Abusing our prosecutorial offices and violating our trust to exact your own political vendettas, Democrooks, is what stinks here; and it is not sitting well with us citizens.
o specific charges are presented against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay — i.e., "[E]nter[ing]
into an agreement with one or more of each other or with a general purpose political committee...that one or more of them would engage in conduct that would constitute the offense of knowingly making a political contribution in violation of...Texas Election Code" is as vague and unspecific as it gets.
Jurisdiction for election law violations is held only by the home county of the accused person — i.e., Travis County is not the House Majority Leader's Fort Bend County.
Allegation is not timely — i.e., The three-year statute of limitations period relating to the vaguely-worded "offense" and unspecified "agreement" is over, regardless that the
prosecutor Desperatic Fundraiser Speaker & Partisan-Vengeance Commando corruptly abused his authority in attempting to get the House Majority Leader to unduly waive his civil and constitutional rights:
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER PRESENTS that, with the advice and consent of counsel, the defendant, THOMAS DALE DELAY, did heretofore knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the application of Articles 12.01 and 12.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to the indictment presented herein. In particular, the Grand Jury present that with the advice and consent of counsel, the defendant, THOMAS DALE DELAY, did knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the requirement that an indictment for the felony offense of criminal conspiracy, the object of which is a felony other than those listed in Subdivisions (1) through (5) of Article 12.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, may be presented within three years from the date of the commission of the offense, and not afterward, insofar as such requirement pertains to the indictment presented herein,
Grand Jury Rubber Stamp fails to allege any facts that the House Majority Leader intentionally or even knowingly violated sections 253.003, .094, or .104 of the Texas Election Code — i.e., No date, place, or written or oral matter whatsoever is given to particularly describe the alleged "agreement," nor is there found, nor has the Prosecutorial Miscondutor shown, any authority indicating that "enter[ing] into an agreement" as opposed to actually "mak[ing] a political contribution" is a violation of Texas law.
In short, this is a clearly flawed indictment (PDF full text, JPG images) — i.e., It too will be thrown on the heap of other Last Desperate Gasps of the Dyingcratic
Party Funeral Pyre.
Demabuserats are going to get righteously hammered (puns meant) for this as well.
Conspiracy charge is moot when what the parties are accused of agreeing to do is outright perfectly legal
. As reported by the Institute on Money in State Politics:
- Texas law does place some restrictions on money from sources outside of political parties. Individuals and PACs can give unlimited contributions to both candidates and political party committees. Corporations and labor unions are banned from giving to candidates but may give unlimited sums to political parties, to be used only for administrative and operational expenses and to pay for a primary election or convention held by the party. Corporations or labor unions may contribute to both candidates and political parties through a PAC.
Contributions from individuals, PACs, labor unions and corporations outweighed party contributions in 1998, making up 61 percent of the contributions that year. In 2000, party committees relied on these sources for 46 percent of their income. In 2002, the percentage crept up to 37 percent of the total contributions.
THE SOFT-MONEY SHUFFLE
National party contributions to Texas state committees increased dramatically over the three election cycles. These committees gave just $2.3 million in 1998, $5.2 million in 2000 and $16.3 million in 2002. The Texas Democratic Party received the bulk of the 2002 contributions, taking in $11 million to the GOP's $5.2 million.
The Institute found eight trades of soft money for hard money, all between the Democratic National Committee and the Texas Democratic Party. In two trades in 1998, the DNC sent $172,500 in soft money to Texas, and the state party sent back $150,000 in hard money. In two trades in 2000, the DNC sent $150,000 of soft money and received $125,000 in hard money. And over a series of four trades in 2002, the DNC gave the state party $255,000 in soft money, and the Texas Democratic Party sent $225,000 in hard money to the DNC....
HOW THE COMMITTEES SPENT THEIR MONEY
Overall, the committees spent more than $50 million in the three cycles examined by the Instiute, with over half of the spending taking place in 2002. That election cycle, the Texas Democratic Party spent $14.9 million. Its largest expenditure was for candidate support, which includes items such as campaign consultant fees, phone banks, polling and direct mail expenses.
A national or in-state political party making political contributions to candidates for the Texas House of Representatives is legal
. A payment on September 13, 2002, of $190,000 from the political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority, to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC — "a nonfederal component of the Republican National Committee") is legal
. A political action committee's non-binding "request, solicitation, and proposal" to a national or in-state political party suggesting how the latter spend the former's contribution is legal
. A political action committee's receipt of non-concomitant contributions from Diversified Collection Services ($50,000), Sears ($25,000), Williams Companies ($25,000), Cornell Companies ($10,000), Bacardi U.S.A. ($20,000), and Questerra Corporation ($25,000), totaling $155,000, is legal
What cannot be legal is a Travis County District Attorney abusing his public office and powers to extort money from the above corporations by holding loaded indictments against their heads unless they give millions of dollars to special-interest groups that are advancing his personal political agendas and crusades. Only a blindly vindictive liberal would say that's not clear corruption.
Comments (registered users)
Post a Comment