| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"GW Chimpzilla" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2005 06:25:55 PM |
| Object: |
Fox News Lied to Protect DeLay |
Fox News host, analyst, guest all ignored Texas law to falsely claim DeLay
indictment based on weak evidence
Commentators and journalists falsely attacked the indictment handed down against
former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) by claiming that it cites little
or no specific evidence to support the charge that he conspired to violate
Texas campaign finance laws. Attacks appearing on Fox News took two forms: 1)
that the absence of evidence in the indictment is highly unusual; and 2) that
it implies a weak case. In fact, Texas law requires only that specific
allegations be presented in the indictment, not the specific evidence to back
up those allegations. Moreover, contrary to the claim that the indictment's
lack of evidence is highly unusual, prosecutors in Texas rarely include such
evidence [The Washington Post, 9/29/05].
Under Texas law, an indictment only must include the specific allegations which,
if proved at trial, would constitute a violation of the law. According to
Texas' Code of Criminal Procedure, "[e]verything should be stated in an
indictment which is necessary to be proved" -- in other words, all the specific
statutory elements of the crime need to be alleged against the defendant.
Regarding the Texas conspiracy statute DeLay is accused of violating, the
indictment needed to allege the following: that DeLay and his charged
co-conspirators, James Ellis and John Colyandro, agreed to work together in
order to violate Texas' ban on corporate contributions (a felony), and that at
least one of the group then "performed an overt act" to try and fulfill the
agreement.
The indictment does not allege that DeLay himself acted to carry out the
conspiracy, but specifically alleges that as one of the defendants, he, "with
the intent that a felony be committed, did enter into an agreement with
[Colyandro and Ellis] or with [Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC)] that
one or more of them would engage in conduct that would constitute the offense
of knowingly" making an illegal corporate contribution to Texas state House of
Representatives candidates. Texas law requires no more information (other than
formalities) regarding DeLay specifically, as the second element, the "overt
act," is alleged to have been committed by Colyandro and Ellis. Colyandro and
Ellis were previously charged with having actually broken the corporate
contribution ban and money-laundering [Houston Chronicle, 7/13/05]. As
University of Texas law professor George E. Dix noted in the September 30 New
York Times, "'All that conspiracy requires is that one member of the conspiracy
commit an overt act, and it doesn't have to be the named defendant' ...
Prosecutors would have to show that a defendant, in this case Mr. DeLay, 'had
the intent that a felony be committed,' not commit it himself." Consistent with
the requirements of Texas' indictment rules, Travis County, Texas, District
Attorney Ronnie Earle said at a September 28 press conference (aired on that
day's CNN's Live From...) that while the conspiracy indictment contains
specific allegations, the evidence to support them will be presented at trial:
QUESTION: The indictments of Colyandro and Ellis are very specific about the
actions they took in making this money exchange. What role did Mr. DeLay
actually have in facilitating that money exchange?
EARLE: Well -- and this is all in the indictment -- criminal conspiracy in this
context means that a person with the intent that a felony be committed agree
with two or more persons that, like in this case, the corporate contributions
be made, and one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the
agreement.
QUESTION: What proof do you have that Mr. DeLay communicated with these guys or
made any kind of conspiracy with them? I'm reading the indictment; I don't see
it.
EARLE: You wouldn't see that because those are issues of evidence that will be
presented at the trial.
QUESTION: So it hasn't been proved yet?
EARLE: Well, the indictment is an allegation; it's not proof.
Nevertheless, commentators on Fox News have characterized Earle's case against
DeLay as weak, based only on the indictment, or have claimed that the absence
of specific evidence in the indictment was highly unusual:
Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume and Fox News senior judicial
analyst Andrew Napolitano, on the September 28 edition of Special Report with
Brit Hume:
HUME: Judge Napolitano, I looked at this indictment, I read it several times, it
isn't very long, and apart from the broad general claim that Tom DeLay entered
into a conspiracy with two others to violate Texas state campaign laws, it
doesn't mention Tom DeLay in any specific way after that in terms of what he
did. Do you have a sense of what he is alleged to have done here?
