"If you can look at that indictment and figure out what it says was done wrong, you are a better man than I am," DeGuerin said.
This Austin-Statesman article from Saturday had a good recap of the facts at issue.
It sounds like DeLay, thinking he could talk his way out of an Indictment, has his previous lawyers arrange an "interview." He wanted to avoid indictment, because of the rule Newt Gingrich put in place, that any Republican indicted had to give up his leadership post. No way did DeLay want to be just an ordinary member of Congress:
In August 2005, with time running out on his criminal investigation because of the statute of limitations, Earle asked DeLay and his lawyers for a 30-day extension and suggested DeLay give his side of the story in a face-to-face meeting with prosecutors. DeLay agreed to the extension and the meeting. He reasoned that it was his best chance to avoid indictment, which he wanted to do at all costs.
That's because of a long-ago reform, championed by Gingrich when he became speaker of the U.S. House in 1995. Gingrich promised that any member of the Republican leadership would resign if indicted. It became a rule of the GOP House caucus, one that Democrats never adopted. That rule put DeLay's leadership post at risk.
DeLay made a mis-statement during the debriefing. He talked about it later on talk shows.
After he was indicted, DeLay complained to talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he mistakenly told prosecutors he knew about the $190,000 check before it was sent to the Republican National Committee.
"I misspoke one sentence — one sentence — and they have based all of this on one sentence," DeLay said. "They think that before the (Texas) check was cut and sent to the national committee, that I approved this check. I didn't know this went on until well after it happened," DeLay told Limbaugh.
The transcript the meeting is likely to be introduced into evidence, and it will be up to jurors how to interpret his answer.
The article also says the decision to indict DeLay was not unanimous among prosecutors in the office, but Ronnie Earle "made the final call." DeGuerin argued in pleadings Ronnie Earle engaged in grand-jury shopping and other grand juries refused to indict DeLay. From an AP article at the time:
DeLay was indicted Sept. 28 on a charge of conspiracy as a grand jury's term was expiring. But questions were raised about whether the law on which the indictment was based was in effect at the time of the alleged conspiracy.
Earle went to a second grand jury still in session, but that grand jury declined to vote an indictment. On Monday, a third grand jury indicted DeLay on money laundering charges.
In 2005, DeGuerin wrote in a letter to the DA that before being indicted, DeLay turned down a misdemeanor offer in the case.
The letter, which characterizes the offer as an attempt to coerce a plea from DeLay, accompanied a series of motions that DeGuerin filed in court. These include a motion for a speedy trial, a motion to dismiss the indictments for failure to allege wrongdoing by DeLay, and a motion seeking severance of DeLay's case from his co-defendants.'
DeLay did get a severance. His codefendants will be tried separately. Here's an article listing the witnesses each side plans to call.
It's been a while since I've thought about this case, but our Tom DeLay Indictment archive has 45 posts on the case from 2005 - 2006 by me, TChris and Last Night in Little Rock.
