| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Last Post" |
| Date: |
14 Dec 2005 12:31:52 PM |
| Object: |
DsLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN
Ann Coulter | December 7, 2005
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle's conspiracy charge
against Tom DeLay was thrown out this week, which came
as a surprise to people who think it's normal for a
prosecutor to have to empanel six grand juries in order
to get an indictment on simple fund-raising violations.
Mr. Earle will presumably assemble a seventh grand jury
as soon as he locates someone in the county who hasn't
served on a previous one.
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the
judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means
he concluded that - even if the jury finds everything
Ronnie Earle alleges to be true - no crime was committed.
Obviously, this was a huge victory for DeLay and, as
The Washington Post put it, "a slap at Texas prosecutor
Ronnie Earle." (More bad news for Ronnie Earle: Today
President Bush said the embattled Texas D.A. was doing
"a heck of a job.")
Or, in the words of CNN's Bill Schneider on what this
means for Tom DeLay: "Not good." In the expert analysis
of Schneider, it was "not good" for DeLay to have
charges thrown out because it would have been even
better if all the charges had been thrown out. It also
would have been better if the judge had dismissed the
conspiracy charges and given DeLay an ice cream cone.
But that doesn't mean having criminal charges against
you dismissed is, I quote, "not good." And they think
Fox News has twice CNN's ratings just because it's fair
and balanced. The accountants at Fox could give a more
penetrating legal analysis.
In the past few years, all TV news has become less
biased due to the salubrious influence of Fox News. But
Bill Schneider isn't backing off one inch! Watching
Schneider is like entering a time machine and seeing
how news was reported in the '80s. CNN ought to start
broadcasting Schneider's appearances only in black and white.
According to Schneider, the judge's failure to dismiss
the money laundering charges proves "obviously, on at
least one charge the judge disagreed" with DeLay's
claim that the prosecutor was politically motivated.
Schneider's entire understanding of criminal law was
apparently shaped during the Ally McBeal years.
Schneider would have said more, but he had to run off
to file a story about how 4.3 percent growth, 215,000
new jobs, record productivity gains and continued
growth in real estate prices were "not good" news for
the economy.
In fact, all we know as a result of the judge's ruling
on Monday is that the remaining charge against DeLay,
if proved, would at least constitute a crime.
To repeat what you might already have heard in third
grade: In America, the validity of criminal charges is
determined by the trier of fact after a trial. A judge
is not authorized to dismiss a criminal indictment
handed up by a grand jury just because the prosecutor
is a political hack.
This is true even if the prosecutor had to spend three
years and empanel six grand juries to get an indictment.
It is true even if the same prosecutor also indicted
Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison days after she was
elected to the U.S. Senate, but after spending a year
holding press conferences in which he called Hutchinson
a criminal, still had no evidence and folded his hand.
It is true even if the prosecutor is participating in a
documentary about a brave liberal prosecutor (Ronnie
Earle) exposing a black-hearted Republican (Tom DeLay)
- which wouldn't make much of a movie if no charges
were ever brought.
Thus, for example, Earle's baseless charges against
Hutchison - like the remaining charges against DeLay -
were not dismissed before trial. What happened was, the
trial date came and Earle had no evidence. The judge
ordered the jury to acquit.
Earle never admitted he had no evidence against
Hutchison. Instead, he made a preposterous request of
the judge. He asked the judge to issue a pre-emptive
ruling declaring all documents that Earle planned to
admit throughout the trial admissible - without
allowing the judge to know what those documents were or
allowing the defense an opportunity to object.
Obviously, the judge said he would have to see the
documents first and decide admissibility on a
case-by-case basis.
So now and forevermore, Earle claims his case against
Hutchison was watertight, but because the judge ruled
against him, he was prevented from presenting his
"evidence" to the jury. Remember that when liberals
call Bill O'Reilly a "liar" because he won a Polk
award, but one time he got confused and called it a
Peabody award.