NAPOLITANO: Well, you are right, the indictment doesn't tell us. Remember, the
charge against Tom DeLay is conspiracy, and the essence of a conspiracy is an
agreement. So all the indictment says with respect to Tom DeLay is that he
entered into an agreement with others to violate or circumvent Texas election
law and that one of the others either carried out or attempted to carry out
that agreement. But there is no allegation that Tom DeLay took any purposeful
step in furtherance of the agreement.
[...]
HUME: Is it common, though, for an indictment to be this vague about the nature
of the agreement and how the agreement was entered into?
NAPOLITANO: No, it is not common, Brit. In fact, most court rules in the federal
system and in most state systems require great specificity in conspiracy
indictments for this very reason. The defendant needs to know what the
government says he did and what the government says was illegal. When it's as
vague as this is, it doesn't fairly even tell the defendant what he has to
defend against.
Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice Department's Office of Public
Affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft, from the September 28 edition of
The Big Story with John Gibson:
COMSTOCK: When you look at the indictment, all they say is "conspiracy" with no
facts. They just allege this amorphous conspiracy, and as Judge Napolitano has
pointed out, really, all day, it's sort of a last resort when you don't really
have anything. And what Ronnie Earle knew is that this would have a political
impact.
Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke, from the "Fox News All-Star
Panel" on the September 28 edition of Special Report:
HUME: OK, the indictment has been filed, we have all seen it, we have read it,
we have all seen what the evidence -- such as it was presented with it -- is,
what about it?
KONDRACKE: I think it is very thin. It alleges that DeLay was part of a
conspiracy, but it includes no evidence whatever of what he did with the
conspiracy. These two aides of his who were involved in this Texans for a
Republican Majority, you know, supposedly conspired with him to filter money
collected from corporations through the Republican National Committee back to
candidates for the state legislature in Texas.
In addition, Fox News host Sean Hannity, during an interview with DeLay on the
September 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, made both false
claims. He also incorrectly claimed that the indictment did not list the
specific allegation against the former majority leader:
HANNITY: The indictment is three and a half pages in length. I've read it
repeatedly. Your name appears at the beginning of the document. You are accused
specifically of a criminal conspiracy, and after that you are not mentioned in
any of the supposed facts presented in the indictment. They talk about other
people, they talk about a PAC, they talk about the RNC. They do not mention
you. There's no single sentence, there's no information provided in this
indictment linking you to any crime. I have spoken to numerous lawyers who find
this extraordinary.
DeLAY: It's very extraordinary, in fact, my own lawyers think this is good, we
can get rid of this case fairly quickly because it's obvious they have no
evidence, nothing to substantiate any claims at all as it pertains to me.
[...]
HANNITY: This is an important point. Federal and state law require that
indictments, that they must be specific enough to inform a defendant exactly
what they are being accused of having done.
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh also made substantively similar
comments about the indictment on the September 29 broadcast of The Rush
Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Uh, but that's beside the point. Here's the point. DeLay is innocent.
Hasn't been -- he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. All these charges, all
these allusions to charges, all of these -- all of these horror stories about
what Tom DeLay -- he's not been convicted of anything. And this indictment
doesn't specify one thing. I don't want to beat a dead horse to death, but it
doesn't specify one thing that he did.
The indictment does not -- does not connect Tom DeLay to any -- any crime! Not a
single fact is alleged in this indictment. And experienced lawyers will tell
you -- lawyers who have seen gazillions of indictments will tell you that
indictments carry a list of charges. That's how you know what you're being
charged with! You know, you have -- when you're -- when you're accused and
you're being charged, you have a right to know what it is. There's nothing in
this indictment that specifies what DeLay did.
So you have to ask, do we still live in the United States of America? If
someone's charged with a crime, they have a legal right to know exactly what it
is they're being accused of. Otherwise, they can't defend themselves. If we
can't accept that principle and defend that principle, then just how far have
we sunk as a movement, and as a party, and as a country? Throw the guy out.
Because we don't think he's going to be effective anymore?
[...]
