Arrest warrant issued for DeLay

 

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A Texas court issued a warrant Wednesday for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to appear for booking, where he is likely to face the fingerprinting and photo mug shot he had hoped to avoid.

 

Bail was initially set at $10,000 as a routine step before his first court appearance on conspiracy and money laundering charges. Travis County court officials said DeLay was ordered to appear at the Fort Bend County jail for booking.

 

The warrant was "a matter of routine and bond will be posted," DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said.

 

The lawyer declined to say when DeLay would surrender to authorities but said the lawmaker would make his first court appearance Friday morning.

The charges against the Texas Republican stem from allegations that a DeLay-founded Texas political committee funneled corporate money into state GOP legislative races through the National Republican Party. Texas law prohibits use of corporate money to elect state candidates.

 

DeLay is charged with conspiracy to violate state election laws and money laundering, felony counts that triggered House Republican rules that forced him to step aside as majority leader.

 

Two separate indictments charge that DeLay and two political associates had the money distributed to state legislative candidates in a roundabout way -- sending it from the political action committee in Texas to the Republican National Committee in Washington and finally back to candidates' campaigns.

 

DeLay has denied wrongdoing.

 

The effort had major political consequences, first by helping Republicans take control of the Texas Legislature in the 2002 elections. The Legislature then redrew congressional boundaries according to a DeLay-inspired plan, took command of the state's U.S. House delegation and helped the GOP retain its U.S. House majority.

 

 

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

When was the last time the police issued an arrest warrant for the House Majority Leader? I'd like to know. All I know is, it's about time this former exterminator faced justice for his corruption.

God, the Republicans will never win another election.

God, the Republicans will never win another election.

 

 

 

The sorry fact is that they probably will, although I hope not the next one.

Happiest mug shot ever?

Is that his actual mug shot???

Is that his actual mug shot???

 

Yes.

 

He took it like only a true politician would.

i bet he had some hookups in that sheriffs office.

 

the mugshot wouldnt have come out like your run of the mill 2x3 if they had made him hold one of those cards or if they had shot his profile.

So what Tom Delay did warrents arrest but Ted Kennedy is still out there among us.

He probably practiced that pose and was coached through it, because you know if it was some ugly mug shot with a mad expression or something, the democrats would use it in every single political attack ad for the next decade :lol .

So what Tom Delay did warrents arrest but Ted Kennedy is still out there among us.

 

Um, what did Ted Kennedy do?

I got a beef with Bin Laden. Instead of flying those planes into the towers he should have flown one into the white house and one into congress...f*** them all. I wouldn't mourn them.

So what Tom Delay did warrents arrest but Ted Kennedy is still out there among us.

 

Um, what did Ted Kennedy do?

He killed a woman while driving drunk... thank god for being a Kennedy, otherwise he'd still be in prison right now .

God, the Republicans will never win another election.

 

 

Yeah they will s long as the democratic party is at war with itself , the extreme left wing, aclu, move on .org part of the party that runs the party is often at odds with the majority of the members of the party. infighting and no clear vision is what will save the republicans although 06 will be a rough year, but after they get rid of bush and his baggage they will come back stronger

 

I will say this I am not a fan of Tom Delay and I think he along with many other politicans do immoral things to raise money BUT i am troubled as an American that the judge , the impartial ruler , of his case has contributed money to move on. org who have actively tried to take him down by any means. Doesnt seem if if it were me i would be all that happy with my life in the hands of my arch enenmy and expect to get a fair shake. additionally the fact that a partisian district attorney had to go to three grand juries before he could get them to indict delay suggests what he is accussed of will be not easily proved to a jury should it get that far . i say "should it get that far" because Earle has a history of indicting political opponents than cant prove his case in court . I personally think if the government provide free tv time to candidates then much of the crap we have seen on both sides would go away because than money would not be the only way candidates could reach the public .

BUT i am troubled as an American that the judge , the impartial ruler , of his case has contributed money to move on. org who have actively tried to take him down by any means. Doesnt seem if if it were me i would be all that happy with my life in the hands of my arch enenmy and expect to get a fair shake.

 

Lets follow this logic or lack thereof. So a judge who has contributed to a police organization can never preside over a criminal matter? If they put in a judge who contributed to a Republican campaign, can he also be removed? Just follow what Delay is asking to its end and see how crazy the system would get. Seems ridiculous to me. Trust me, other idiots have tried it and have failed. Btw, the lawyer lied when he said moveon has produced tshirts with Delays picture on them.

