the testimony or evidnce is (massive leaks notwithstanding).  The only evidence presented is whatever the prosecutor wants to present, however the prosecutor wants to present it.  Normal rules of evidence do not apply - even hearsay is allowed.  The prosecutor recommends to the grand jury what charges should be brought.  With these rules, Defendants have no chance whatsoever to defend themselves.  

When I was a state prosecutor, grand juries were only convened for political purposes - the rest of the time, the law enforcement official, after approval from a prosecutor, and review by a judge to make sure probable cause existed, obtained a warrant for the Defendant's arrest (the charging document was called an "information")- it's faster, easier, and far less expensive than using grand juries.  The "information" process, however, is done at the discretion of the prosecutor, without any intervening party, and Earle would be open to charges of partisanship - thus the subterfuge of a grand jury.  When the grand jury was convened, the only way an indictment would not result was if the prosecutor did not want one.  In this case, Earle gets to claim that he is non partisan, that he merely presented the facts, and that the citizens decided.  It looks good, but it is patently false.  Grand juries are rigged proceedings for the reasons noted above.  That a grand jury indicted Delay is not really news - it would have been news if the grand jury would have refused to indict.

but I'm doubting you. I'm a William Safire fan and I think stuff like this is interesting. Do you have a link that shows that etymology, I've seen that phrase used in the same context as "old maid" and "spinster" and I don't think either of those terms have lesbian connotations.

I'd be giggly about judges deciding death penalties.

I add that a grand jury has a lower standard than a regular jury. More likely than not, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks.

I saw elsewhere in this diary that Ronnie Earle has prosecuted 12 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

Doesn't seem to be the track record of a hardcore zealot. Seems more like someone who relentlessly (perhaps zealously) goes after those in power - irrespective of their party.

and polite society term for a lesbian was "maiden lady".

 they put up with Jim Kolbe now and with Steve Gunderson (sp?) a few years back. Why can't "gay Republican" be seen as something positive like "African American Republican" or "Hispanic Republican"?

It's much easier to say "the prosecutor is biased" than "the charges are untrue".

Re: He indicted Democrats back when Republicans did not even exist in Texas.  This particular talking point has been debunked 6 ways to Tuesday.

But a partisan hack would simply have ignored the sins of the Democrats no matter whether there were Republicans or not in Texas. And how old is this guy anyway? There have been Republican politicians in Texas for as long as I can remember (and I'm 38).

Agreed.

Thus far, we've heard Earle referred to as:

"a rogue prosecutor"

and

"unabashed partisan zealot"

That seems to be in line with the standard playbook for when someone gets indicted within the political arena. Attack the prosectuor, say they're political, and argue they're biased.

Seen it before, and we'll see it again.

For anyone not directly involved in this case (with the possible exception of experts in Election Law), either for or against DeLay, to suggest that they "know the facts" is the height of naivete.

You don't know the facts. No one outside of this case knows the facts.

All we really know definitively at this point is that DeLay has been indicted based on facts of the case as presented to a grand jury.

Who knows if the indictment will stick? Who knows if DeLay will be exonerated?

Unless you (a) sat on the grand jury; (b) were part of the prosecution; or (c) are part of DeLay's defense team, you don't know all the facts.

You are more than welcome to "stand by your man" (cue song). And you may very well be shown to be right. But to do so on the grounds that you "know the facts" is silly.

Hmmm... I Googled around to see what I could find.

Dean's World: Spinsters and Other Word Fun mentions the term as a male equivalent for "spinster" and mentions the assumption of homosexuality, but sides with the idea that it wasn't exclusively used to indicate gay.

Here's a definition (might not be work safe) from a site called "Sex-Lexis" that defines the term as:

confirmed bachelor: Or: gay-bachelor , refers, among straight people, to a gay male.

And Answers.com has a listing for the phrase in its list of sexual slurs (entertaining, but probably not work safe):

confirmed bachelor - (North America) euphemism for male homosexual

Lastly, there is this post to the American Dialect Society Mailing List that delves into the meaning of the phrase.

I don't think I've ever participated in a more interesting off-topic tangent before.

it seems like you had to have the secret decoder ring to know how the term was being used. Thanks.

Saying "DA Bad! DA Bad!" is easier than "we dispute the legal sufficiency of the charges as proffered in the indictment."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/satanism/satanism8.html

I suppose we'll be silly as soon as the facts show up. I still cannot find them in the indictment. I guess they were left in the grand jury chambers.

(Don't get me wrong - he COULD be guilty as sin, of all sorts of stuff, but none of that is in this indictment)

Rather than try to refute the commenter's points, you simply call for a ban.

What a shocker.

How would it lend any credence to the argument that he's a frothing partisan?  What, when there are no members of the other team to go after, he goes after his own?  Out of boredom?  

when it comes to Dims. Shoots one for every 99 that get away. Consequently, you can see how incredibly unlucky the 11 were.

Rove used his mind rays to put this on the front page right before the announcement for the next Supreme Court Justice. When the name is announced, this will fade right away.

DeLay spending op-ed

DeLay, deciding that flip-flopping is a good idea given the overwhelming ridicule.

I hope that there will be fiscal conservative challengers for DeLay an Hastert.