.
|
|
| User: "EvilOppressorOfConservatives" |
|
| Title: Re: DsLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 01:17:10 PM |
|
|
"Last Post" <lastpost@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[PrePLONK]
Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle's conspiracy charge
against Tom DeLay was thrown out this week,
A Conspiracy Charge that could, indeed, May Well be Reinstated...
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence.
What "Goes Without Saying" - Coulter Sycophant DUMBASS - is that there
is _NOTHING_ The _LEAST_ Little Bit UNusual about Any Number of Criminal
Charges being Dismissed... Reduced... Set Aside [For Later Consideration] at
Any Number of Pre-Trial Hearings...
Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country.
No... The "Trier Of Fact", is NOT, as Coulter's - and Your Own Adopted
_IGNORANCE_ would Imply, Ever & Always, *Exclusively* a "Jury"...
GHODaMighty!!! IS There - WILL There EVER Be an End To NeoCon
_IGNORANCE_???
For the
judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means
he concluded that
First, I wonder Just What Coulter - and Your Running-Dog Lackey ***** -
Presume To Know about What & *WHY* "the judge... concluded..." what he did
WRT The Matter Of Law before him...
Second, This Judge's Ruling... indeed, ANY Judge's Ruling is Subject to
Error On Appeal... I don't happen t'give a Rat's ***** about Texas' Deeply
Ingrained & Sickening Corruption and haven't been Paying Rapt Attention to
the Latest Low-Grade Drama, but I *thought* I heard that there was even now,
an Interlocutory Appeal in the works or perhaps "Contemplated"...
And, having Wasted Enough Time on this Half-Witted Toadying TRIPE:
[The Rest Be PLONKED]
Naughtius "There Is Nothing More Frightful Than Ignorance In Action"
Goetheus
--
"...He's a Rebel
And he'll never ever be any good
He's a Rebel `cause
He never ever does what he should..."
www.acm1st.com/naughtius
"The FIRST thing we do, let's KILL all the TVs"
"...And those that are Fools
Let them use their Talents..."
COMING SOON: naughtius.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Last Post" |
|
| Title: Re: DsLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 01:56:59 PM |
|
|
EvilOppressorJackass brayed:
"Last Post" <lastpost@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[PrePLONK]
Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle's conspiracy charge
against Tom DeLay was thrown out this week,
A Conspiracy Charge that could, indeed, May Well be Reinstated...
Suuuure -- if he can get another Grand Jury together
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence.
What "Goes Without Saying" - Coulter Sycophant DUMBASS - is that there
is _NOTHING_ The _LEAST_ Little Bit UNusual about Any Number of Criminal
Charges being Dismissed... Reduced... Set Aside [For Later Consideration] at
Any Number of Pre-Trial Hearings...
Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country.
No... The "Trier Of Fact", is NOT, as Coulter's - and Your Own Adopted
_IGNORANCE_ would Imply, Ever & Always, *Exclusively* a "Jury"...
GHODaMighty!!! IS There - WILL There EVER Be an End To NeoCon
_IGNORANCE_???
MY oh My the EvilOppressorJackass is hysterical --
better get your foil helmet on - protect that sponge in
your cranial cavity
.
|
|
|
| User: "M.Butzin" |
|
| Title: Re: DsLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 05:05:25 PM |
|
|
"Last Post" <lastpost@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43A07734.BA4B3DFD@yahoo.com...
EvilOppressorJackass brayed:
"Last Post" <lastpost@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[PrePLONK]
Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle's conspiracy charge
against Tom DeLay was thrown out this week,
A Conspiracy Charge that could, indeed, May Well be Reinstated...
Suuuure -- if he can get another Grand Jury together
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence.
What "Goes Without Saying" - Coulter Sycophant DUMBASS - is that
there
is _NOTHING_ The _LEAST_ Little Bit UNusual about Any Number of Criminal
Charges being Dismissed... Reduced... Set Aside [For Later Consideration]
at
Any Number of Pre-Trial Hearings...
Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country.
