I guess you missed the part where I said none of it supported any conspiracies.
I liked your copier slant much better.
Well, if it’s a stunt, then I hope it blows up in his face big time. However, Earle doesn’t have much sleaze in his history, so for the time being, I’ll trust him.
Anyway, politically-motivated sham indictments don’t always blow up in one’s face. Just ask Ken Starr.
No, I saw it.
My response to you was only 73.2% sarcasm. It is always a bit of a surprise to hear that there are any Democrats in Texas, let alone active ones. When you get to the idea of being able to describe them as raising funds, and my BS meter starts twitching.
I kinda figured that all the Democrats in Texas had been a’rounded up a wuhlago and kicked out, or worse.
I think we found our next head of FEMA!
Stupid bitch.
-Joe
[Ann Coulter]You mean like killing their leaders, and forcibly converting them?[/AC]
Let me test my psychic abilities…
Instead of the future, why not look to the past? Earle tried this same stunt against Hutchinson in '94 and the judge pretty much laughed him out of court. Earle tried to drop the charges at the last minute but the judge said, “No way” and he was forced to watch as a jury gave Hutchinson a full acquittal.
I know a lot of you are all excited about this but I think charging someone with nothing but criminal conspiracy is an odd move. What exactly was Delay conspiring to do? And why not charge him with the actual crimes?
I don’t know why you would think that. If there weren’t any Democrats there would be no need for the gerrymandering a few years ago. Texas has a rather strong Democratic Party. Not like it was back in the LBJ era, but it’s still noteworthy.
If criminal conspiracy is the actual crime he committed, I’m not sure what the sense of the objection is here. I’m not saying he did anything for certain (which I surely don’t know), I’m just trying to figure out why it’s “an odd move” to accuse someone potentially guilty of conspiring with conspriracy. It seems the only legal and appropriate move.
And Ann Richards wouldn’t have been governor just before Bush. And there wouldn’t have been any Democrats to walk out on the gerrymandering bullshit.
I was making a joke.
OK, but what was the conspiracy for? I realize conspiracy itself is a crime…but isn’t it usually part of a bigger crime? I’m just asking what the bigger crime was here. And why wasn’t he charge with that?
He was not laughed out of court. The judge ruled against him on an evidence issue, and Earle chose not to proceed. The judge then ordered an acquittal.
Are all the cases listed in post #49 in this thread “stunts”?
I’m fascinated by your ability to phrase things in the smeariest possible fashion. Is this something you do naturally, or are you copying things from some blog or something?
Um, the crime is conspiracy. What they were allegedly conspiring to cover up is a form of money laundering of private contributions in violation of Texas election code. Again, I’m confused by your question. Have you been reading the news?
Violating fund-raising laws. I assume that Earle feels he has sufficient evidence to prove that, but not sufficient to prove the violation itself. It’s not all that uncommon for people to be tried solely on conspiracy charges.
Then why not charge him with the money-laundering?
I would imagine because it was the Party, if you will, as an entity, that was doing the laundering.
Because the crime is “violating state election laws,” a felony. Why charge him with something else? What is the state law regarding “money laundering,” and why would it be more appropriate?
More to the point, read any single fucking article on the matter and you wouldn’t have these moronic questions. Is this some sort of diversionary tactic? Rehashing DeLay’s crime, and how it is and is not like other crimes, really is just putting out there repeatedly that DeLay is a criminal (allegedly).
Or have you really no idea because all you read is right-wing nut blog bullshit?
OK, so why not charge him with ‘violating state election laws?’
Probably because the evidence can show that he conspired with others to violate state election laws. Thus criminal conspiracy. You tool.
So he “conspired” to violate election laws but he didn’t actually violate election laws. Well, maybe. As I said, good luck with all that.