 

additionally the fact that a partisian district attorney had to go to three grand juries before he could get them to indict delay suggests what he is accussed of will be not easily proved to a jury should it get that far . i say "should it get that far" because Earle has a history of indicting political opponents than cant prove his case in court .

 

He has prosecuted more democrats than republicans. Look it up.

 

 

 

If you look at what Delay did, it should piss you off. But what I find funny is that Delay thinks he can get away with anything just by making it political and saying its always the liberals out to get him. I guess he doesnt think too highly of a lot of Republicans.

BUT i am troubled as an American that the judge , the impartial ruler , of his case has contributed money to move on. org who have actively tried to take him down by any means. Doesnt seem if if it were me i would be all that happy with my life in the hands of my arch enenmy and expect to get a fair shake.

 

Lets follow this logic or lack thereof. So a judge who has contributed to a police organization can never preside over a criminal matter? If they put in a judge who contributed to a Republican campaign, can he also be removed? Just follow what Delay is asking to its end and see how crazy the system would get. Seems ridiculous to me. Trust me, other idiots have tried it and have failed. Btw, the lawyer lied when he said moveon has produced tshirts with Delays picture on them.

 

It is quite logical to suggest if someone has actively contributed money to an organization that is dedicated to taking down you or me down that perhaps he isnt the best person to give a fair hearing to the defendant. In our system judges recuse themselves all the time when they have a conflict of interest it is not crazy and it happens frequently. Additionally it if a judges contribution is ideologically motivated than yes he should recuse himself . Honestly answer this questions if you were a liberal congressman would you feel like you would get a fair hearing from a right wing judge who has contributed to an organization that has slandered you or is dedicated to taking you down ?

 

 

 

additionally the fact that a partisian district attorney had to go to three grand juries before he could get them to indict delay suggests what he is accussed of will be not easily proved to a jury should it get that far . i say "should it get that far" because Earle has a history of indicting political opponents than cant prove his case in court .

 

He has prosecuted more democrats than republicans. Look it up.

 

He has a history of being extremely political in his prosecutions , see his attempt to take take down Kay Bailey Hutchinson where the case was thrown out before it begain and he was admonished for even bringing it forward. The fact that two grand juries didnt think there was enough to indict and after they threw it out , he brought it too a third jury he picked that doesnt make you wonder if his case is strong ? Even people sympathetic to Earle political cause of eliminating corporate contributions from the political process have stated he has a tendencey to attempt to indict on moral grounds not legal grounds. What is moral and what is legal are two seperate things.

 

 

If you look at what Delay did, it should piss you off. But what I find funny is that Delay thinks he can get away with anything just by making it political and saying its always the liberals out to get him. I guess he doesnt think too highly of a lot of Republicans.

 

I personally dont care for Delay but me not caring for him , or me thinking there is too much corporate , labor , special interest money in politics doesnt mean the guy should be convicted. I am a bit puzzled as to your comment look what he did because no trial has started , no evidence has been put forth , when the facts of the case are presented then we will know what he did or didnt do. Right now all we have is an accusation with no facts , it is on Earle to PROVE delay did something . In America i thought we are presumed innocent until proven guilty? Doesnt that apply to everyone even Tom Delay ?

It is quite logical to suggest if someone has actively contributed money to an organization that is dedicated to taking down you or me down that perhaps he isnt the best person to give a fair hearing to the defendant. In our system judges recuse themselves all the time when they have a conflict of interest it is not crazy and it happens frequently. Additionally it if a judges contribution is ideologically motivated than yes he should recuse himself . Honestly answer this questions if you were a liberal congressman would you feel like you would get a fair hearing from a right wing judge who has contributed to an organization that has slandered you or is dedicated to taking you down ?

 

 

 

 

Actually, Ive studied the code of ethics on when judges have to recuse themselves. The conflict of interest has to be much more serious.

 

Let me ask you this question Irishharrington, should Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Kennedy, all of whom were considered conservative when they were nominated and all of whom likely gave to conservative political causes at one time or another before they became judges have to recuse themselves from every case in which a political issue is at stake...which seemingly is almost every single case? Wouldnt that also force any justice nominated by Clinton to do the same? Every contribution is ideologically motivated to some degree!

 

Do you also realize that judges are elected throughout this country and that they often run on platforms of being tough on crime? Should these judges now have to recuse themselves from every single criminal case?

 

Ill bring up the final example and you explain this to me. During Clinton's impeachment hearings, why didnt William Rhenquist recuse himself from the proceedings?