No... The "Trier Of Fact", is NOT, as Coulter's - and Your Own Adopted
_IGNORANCE_ would Imply, Ever & Always, *Exclusively* a "Jury"...
GHODaMighty!!! IS There - WILL There EVER Be an End To NeoCon
_IGNORANCE_???
MY oh My the EvilOppressorJackass is hysterical --
better get your foil helmet on - protect that sponge in
your cranial cavity
You are clueless as to Texas Politics, stay in FLA.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Galileo" |
|
| Title: Re: DeLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 03:01:00 PM |
|
|
Last Post wrote:
DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN
Ann Coulter | December 7, 2005
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the
judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means
he concluded that - even if the jury finds everything
Ronnie Earle alleges to be true - no crime was committed.
Wow, she really is stupid, isn't she? She should have at least read
WHY the judge dropped that one charge - because the alleged crimes
happened in 2002, and the conspiracy law went on the books in 2003.
The judge did not conclude that no crime was committed, just that it
could only be prosecuted AFTER the 2003 law went into effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howeird Scream Dean :Republicans Best Campaign Ad Dr Dean & Mr" |
|
| Title: Re: DeLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 03:17:41 PM |
|
|
"Galileo" <galileo1564@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1134594060.578260.217570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Last Post wrote:
DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN
Ann Coulter | December 7, 2005
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the
judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means
he concluded that - even if the jury finds everything
Ronnie Earle alleges to be true - no crime was committed.
Wow, she really is stupid, isn't she? She should have at least read
WHY the judge dropped that one charge - because the alleged crimes
happened in 2002, and the conspiracy law went on the books in 2003.
The judge did not conclude that no crime was committed, just that it
could only be prosecuted AFTER the 2003 law went into effect.
==============================
More prrof that Democrat Prosecutor Earle is such an incompeetent Buffoon
for not being smart enough to figure those simpel things out on his own,
even after deLay's lawyers pointed those facts out in theri media
appearances.
Earle need to be disbarred for stupidity, incompetence and political faux
prosecution.
And then shot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: DeLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 03:36:55 PM |
|
|
Howeird Scream Dean :Republicans Best Campaign Ad wrote:
"Galileo" <galileo1564@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1134594060.578260.217570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Last Post wrote:
DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN
Ann Coulter | December 7, 2005
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the
judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means
he concluded that - even if the jury finds everything
Ronnie Earle alleges to be true - no crime was committed.
Wow, she really is stupid, isn't she? She should have at least read
WHY the judge dropped that one charge - because the alleged crimes
happened in 2002, and the conspiracy law went on the books in 2003.
The judge did not conclude that no crime was committed, just that it
could only be prosecuted AFTER the 2003 law went into effect.
==============================
More prrof that Democrat Prosecutor Earle is such an incompeetent
Buffoon for not being smart enough to figure those simpel things
out on his own, even after deLay's lawyers pointed those facts out
in theri media appearances.
Earle need to be disbarred for stupidity, incompetence and political
faux prosecution.
And then shot.
Earle is appealing the judge's ruling to reinstate the charge.
Never underrate you enemy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howeird Scream Dean :Republicans Best Campaign Ad Dr Dean & Mr" |
|
| Title: Re: DeLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 04:23:16 PM |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:wf0of.8456$kP5.1846@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Howeird Scream Dean :Republicans Best Campaign Ad wrote:
"Galileo" <galileo1564@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1134594060.578260.217570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Last Post wrote:
DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN
Ann Coulter | December 7, 2005
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the
judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means
he concluded that - even if the jury finds everything
Ronnie Earle alleges to be true - no crime was committed.
Wow, she really is stupid, isn't she? She should have at least read
WHY the judge dropped that one charge - because the alleged crimes
happened in 2002, and the conspiracy law went on the books in 2003.
The judge did not conclude that no crime was committed, just that it
could only be prosecuted AFTER the 2003 law went into effect.