If -- if some hack local prosecutor can bring an indictment at the 11th hour
based on no facts whatsoever, then our -- our Democratic institutions are
endangered.
People ask - I've got emails all over. Well, how can this happen? How can -- how
can -- how can some prosecutor just level an indictment with no charge? How can
it happen? That's the power they have. That's why there are such phrases as
abuse of power. Prosecutors are invested with a lot of it. You'll hope they use
it wisely and responsibly. But what can you do? If you're the victim of it,
what can you do?
But, as The Washington Post noted, there is nothing extraordinary about the
form of the DeLay indictment: "Texas law permits such evidence to be left out
of the indictment, so it is rarely included."
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200509300006
.
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Fox News Lied to Protect DeLay |
01 Oct 2005 07:47:17 PM |
|
|
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:262dnVdUDP2x56PeRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"GW Chimpzilla" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Qj%e.377909$x96.336720@attbi_s72...
Fox News host, analyst, guest all ignored Texas law to falsely claim
DeLay
indictment based on weak evidence
Commentators and journalists falsely attacked the indictment handed
down against
former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) by claiming that it
cites little
or no specific evidence to support the charge that he conspired to
violate
Texas campaign finance laws. Attacks appearing on Fox News took two
forms: 1)
that the absence of evidence in the indictment is highly unusual; and
2) that
it implies a weak case. In fact, Texas law requires only that specific
allegations be presented in the indictment, not the specific evidence
to back
up those allegations. Moreover, contrary to the claim that the
indictment's
lack of evidence is highly unusual, prosecutors in Texas rarely
include such
evidence [The Washington Post, 9/29/05].
<snip for brevity>
HUME: Is it common, though, for an indictment to be this vague about
the nature
of the agreement and how the agreement was entered into?
NAPOLITANO: No, it is not common, Brit. In fact, most court rules in
the federal
system and in most state systems require great specificity in
conspiracy
indictments for this very reason. The defendant needs to know what the
This is interesting. Is it true? Can, for example, the poster "G.W.
Chimpzilla" be cited in a conspiracy indictment in Texas on no further
evidence than the prosecutor knowing how to spell his name, but not in a
You are (deliberately or ignorantly??) misrepresenting what happened.
The evidence is presented to the grand jury and at court. It is NOT provided
in the paper indictment filed in court.
IOW,, evidence exists, evidence has been presented to a jury, the jury has
rued on the evidence, and they are keeping idiots like you in the dark.
Larry
federal court?
government says he did and what the government says was illegal. When
it's as
vague as this is, it doesn't fairly even tell the defendant what he
has to
defend against.
Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice Department's Office
of Public
Affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft, from the September 28
edition of
The Big Story with John Gibson:
COMSTOCK: When you look at the indictment, all they say is
"conspiracy" with no
facts. They just allege this amorphous conspiracy, and as Judge
Napolitano has
pointed out, really, all day, it's sort of a last resort when you
don't really
have anything. And what Ronnie Earle knew is that this would have a
political
impact.
Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke, from the "Fox News
All-Star
Panel" on the September 28 edition of Special Report:
HUME: OK, the indictment has been filed, we have all seen it, we have
read it,
we have all seen what the evidence -- such as it was presented with
it -- is,
what about it?
KONDRACKE: I think it is very thin. It alleges that DeLay was part of
a
conspiracy, but it includes no evidence whatever of what he did with
the
conspiracy. These two aides of his who were involved in this Texans
for a
Republican Majority, you know, supposedly conspired with him to filter
money
collected from corporations through the Republican National Committee
back to
candidates for the state legislature in Texas.
In addition, Fox News host Sean Hannity, during an interview with
DeLay on the
September 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, made
both false
claims. He also incorrectly claimed that the indictment did not list
the
specific allegation against the former majority leader:
HANNITY: The indictment is three and a half pages in length. I've read
it
repeatedly. Your name appears at the beginning of the document. You
are accused
specifically of a criminal conspiracy, and after that you are not
mentioned in
any of the supposed facts presented in the indictment. They talk about
other
people, they talk about a PAC, they talk about the RNC. They do not
mention
you. There's no single sentence, there's no information provided in
this
indictment linking you to any crime. I have spoken to numerous lawyers
who find
this extraordinary.
