• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

DeLay guilty of money laundering

Texan

Well-known member
Former Texas Rep. DeLay guilty of money laundering

Thursday, November 25, 2010
By Juan A. Lozano, The Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas -- Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- once one of the most powerful and feared Republicans in Congress -- was convicted Wednesday on charges he illegally funneled corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.

Jurors deliberated for 19 hours before returning guilty verdicts against Mr. DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He faces up to life in prison on the money laundering charge.

After the verdicts were read, Mr. DeLay hugged his daughter, Danielle, and his wife, Christine. His lead attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said they planned to appeal the verdict.

"This is an abuse of power. It's a miscarriage of justice, and I still maintain that I am innocent. The criminalization of politics undermines our very system and I'm very disappointed in the outcome," Mr. DeLay told reporters outside the courtroom. He remains free on bond, and his sentencing was tentatively set to begin on Dec. 20.

Prosecutors said Mr. DeLay, who once held the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives and whose heavy-handed style earned him the nickname "the Hammer," used his political action committee to illegally channel $190,000 in corporate donations into 2002 Texas legislative races through a money swap.

Mr. DeLay and his attorneys maintained the former Houston-area congressman did nothing wrong as no corporate funds went to Texas candidates and the money swap was legal.

The verdict came after a three-week trial in which prosecutors presented more than 30 witnesses and volumes of e-mails and other documents. Mr. DeLay's attorneys presented five witnesses.

"This case is a message from the citizens of the state of Texas that the public officials they elect to represent them must do so honestly and ethically, and if not, they'll be held accountable," Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said after the verdict.

Prosecutors said Mr. DeLay conspired with two associates, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, to use his Texas-based PAC to send $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee, or RNC. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under Texas law, corporate money can't go directly to political campaigns.

Prosecutors claim the money helped Republicans take control of the Texas House. That enabled the GOP majority to push through a Mr. DeLay-engineered congressional redistricting plan that sent more Texas Republicans to Congress in 2004 -- and strengthened Mr. DeLay's political power.

Mr. DeLay's attorneys argued the money swap resulted in the seven candidates getting donations from individuals, which they could legally use in Texas.

They also said Mr. DeLay only lent his name to the PAC and had little involvement in how it was run. Prosecutors, who presented mostly circumstantial evidence, didn't prove he committed a crime, they said.

Mr. DeLay has chosen to have Senior Judge Pat Priest sentence him. He faces five years to life in prison on the money laundering charge and two to 20 years on the conspiracy charge. He also would be eligible for probation.

The 2005 criminal charges in Texas, as well as a separate federal investigation of Mr. DeLay's ties to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, ended his 22-year political career representing suburban Houston. The Justice Department probe into Mr. DeLay's ties to Mr. Abramoff ended without any charges filed against Mr. DeLay.

Mr. Ellis and Mr. Colyandro, who face lesser charges, will be tried later.

Except for a 2009 appearance on ABC's hit television show "Dancing With the Stars," Mr. DeLay has been out of the spotlight since resigning from Congress in 2006. He now runs a consulting firm based in the Houston suburb of Sugar Land.



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10329/1105999-84.stm?cmpid=news.xml
 

Texan

Well-known member
DeLay's Guilty Verdict Could Reverberate in Other States

By ANA CAMPOY

AUSTIN, Texas—Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's conviction for money laundering in a state court here could inspire prosecutors in other states to target the methods used by politicians to raise and deploy corporate contributions.

A jury on Wednesday found Mr. DeLay knowingly funneled $190,000 in corporate donations to fellow Republicans running for the Texas Legislature in 2002, violating state laws that ban companies from contributing to candidates' campaigns.


Key Events in Tom DeLay's Rise and Fall

* Nov. 1984: Tom DeLay is elected to Congress, representing Sugar Land, outside Houston.
* Sept. 2002: Political action committee controlled by Mr. DeLay sends $190,000 to the Republican National Committee.
* Oct. 2002: The RNC donates $190,000 to seven Republicans running for seats in the Texas state legislature.
* Nov. 2002: Mr. DeLay is elected majority leader; Republicans win control of the Texas House.
* Feb. 2003: Mr. DeLay calls for redrawing of Texas' congressional districts.
* Oct. 2003: Texas Legislature enacts redistricting plan.
* Sept. 2004: A grand jury indicts three DeLay associates on charges that they illegally funneled corporate money to statehouse candidates.
* Nov. 2004: Republicans gain five congressional seats in Texas in the wake of redistricting.
* Sept. 2005: Mr. DeLay is indicted on charges of conspiring to violate Texas political fund-raising laws; he steps down as majority leader.
* Oct. 2005: Another grand jury indicts Mr. DeLay and two associates on charges of money laundering.
* June 9, 2006: Mr. DeLay leaves Congress.
* Nov. 24, 2010: Mr. DeLay is found guilty of money laundering in a Texas state court in Austin.

