(no subject)

[asheris]

DeLay indicted on new money laundering charges

And he still thinks he should be in a leadership position?

He's still claiming that he was never "invited to testify" before the grand jury that indicted him last week; the grand jury foreman, a former police officer and insurance investigator, begs to differ.

Apparently they had invited him to testify, and held off on the indictment until the last possible day to give him the opportunity to appear. (He would have had to testify under oath had he appeared; his lawyers have said publically that he was invited to testify, but they advised him not to appear.) DeLay sent a letter to the DA, who passed it on to the grand jury, but refused to sign anything under oath.

They did not subpoena him, however. Apparently, they felt they had plenty of evidence even without him appearing; the invitation to testify was a chance for him to clear his name.


And of course, it must be a Democratic witch hunt, these indictments, right? Ronnie Earl must be some kind of rabid extremist liberal, right? Well, no. In fact, not at all. In all his years in office, of all 16 of the politicians he's brought charges against (including DeLay), the list of politicians prosecuted breaks down to 12 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

Yes, 3 to 1. Not exactly someone who's going out of his way to go after Republicans.

Comments

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

Lady Thatcher is kind of being dragged into this, poor dear (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1583952,00.html). She has been questioned as part of the investigation. "Evidence is sought from her about that meeting and her involvement in the alleged deception and violation of U.S. criminal laws." Thatcher reportedly met with in May 2000, ten years after she left power.

The first indictment against DeLay do seem a little flimsy, and short on evidence. I heard that the only physical evidence is a cheque for $190,000. There was no evidence that he was actually involved. Anyway, I hope the courts can sort this out.

[asheris.livejournal.com]

Well, the first grand jury seemed to think the phone logs, meeting logs and notes, testimony, etc. were solid enough for the first indictment.

The first of the new grand jury indictments that came down today was apparently what is known as a correcting indictment, that cleans up any possible problems with last week's indictment.

However, that leaves the second indictment from today as something entirely new.