DeLAY: It's very extraordinary, in fact, my own lawyers think this is
good, we
can get rid of this case fairly quickly because it's obvious they have
no
evidence, nothing to substantiate any claims at all as it pertains to
me.
[...]
HANNITY: This is an important point. Federal and state law require
that
indictments, that they must be specific enough to inform a defendant
exactly
what they are being accused of having done.
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh also made substantively
similar
comments about the indictment on the September 29 broadcast of The
Rush
Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Uh, but that's beside the point. Here's the point. DeLay is
innocent.
Hasn't been -- he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. All these
charges, all
these allusions to charges, all of these -- all of these horror
stories about
what Tom DeLay -- he's not been convicted of anything. And this
indictment
doesn't specify one thing. I don't want to beat a dead horse to death,
but it
doesn't specify one thing that he did.
The indictment does not -- does not connect Tom DeLay to any -- any
crime! Not a
single fact is alleged in this indictment. And experienced lawyers
will tell
you -- lawyers who have seen gazillions of indictments will tell you
that
indictments carry a list of charges. That's how you know what you're
being
charged with! You know, you have -- when you're -- when you're accused
and
you're being charged, you have a right to know what it is. There's
nothing in
this indictment that specifies what DeLay did.
So you have to ask, do we still live in the United States of America?
If
someone's charged with a crime, they have a legal right to know
exactly what it
is they're being accused of. Otherwise, they can't defend themselves.
If we
can't accept that principle and defend that principle, then just how
far have
we sunk as a movement, and as a party, and as a country? Throw the guy
out.
Because we don't think he's going to be effective anymore?
[...]
If -- if some hack local prosecutor can bring an indictment at the
11th hour
based on no facts whatsoever, then our -- our Democratic institutions
are
endangered.
People ask - I've got emails all over. Well, how can this happen? How
can -- how
can -- how can some prosecutor just level an indictment with no
charge? How can
it happen? That's the power they have. That's why there are such
phrases as
abuse of power. Prosecutors are invested with a lot of it. You'll hope
they use
it wisely and responsibly. But what can you do? If you're the victim
of it,
what can you do?
But, as The Washington Post noted, there is nothing extraordinary
about the
form of the DeLay indictment: "Texas law permits such evidence to be
left out
of the indictment, so it is rarely included."
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200509300006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fox News Lied to Protect DeLay |
02 Oct 2005 07:27:22 AM |
|
|
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:dhnas1$484h$1@news3.infoave.net...
"Harvey" <researchermd@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:262dnVdUDP2x56PeRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"GW Chimpzilla" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Qj%e.377909$x96.336720@attbi_s72...
Fox News host, analyst, guest all ignored Texas law to falsely
claim
DeLay
indictment based on weak evidence
Commentators and journalists falsely attacked the indictment handed
down against
former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) by claiming that it
cites little
or no specific evidence to support the charge that he conspired to
violate
Texas campaign finance laws. Attacks appearing on Fox News took two
forms: 1)
that the absence of evidence in the indictment is highly unusual;
and
2) that
it implies a weak case. In fact, Texas law requires only that
specific
allegations be presented in the indictment, not the specific
evidence
to back
up those allegations. Moreover, contrary to the claim that the
indictment's
lack of evidence is highly unusual, prosecutors in Texas rarely
include such
evidence [The Washington Post, 9/29/05].
<snip for brevity>
HUME: Is it common, though, for an indictment to be this vague
about
the nature
of the agreement and how the agreement was entered into?
NAPOLITANO: No, it is not common, Brit. In fact, most court rules
in
the federal
system and in most state systems require great specificity in
conspiracy
indictments for this very reason. The defendant needs to know what
the
This is interesting. Is it true? Can, for example, the poster "G.W.
Chimpzilla" be cited in a conspiracy indictment in Texas on no
further
evidence than the prosecutor knowing how to spell his name, but not
in a
You are (deliberately or ignorantly??) misrepresenting what happened.
