Tuesday, October 18, 2005

False prosecution of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro by TX Democrat zealot D.A. Ronnie Earle

A stunning revelation here shows that when it comes to ham-handed political indictments used as political hit weapons against Texas Republicans in the U.S. Congress and Republican fundraisers, Texas District Attorney for Travis County Ronnie Earle doesn't let the simple fact that he has no evidence stand in his way.

If one Grand Jury refuses to indict, Earle simply demands another, tells them that he has the necessary evidence and bullies them into taking his word for it. In other words, he goes Grand Jury shopping until he gets one that will give him the political victory that he wants.

This is all about Earle's political hits to do as much political damage to his targets as possible.... and using Grand Juries and the Criminal Courts to accomplish it.

Seems to me Earle, himself, is violating both ethics and the law to use the power of the office of District Attorney to bring about indictments against his political enemies based upon material false statements and non-existent evidence.

So, let's see some proof from this partisan prosecutor on the public payroll that his so-called "evidence" ever existed in the first place. It's hard to believe that the D.A.'s office would be unable to keep up with such critical "evidence...." or at least to have a true and certified copy of such important "evidence" to show the Court.... instead of just a laundry list of Republicans.

And, surely Earle wasn't simply banking on the fact that Tom DeLay would accept a plea bargain deal, the offer of which betrayed the weakness of Earle's case and was roundly refused by DeLay. Anybody stupid enough to play a weak hand like that would be just as well off not to ever play poker....

Now would be a perfect time for the citizens of Texas to demand that this political partisan zealot be removed from the public payroll and held to account for multiple incidents of misuse of his power and office for political gain and making material false statements to multiple Grand Juries. Earle's next appearance in court should be as a defendant in a false prosecution and libel lawsuit brought by Tom DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro.

You can read about the missing evidence and DeLay's attorney's subsequent reaction to the news of this amazing turn of events, below or at the above link.
"Ronnie Earle: DeLay Evidence Missing"

"The most compelling piece of evidence cited by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to implicate House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in a money laundering and conspiracy case can't be located, Earle's prosecution team admitted on Friday.

Indictments against DeLay and fundraisers Jim Ellis and John Colyandro allege that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002.... The document was touted as proof that DeLay was part of a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

....Earle's prosecution team told the court on Friday that they had only a "similar" list and not the one allegedly given to the RNC. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates in Texas, but fewer than half are alleged to have received money as part of the alleged DeLay plot.

DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin immediately pounced on the development, telling the Chronicle that the lack of a list "destroys" Earle's case against the three men. "That's astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list," DeGuerin said.

Prosecutor Earle engaged in similar tactics in 1993, when he twice indicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for misuse of campaign funds, only to have the case dismissed both times. Earle indicted a third time, but when the case went to trial he failed to produce any evidence and was forced to dismiss all charges...."

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

HUGH HEWITT.... on the reasons why Harriet Miers is qualified to serve....

Great article from Hugh Hewitt to remind the GOP faithful that Harriet Miers has some very positive and unprecedented qualifications that are being overlooked in the rush to dismiss her carte blanche as a "crony" whom they cannot "know for sure" up front "how she will vote" if approved for the Supreme Court.

You can read it below or here. My question is: just what kind of guarantee or passed "litmus test" were the "faithful" expecting from Miers? After all, the "faithful" are the same people who would not accept a "litmus test" for John Roberts or other previous Bush nominees.

I, too, was surprised by the Miers nomination by Bush. Like everyone else, I had my favorites like Priscilla Owen, who is younger and would be on the court longer.... Yet, Owen does not have Miers' breadth of experience and outstanding accomplishment of being the first female White House Counsel to the President.

Or McConnell or Luttig.... either of whom may be among those who declined a chance to be the nominee because the advise and consent process is so brutal, ugly and light years away from what the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they loosely defined the process. It took politicians in Congress---who don't understand the Constitution---to distort and pollute the process, making it unconstitutional in their quest for wresting power from the Executive Branch.

Harriet Miers has yet to be heard. I look forward to hearing what this outstanding and accomplished legal professional has to say. Likely, she will be well able to teach a few things to many of the "faithful" who do not know her, yet are jumping the gun, wringing their hands, and making unsubstantiated claims that she has no grasp of constitutional law. How do they know....? Surely no one believes that because they cannot see, hear or read of it, Miers' understanding of the Constitution and the body of law pertaining to it do not exist....

So, best to keep our powder dry and give the nominee a chance.... without pre-judgment and indignation that Bush picked someone unexpected and out of our comfort zone....
"Miers mire: For one, she is an evangelical Christian who was willing to immerse herself as a servant leader in her theologically conservative Dallas church"

"President Bush early on Monday, Oct. 3, nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers, 60, to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. The debate about her qualifications went on all week and will continue, with many conservative pundits irate about the choice, since she fails the "we know for sure how she will vote" test, and was dismissed by some as a "crony" of the president's, unqualified to serve.

Some facts about the nominee: She is the White House Counsel, the lawyer to the presidency, and has also served as Deputy Chief of Staff and Staff Secretary in the Bush White House (a job of significant power and coordination responsibility.) She has been at the White House since George Bush took office, and throughout every day of the Global War on Terror.

Before going to Washington, she had a long and distinguished career in the law, becoming managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm: That means she was, in effect, the CEO of a good-sized business concern with thousands of support employees, huge contracts, and all the liabilities and legal issues that go with managing such an operation. She served as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association and as a member of the Dallas City Council.

She is an evangelical Christian who immersed herself in the life of her theologically conservative Dallas church, willing to be a servant leader in the best sense of that term in everything from missions work to teaching Sunday school. For most of her life she did not live in Washington, D.C., and did not absorb the City's unusual status measures.

It is true Ms. Miers hasn't been a professor, a judge, a talk show host or a columnist. Millions of Americans might find that very reassuring indeed."