You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
DeLay indicted on money-laundering charge
2005-10-04
Travis County prosecutors rushed Monday to fix problems with an indictment against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay by charging the Sugar Land Republican with the first-degree felony of money laundering.
Just a little problem, minor technicality, really...
Last week a Travis County grand jury ended its term by indicting DeLay on a charge that accused him of conspiring to violate state campaign finance laws. The problem with that indictment, according to DeLay's lawyers, was that the conspiracy law did not apply to the election code in 2002. The Texas Legislature changed the law, which went into effect Sept. 1, 2003. That left Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and his assistants presenting a complicated case to a group of grand jurors on their first day of meeting.

Prosecutors hoped to fix the problem by reindicting DeLay on charges that he conspired to launder corporate money into political donations. In 2002, the conspiracy law applied to money laundering. DeLay's lawyers knew about the problem with the indictment but waited until midafternoon Monday to file a brief asking a judge to dismiss it.

DeLay's filing represented an attempt at a quick knockout of the case so DeLay, the former U.S. House majority leader, could return to his leadership post in Congress. In the brief, DeGuerin argued that the conspiracy statute did not apply to the election code until the Legislature amended the law, effective Sept. 1, 2003, after the 2002 election.

In his letter, DeGuerin noted that DeLay was forced by Republican Party rules to step down as majority leader while he fought the charges.
"Since the indictment charges no offense, and since you have professed not to be politically motivated in bringing this indictment, I request that you immediately agree to dismiss this indictment so that the political consequences can be reversed," DeGuerin wrote. The district attorney's office had not returned calls for comment by late afternoon.

Last week a Travis County grand jury indicted DeLay on a state jail felony charge of conspiring with two of his associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington, to break state campaign finance laws. Specifically, the three were accused of agreeing to send $190,000 of corporate money to the Republican National Committee, which, in turn, donated the same amount of noncorporate money to seven Texas candidates' campaigns at the direction of Ellis, according to the indictment.
Which, by the way, is perfectly legal. But a little thing like that isn't going to stop Ronnie
The new indictment is based on the same set of allegations. State law generally prohibits corporate money being spent in connection with a campaign. DeLay's lawyers say there was nothing illegal about the transaction.
That's correct, both parties do it. The different types of money go into different accounts and are used for different things. For example:
TRMPAC raised corporate money, but they couldn't spend it on races in Texas.
The RNC raised hard money, which they could use anywhere they wanted. They also raised soft money, which they could use for operations, administration, and whatever else soft money can be used for.
TRMPAC sent a check of $190,000 which was the corporate money. RNC deposited that into their soft money account.
RNC then sent money ($190,000) to Texas from their hard money account for the legislative races.
There also probably will be a fight over whether the three-year deadline for indicting DeLay has expired.

In a letter to Earle, DeGuerin said DeLay is withdrawing his waiver of the statute of limitations to investigate him. Last month DeLay signed that waiver in an attempt to head off an indictment. The date on the $190,000 check to the committee is Sept. 13, 2002. The committee checks cut to candidates were dated Oct. 4, 2002.
Posted by:Steve

#8  Where is Jack Ruby when you really need him?
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2005-10-04 20:30  

#7  Earle has the habit of going after his perceived enemies via the grand jury system, indicting them for felonies. Look up the case of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. It's awful. It seems to be a good way to further his agenda without getting nailed for abuse of his office---at least so far. A prosecutor can use public expense to tie up someone a long time. They are on the offense with a virtually unlimited budget, and the defendant is hemmoraging money, time, and his reputation with no relief in sight. Gives one faith in the system, heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-10-04 20:14  

#6  Ooooohhh - remember Ronnie's hubris? The motion picture crew following him for the last three years while he cut and pasted this writ together? One of Delay's codefendants is subpoenaing all the film shot, in and out of grand jury room
Posted by: Frank G   2005-10-04 17:31  

#5  even if he is found
Posted by: ed   2005-10-04 16:49  

#4  It's Austin. Earle won't be kicked out even if he found with a dead girl or live boy in his bed.
Posted by: ed   2005-10-04 16:45  

#3  So he won't be kicked out even if every judge rules he's totally abused his power and disgraced the bar

Nope, they're more likely to throw him a parade. Only way to get him canned would be to find a picture of him rooting for the Sooners.
Posted by: Steve   2005-10-04 16:30  

#2  Ronie Earle's also elected in Austin, correct? So he won't be kicked out even if every judge rules he's totally abused his power and disgraced the bar
Posted by: Frank G   2005-10-04 13:23  

#1  This from National Review Online;
1. DeLay's legal team anticipated it. The original indictment would have been thrown out of court because the conspiracy law DeLay was accused of breaking did not apply to the election code in 2002. DeLay's legal team had already filed a motion to dismiss, which has not yet been ruled on because the judge is on vacation.

2. The original indictment was for conspiracy to violate the election code. This would not have held up in court (see 1). The new indictment, issued by a new grand jury, charges DeLay with conspiracy to commit money laundering. It also alleges that DeLay committed money laundering.

3. The new indictment centers around the same transaction as the old one: a transfer of $190,000 in corporate money from DeLay's Texas for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), which sent checks totaling approximately the same amount to Texas House candidates in October of 2002. Earle alleged that this constituted money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.

4. The new charges are just as flimsy as the old ones. Earle does not provide any new evidence in the indictment tying DeLay to the money transfer, but he doesn't have to show his hand until the trial.

5. Not only does Earle have to prove that DeLay knew about or facilitated the transaction, he also has to prove that the transaction constituted money laundering as defined by the Texas penal code. That's a stretch, considering that prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold), both parties engaged in this kind of soft-money for hard-money swap all the time for the purposes of funding state races. As I have noted here before, the Texas Democratic Party sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC on the same day. In fact, Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars from their national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans. At the national level, corporate soft money and personal hard dollars were fungible before McCain-Feingold took effect after the 2002 elections.

6. Ronnie Earle is abusing campaign-finance law to further his own agenda. The transactions that DeLay is accused of knowing about and facilitating are not commonly thought of as illegal transactions. But Ronnie Earle thinks they are wrong, and he thinks that he can convince a judge and a jury that Tom DeLay ought to be punished for his wrongdoing — even though it is pretty clear that he did not violate the law. We are about to find out if he is right.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2005-10-04 12:36  

00:00