 

If you think a liberal has never come before a conservative judge before, then you need to look a little harder. It happens everyday. Judges are allowed to have political views and vote and contribute to campaigns. They are expected to seperate that when they make their decisions. The conflict of interest has to be much greater.

 

He has a history of being extremely political in his prosecutions , see his attempt to take take down Kay Bailey Hutchinson where the case was thrown out before it begain and he was admonished for even bringing it forward. The fact that two grand juries didnt think there was enough to indict and after they threw it out , he brought it too a third jury he picked that doesnt make you wonder if his case is strong ? Even people sympathetic to Earle political cause of eliminating corporate contributions from the political process have stated he has a tendencey to attempt to indict on moral grounds not legal grounds. What is moral and what is legal are two seperate things.

 

Wait, are you saying he is political in that he is biased against one political party or poltical because he is driven by certain goals? If its the former, then again, look up how he has prosecuted more dems than repubs. Ill look it up if you dont want to. If its the latter, then you have to realize he isnt the first prosecutor to have zealous goals. Please see Ken Starr.

 

I personally dont care for Delay but me not caring for him , or me thinking there is too much corporate , labor , special interest money in politics doesnt mean the guy should be convicted. I am a bit puzzled as to your comment look what he did because no trial has started , no evidence has been put forth , when the facts of the case are presented then we will know what he did or didnt do. Right now all we have is an accusation with no facts , it is on Earle to PROVE delay did something . In America i thought we are presumed innocent until proven guilty? Doesnt that apply to everyone even Tom Delay ?

 

He isnt called the hammer for nothing.

It is quite logical to suggest if someone has actively contributed money to an organization that is dedicated to taking down you or me down that perhaps he isnt the best person to give a fair hearing to the defendant. In our system judges recuse themselves all the time when they have a conflict of interest it is not crazy and it happens frequently. Additionally it if a judges contribution is ideologically motivated than yes he should recuse himself . Honestly answer this questions if you were a liberal congressman would you feel like you would get a fair hearing from a right wing judge who has contributed to an organization that has slandered you or is dedicated to taking you down ?

 

 

 

 

Actually, Ive studied the code of ethics on when judges have to recuse themselves. The conflict of interest has to be much more serious.

 

Let me ask you this question Irishharrington, should Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Kennedy, all of whom were considered conservative when they were nominated and all of whom likely gave to conservative political causes at one time or another before they became judges have to recuse themselves from every case in which a political issue is at stake...which seemingly is almost every single case? Wouldnt that also force any justice nominated by Clinton to do the same? Every contribution is ideologically motivated to some degree!

 

The comparision you make is not the same because the Supreme court justices you mentioned Scalia and Thomas have a conservative philosophy in regards to constitutional law. It is possible that a conservative philosophy ruling would not be in accord with a conservative political parties ideology or goals. Unlike the supreme court justices who are life time appointments , the judge in Texas is a politician who could be held accountable by his liberal base. There is more pressure on this judge to produce a political ruling than the supreme court. On your point about judicial contributions, maybe the justices you mentioned gave contributions to political causes maybe they did not BUT i doubt while they were hearing a case about an issue they donated money chosing sides on the issue so close to actually hearing the issue. On your point about recusal it is not that in every case a when a political issue comes before a judge he must recuse himself because a liberal or conservative appointed him , but if a Clinton nominee was to hear a case in which Clinton himself was the defendant and the judge had said things that indictated he/she was incapable providing a fair impartial not biased in anayway hearing than he should recuse himself. Move on has been pretty clear about their dislike (putting it mildly) of DeLay so in this case i dont see the problem in changing judges could be a democrat or republican as long as they have not donated to groups pro or anti delay

 

Do you also realize that judges are elected throughout this country and that they often run on platforms of being tough on crime? Should these judges now have to recuse themselves from every single criminal case?

 

Yes ,judges run on platforms that have a philosophy you can be tough on crime as long as that philosophy is applied without prejuice their is no problem. The problem would if a judge ran on a platform that was specifically against one person or group than yes they should recuse themselves if that person or group came before him because it appears as if justice would not be applied evenly.

 

 

 

Ill bring up the final example and you explain this to me. During Clinton's impeachment hearings, why didnt William Rhenquist recuse himself from the proceedings?

 

Rehnquist didnt rule on the clinton impeachment , he merely open the proceding and made sure they were in accordance with the constitution . The Senate held the trial and voted on whether his crimes warranted removal from office The House brought the charges Rehnquist was not a factor in anyway during the procedings he openend and closed the proceding he made no rulings effecting the trial , that is why he didnt need to recuse himself .

