Weird. Apparently, Ronnie Earle figured out the original indictment against DeLay was one that wouldn’t hold water, in that he was indicted for something that isn’t a crime, and went before a Grand Jury today and got a separate indictment for money laundering.
Your guess is as good as mine as to what the hell is going on. I will have links when there are some. This just happened.
Basic link here.
*** Update ***
Just so we are clear, as JCricket points out in the comments, I may be completely wrong about the initial charge. And before the jackasses start accusing me of shilling for DeLay (because you know they will), I have wanted no part of DeLay for years and have been publicly calling for his resignation for months.
*** Update ***
The new indictment comes hours after DeLay’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the first case. That motion was based on the argument that the conspiracy charge against DeLay was based on a law that wasn’t effective until 2003, the year after the alleged money transfers.
“Since the indictment charges no offense, and since you have professed not to be politically motivated in bringing this indictment, I request that you immediately agree to dismiss the indictment so that the political consequences can be reversed,” attorney Dick DeGuerin wrote in a letter to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
The judge who will preside in DeLay’s case is out of the country on vacation and couldn’t rule on the motion. Other state district judges declined to rule on the motion in his place, said Colleen Davis, a law clerk to Austin attorney Bill White, also represents DeLay.
George Dix, a professor at the University of Texas law school who is an expert in criminal law and procedure, said he doesn’t believe changes made to the Texas election code by the 2003 legislature have any effect on the conspiracy charge.
The penal code’s conspiracy charge allows for the charge if the defendants allegedly conspired to commit any felony, including an election code felony.
Just because the election code was “silent” on the penal code provision until 2003, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a valid charge before 2003, Dix said.
“To me it just says, ‘We really mean what we said implicitly before,’” Dix said.
Make of it what you will.