WB: Enter the Turd Blossom ++

Back to Main

September 30, 2005

III. Another Partisan Fanatic

—

II. Pinch and Judy Show

—

But it would be funny if after all his posturing and protestations of innocence, DeLay shuffled into the courtroom and copped an Agnew. Still, stranger things have happened. It might also be the prudent thing, if, as some rumors have it, one or both of DeLay’s co-conspirators have started singing to the grand jury.

I. Enter the Turd Blossom

Posted by b on September 30, 2005 at 06:16 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Copping an Agnew?
Is that anything like Flailing a Mitchell (male and/or female version)?

Posted by: RossK | Sep 30 2005 6:20 utc | 1

Ot, or is it?
Does anybody have a running tally, of corruption in one place?
Lets see, delay, frist, rove, Santorum , oh and Sen. Harry Reid The money that led to the indictment this week of two Las Vegas pastors and the wife of one of them came from federal grants arranged by Sen. Harry Reid in September 2001, a Reid spokeswoman said Wednesday.
Did I leave out any?
Also, does it strike a cord w/anyone else w/regards to Santorum’s ‘AccuWeather scandal’ above in light of hurricanes Rita, and katrina?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 30 2005 8:36 utc | 2

RE: Grand jury foreman
First, let me state that I was a prosecutor in two Texas counties for 8 years. Since then, I’ve been a criminal defense attorney for about the same time, so I’ve been on both sides. I’ve presented many many cases to the grand jury. I can tell you that it isn’t an overstatement to say that, by and large, the grand jury does whatever the prosecution wants it to. The main reason is that the prosecution controls whatever facts/witnesses are presented to the grand jury. Typically, when an indictment is sought, only one side of the case is presented. Questions from the grand jury members are entertained, but are usually brief and perfunctory. The defense is not entitled to be present or offer anything. On the other hand, when the prosecutor wants a “no-bill” on a particular case (in my experience, a problem case with a vocal victim,) all the deficiencies with the case are emphasized, and almost always the grand jury goes along. By the way, grand jury proceedings are secret, so that the DA can leave the grand jury and report to the victim, “well, they no-billed it. Don’t know why, can’t talk about it, it’s secret.” With that in mind, it’s not surprising to me that the grand jury foreman perceives that the grand jury was presented with the facts and rendered the correct legal decision (“probable cause to believe a felony was comitted”). I’m sure that DA Earle was extemely circumspect and careful in his grand jury presentation (not wanting any sort of unexpected surprise–grand juries do occasionally go off the rails) but how onesided it was is impossible to tell. It sure sounds like there’s going to be a trial, though–I see Delay’s hired the best criminal defense attorney in Texas: Dick DeGuerin.

Posted by: Stfish7 | Sep 30 2005 13:17 utc | 3

Stfish7–
So if it all comes back to Earle, as it should given the nature of the system, the big question is – is he fair?

Posted by: RossK | Sep 30 2005 16:51 utc | 4

Froomkin on Miller:

So what was Miller doing in jail? Was it all just a misunderstanding? The most charitable explanation for Miller is that she somehow concluded that Libby wanted her to keep quiet, even while he was publicly — and privately — saying otherwise. The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller’s way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.

Posted by: b | Sep 30 2005 17:44 utc | 5

Earle is probably as fair a prosecutor as you’ll find…”fair” is not a euphemism for lacking in backbone.

Posted by: Stfish7 | Oct 1 2005 4:10 utc | 6

Back to Main