He was convicted on one count of money laundering, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 99 years, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, which has a penalty of up to 20 years. Mr. DeLay, whose sentence will be determined by a judge, could also receive probation.

Prosecutors said they haven't discussed whether to seek a prison term; sentencing is tentatively set for Dec. 20.

The outcome will likely reverberate throughout the other 22 states with similar bans on corporate contributions, discouraging politicians from employing similar techniques and emboldening prosecutors to go after them using the same strategy, some legal experts say.

The district attorney's office in Travis County, where the Texas state capital is located, successfully argued that swapping corporate contributions for those made by individuals for use in a political campaign constituted money laundering.

"It will put more people on notice that something which by one perspective might be considered as legal on the other can be characterized as money laundering," said Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School.

Mr. DeLay, 63 years old, who once commanded the House with a hard-hitting style that earned him the nickname "The Hammer," had been chatty and smiling for most of the trial. But he listened to the verdict with a somber expression. Afterward, he hugged his wife and daughter, then put his hands on his hips and sighed.

"This is an abuse of power," Mr. DeLay told reporters outside the courtroom. "It's a miscarriage of justice and I still maintain that I am innocent."

His lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said he would appeal the conviction, which the jury reached after 19 hours of deliberation. If the judge hands down a sentence of less than 10 years, Mr. DeLay would be eligible to stay out of prison on bond while he appeals.

The defense had said from the start that the charges were a political witch hunt aimed at punishing Mr. DeLay for his political prowess. The case against him was originally brought by Democratic district attorney Ronnie Earle, who has since retired.

Prosecutors said their only motivation was to enforce the law, adding that they recently tried a Democrat, State Rep. Kino Flores. (Mr. Flores was convicted of tampering with government records and perjury in October.)

Mr. DeLay attempted, without success, to move the trial out of largely Democratic Travis County. "This will never stand up on appeal," said Mr. DeGuerin.

"This case is a message from the citizens of the state of Texas that the public officials they elect who represent them must do so honestly," said Rosemary Lehmberg, Travis County district attorney. "If not, they will be held accountable."

The prosecution alleged that Mr. DeLay skirted the state ban on direct corporate donations to candidates using a sort of shell game. Corporate donations to Mr. DeLay's political action committee were transferred to an arm of the Republican National Committee; the same amount of cash, raised by the RNC from individual donors, was then donated to the candidates.

Those campaign dollars were credited with helping more Republicans win seats in the Texas House; they used their power to redraw congressional districts that favored Republicans, prosecutors argued.

The redistricting plan, which was engineered by Mr. DeLay, was later enacted by the Legislature. A number of longtime Democrats subsequently lost their congressional seats, increasing Mr. DeLay's own power and prestige.

The defense said the transfer of funds was legal, and that the money the RNC ultimately gave to the candidates didn't come from corporations. Mr. DeLay didn't testify.

While Mr. DeLay's conviction will probably dissuade others from trying similar money-swapping schemes, some legal experts say, the campaign-finance landscape has also changed since his indictment in 2005, and companies now have other ways to influence elections.

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that corporations have the same freedom-of-speech rights as individuals and are therefore allowed to spend their money on advertising or other efforts to support or oppose a candidate.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703678404575636942232850932.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
OCTOBER 6, 2005
Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor

ANDREW C. McCARTHY

The abuses of power in the Tom DeLay case should offend Democrats and Republicans alike.

If there is one thing liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on, it is this: Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous powers of prosecution.

I don’t know Congressman Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader. I certainly don’t know if he’s done anything illegal, let alone something so illegal as to warrant indictment. It doesn’t look like it–and at least one grand jury has already refused to indict him (a fact Earle appears to have tried to conceal from the public as he scrambled to find a new grand jury that would). Yet experience shows it is foolhardy for those who don’t know all the facts to hazard a judgment about such things.
One thing is sure, though, and it ought to make anyone who cares about basic fairness angry. The investigation of DeLay, a matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney–by Ronnie Earle.

For nearly 20 years, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor in the best law-enforcement office in the United States, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Being a prosecutor is the world’s greatest job because it is honest work for the highest cause–service to one’s own community. And it is work that has precious little to do with politics.

In their private lives, many of my fellow government lawyers were political independents, either by design (i.e., out of a conscious rectitude holding that law enforcement should be above politics) or because they were just apolitical. Most, as one would expect in New York, were Democrats. A large percentage, as, again, one would expect from a group of mostly young people educated in top schools, was proudly liberal. Over coffee, or lunch, or dinner, they and we few, hardy conservatives would have spirited debates over all manner of issues.

