MSNBC The Abrams Report - Transcript

MSNBC The Abrams Report - Transcript
Wednesday, September 28, 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

ABRAMS: Representative Carter, is it possible that this D.A. is just over zealous and possibly looking for a headline as opposed to purely political?

REP. JOHN CARTER (R), TEXAS: Absolutely. I understood what my colleague just said there, but the question is, where is the evidence? There is no evidence in this case. This case has been brought before now either six or seven grand juries for a period now of over two years. Ever grand jury has examined these facts and now as the statute of limitations is about to run out, they‘ve got a very, very weak case that‘s been presented to the grand jury and the politics is prevailing and of course, I honestly believe that they would have never gone to this much trouble if it hadn‘t been for the House rule that the Republicans (UNINTELLIGIBLE) said that he would step down from office, which he, of course did.

ABRAMS: Paul Burka look, you‘ve been following all the investigations, the case against DeLay, et cetera, are you surprised based on what you‘ve seen in the indictment that the D.A. Ronnie Earle has gone forward?

PAUL BURKA, "TEXAS MONTHLY": Well, not really. I think that Ronnie Earle was personally offended by the entire transactions that took place here, the manipulation -- what he saw as the manipulation of an election by corporate money. That‘s not a crime. So what he did was, I think this is a very technical crime. It‘s kind of a got-you violation of the law and I think that the people who make the argument that it‘s political will have that going for them. On the other hand, Ronnie Earle is not a political guy. That‘s not been his history.

ABRAMS: Here‘s Ronnie Earle again talking today about the indictment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EARLE: The indictment is an allegation. It‘s not proven. The law says that the duty of the prosecuting attorney is not to convict, but to see that justice is done. We have over the years prosecuted a number of elected officials and last count, that totals 15, 12 of whom were Democrats and three of whom were Republicans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: Brian Wice, I thought the duty of the prosecutor was to bring a case that you were pretty convinced you could win.

BRIAN WICE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Absolutely, Dan and I want to tell you something. Twenty-six years of practice, this indictment may not be the weakest I‘ve ever seen, but it‘s the leader in the clubhouse. You can look at this indictment and frankly, not see anything that Tom DeLay did wrong. Anybody who‘s ever seen an indictment alleging a criminal conspiracy understands that rule one in the play book is you set out in big, black, italic type, the overt act of the defendant allegedly engage in.

Dan, it is not enough that Tom DeLay knew what was going on or that he was present when all of this was allegedly happening. Unless you can show he had a role, managed, directed, assisted or aided in the commission of this offense, he‘s not guilty. And I want to tell you something, it‘s one thing for Ronnie Earle to talk about all those people, those politicians he‘s prosecuted. But the last time they teed up in Tarrant County in Fort Worth against Dick Deguerin, who your viewers just saw, Ronnie Earle‘s office trying to prosecute Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison got beat like a rented mule. It‘s one thing to indict. It‘s another thing to convict. And Ronnie Earle‘s track record...

ABRAMS: All right...

WICE: ... makes his office the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

ABRAMS: All right, fine, Brian, but is it fair—is it a fair criticism that he‘s political. I mean a guy who has prosecuted so many more Democrats than Republicans—I mean look, maybe you can make the argument, look, he thought that DeLay‘s tactics were unfair, that what he did was wrong, et cetera, and now he‘s saying there‘s got to be a way to get him for that. Whatever the case may be, but is it fair to say this is purely political?

WICE: Whether it‘s fair or not, Dick Deguerin made a sealant point, Dan. Back in the day, we didn‘t have Republicans. They didn‘t exist. Texas was a one-party state. So when Ronnie says that he‘s indicted 12 Democrats and three Republicans, get him to say when it was that all happened...

ABRAMS: But does that matter? I mean if he was so political, if he‘s

again, if he‘s a guy who wants the Republicans out of office, then why would he even bother to investigate these Democrats?

WICE: But again that‘s ancient history. The people in power now are Republicans and ultimately what happened in this case coming down to the last day of this grand jury‘s term, to try to throw some Hail Mary, to try to get some indictment, again, whether it‘s political or whether it‘s bogus or whether it‘s B.S., you can call it whatever you want to. Again, it‘s definitely one of the weakest indictments I‘ve seen in 26 years.

ABRAMS: So Brad, explain to me as a legal matter, what you would presume they are going to have against DeLay, specifically.

BEERS: I would expect specifically, since the indictment quite frankly has more facts contained in it than a typical state court indictment and the facts are not out yet. That‘s why we have trials and I know that Dick is going to do a fabulous job of representing him like he does all of his clients. But what I would expect him to have is some direct evidence to show that an agreement was made at the outset. Here‘s why or how we‘re going to set up this committee. Here‘s what we‘re going to do.