 

 

If you think a liberal has never come before a conservative judge before, then you need to look a little harder. It happens everyday. Judges are allowed to have political views and vote and contribute to campaigns. They are expected to seperate that when they make their decisions. The conflict of interest has to be much greater.

 

Never said it didnt happened I ask you if you would feel comfortable in going before a judge who contributed to a group who actively opposed you ??

 

He has a history of being extremely political in his prosecutions , see his attempt to take take down Kay Bailey Hutchinson where the case was thrown out before it begain and he was admonished for even bringing it forward. The fact that two grand juries didnt think there was enough to indict and after they threw it out , he brought it too a third jury he picked that doesnt make you wonder if his case is strong ? Even people sympathetic to Earle political cause of eliminating corporate contributions from the political process have stated he has a tendencey to attempt to indict on moral grounds not legal grounds. What is moral and what is legal are two seperate things.

 

Wait, are you saying he is political in that he is biased against one political party or poltical because he is driven by certain goals? If its the former, then again, look up how he has prosecuted more dems than repubs. Ill look it up if you dont want to. If its the latter, then you have to realize he isnt the first prosecutor to have zealous goals. Please see Ken Starr.

 

Two seperate things the judge has political party considerations as he is elected by democrats , and democrats dont like delay the pressure on him maybe different than Earle. Earle's is driven by a political goal that has hindered his judgement in the past . Additionally Earle has answered to political party members who despise Delay whom in front of a audience he has said he is going to take Delay down. Given the fact that Earle couldnt get two juries to indict DeLay and then finally got a third to indict make me wonder how strong his case is , and if it is weak as many suggest it is and as two previous grand juries actions indicate it is than why is Earle going so hard after DeLay? Does he think the facts in this case warrant an indictment in every case or does he see a target to get points for a political objective or support in a political party?

 

 

 

I personally dont care for Delay but me not caring for him , or me thinking there is too much corporate , labor , special interest money in politics doesnt mean the guy should be convicted. I am a bit puzzled as to your comment look what he did because no trial has started , no evidence has been put forth , when the facts of the case are presented then we will know what he did or didnt do. Right now all we have is an accusation with no facts , it is on Earle to PROVE delay did something . In America i thought we are presumed innocent until proven guilty? Doesnt that apply to everyone even Tom Delay ?

 

He isnt called the hammer for nothing.

 

He might be called the Hammer but we still havent seen any evidence that beyond a reasonable doubt shows he is in fact guilty. Having a rough personality, having politics that you dont agree with , last time i checked doesnt erase the presumption of innocence.

DALLAS -- Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has long been a nemesis of Texas Republicans, particularly of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He called the man Washington knows as "the Hammer," for his partisan toughness, a "bully."

He has persuaded grand juries to indict several prominent Texas politicians of both parties, including the current senior sitting U.S. senator, although several of those high-profile cases failed.

The late Bob Bullock, a Democratic lieutenant governor, once compared Mr. Earle to "a little boy playing with matches."

Mr. Earle, who made the "bully" charge in a Democratic fundraising speech this year, says he had no partisan motive in yesterday's indictment against Mr. DeLay.

"My job is to prosecute felonies," the 63-year-old Democrat told a packed Austin press conference, "and I'm just doing my job."

In an interview with The Washington Times earlier this year, Mr. Earle said he had "no idea" where his investigation would go. "Wherever the facts lead us," he said. "That's the way I have always operated."

Partisan fighting between Republicans and Democrats is particularly intense in Texas, but Republicans were particularly angered by the district attorney's speech in May at a Democratic fundraiser in Dallas.

Characterizing the DeLay case as involving money, power and corruption, Mr. Earle told Democrats: "This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before."

The dinner and the speech raised $102,000 for Texas Values in Action, a political action committee created to help fund Democratic Party efforts to recapture control of the state legislature.

Texas Republicans demanded Mr. Earle's resignation, and a spokesman for Mr. DeLay said the speech demonstrated that the Travis County prosecutor was using his investigation as "a fundraising effort for Democrats."

Texas Republicans yesterday called the indictment of Mr. Delay a payback for the House majority leader's success in organizing and directing the Republican takeover of the state's political institutions.

Mr. DeLay called Mr. Earle "an unabashed partisan zealot." One of Mr. DeLay's lawyers, Bill White, said his client was the victim of "a skunky indictment."

