December 05, 2005
Tex. Judge Upholds Key Charges Against DeLay
Interestingly enough, that isn't really true. The conspiracy charge, the easiest to prove under Texas law, has been thrown out. Not to mention that the excluded charge was the only charge that the grand jury which investigated the case brought. Those that remain are more difficult to prove and were part of Ronnie Earle's "do-over" strategy that involved grand jury shopping and tampering to shore up a case that has been collapsing since the original indictment was brought.
So what happened today?
A judge dismissed a conspiracy charge Monday against Rep. Tom DeLay but refused to throw out the far more serious allegations of money-laundering, dashing the congressman's hopes for now of reclaiming his post as House majority leader.Texas Judge Pat Priest, who is presiding over the case against the Republican, issued the ruling after a hearing late last month in which DeLay's attorney argued that the indictment was fatally flawed.
***
The ruling means the case will move toward a trial next year, though other defense objections to the indictments remain to be heard by the judge.
Yes, the other motions could result in the dismissal of the remaining charges.
The judge has yet to rule on a defense bid to move DeLay's trial out of liberal, Democratic-leaning Austin and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. DeGuerin accused the district attorney of shopping the DeLay case around to different grand juries until he found one that would indict the congressman.
As I pointed out earlier, there is substantial basis for href="http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/124724.php">finding prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Ronnie Earle.
MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Lone Star Times,Martin's Musings, Conservative Outpost, Blogs for Bush, Super Fun Power Hour, Oblogatory Anecdotes, GOPBloggers, bRight and Early, Iowa Voice
Posted by: Greg at
02:15 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Liberty at Wed Dec 7 13:17:38 2005 (+oQ8m)
Posted by: King James at Fri Dec 9 12:37:59 2005 (wSbnz)
Unless you don't consider caring for orphans to be an unselfish act.
As for Cunningham, I called for him getting the maximum sentence, despite his war record.
Cheney? He does not support torture, which is illegal under existing law -- but he does support aggressive interrogation which falls short of that.
As for Abramoff, I don't care about this lobbyist whose giving involved both sides of the party line.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 9 13:17:20 2005 (dq8ED)
21 queries taking 0.0088 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.