The evidence is presented to the grand jury and at court. It is NOT
provided
in the paper indictment filed in court.
IOW,, evidence exists, evidence has been presented to a jury, the jury
has
rued on the evidence, and they are keeping idiots like you in the
dark.
Larry
Well pardon the ***** out of me, Larry, for not being a lawyer. We all
know know ***** well there aren't anywhere near as many lawyers around
as we need, and I'm not one of them.
federal court?
government says he did and what the government says was illegal.
When
it's as
vague as this is, it doesn't fairly even tell the defendant what he
has to
defend against.
Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice Department's
Office
of Public
Affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft, from the September 28
edition of
The Big Story with John Gibson:
COMSTOCK: When you look at the indictment, all they say is
"conspiracy" with no
facts. They just allege this amorphous conspiracy, and as Judge
Napolitano has
pointed out, really, all day, it's sort of a last resort when you
don't really
have anything. And what Ronnie Earle knew is that this would have a
political
impact.
Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke, from the "Fox News
All-Star
Panel" on the September 28 edition of Special Report:
HUME: OK, the indictment has been filed, we have all seen it, we
have
read it,
we have all seen what the evidence -- such as it was presented with
it -- is,
what about it?
KONDRACKE: I think it is very thin. It alleges that DeLay was part
of
a
conspiracy, but it includes no evidence whatever of what he did
with
the
conspiracy. These two aides of his who were involved in this Texans
for a
Republican Majority, you know, supposedly conspired with him to
filter
money
collected from corporations through the Republican National
Committee
back to
candidates for the state legislature in Texas.
In addition, Fox News host Sean Hannity, during an interview with
DeLay on the
September 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, made
both false
claims. He also incorrectly claimed that the indictment did not
list
the
specific allegation against the former majority leader:
HANNITY: The indictment is three and a half pages in length. I've
read
it
repeatedly. Your name appears at the beginning of the document. You
are accused
specifically of a criminal conspiracy, and after that you are not
mentioned in
any of the supposed facts presented in the indictment. They talk
about
other
people, they talk about a PAC, they talk about the RNC. They do not
mention
you. There's no single sentence, there's no information provided in
this
indictment linking you to any crime. I have spoken to numerous
lawyers
who find
this extraordinary.
DeLAY: It's very extraordinary, in fact, my own lawyers think this
is
good, we
can get rid of this case fairly quickly because it's obvious they
have
no
evidence, nothing to substantiate any claims at all as it pertains
to
me.
[...]
HANNITY: This is an important point. Federal and state law require
that
indictments, that they must be specific enough to inform a
defendant
exactly
what they are being accused of having done.
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh also made
substantively
similar
comments about the indictment on the September 29 broadcast of The
Rush
Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Uh, but that's beside the point. Here's the point. DeLay
is
innocent.
Hasn't been -- he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. All these
charges, all
these allusions to charges, all of these -- all of these horror
stories about
what Tom DeLay -- he's not been convicted of anything. And this
indictment
doesn't specify one thing. I don't want to beat a dead horse to
death,
but it
doesn't specify one thing that he did.
The indictment does not -- does not connect Tom DeLay to any -- any
crime! Not a
single fact is alleged in this indictment. And experienced lawyers
will tell
you -- lawyers who have seen gazillions of indictments will tell
you
that
indictments carry a list of charges. That's how you know what
you're
being
charged with! You know, you have -- when you're -- when you're
accused
and
you're being charged, you have a right to know what it is. There's
nothing in
this indictment that specifies what DeLay did.
So you have to ask, do we still live in the United States of
America?
If
someone's charged with a crime, they have a legal right to know
exactly what it
is they're being accused of. Otherwise, they can't defend
themselves.
If we
can't accept that principle and defend that principle, then just
how
far have
we sunk as a movement, and as a party, and as a country? Throw the
guy
out.
Because we don't think he's going to be effective anymore?
[...]
If -- if some hack local prosecutor can bring an indictment at the
11th hour
based on no facts whatsoever, then our -- our Democratic
institutions
are
endangered.
People ask - I've got emails all over. Well, how can this happen?