 

 

Thin, intense and soft-spoken, Mr. Earle is a native Texan who began his political career in the 1960s as a protege of Gov. John Connally. He has taken on some of the biggest names in Texas politics during his terms in office.

Under state law, the district attorney in Travis County, which has remained a Democratic stronghold as Texas has shifted to the Republicans, is exclusively authorized to investigate and prosecute all charges of political wrongdoing.

Mr. Earle notes that he has tried 15 politicians for felony crimes and 11 of them were Democrats. However, during most of the time since he was elected to the office in 1976, Democrats were the state's dominant party, controlling legislative majorities and nearly every statewide office in Texas.

Mr. Earle's most prominent prosecution was the 1985 felony bribery case against Jim Mattox, the Democratic state attorney general, who was acquitted after a lengthy trial.

His most bitter defeat came against a Republican in 1994.

In September 1993, as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was preparing her 1994 re-election campaign, Mr. Earle filed charges of official misconduct and records tampering against her.

The presiding judge at her trial in 1994 questioned the admissibility of certain prosecution evidence, prompting Mr. Earle to abandon the case on the eve of the trial's start. The judge directed the jury to acquit Mrs. Hutchison.

"The reason the indictment happened to me," Mrs. Hutchison told the Dallas Morning News then, "is because I won an election by too wide a margin."

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said the indictment yesterday has no basis in "facts or the law, and this is just another example of Ronnie Earle misusing his office for partisan vendettas." He predicted the DeLay case would be dismissed like the charges against Mrs. Hutchison were dismissed.

Some Texas Democrats accuse Mr. Earle of excessive prosecutorial zeal. "I have some very, very bitter feelings toward him," Gibson Lewis, the Democratic former state House speaker, told a reporter last year.

Mr. Lewis was at his peak of power in 1992 when Mr. Earle charged him with taking and not disclosing gifts. In a plea bargain, Mr. Lewis pleaded guilty to misdemeanor ethics charges and paid a $2,000 fine. He argues still that he was unjustly charged.

God, the Republicans will never win another election.

 

 

I'll assume that was sarcasm. You can't believe that.

On your point about judicial contributions, maybe the justices you mentioned gave contributions to political causes maybe they did not BUT i doubt while they were hearing a case about an issue they donated money chosing sides on the issue so close to actually hearing the issue...Move on has been pretty clear about their dislike (putting it mildly) of DeLay so in this case i dont see the problem in changing judges could be a democrat or republican as long as they have not donated to groups pro or anti delay

 

 

See, this is your problem. Youve simplified everything into convenient little packages. For you, if a person sympathizes at all with anything you dont like, theyve been fully tainted. Moveon has other views and agenda besides going after a crooked politician. A person who contributes to moveon doesnt necessarily share every view it has. But what you keep doing is attaching that simple lable of liberal moveon and everything youve filled it up with to anyone who happens to sympathize with the liberal moveon group.

 

This is your logic. Judge A gave money to the NRA. The NRA has activley sought to remove SenatorB because of one reason or another. Judge A is a conservative because he helped the NRA and he adopts every opinion and viewpoint of the NRA and is incapable of being independent of the NRA hence he is biased.

 

But Ill let your own words prove you wrong: "i doubt while they were hearing a case about an issue they donated money chosing sides on the issue so close to actually hearing the issue..."

 

This judge donated money before the Novemeber election and before moveon starting going after Delay. He donated money when there was a big election going on, when moveon was using its money to get Kerry get elected-hence this judge wanted to get Kerry elected, not go after Delay. So tell me again how this judge is hearing about an issue where he donated money choosing sides on an issue so close to actually hearing the issue? Unless you view being liberal as the issue, which is exactly how the hammer sees it.

 

On your point about recusal it is not that in every case a when a political issue comes before a judge he must recuse himself because a liberal or conservative appointed him , but if a Clinton nominee was to hear a case in which Clinton himself was the defendant and the judge had said things that indictated he/she was incapable providing a fair impartial not biased in anayway hearing than he should recuse himself.

 

Did this judge every say anything to indicate he was incapable of providing a fair impartial hearing? Unless you think the following is true: I donate to the NRA, the NRA says Bush is evil, I say Bush is evil. Is that the logic?

Did this judge every say anything to indicate he was incapable of providing a fair impartial hearing? Unless you think the following is true: I donate to the NRA, the NRA says Bush is evil, I say Bush is evil. Is that the logic?

 

Last year the Dolphins beat the Patriots, the Patriots won the Super Bowl, the Dolphins are champions.