(CROSSTALK)

BEERS: Texas has a very simple law that says corporations cannot make campaign contributions to candidates and that‘s whether you do it directly or indirectly.

ABRAMS: But Brad, don‘t you generally get that from co-conspirators testifying against them? In this case, it‘s two of his close friends who are almost certainly not going to testify against him.

BEERS: I don‘t disagree with that. I don‘t know what the situation is going to be with the co-defendants but you‘re right. Typically, the—we all sat down in the room and said testimony comes from somebody that‘s named in the indictment. But I would expect something is going to have to come forward in the way of direct evidence to show that Mr. DeLay had a role in saying we‘re going to get around Texas law in this fashion and here‘s how we‘re going to do it, even though he may not have physically gone out and said give me the check or write the checks in a certain fashion. The king pin never does the details.

ABRAMS: All right. Congressman, let‘s talk politics for a moment.

Does this hurt the Republican Party?

CARTER: Republican Party is moving forward exactly as if this hadn‘t happened. We follow the rules—our rules, which only pertain to the Republican Party. The Democratic Party does not remove its officers should they be indicted. Only the Republicans do that. We take the high ground.

On this issue, what everybody‘s missing here is the one element that they should see is the rule back in Washington that says he has to step down as the real driving force behind this 11th-hour indictment...

(CROSSTALK)

CARTER: ... and I agree, very weak indictment. The prosecutor in this group is presuming some things that there‘s no evidence that‘s there. I was on the bench for 21 years and it takes evidence to win these cases and an indictment is an accusation and yet today Tom DeLay was forced to resign because of a very, very weak accusation.

ABRAMS: Well, but it was also a grand jury indictment.

CARTER: A grand jury indictment is a legal accusation...

ABRAMS: Right.

CARTER: ... telling the state what it has to prove, telling the defense what he‘s charged with...

ABRAMS: But it...

CARTER: It‘s a charging instrument for the...

ABRAMS: Right, but let‘s be clear. It wasn‘t just the prosecutor filing a piece of paper as you can do sometimes. He had to go in front of a grand jury, although Texas has an interesting grand jury system...

CARTER: Well actually...

(CROSSTALK)

CARTER: ... in reality he went before seven grand juries, tried six and failed and kept going.

ABRAMS: Well, Brad Beers, is that true?

BEERS: I don‘t know if he went in front of seven grand juries, but frequently what happens is you use the grand jury to collect information and evidence and you may not ultimately present your case until a significant period of time has passed...

ABRAMS: Paul Burka...

BEERS: ... so thank goodness, there are confidential proceedings so nobody on your show today knows what was said in any of the grand juries or what action was taken in front of any of those grand juries.

ABRAMS: Paul Burka, was it six or seven grand juries?

BURKA: This investigation has been going on for almost three years, so each time presumably every six month there‘s been a new grand jury or there‘s been an extension. So it could very well have been six or seven grand juries.

ABRAMS: All right, let‘s talk about how this grand jury works. Brian, very interesting in this area. Basically, it‘s not just random citizens who are chosen to serve on the grand jury, right?

WICE: Absolutely not. It‘s the so-called grand jury commissioner system, Dan, which has made its way back and forth to the United States Supreme Court, essentially as a district judge, as Judge Carter will tell you in Williamson County where he served, you appoint three or more grand jury commissioners. They call up their friends, traditionally people would have nothing to do during the day. They come down. They sit in a room.

They determine whether or not—it‘s more likely than not—that a crime was committed and the defendant was the one responsible for it. And we‘ve all known, anybody that has seen this show over the years, Dan, love to hear the expression that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. Not only is that true, but it‘s more true in Texas. I‘ve served on a grand jury and I can tell you that that grand jury essentially doesn‘t do anything that Ronnie Earle didn‘t want it to do...

ABRAMS: Yes.

WICE: ... which is why it came down to the 11th hour...

ABRAMS: Yes, Brad Beers look, I‘ve covered a lot of Texas cases and yet I had forgotten about that and was kind of surprised when I saw that there‘s this system, which really you could argue, is very political in terms of who serves on the grand jury.

BEERS: Well political if you want to call it that, Dan, but then you‘re going to have to implicate the district judge in a grand jury proceeding that he has somehow appointed people that are going to appoint people who have a bias against a particular individual. The historic problem we‘ve had is, is that grand juries were made up of one race and there were not representative cross-sections of the community and that has been a more predominant problem with the grand jury system...

ABRAMS: All right...

BEERS: ... in the years gone by than today.

ABRAMS: All right. Interesting stuff. We shall follow this case. That‘s for sure. Congressman Carter, Paul Burka, Brad Beers, Brian Wice, thank you all. Good conversation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9529979/