Article

2005-10-04 Home Front: Politix

DeLay indicted on money-laundering charge

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-10-04 10:41|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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 â 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">Deacon Blues 2005-10-04 12:36|| 2005-10-04 12:36|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2005-10-04 13:23|| 2005-10-04 13:23|| Front Page Top

#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">Steve 2005-10-04 16:30|| 2005-10-04 16:30|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-10-04 16:45|| Front Page Top

#5 even if he is found

Posted by ed 2005-10-04 16:49|| 2005-10-04 16:49|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2005-10-04 17:31|| 2005-10-04 17:31|| Front Page Top

#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">Alaska Paul 2005-10-04 20:14|| 2005-10-04 20:14|| Front Page Top

#8 Where is Jack Ruby when you really need him?

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-10-04 20:30|| 2005-10-04 20:30|| Front Page Top

00:09 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:51 Red Dog
23:49 VAMark
23:38 Justrand
23:31 VAMark
23:26 .com
23:03 Grunter
22:58 CrazyFool
22:51 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:43 Rafael
22:40 Scott R
22:37 Frank G
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:17 SteveS
21:52 .com
21:51 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
21:43 Barbara Skolaut
21:38 Robert Crawford
21:37 Robert Crawford
21:36 .com
21:36 Robert Crawford
21:35 Robert Crawford
21:34 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom