Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (67939)	10/5/2005 9:43:09 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

CORRECTION--It is the LEFTWING, HATE-AMERICA people who do not want Clinton to go away.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (67939)	10/5/2005 7:52:03 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment Statesman ^ \| 10/05/05 \| Laylan Copelin Prosecutor reveals third grand jury had refused DeLay indictment Newly impaneled grand jury returned money-laundering charge within hours By Laylan Copelin AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Tuesday, October 04, 2005 A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican. In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired. Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday. Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend. Lawyers for DeLay immediately called foul after Earle released his statement after 5 p.m. Tuesday. "What could have happened over the weekend?" said Austin lawyer Bill White, who represents DeLay. "They investigate for three years and suddenly they have new evidence? That's beyond the pale!" White suggested that Earle released his statement Tuesday because he feared reporters would learn about the no-bill. In his statement, Earle said he would have no further comment because grand jury proceedings are secret. DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta. "It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?" The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee. The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue. According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution." It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term. Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance. Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury. When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington. About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned. DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case. "That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (67939)	10/5/2005 7:57:14 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Earle's actions, movie add erratic element(Grand Jury shopping) Statesman ^ \| 10/05/05 \| EDITORIAL BOARD Wednesday, October 05, 2005 Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has added several more acts to the already circus-like investigation of alleged Republican campaign funding illegalities. The latest act unfolded on Tuesday afternoon when Earle disclosed that he had gone grand jury shopping on Friday after an indictment against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, which was returned last Wednesday, was questioned for its legality. Working on its last day, a second grand jury declined to indict DeLay on Friday. Earle's office said it received new information over the weekend, so it went to yet a third grand jury empaneled on Monday, the last possible day under the statute of limitations. That grand jury returned the new indictments. Earle's panicked rush lends credence to those who complain that he is a partisan playing politics with the grand jury, and it gives ammunition to critics who argue that he has been hapless in his three-year probe. Earle also didn't help himself by becoming Austin's newest movie star, allowing a documentary crew to film his pursuit of possible financial wrongdoing by Republican operatives in 2002. Earle had to know he would be summoning a GOP storm by investigating the party's powerful lobbying and fund-raising organizations. After all, he's been there before. Since Earle's failed prosecution of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in 1994, he has been saddled with the "partisan Democrat" label. He must have realized he would face the same wrath if DeLay's political action committees and the GOP business lobby were indicted. Yet none of that history caused him to doubt the wisdom of inviting a documentary crew to film his probe of GOP fund-raising. It should have. News of the independent film crew's two-year-long access to Earle and his inner sanctum did not serve him well. Earle disagrees, saying that he was just doing his job. Sorry, but his job is to prosecute, not be red meat for filmmakers looking for a big score. By starring in "The Big Buy," a documentary, Earle gives every appearance of having scripted a vendetta against one of the most powerful Republicans in the country. It might not have been unethical for the district attorney to give such unprecedented access to a documentary crew, but it wasn't wise. Earle should have known better than to make himself the focus of attention. His profile has been elevated throughout the long investigation stemming from the 2002 campaign, when DeLay helped fashion a GOP effort to take over the Texas House. The strategy worked, and DeLay forced a mid-census redistricting that gave him more Texas Republicans, and more power, in Congress. Earle's high profile includes interviews in Esquire magazine and on television's "60 Minutes" — and a speech with a gratuitous slap at DeLay during a Democratic fund-raiser in Dallas in May. Earle would have served the public and his investigation better with less publicity and a cleaner, calmer and less controversial grand jury presentation. His intent all along has been to get to the bottom of controversial corporate donations to political campaigns, which in most cases is illegal in Texas. He should have kept his attention there, and not on publicity. Earle planted his seeds in a most public way. Now the nation will be watching to see what he harvests.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (67939)	10/5/2005 8:05:01 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

[TEXAS] GRAND JURY FOREMAN GIBSON STIRS CONTROVERSY DURING KLBJ INTERVIEW QuorumReport.com ^ \| October 5, 2005 \| Harvey Kronberg, Says he already made up his mind before evidence presented A transcript from this morning's show: KLBJ host: The Texas Association Business ads. .. Grand Jury Foreman William Gibson: All this all came out way before I was on the grand jury, these (unintelligible) were in your paper, in Austin paper, everyone else's paper, they flooding the market around here. But those were way before I ever went on the the grand jury and my decision was based on upon those (the TAB ads,) not what might have happened in the grand jury room... KLBJ host: Oh, ok, Your mind mind was made up after you learned about the ads. William Gibson: Right, those ads, way back. telling people how, so-called freedom of the speech deal, and I looked at it and they are just telling people go vote for that person, go vote for that person, KLBJ Host: So they didn't have to persuade you in the grand jury with any evidence, you already.. William Gibson: That was already public knowledge there and way back (unintelligible)...they stated their positions and I could state my position by saying I don't like that.