==============================
More prrof that Democrat Prosecutor Earle is such an incompeetent
Buffoon for not being smart enough to figure those simpel things
out on his own, even after deLay's lawyers pointed those facts out
in theri media appearances.
Earle need to be disbarred for stupidity, incompetence and political
faux prosecution.
And then shot.
Earle is appealing the judge's ruling to reinstate the charge.
Never underrate you enemy
============================
A Charge that a judge said was bogus and tossed out. Earle is a buffoon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: DeLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 03:11:26 PM |
|
|
Galileo wrote:
Last Post wrote:
DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN
Ann Coulter | December 7, 2005
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the
judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means
he concluded that - even if the jury finds everything
Ronnie Earle alleges to be true - no crime was committed.
Wow, she really is stupid, isn't she? She should have at least read
WHY the judge dropped that one charge - because the alleged crimes
happened in 2002, and the conspiracy law went on the books in 2003.
The judge did not conclude that no crime was committed, just that it
could only be prosecuted AFTER the 2003 law went into effect.
Earle is appealing to have the charge reinstated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howeird Scream Dean :Republicans Best Campaign Ad Dr Dean & Mr" |
|
| Title: Re: DeLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 03:19:30 PM |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:CT%nf.8452$kP5.4975@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Galileo wrote:
Last Post wrote:
DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN
Ann Coulter | December 7, 2005
It probably goes without saying that it is
extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by
a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. Juries
decide guilt or innocence in this country. For the
judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means
he concluded that - even if the jury finds everything
Ronnie Earle alleges to be true - no crime was committed.
Wow, she really is stupid, isn't she? She should have at least read
WHY the judge dropped that one charge - because the alleged crimes
happened in 2002, and the conspiracy law went on the books in 2003.
The judge did not conclude that no crime was committed, just that it
could only be prosecuted AFTER the 2003 law went into effect.
Earle is appealing to have the charge reinstated.
===========================
Only a stupid Buffon like earle would try and have charges reinstated that
cant become convictions because the law those charges point to were not in
effect when Earle alleges the violations took place.
What a fucking incompetent buffoon, More proof Earle is a political Slime
hack Loy Ya making false charges that should cause him to be disbarred for
life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Olsen" |
|
| Title: Re: DsLay Hammers Earle of Austin |
14 Dec 2005 12:27:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:31:52 -0500, Last Post <lastpost@yahoo.com>
wrote:
DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN
Ann Coulter | December 7, 2005
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle's conspiracy charge
against Tom DeLay was thrown out this week
Old news Monica. I guess you haven't heard that the investigation into
DeLay's criminal dealings is expanding.
"I would rather be descended from an ape than a bishop."
-- T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Last Post" |
|
| Title: DEMOCRATS COVER-UP CORRUPTION |
14 Dec 2005 01:21:46 PM |
|
|
DEMOCRATS COVER-UP CORRUPTION
The Evans-Novak Political Report includes an item I've
heard nothing about:
Democrats have their own scandal brewing at the moment,
but they are doing much better in covering it up than
their Republican counterparts. At issue is the report
by David Barrett, the last remaining U.S. independent
counsel. Over ten years, Barrett has spent $21 million
on the investigation of former Housing Secretary Henry
Cisneros, who lied to FBI investigators about hush
money paid to an ex-mistress.
The reason the report and the investigation have taken
so long is that allies to Cisneros and the legal team
of former President Bill Clinton at the powerhouse
Washington law firm of Williams and Connolly have
fought its progress in court at every step. Meanwhile,
Clinton-sympathetic judges have sealed everything
concerned with the case, including Barrett's report.
The report contains shocking allegations of high-level
corruption in the Internal Revenue Service and Justice
Department under Clinton, which Barrett found as
Clinton aides monitored his investigation and sought to
derail it in order to cover up the Cisneros matter. A
regional IRS official had formulated a new rule
enabling him to transfer an investigation of Cisneros
to Washington to be buried by the Justice Department.
Barrett's investigators found Lee Radek, head of
Justice's public integrity division, determined to
protect President Bill Clinton.
A recently passed appropriations bill, intended to
permit release of this report, was altered by Democrats
behind closed doors to ensure that its politically
combustible elements never see the light of day.
Democrats succeeded in inserting instructions into the
bill's conference report that are very broad and will
allow judges to continue suppressing the report. Three
of the toughest Democrats in Congress -- Sen. Carl
Levin, Sen. Byron Dorgan and Rep. Henry Waxman -- have
been behind the effort to suppress, and they have done
it effectively.
It's remarkable what the Democrats can accomplish
despite being in the minority. One can only imagine
what they got away with when they were the majority.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATS COVER-UP CORRUPTION |
14 Dec 2005 03:01:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:21:46 -0500, Last Post <lastpost@yahoo.com>
wrote:
DEMOCRATS COVER-UP CORRUPTION
The Evans-Novak Political Report includes an item I've
heard nothing about:
Democrats have their own scandal brewing at the moment,
but they are doing much better in covering it up than
their Republican counterparts. At issue is the report
by David Barrett, the last remaining U.S. independent
counsel. Over ten years, Barrett has spent $21 million
on the investigation of former Housing Secretary Henry
Cisneros, who lied to FBI investigators about hush
money paid to an ex-mistress.
He pled guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI.
He admitted that he paid her money but said it came to no more than
ten thousand dollars per year. She received about 250,000 in total
however.
I recall that the payments came from a supporter of Cisneros,
primarily, so it's not clear to me how much Cisneros himself actually
paid her. It might be pretty close to ten thousand dollars per year,
in fact.
In addition, there was no allegation that she was paid these amounts
to hush her up. The payments did not begin until AFTER their affair
was made public.
The reason the report and the investigation have taken
so long is that allies to Cisneros and the legal team
of former President Bill Clinton at the powerhouse
Washington law firm of Williams and Connolly have
fought its progress in court at every step. Meanwhile,
Clinton-sympathetic judges have sealed everything
concerned with the case, including Barrett's report.
The report contains shocking allegations of high-level
corruption in the Internal Revenue Service and Justice
Department under Clinton, which Barrett found as
Clinton aides monitored his investigation and sought to
derail it in order to cover up the Cisneros matter. A
regional IRS official had formulated a new rule
enabling him to transfer an investigation of Cisneros
to Washington to be buried by the Justice Department.
Barrett's investigators found Lee Radek, head of
Justice's public integrity division, determined to
protect President Bill Clinton.
Why would anyone really care about the Cisneros matter? Could anything
be more trivial, really?
Why would Clinton really care, one way or the other?
I don't care about it. Do you? A guy pays a former mistress 250,000
dollars. He says he paid her much less than that.
Who really cares?
Why would President Clinton care one way or the other?
Cisneros' WIFE might care - sure. But why would I care, or you care,
or anyone else care?
A recently passed appropriations bill, intended to
permit release of this report, was altered by Democrats
behind closed doors to ensure that its politically
combustible elements never see the light of day.
Democrats succeeded in inserting instructions into the
bill's conference report that are very broad and will
allow judges to continue suppressing the report. Three
of the toughest Democrats in Congress -- Sen. Carl
Levin, Sen. Byron Dorgan and Rep. Henry Waxman -- have
been behind the effort to suppress, and they have done
it effectively.
Oh sure. They really care.
And these judges - they really try to help Clinton.
I can think of good reasons why certain CLAIMS are not revealed, when
such claims lack a good foundation. And it makes sense to permit
judges to limit the publication of mere claims lacking support.
I imagine that the current process lets those with an interest in a
report to state reasons why they think certain claims damaging to them
are not true, and to ask a judge to prevent publication of such claims
lacking a good factual basis.
Basic fairness is consistent with that.
But if you want to characterize basic fairness as a fiendish plot - go
ahead, while we laugh at you.
It's remarkable what the Democrats can accomplish
despite being in the minority. One can only imagine
what they got away with when they were the majority.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