I think this is funny as heck. Here we have an indictment, in a heavy rep. state, filed by a man who has more charges against dems. by 4 times and yet you still say it partisan. What would you consider non partisan? If this had happened in Mass. with a democrat prosecutor who has only gone after republicans, you would have an argument. However I don't know how much more non-partisan this prosecutor could be. Oh, I get it now, its non-partisan when Ken Star went after Pres. Clinton, but this is.

Can we say hypocritical, ladies and gentleman?

BTW: This is the only defense he has, attack your opponent.

He's not putting on his evidence before the trial starts?

Inquiring minds, I'm sure, want to know.

You have way to go.

Not a ban, just a clean up. It's just the old story about a pony, a room, and . . .

Skimmed this article. Must have missed the point.

What does this have to do with Tom DeLay?

"Attack the prosectuor, say they're political, and argue they're biased."

It's an argument many make about the OJ trial, and others have made about the Massachusetts child abuse trials, described in the link.

Until the trial begins, there's not much "fact" or "law" in the indictment to argue with. It's a battle of press releases while we wait.

I tell you, it's downright Rovian, the lack of law and evidence!

I think that's pretty much right.

Though I'd put it a bit differently, and more along the legal lines.

We know the following:

1. Evidence was presented to an anonymous grand jury
   
2. The grand jury, based on that evidence, handed down an indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay
   
3. Rep. Tom DeLay is NOT guilty of anything
   
4. BUT there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to justify moving forward with a trial.

We know nothing more, nothing less.

What we do know is that if there was NO evidence against DeLay, he would not have been indicted. The case would have been dropped for lack of evidence. That was not the case.

Others have commented extensively about the malleability of grand juries, and the persuasive powers of unchallenged prosecutors.

I wouldn't read too much into the absence of evidence regarding Delay. To paraphrase the master:

There are known knowns, and unknown knowns. So far, the case against Delay seems built on unknown knowns.

(It's just irresistably enticing to use variants of "known" six times in two sentences. Sorta like ending a sentence with "'is' is".)

you can say that he is not guilty pf anything is beyond me.

No, he has not been convicted of anything yet; however republicans jump up and down on the dems before knowing all the facts (case in point Shivao memo). Before knowing the facts lest just say what we do know:

1. He has been indicted.
   
   
2. He says he is innocent.
   
   
3. There will be a trial or an acquittal.

As for the rest, let's leave it to speculation.

I HATE Austin. People there tell you how it is just like San Francisco and think they are bragging!

As they say in NOLA.

De BOAT true.

Wow - Emotionally this is a very complicated issue, as your comments reveal.

Logically, it's simple. He's not guilty. He's only guilty when a jury says so, and the appellate courts agree. It may seem as laughable as saying "OJ - not guilty", but logic dictates it, not to mention the law and several centuries of western civilization.

As for jumping up and down before knowing all the facts, consider how few there are:

1 - he has been indicted - that's a fact

2 - he IS innocent until proven guilty, etc... see above. Not a fact, a right.

3 - Maybe, maybe not - could be dismissed, plea bargained, who knows.

As for speculation, you can choose among several varieties - reasoned, argumentative, wild-eyed and insane cover the spectrum.

He is presumed innocent under the law. We do not know if he is innocent is MY point. You are correct about the facts! Fact, under the law you do have a presumption of innocent, as well as a speedy trial.

Now this is where being a democrat and being in law school differ for me. As a democrat I would love to drag this out for a year or two. It keeps the fire burning at both ends. As for the law, he should be given a speedy trial.

Thank you for talking to me not as a pundit but with the facts. Cool

I've commented that I think he may or should demand an immediate trial, say - start Monday. He may want to change venue (a delay), but it would force the prosecutor's hand to come up with evidence.

Given the right judge, the trial lasts as long as it takes to argue the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or failure to offer admissible evidence. That could be hours.

Given the right jury or venue, it takes a week, 10 days at most, a short deliberation, and he's off.

Given the worst of all worlds, he wins at appeal, probably pretty quickly.

This smacks of 99% politics, 1% law, not that there's anything wrong with that, other than the waste of time and money involved.

OTOH - Governor Ryan's trial is just starting this week here in Chicago, several years after he left office.

Start the trial Monday, and you won't have preserved a lot of issues for appeal.

That's why it will be a short trial.

non partisan hero.  Ronnie believes in using his good office against political opponents,some of whom may be Democrats.  Some may overlook the shameful farce perpetrated against Senator Hutcheson but do so at peril to the remnants of their reason.  The Delay thing is payback for the redistricting.  Hypocrisy?  Only if there is a comparison between Clinton and the current situation,don't go there!  Starr wasn't to partisan when he was chosen to look into the diary of an amorous republican senator and with the full approval of Senate Democrats.  

that in the worst case scenario, he wins on appeal.  What issue would he be appealing on, if he skipped over all the legal issues to cut straight to trial?

Maybe I shouldn't have bothered to comment since that's obviously the stuff of fantasy.  No one is in a position to guarantee an outcome.

He wins the appeal based on lack of facts and law and issues involved. Can he, or anyone, be convicted of a fantasy? I think that's what the trial will show, and a speedier one gets there faster. Given that the events alleged are 3 years old, I don't see what the prosecutor is waiting for.