I don't know about this particular case, but such waiver/tolling agreements are usually used by potential defendants to postpone action hopes of forestalling it altogether. Basically, the government says: sign this or we will indict you now.

Statutes of limitations are regularly waived for ongoing investigations. They are good at protecting from fishing expeditions into the distant past, but for an ongoing investigation, standing on you SoL rights are stupid.

As frankcross says above, he was likely asked, "Would you like to be indicted today, or would you like to waive the SoL"? This happens regularly, and the answer is always to waive.

He specifically said that he will not be arguing technicalities and the like. Rather, he wants robust vindication.

Mr. DeLay addressed this question in an interview with Bret Hume, available in transcript and video at Fox News.
Basically, the answer was to postpone action by the Grand Jury in hopes of forestalling it altogether, as mentioned by Frank Cross and Richard Bellamy.

The problem I have with Brett's theory is that, in today's political enviroment, unless one is found factually innocent, rather than simply not guilty, merely that the charges were brought is a political liability.

DeLay is not a dummy; he has a rep as a mean infighter who rose through the muck of Texas politics. I may be cynical, but he might be calculating that this case may play out to his ultimate benefit, with the concommitant permanent and final emasculation of an AG who has been a thorn in the Republicans' side. Even much of the MSM is leery of the validity of this indictment, given the sleazy history of the AG.

I believe the prosecutor is the Austin district attorney, not the Texas AG.

"[T]he prosecutor has in the past indicted something like 3x as many dems as repubs?"

That's because there are more crooked Democrats than Republicans.

duh.

Here is a slightly longer version of the story frankcross tells:

Prosecutor: "This doesn't look good for your client. We're gonna need a whole bunch of documents from him by Friday; can you accept service of the subpoena?"

White Collar Defense Attorney: "Look, we really ought to have a sit-down so you can hear our side of the story before you do anything dramatic, but my client's out of town. And we can't get you all those documents by Friday. How does a month from now sound?"

P: "I'd like to hear you out, but the clock is ticking on the statute of limitations. We really need those documents."

D: "We'll give you a tolling agreement [which treats the statutory limitation period as not running from now until, say, six months in the future, and therefore partially waives the defendant's rights under the statute]."

P: "Fine. Send over a form of agreement."

... and, scene.

(Query whether there wasn't an additional twist here in that DeLay may not be indictable while the House is in session.)

One more point: once the original indictment is filed, the SoL is satisfied, and the defendant need not be tried on that indictment. Rather, the investigation may continue, and the prosecutor may (and almost always does, at least in complex federal cases) file one or more "superceding indictments." (There are speedy trial concerns that come into play post-indictment, but largely for some of the pragmatic reasons already discussed, speedy trial limitations are routinely waived by defendants)

The thing is, DeLay has been railing about the partisan nature of this prosecutor for months. If you really believed the prosecutor was on a partisan witch hunt, you'd never agree to toll the statute of limitations merely on the hope that you might get him to understand the facts better, because a partisan witch-hunter wouldn't care about the facts.

In this context, the only way I can see a tolling agreement being reached is if bona fide plea bargain negotiations were in progress. Otherwise, there would be no point in dragging things out and giving the prosecutor even more time to prepare his case.

The reason DeLay waived the Statute of Limitations is to set precedence. This is going to get ugly and by doing what he did, it takes away EVERYONE ELSE's option to hide behind it. It is impossible to wrestle with a pig and not get muddy, especially since the pig likes it that way. Those who decided to attack DeLay knew there would be repurcussions, but never expected this. When it is their turn on the barrell, they have no chance of hiding behind the Statute unless they wish to give up public office forever. Nice move Tom.

If DeLay had been indicted before the 2004 elections, it might have had an effect on some of the hotly contested races for Congress in Texas - since this effect probably would not have been good for the GOP nominees in those races, it makes perfect sense for DeLay to seek to push indictment off until after the 2004 elections. The only way likely to do that is to waive the SoL. This is irrespective of whether he is guilty - if a prosecutor wants an indictment, he almost surely gets it.

Nick

I think Delay's waiver of the SoL creates serious problems for the meme that this is a partisan witchhunt.

Assuming it is a partisan witch hunt (and Delay knows it to be such):
A. There is no rational reason for Delay to agree to a tolling agreement, as Steve makes clear above, except for purposes of political timing (clearing the decks for the 2004, etc.)
B. If Delay's motivation is political timing, and he really really doesn't want this indictment coming down at some time x. A savvy partisan witch-hunter would make sure that x was precisely the time when the indictment was signed. He would not enter into or respect a tolling arrangement that aids the partisan he is trying to skewer.

Given the thinness of the indictment, it seems likely to me that the prosecutor either needed all the time he took or wasn't motivated by partisanship.

I hasten to add that from a partisan point of view, this is exactly the wrong time to indict. Elections are remote, Frist's trouble is in its infancy, the White House still has an incendiary SCOTUS nomination to deal, the political dominoes from the hurricanes are beginning to fall in Louisiana and Washington, and on Monday a new Chief Justice will begin his term. In a media environment like that, an unsexy campaign finance indictment is a three day story.

I doubt that the partisan label will stick well on Earle. If he is a partisan, he's not a terribly effective one. But then I doubt anyone will remember his name in two weeks anyway.

I don't think that necessarily follows. There is every reason for DeLay to seek to delay it until after the elections, even if the accusations have no merit and it's all a partisan witch hunt. Whether the charges are well-founded or not, this is going to generate a lot of press, and the election cycle is probably not the place for that.

Right, but if it were a political witch hunt, signing it in 2004 makes sense for Delay, but why would Earle offer it then? If Earle really wanted to screw with Delay with little interest in actual justice, why bother even offering that in the fall of '05? Why indict now when the new cycle is really at his disadvantage. Either he's a lousy witch hunter, or he didn't really care about that...

Another grand jury that just convened today indicted DeLay for money laundering. Some bloggers are calling Earl incompetent for filing defective charges the first time around and needing a "do over". Seems to me Earl may have played DeLay like a harp. Picture this: Earl wants the grand jury to indict DeLay on multiple charges, but its not clear what they are going to do. Earl gets DeLay to sign a waiver that allows Earl to give another grand jury (one that hasn't even convened yet!) an additional opportunity to indict DeLay. Net result: DeLay is indicted for conspiracy by the first grand jury and money laundering by the second. Far from being incompetent, looks to my like Earl not only knew exactly what he was doing, he played DeLay!