The bulk of the case will go to showing that the transfer of funds from one organization to the other was intended to circumvent the law.
Since the simplest way to get money to TX politicians would seem to be writing them some checks, couldn't one infer an intent to evade the law if it's proven that TRMPAC settled on the more complex arrangement?
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board slips in this: "Mr. Earle had indicted three other DeLay associates in the same case in September 2004, just six weeks before the last election. Followers of the case have speculated that, as he saw his legal bills mount, one of those three may have decided to testify against Mr. DeLay."
This is just embarrassing (sorry; I'm reading through the Note, and I keep finding goodies):
"Yesterday the DeLay Era ended. DeLay fell victim to his willingness to push right up against the campaign finance laws for the good of the team. Remember, DeLay didn't do anything for personal enrichment. If he committed a crime, he did it for the sake of the team."
That's so typical David Brooks. Follow step 1 and 2, but miss step 3. It's like everyone knows that in politics power and debts aren't a form of riches, and it's even more absurd that greater political oomph ever translates into greater financial enrichment for one and one's relatives or friends.
The bulk of the case will go to showing that the transfer of funds from one organization to the other was intended to circumvent the law.
Since the simplest way to get money to TX politicians would seem to be writing them some checks, couldn't one infer an intent to evade the law if it's proven that TRMPAC settled on the more complex arrangement?
Posted by dj moonbat | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 8:32 PM
I'm waiting for one of those Law and Order gotcha moments where Delay goes crazy on the stand!
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 9:22 PM
Josh Marshall and others have the theory that sometime very recently, Earle got somebody involved to testify.
Posted by Barry | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 7:21 AM
This is off topic, but it looks like commenters Fortune and Asta are some kind of spam bot.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 7:47 AM
I don't get Asta. Why spam a link to an e-mail address? (And BG, shame on you.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:06 AM
I guess that I made a mistake, didn't mean to.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:20 AM
No, they were definitely spammers. "Shame on you" was for going off-topic.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:31 AM
Oh, got it.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:42 AM
From the latest spammery, maybe Fortune is linking to the e-mail address. So, what's the incentive?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:45 AM
I like 6 as a response to having gone off topic, and will read it that way.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:47 AM
Why spam a link to an e-mail address?
A fine question. I have no idea, but we get bunches of those every day.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:52 AM
From the WSJ ed page, courtesy of The Note:
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:53 AM
I don't like not knowing what they're up to. Brrrr.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 8:53 AM
This is just embarrassing (sorry; I'm reading through the Note, and I keep finding goodies):
The Corner? Powerline?
No -- David Brooks.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 9:09 AM
That's so typical David Brooks. Follow step 1 and 2, but miss step 3. It's like everyone knows that in politics power and debts aren't a form of riches, and it's even more absurd that greater political oomph ever translates into greater financial enrichment for one and one's relatives or friends.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-29-05 10:05 AM