Tuesday, October 04, 2005


A question I haven't yet seen answered is why this legal strategy would make any sense:

The backdrop for Monday's action may have been a dispute over the continued viability of a waiver of the three-year statute of limitations that DeLay granted in writing on Sept. 12 in order to keep trying to persuade Earle not to issue any indictments. After last week's conspiracy charge, DeGuerin said the waiver was withdrawn.

Monday's indictments maintained that the waiver was still in effect. But DeGuerin said in an interview that Earle may have brought the new charges so speedily because he was uncertain of his ground on that issue. A key transaction in the alleged conspiracy -- the payment of $190,000 by the Republican National Committee to the Texas Republican candidates -- occurred on Oct. 4, 2002, or three years ago today.

For what possible reason would anyone waive something which would open up the door to prosection?

There's some discussion in this Kos diary about what this could mean. Not sure what to make of it myself.