 

I like that logic.

On your point about judicial contributions, maybe the justices you mentioned gave contributions to political causes maybe they did not BUT i doubt while they were hearing a case about an issue they donated money chosing sides on the issue so close to actually hearing the issue...Move on has been pretty clear about their dislike (putting it mildly) of DeLay so in this case i dont see the problem in changing judges could be a democrat or republican as long as they have not donated to groups pro or anti delay

 

 

See, this is your problem. Youve simplified everything into convenient little packages. For you, if a person sympathizes at all with anything you dont like, theyve been fully tainted. Moveon has other views and agenda besides going after a crooked politician. A person who contributes to moveon doesnt necessarily share every view it has. But what you keep doing is attaching that simple lable of liberal moveon and everything youve filled it up with to anyone who happens to sympathize with the liberal moveon group.

 

Move ON has made it a central issue towards their goals of removing DeLay the judge giving money to Move On gives the appearance of impropriety which is grounds for him to recuse himself

 

This is your logic. Judge A gave money to the NRA. The NRA has activley sought to remove SenatorB because of one reason or another. Judge A is a conservative because he helped the NRA and he adopts every opinion and viewpoint of the NRA and is incapable of being independent of the NRA hence he is biased.

 

Thanks for explaining to me my logic, but i am pretty sure i can grasp my train of throught without your immense wisdom and knowledge

 

 

 

 

But Ill let your own words prove you wrong: "i doubt while they were hearing a case about an issue they donated money chosing sides on the issue so close to actually hearing the issue..."

 

This judge donated money before the Novemeber election and before moveon starting going after Delay. He donated money when there was a big election going on, when moveon was using its money to get Kerry get elected-hence this judge wanted to get Kerry elected, not go after Delay. So tell me again how this judge is hearing about an issue where he donated money choosing sides on an issue so close to actually hearing the issue? Unless you view being liberal as the issue, which is exactly how the hammer sees it.

 

The problem with your argument is Move on has been after DeLay before the 2004 election , and the judge donated money to Kerry so it is speculation on your part as to what cause he was donating to. None the less giving money to a group so closely aligned to an anti -DeLay stance yet again gives the appearance of impropriety

On your point about recusal it is not that in every case a when a political issue comes before a judge he must recuse himself because a liberal or conservative appointed him , but if a Clinton nominee was to hear a case in which Clinton himself was the defendant and the judge had said things that indictated he/she was incapable providing a fair impartial not biased in anayway hearing than he should recuse himself.

 

Did this judge every say anything to indicate he was incapable of providing a fair impartial hearing? Unless you think the following is true: I donate to the NRA, the NRA says Bush is evil, I say Bush is evil. Is that the logic?

 

His actions his donation which is considered freedom of speech suggest he is not a impartial observer , and Ronnie Earle has flat out said Anti-DeLay statements in public . The fact that two grand juries didnt indict is a point you keep ignoring. you also keep ignoring Earle's track record which is noted in the above article. You seem to ignore some clear problems surrounding this case and the people involved in it. If the case is so strong why not change judges? To avoid the appearance of impropriety. It seems like your passion against DeLay has made you lose track of the aims of our judicial system the trial is supposed to be fair conducted by people who are not interested in the person but interested in upholding the rule of law. BTW you still havent answered the question i asked in the begining would YOU feel like you could get a fair trial if you were a liberal democrat in a conservative area , indicted by a conservative da who had to go to 3 grandjuries before he could finally secure an indictment ,which suggest the evidence is weak, in front of a conservative judge who has donated money to a conservative group who has said horrible things about you and have actively tried to use everything in their power to destroy you???????? I am somewhat suprised with the fact you willingly deny the man the presumption of innocence , you can think he is guilty based on the evidence and quite honestly no evidence as of right now suggest he is guilty , but you act as if he has to be found guilty. Put your political ideology aside and let the evidence illustrate his guilt or innocence . Im out for the night later !

John McCain in 2008!

On your point about judicial contributions, maybe the justices you mentioned gave contributions to political causes maybe they did not BUT i doubt while they were hearing a case about an issue they donated money chosing sides on the issue so close to actually hearing the issue...Move on has been pretty clear about their dislike (putting it mildly) of DeLay so in this case i dont see the problem in changing judges could be a democrat or republican as long as they have not donated to groups pro or anti delay

 

Do you even know WHEN this contribution was made? The judge made the contribution to moveon.org to help Kerry over Bush. His contribution had absolutely nothing to do with DeLay.