How
can -- how
can -- how can some prosecutor just level an indictment with no
charge? How can
it happen? That's the power they have. That's why there are such
phrases as
abuse of power. Prosecutors are invested with a lot of it. You'll
hope
they use
it wisely and responsibly. But what can you do? If you're the
victim
of it,
what can you do?
But, as The Washington Post noted, there is nothing extraordinary
about the
form of the DeLay indictment: "Texas law permits such evidence to
be
left out
of the indictment, so it is rarely included."
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200509300006
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Fox News Lied to Protect DeLay |
01 Oct 2005 11:39:31 AM |
|
|
Harvey wrote:
"GW Chimpzilla" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Qj%e.377909$x96.336720@attbi_s72...
Fox News host, analyst, guest all ignored Texas law to falsely claim
DeLay
indictment based on weak evidence
Commentators and journalists falsely attacked the indictment handed
down against
former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) by claiming that it
cites little
or no specific evidence to support the charge that he conspired to
violate
Texas campaign finance laws. Attacks appearing on Fox News took two
forms: 1)
that the absence of evidence in the indictment is highly unusual; and
2) that
it implies a weak case. In fact, Texas law requires only that specific
allegations be presented in the indictment, not the specific evidence
to back
up those allegations. Moreover, contrary to the claim that the
indictment's
lack of evidence is highly unusual, prosecutors in Texas rarely
include such
evidence [The Washington Post, 9/29/05].
<snip for brevity>
HUME: Is it common, though, for an indictment to be this vague about
the nature
of the agreement and how the agreement was entered into?
NAPOLITANO: No, it is not common, Brit. In fact, most court rules in
the federal
system and in most state systems require great specificity in
conspiracy
indictments for this very reason. The defendant needs to know what the
This is interesting. Is it true? Can, for example, the poster "G.W.
Chimpzilla" be cited in a conspiracy indictment in Texas on no further
evidence than the prosecutor knowing how to spell his name, but not in a
federal court?
How likely do you think a grand jury would indict someone under your schenario?
government says he did and what the government says was illegal. When
it's as
vague as this is, it doesn't fairly even tell the defendant what he
has to
defend against.
Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice Department's Office
of Public
Affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft, from the September 28
edition of
The Big Story with John Gibson:
COMSTOCK: When you look at the indictment, all they say is
"conspiracy" with no
facts. They just allege this amorphous conspiracy, and as Judge
Napolitano has
pointed out, really, all day, it's sort of a last resort when you
don't really
have anything. And what Ronnie Earle knew is that this would have a
political
impact.
Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke, from the "Fox News
All-Star
Panel" on the September 28 edition of Special Report:
HUME: OK, the indictment has been filed, we have all seen it, we have
read it,
we have all seen what the evidence -- such as it was presented with
it -- is,
what about it?
KONDRACKE: I think it is very thin. It alleges that DeLay was part of
a
conspiracy, but it includes no evidence whatever of what he did with
the
conspiracy. These two aides of his who were involved in this Texans
for a
Republican Majority, you know, supposedly conspired with him to filter
money
collected from corporations through the Republican National Committee
back to
candidates for the state legislature in Texas.
In addition, Fox News host Sean Hannity, during an interview with
DeLay on the
September 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, made
both false
claims. He also incorrectly claimed that the indictment did not list
the
specific allegation against the former majority leader:
HANNITY: The indictment is three and a half pages in length. I've read
it
repeatedly. Your name appears at the beginning of the document. You
are accused
specifically of a criminal conspiracy, and after that you are not
mentioned in
any of the supposed facts presented in the indictment. They talk about
other
people, they talk about a PAC, they talk about the RNC. They do not
mention
you. There's no single sentence, there's no information provided in
this
indictment linking you to any crime. I have spoken to numerous lawyers
who find
this extraordinary.
DeLAY: It's very extraordinary, in fact, my own lawyers think this is
good, we
can get rid of this case fairly quickly because it's obvious they have
no
evidence, nothing to substantiate any claims at all as it pertains to
me.
[...]
