Pretty lengthy summary of the case so far. Good quote in there from
Terry Keel (R) former House Rep HD47, who worked for Earle and says Earls is not being partisan. He just can't stand campaign finance crime. Keel however says Earle won't get a conviction on DeLay. I hope the author, Rob Patterson, is also wrong when he says that DeLay's motion for a venue change, is likely to be decided in DeLay's favor. That would be so wrong!:grr:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/12/earle/index.html(snip)
Civil cases are usually based on a standard of negligence and the damage caused by it. But the TRMPAC suit was decided on a violation of the prohibition against using corporate funds in the Texas election code. "It's the same law for both civil and criminal," Crews points out. "Yeah, there are different standards to be applied. But the constitutional analysis is the same in both the civil and the criminal side of the fence."
DuBose notes that the judge who decided that case, Joe Hart, is "a conservative judge who deliberated for weeks and weeks and came to a very clear conclusion that what TRMPAC did was a violation of Texas law."
"For the judge to find that it was a violation of the election code was the stake in the heart that opened the door. I doubt that whoever hears this case will ultimately see that issue in a way that is significantly different from Judge Joe Hart," says Crews.
Amid the speculation, there is little indication that Earle has a smoking gun with DeLay's fingerprints on it. He recently conceded that he has only a "facsimile" of the list that specified which candidates were to receive the $190,000 in contributions, and not the actual document. Not having the document itself could cripple a key aspect of the case.
Sonia