Tom Delay’s attorneys were frustrated today in their bid for a swift dismissal of the indictment against him, when the new judge declined to rule immediately as they had hoped. But DeLay’s attorney gave some inkling of the direction his defense will take, should it go to trial:
What the hell difference does it make if the funds in question were transacted with a check instead of cash? How is this a viable defense? Does this weak argument bode ill for The Hammer?
It’s Texas. DeLay will walk.
If the prosecution has video tapes, signed confessions, fingerprints and sworn affidavits from 50 citizens of impeccable reliability…DeLay will walk.
If the Archangel Gabriel manifested in open court with a statement from God Almighty written on golden tablets testifying to his guilt…DeLay will walk.
…and the right-wing insta-pundits will still declare that he’s an innocent, moral, and honest man who upholds “Christian values”.
Sidenote: Considering all that “Christian values” has come to mean in the last decade or so, I’m really, really glad I’ve never been Christian.
Let’s wait and see how loud Scanlon squeals when he’s poked.
I think the Delay connection to the Abramoff scandal is the more deadly for him myself.
A check is traceable, cash is not. The trial is about money laundering. Checks would help or hurt depending on the trail of breadcrumbs they leave.
I understand that, but DeLay’s lawyer seemed to indicate the transaction wasn’t unlawful because it was transacted with a check. Why would a check make money laundering lawful?
There is no law in this country that states “Laundering money is illegal.” Every law written to control this sort of activity (as with most laws) is written to define specific actions as unlawful. If the legislature that wrote the campaign finance laws specifically noted “money” in a way that could be construed to indicate cash (either through inept writing skills or with a shrewd eye to the future), then the law may not apply to money passed in the forms of checks, bonds, securities, stock transfers, or bullion.
DeLay’s lawyers obviously hope that they have found a particular wording that limits the law to cash while the law is, apparently, not written quite so clearly (SURPRISE!) and the judge believes he needs to actually do some research before issuing a ruling.
Thats a perfectly transparent semantic skullduggery that flies in the face of common sense. It’ll fly.
I’ve never had much use for TOm DeLay, since he’s always stood for pork barrel politics, rather than anything worth calling conservative values. Most conservatives feel the same way. If they rally around him, it’s for the same reason liberals rallied around Bill Clinton: the old “he’s one of US” mentality.
That said, it’s always fun to see liberals foam at the mouth over guys like DeLay and Karl Rove. Neither man is a genius, neither man is anything more than a reasonably smart, fairly successful political operator. Yet somehow, liberals have built these two relatively insignificant,. not terribly impressive guys into omnipotent evil geniuses.
And even though I’ve never liked Rove, I LOVED the way he ruined Austin DA Ronnie Earle’s mug shot publicity stunt. By showing up for the mug shot on his own, and posing with a huge grin on his face, DeLay made Earle’s perp walk/mug shot stunt absolutely useless in terms of propaganda value.
We hate them so much because of all of the damage they have done to our country. It is really that simple.
The political question, in fact, is that the conviction is less important than the trial at this point.
Delay would like a quick resolution because this thing has the potential to be active in the news next Summer and Fall. And that would lead to a prominent Republican being on trial during some already shaking-looking midterm campaigns.
You’ve confused the Ace of Slime with the King of Turds.
So you think news about this trial might crowd out reports on the impeachment process?
Money is a medium of exchange. Checks are money, whether Texans believe this to be the case or not.
DeLay is charged with a violation of Tex. Penal Code §34.02, which states:
Section 34.01 includes the following definitions:
I’m so glad that all of this hasn’t reduced you to cynicism! 
Remember the end of Chinatown when Jake’s girlfriend gets her brains blown out all over the steering wheel and the evil rich old baby-fucker gets his nasty mitts on the innocent little girl and his buddy says: “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”?
Forget it, Poly. It’s Texas.
Includes, however, is not exclusive. I see no language that excludes other forms of monetary compensation.
Well, that’s a matter of statutory interpretation, isn’t it? “Includes” might mean that the list is exclusive or it might not. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t. At the very least, it shows that there is a plausible legal argument.