In the four corners of a case, however, none of that mattered a wit. Within those four corners, there were rules and responsibilities. There was recognition that prosecutors have breathtaking power over the lives of those they investigate. Power inarguably vital to the rule of law. But power which, if used recklessly or maliciously, can leave lives in tatters. The lives not only of the innocent and the guilty, but of the justice system itself.

This was especially so in investigations of political corruption. We prosecuted Republicans and Democrats, in about equal measure. The cases were hard, but checking your politics at the door was never hard, for at least two reasons.

First, there tends to be nothing ideological about the crimes committed by politicians. They are a stew of pettiness, greed and above-it-all arrogance over which neither party has a monopoly, and the offensiveness of which cuts across philosophical divides.

Second, some wrongs are simply not intended to be crimes. Among them are political wrongs: sleazy abuses of power, cronyism, most acts of nepotism, half-truths or outright lies in campaigns, etc. In a free society, these get sorted out in our bumptious political system. Usually, absent shades of financial fraud, bribery, and extortion, prosecutors should stay their hands. There are too many real crimes to waste resources on that sort of thing. More significantly, the risk of criminalizing politics would only discourage honest citizens from participating in matters of public concern.

The code prosecutors live by is not a liberal or conservative one. It is a code of ethics–of nonpartisan, non-ideological honor. Of course many prosecutors are ambitious. Of course prosecutors want to win. But even the ambitious ones who care a bit too much about winning quickly learn that success is intimately tied to doing things the right way. And not least because that is the norm their colleagues follow–as well as the standard by which the defense bar and the judiciary (populated by no small percentage of former prosecutors) scrutinize them. It is, moreover, the standard the public demands they meet.

People want to see the guilty convicted, but they also want to feel good about the way it is done. The prosecutor is the public’s lawyer, and his duty is not merely to get the job done but to get it done right. The second part is just as crucial as the first. They are equal parts of doing justice. No one expects perfection, which is unattainable in any human endeavor. But if the outcomes of the justice system are to be regarded as legitimate, as befitting a decent society, people have to be confident that if they stood accused, the prosecutor would enforce their rights and make sure they got a fair fight.

So there are certain things that are just flat-out verboten. Most basic are these: to resist public comment about non-public, investigative information; to abjure any personal stake in the litigation that could suggest decisions regarding the public interest are being made to suit the prosecutor’s private interests; and–if all that is not Sesame Street simple enough–to remain above any financial or political entanglement that could render one’s objectivity and judgment suspect.

In the profession, these things come under the hoary rubric of “avoiding the appearance of impropriety.” In layman’s terms, they are about having an I.Q. high enough that you know to put your socks on before your shoes. This is bedrock stuff. It is central to the presumption of innocence, due process, and equal protection under the law that prosecutors owe even the most despicable offenders. It is foundational to the integrity of the system on which rest our security, our economy, and our freedoms.

And Ronnie Earle has flouted it in embarrassing, mind-numbingly brazen ways.

As Byron York has been reporting on NRO (see here, here, and here), Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his Ahab’s pursuit of DeLay. A movie about a real investigation? Giving filmmakers access to investigative information while a secret grand-jury probe is underway? Allowing them to know who is being investigated and why? To view proposed indictments even before the grand jury does? Allowing them into the sanctuary of the grand jury room, and actually to film grand jurors themselves? Creating a powerful incentive–in conflict with the duty of evenhandedness–to bring charges on flimsy evidence? For a prosecutor, these aren’t just major lapses. They are firing offenses. For prosecutors such as those I worked with over the years, from across the political spectrum, I daresay they’d be thought firing-squad offenses.

-Attending partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an uncharged public official. As a moneymaking vehicle.

-Penning a nakedly partisan op-ed (in the New York Times on November 23, 2004) about the political fallout of his grand-jury investigation of DeLay, then uncharged.

-Settling cases by squeezing businesses to make hefty financial contributions to pet personal causes in exchange for exercising the public’s power to dismiss charges.

-Secretly shopping for new grand juries when, despite the incalculable advantages the prosecution has in that forum, the earlier grand jurors have found the case too weak to indict.

-Ignoring the commission by members of his own party of the same conduct that he seeks to brand felonious when engaged in by members of the other party.

Such actions and tactics are reprehensible. They constitute inexcusably dishonorable behavior on the part of a public servant, regardless of whether the persons and entities investigated were in the wrong. They warrant universal censure.

If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called to account. But he, like anyone else, is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial.

Ronnie Earle is not that prosecutor. He has disgraced his profession, and done grievous disservice to thousands of federal, state, and local government attorneys. Prosecutors of all persuasions whose common bond is a good faith commitment to the rules–but who will now bear the burden of suspicions fostered by Earle’s excesses.

The burden, but not the cost. That will be borne by the public.

–Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Don't know anything about the Delay mess. Unless he wins an appeal, I will have to assume he received and just and fair trial and I hope they send him away for a bunch of years. Crook is a crook Republican or Democrat!
 
Top