Wednesday, October 05, 2005

The Contributor List to Delay's Legal Defense Fund

In case you're wondering just who is filling the coffers of scandal-scarred House Leader Tom Delay's legal defense fund, here's the list:


All_I_Can_Stands said...

Looks like a list of respectable people to me. What's the big deal?

Anonymous said...

the big deal is that these people are supporting a crook. he's guilty as sin, and they're leeting partisanship cloud their judgment.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

And your proof of his guilt is??? Oh yeah, he's a Republican so he must be guilty. Gee I hope that film crew gets a good zoom in of Earle's face when the judge throws it out of court. Maybe they got a good shot the other day when he realized they had indicted him for a law that did not even exist at the time of the alleged crime. What a joke.

Anonymous said...

The only joke here pal is you trying to paint Delay as innocent. Two indictments (by a Grand Jury, BTW, not Ronnie Earle. Earle just pesented his case, just like the attorneys for Delay did. It's the jury, not the prosecutor, that renders verdicts); 3 congressional admonishings...what the hell else more do you need?

All_I_Can_Stands said...

From the Grand Jury page on wikipedia:

"In practice, a grand jury rarely acts in a manner contrary to the wishes of the prosecutor"

Also: "Some argue that the grand jury is unjust as the defendant is not represented by counsel and/or does not have the right to call witnesses."

And of course the old adage: "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich"

So much for taking grand jury verdicts seriously. If a grand jury indictment is the equivalent of guilt, why bother with a trial? Still waiting for proof of guilt, pal. You folks never do come up with any of it.

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia? A nice idea, sure. And I love visitting Wiki.
But using a user vetted on-line blog of terms as a factual source?
Was webster's not friendly to your argument?

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Ok, so according to your theory grand juries are to be taken seriously. As the link below states, there were 3 grand juries in the Delay case:

We now know one refused to indict at all (which made Earle very angry)
We know one indicted Delay on a law that did not exist at the time of the alleged action
We know finally one indicted on laws that did exist at the time of the alleged action

So which of these 3 do we take seriously. The first one that did not even indict Delay? The second because even if the law did not exist, Delay is GOP and breaths so he deserves it? Or the third because they finally indicted for a law that did exist?

Take a grand jury seriously. Don't make me laugh. Try looking up seriously in Websters.;_ylt=AnR5jvUbM4QtTIdSfyU3gP0b.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-