What the MSM doesn’t report about DeLay

As the MSM continues to treat the indictments of Delay as sure signs of guilt, they ignore this:

The most compelling piece of evidence cited by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to implicate House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in a money laundering and conspiracy case can't be located, Earle's prosecution team admitted on Friday.

Indictments against DeLay and fundraisers Jim Ellis and John Colyandro allege that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002, reports the Houston Chronicle.

The document was touted as proof that DeLay was part of a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But Earle's prosecution team told the court on Friday that they had only a "similar" list and not the one allegedly given to the RNC. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates in Texas, but fewer than half are alleged to have received money as part of the alleged DeLay plot.

DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin immediately pounced on the development, telling the Chronicle that the lack of a list "destroys" Earle's case against the three men.

"That's astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list," DeGuerin said.

Prosecutor Earle engaged in similar tactics in 1993, when he twice indicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for misuse of campaign funds, only to have the case dismissed both times. Earle indicted a third time, but when the case went to trial he failed to produce any evidence and was forced to dismiss all charges.

Here is Rush Limbaugh’s reaction:

Now, folks, let me give you a quick crash course here in the law. Go ask -- if you know any -- go ask a defense lawyer. If a prosecutor gets a grand jury to indict in a case like this and there's no list of these candidates, then there is no basis for the indictment. You're going to have people scratching their heads saying, "Wait a minute. How do you get an indictment here? How do you even get an indictment when there's no list? The list is the evidence, and there's no evidence to support the indictment," and what you're going to be told is that this is unfathomable. What happens is, is that the grand jury is given all the evidence and told it adds up to this, and that prosecutors, "We want you to indict."

How many grand juries refused to indict? Was it one or two before they got the first one to indict on the conspiracy charge? There were two grand juries that refused to indict. Now we know why. Then they got the third grand jury with that foreman who went on KLBJ in Austin and admitted that the evidence in the grand jury room meant nothing to him, that he had already formed the basis of DeLay's guilt on television commercials that he didn't like and we found a connection that that foreman has to a defeated sheriff's office candidate who blamed his defeat on DeLay. Then that indictment turned out to be flawed because it didn't even specify a crime within the correct date range, the time that the crime was alleged to have occurred, it wasn't a crime, so he had to tear that one up and go to a different grand jury, come back with this money laundering indictment, but there's no list.

Limbaugh goes after the MSM on how they have handled the allegations;

In the DeLay case, there has not been any suspicion of the prosecutor at all on the part of the mainstream press. Ronnie Earle... In fact, there have been profiles how he's not political. "Oh, no, no, no! He doesn't have political enemies. Why, that's Democrats. Twelve out of 15 political people he's indicted have been Democrats." Conservative Democrats in his way, but we don't get that little added nugget thrown in. Throughout this story, "Sources close to the investigation say--" and somehow sources close to the investigation are never wrong?

"Sources close to the investigation" can be cited as lock, stock and barrel accurate? They're never named? Apparently my first theory on this was true. What they really want is simply the destruction of DeLay's character and to get him out of the legal ability to be the leader in the House. They want him to have -- because the House rules are, if you're indicted you have to give up your leadership positions, and DeLay did, and this is all about stopping the Republican agenda in the House of Representatives. There's no evidence to support the indictment. It's purely political, it appears, and yet I can't find much news. This story hit Friday. I didn't see a whole lot of this news in the mainstream press, did you? Folks, in any other circumstance, I guarantee you, if Ken Starr had ever gotten his grand jury to indict say Bill Clinton or high-ups in that administration and it was learned that there was no evidence to support the indictment, that's all you would have heard about for three weeks. Starr would have been run out of town on a train, Amtrak or whatever. But here we have scant notice of this.

Limbaugh then continues going after the MSM, but this time in regard to the Plame case:

Now we move over to the Valerie Plame business. The media, which has Karl Rove indicted, convicted, resigned, which has Scooter Libby indicted, convicted and resigned, and they're hoping the same with Vice President Cheney and maybe President Bush -- know nothing. There hasn't been one indication from a source close to the investigation of where this prosecution is headed. They don't know. They are inferring everything from what witnesses who come out of the grand jury, those who do talk about their appearance, are saying.

Now, if you take a look at Judy Miller and this big brouhaha in the New York Times, what you have to conclude, it's very simple. It isn't complicated at all. She doesn't remember who told her Valerie Flame's [sic] identity. That's how she referred to her in her notes: Valerie "Flame." Well, I thought before she went and testified, it was Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby gave her the waiver a year ago and reaffirmed it as a personal waiver just weeks ago, and that got her out of jail, and "I don't remember," right out of the Hillary Clinton how to testify before a grand jury handbook. I can't recall. I don't remember. She doesn't know who told her the identity of Valerie Plame? Well, if she's going to say that, how can you conclude it was Scooter Libby? Only if you want to. There's so much about this story that has been misreported because there are hopeful assumptions being made.

Limbaugh then brings in Bush and how the MSM is helping the Democrats create a negative environment:

Everybody is talking: "Bush administration had a tough week this week, the next couple weeks. Indictments going to be coming down. Rove may have to quit." They don't know diddly-squat, and the last time I looked the Bush administration has gone through a lot of hard weeks. They went through a bunch of hard weeks in the 9/11 investigation.

They went through a lot of hard weeks, the 60 Minutes putting Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke face first for two or three segments on 60 Minutes to talk about their books about what a rotten guy Bush was; what a liar he is. We've had Cindy Sheehan up there. We've had all of these things that the left has dragged forth to try to destroy Bush since -- well, basically since he was inaugurated, but the real intense effort was after 9/11, and yet the administration has withstood it all. They might say, "Well, poll numbers are way down. He's weak." Yet the Democrats still forget. Have you seen the polls on congressional Democrat approval in the Congress? They're lower than Bush's. Bush's number is at 42%. Democrats in Congress are in the mid-thirties? Well, they ignore that.

It is so funny to watch the Democrats and their MSM cohorts continue to think they can lie to the American people and demonize their opponents by creating scandals out of thin air. They still don’t understand that more and more Americans don’t rely on the MSM. The MSM has little credibility. We now know that the MSM can no longer be trusted. We still remember Dan Rather and the fake documents.