HANNITY: This is an important point. Federal and state law require
that
indictments, that they must be specific enough to inform a defendant
exactly
what they are being accused of having done.
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh also made substantively
similar
comments about the indictment on the September 29 broadcast of The
Rush
Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Uh, but that's beside the point. Here's the point. DeLay is
innocent.
Hasn't been -- he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. All these
charges, all
these allusions to charges, all of these -- all of these horror
stories about
what Tom DeLay -- he's not been convicted of anything. And this
indictment
doesn't specify one thing. I don't want to beat a dead horse to death,
but it
doesn't specify one thing that he did.
The indictment does not -- does not connect Tom DeLay to any -- any
crime! Not a
single fact is alleged in this indictment. And experienced lawyers
will tell
you -- lawyers who have seen gazillions of indictments will tell you
that
indictments carry a list of charges. That's how you know what you're
being
charged with! You know, you have -- when you're -- when you're accused
and
you're being charged, you have a right to know what it is. There's
nothing in
this indictment that specifies what DeLay did.
So you have to ask, do we still live in the United States of America?
If
someone's charged with a crime, they have a legal right to know
exactly what it
is they're being accused of. Otherwise, they can't defend themselves.
If we
can't accept that principle and defend that principle, then just how
far have
we sunk as a movement, and as a party, and as a country? Throw the guy
out.
Because we don't think he's going to be effective anymore?
[...]
If -- if some hack local prosecutor can bring an indictment at the
11th hour
based on no facts whatsoever, then our -- our Democratic institutions
are
endangered.
People ask - I've got emails all over. Well, how can this happen? How
can -- how
can -- how can some prosecutor just level an indictment with no
charge? How can
it happen? That's the power they have. That's why there are such
phrases as
abuse of power. Prosecutors are invested with a lot of it. You'll hope
they use
it wisely and responsibly. But what can you do? If you're the victim
of it,
what can you do?
But, as The Washington Post noted, there is nothing extraordinary
about the
form of the DeLay indictment: "Texas law permits such evidence to be
left out
of the indictment, so it is rarely included."
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200509300006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fox News Lied to Protect DeLay |
01 Oct 2005 06:13:00 PM |
|
|
"GW Chimpzilla" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Zy%e.379829$x96.189023@attbi_s72...
Harvey wrote:
"GW Chimpzilla" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Qj%e.377909$x96.336720@attbi_s72...
Fox News host, analyst, guest all ignored Texas law to falsely claim
DeLay
indictment based on weak evidence
Commentators and journalists falsely attacked the indictment handed
down against
former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) by claiming that it
cites little
or no specific evidence to support the charge that he conspired to
violate
Texas campaign finance laws. Attacks appearing on Fox News took two
forms: 1)
that the absence of evidence in the indictment is highly unusual;
and
2) that
it implies a weak case. In fact, Texas law requires only that
specific
allegations be presented in the indictment, not the specific
evidence
to back
up those allegations. Moreover, contrary to the claim that the
indictment's
lack of evidence is highly unusual, prosecutors in Texas rarely
include such
evidence [The Washington Post, 9/29/05].
<snip for brevity>
HUME: Is it common, though, for an indictment to be this vague about
the nature
of the agreement and how the agreement was entered into?
NAPOLITANO: No, it is not common, Brit. In fact, most court rules in
the federal
system and in most state systems require great specificity in
conspiracy
indictments for this very reason. The defendant needs to know what
the
This is interesting. Is it true? Can, for example, the poster "G.W.
Chimpzilla" be cited in a conspiracy indictment in Texas on no
further
evidence than the prosecutor knowing how to spell his name, but not
in a
federal court?
How likely do you think a grand jury would indict someone under your
schenario?
Wasn't the question, Chimp.
government says he did and what the government says was illegal.
When
it's as
vague as this is, it doesn't fairly even tell the defendant what he
has to
defend against.
Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice Department's Office
of Public
Affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft, from the September 28
edition of
The Big Story with John Gibson:
COMSTOCK: When you look at the indictment, all they say is
"conspiracy" with no
facts. They just allege this amorphous conspiracy, and as Judge
Napolitano has
pointed out, really, all day, it's sort of a last resort when you
don't really
have anything. And what Ronnie Earle knew is that this would have a
political
impact.
Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke, from the "Fox News
All-Star
Panel" on the September 28 edition of Special Report:
HUME: OK, the indictment has been filed, we have all seen it, we
have
read it,
we have all seen what the evidence -- such as it was presented with
it -- is,
what about it?
KONDRACKE: I think it is very thin. It alleges that DeLay was part
of
a
conspiracy, but it includes no evidence whatever of what he did with
the
conspiracy. These two aides of his who were involved in this Texans
for a
Republican Majority, you know, supposedly conspired with him to
filter
money
collected from corporations through the Republican National
Committee
back to
candidates for the state legislature in Texas.
In addition, Fox News host Sean Hannity, during an interview with
DeLay on the
September 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, made
both false
claims. He also incorrectly claimed that the indictment did not list
the
specific allegation against the former majority leader:
HANNITY: The indictment is three and a half pages in length. I've
read
it
repeatedly. Your name appears at the beginning of the document. You
are accused
specifically of a criminal conspiracy, and after that you are not
mentioned in
any of the supposed facts presented in the indictment. They talk
about
other
people, they talk about a PAC, they talk about the RNC. They do not
mention
you. There's no single sentence, there's no information provided in
this
indictment linking you to any crime. I have spoken to numerous
lawyers
who find
this extraordinary.
DeLAY: It's very extraordinary, in fact, my own lawyers think this
is
good, we
can get rid of this case fairly quickly because it's obvious they
have
no
evidence, nothing to substantiate any claims at all as it pertains
to
me.
[...]
HANNITY: This is an important point. Federal and state law require
that
indictments, that they must be specific enough to inform a defendant
exactly
what they are being accused of having done.
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh also made
substantively
similar
comments about the indictment on the September 29 broadcast of The
Rush
Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Uh, but that's beside the point. Here's the point. DeLay
is
innocent.
Hasn't been -- he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. All these
charges, all
these allusions to charges, all of these -- all of these horror
stories about
what Tom DeLay -- he's not been convicted of anything. And this
indictment
doesn't specify one thing. I don't want to beat a dead horse to
death,
but it
doesn't specify one thing that he did.
The indictment does not -- does not connect Tom DeLay to any -- any
crime! Not a
single fact is alleged in this indictment. And experienced lawyers
will tell
you -- lawyers who have seen gazillions of indictments will tell you
that
indictments carry a list of charges. That's how you know what you're
being
charged with! You know, you have -- when you're -- when you're
accused
and
you're being charged, you have a right to know what it is. There's
nothing in
this indictment that specifies what DeLay did.
So you have to ask, do we still live in the United States of
America?
If
someone's charged with a crime, they have a legal right to know
exactly what it
is they're being accused of. Otherwise, they can't defend
themselves.
If we
can't accept that principle and defend that principle, then just how
far have
we sunk as a movement, and as a party, and as a country? Throw the
guy
out.
Because we don't think he's going to be effective anymore?
[...]
If -- if some hack local prosecutor can bring an indictment at the
11th hour
based on no facts whatsoever, then our -- our Democratic
institutions
are
endangered.
People ask - I've got emails all over. Well, how can this happen?
How
can -- how
can -- how can some prosecutor just level an indictment with no
charge? How can
it happen? That's the power they have. That's why there are such
phrases as
abuse of power. Prosecutors are invested with a lot of it. You'll
hope
they use
it wisely and responsibly. But what can you do? If you're the victim
of it,
what can you do?
But, as The Washington Post noted, there is nothing extraordinary
about the
form of the DeLay indictment: "Texas law permits such evidence to be
left out
of the indictment, so it is rarely included."
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200509300006
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Voter" |
|
| Title: Re: Fox News Lied to Protect DeLay |
30 Sep 2005 06:29:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:25:55 GMT, GW Chimpzilla wrote:
Fox News host, analyst, guest all ignored Texas law to falsely claim DeLay
indictment based on weak evidence
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200509300006
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/29/delays-case-against-delay
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
