Tom DeLay Indicted on Charges of Criminal Conspiracy

sweetnpetite

Intellectual snob
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Posts
9,135
DeLay Indicted in Texas Finance Probe
He Steps Aside as House GOP Leader to Fight Conspiracy Charge in State Elections

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 29, 2005; Page A01

A Texas grand jury indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) yesterday on a charge of criminally conspiring with two political associates to inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 state elections that helped the Republican Party reorder the congressional map in Texas and cement its control of the House in Washington.

The indictment forced DeLay, one of the Republicans' most powerful leaders and fundraisers, to step aside under House rules barring such posts to those accused of criminal conduct. House Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the third-ranking leader, was elected by Republican House members yesterday afternoon to fill the spot temporarily after conservatives threatened a revolt against another candidate considered by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

Although the indictment had been rumored for weeks among top Republicans, based on what several described as a difficult meeting in August between DeLay and the Texas prosecutor behind the case, it shook the GOP political establishment and posed new problems for the party as it heads into the midterm elections next year.

DeLay bitterly denounced the charge as baseless and defiantly called the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, "an unabashed partisan zealot" engaging in "personal revenge" because DeLay helped elect a Republican majority to the Texas House in 2002. "I have the facts, the law and the truth on my side," DeLay said, reading from a statement, before declining to answer questions.

But the indictment, which comes after three rebukes of DeLay in 2004 by the House ethics committee on unrelated matters, poses a major political problem for the 58-year-old Bush administration loyalist, 11-term congressman, and self-described champion of free enterprise and deregulation. DeLay is also likely to face an inquiry by the ethics committee into a series of foreign trips he took that were initially partly paid for by lobbyists.

The indictment specifically alleges that DeLay, who helped organize the Texas political committee at the heart of the charge, participated in a conspiracy to funnel corporate money into the 2002 state election "with the intent that a felony be committed."

Using corporate funds for state election purposes has long been illegal in Texas, as it is in 17 other states. Earle's probe of the contributions began after 17 Republicans who received the committee's funds were elected, giving the party control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years. One year later, following a road map that DeLay and his political aides drafted from Washington, the Texas House approved a sweeping reorganization of the state's congressional district map meant to favor Republicans.

Then, in 2004, five more Texas Republicans were elected to Congress, enlarging the Republican majority in the House .

The facts of one of the central transactions at issue in the case have never been in dispute -- the transfer in September 2002 to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington of $190,000 in corporate funds collected by the committee in Texas and the subsequent donation by the RNC arm of $190,000 to seven Texas House candidates on Oct. 4, 2002.

Earle has long alleged that this transfer was intended to circumvent the Texas law. A copy of the relevant check from the Texas committee has been in his hands for more than a year, and he has repeatedly said the committee supplied the RNC with a list showing which Texas candidates should eventually be paid the funds.

Some evidence collected in a related civil case has pointed to heavy involvement by DeLay in the operations of the Texas committee. Its start-up was financed by a transfer of corporate funds from his leadership fund. He was a member of the Texas committee's advisory board in 2001 and 2002, participated in its strategizing, appeared at its fundraisers, and signed its solicitations. He also attended dinners with corporate donors that agreed to contribute tens of thousands of dollars to it; his fundraisers recorded the favors that donors sought.

But DeLay has long denied participating in its day-to-day operations and said that its activities were vetted by lawyers. As a result, the key question in Washington and Austin has been whether DeLay knew about the $190,000 transactions -- an allegation that lawyers say could be proved only by documentary evidence, such as an e-mail, or in grand jury testimony by one of those involved.
 
For DeLay to be guilty, he would have had to have both been informed of the transaction and approved the transaction, according to a source familiar with the details of case. David Berg, a Houston-based trial lawyer who wrote a best-selling legal textbook, said: "Politics in Texas is a real jungle, and money of this sort, I would suspect, gets washed all the time. [But] it would be illegal if [he] knew that corporate funds were going to be laundered and used in the state races. . . . I can't imagine somebody is not going to testify against [him]. Otherwise all Ronnie Earle can prove is that everything DeLay did is legal."

No evidence to support the conspiracy charge was cited in the indictment, which says only that DeLay and two named associates entered "into an agreement with one or more of each other" or with the committee to conduct the funds transfer. But Texas law permits such evidence to be left out of the indictment, so it is rarely included.

The others named in the indictment were James W. Ellis, who still runs DeLay's principal fundraising committee -- Americans for a Republican Majority -- and John D. Colyandro, the former director of the Texas offshoot. Both were previously charged with laundering money, an offense that can bring a 10-year prison term, and on Sept. 13 with conspiracy to accept illegal corporate donations.

The addition of DeLay to the conspiracy charge yesterday suggests that some crucial piece of information or testimony may have come into Earle's possession in recent weeks. The charge against DeLay carries a potential penalty of six months to two years in state jail, and a fine of as much as $100,000.

DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said in the lobby of the Austin Criminal Justice Center that DeLay is so confident of his innocence that he will push for a swift trial. He said DeLay did not participate in a conspiracy and the $190,000 was spent "on proper things."

J.D. Pauerstein, an attorney for Ellis, said: "All of the indictments handed down in this case are frivolous and ridiculous. Our clients consulted election law experts, followed their advice and reported every contribution" to the Internal Revenue Service.

Colyandro, a veteran of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's direct-mail firm, has long denied wrongdoing but lost several court battles since the inquiry began to have the relevant Texas election law declared unconstitutional. His attorney in Austin, Joseph A. Turner, said that "this is really a rehash of previous indictments" and that the lengthy wait for it reflected the weakness of the prosecutor's case.

Regarding the $190,000 funds transfer from Texas to Washington and the return of the same amount from Washington to Texas, "Colyandro would say DeLay did not have any knowledge of that transaction in advance," Turner said.

The new indictment came after a 34-month inquiry and was issued on the final day the grand jury met. It caps a series of indictments that targeted eight corporations and an industry group, the Texas Association of Business, alleged to have worked with the Texas committee in collecting and disbursing illegal corporate contributions.

DeLay waived a requirement that the indictment be presented within three years of "the commission of the offense," the document states; DeGuerin said DeLay did this under duress so that he could put off an indictment weeks ago and keep trying to persuade Earle not to bring one.

Earle told reporters that he brought the indictment to defend the state's democratic system from undue corporate influence. "The law says the duty of a prosecutor is to make sure justice is done," Earle said, adding that the ban against corporate contributions "is intended to safeguard democracy and make the ballot box accessible to everybody, regardless of the amount of money involved."

But DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said ill motives lie behind Earle's action: "They could not get Tom DeLay at the polls. They could not get Mr. DeLay on the House floor. Now they're trying to get him into the courtroom. This is not going to detract from the Republican agenda."

House Speaker Hastert, surrounded by other GOP leaders, said of DeLay: "He will fight this, and we will give him our utmost support." Blunt complained about "this terribly unfair thing that ha happened to him."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said, "The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people."

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan described DeLay as "a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people."

"I think the president's view is that we need to let the legal process work," he added.

"No jury can undo the outcome of Texas's 2002 elections," Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, said in a news release. McDonald, whose complaint helped spark Earle's investigation, continued: "But the justice system must punish those who criminally conspire to undermine democracy -- no matter how powerful they may be. If we are to be a 'democracy,' then powerful politicians cannot flout such laws with impunity."

Staff writers Juliet Eilperin in Austin and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Amy Goldstein in Washington contributed to this report



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092800270.html?referrer=email
 
sweetnpetite said:
But DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said ill motives lie behind Earle's action: "They could not get Tom DeLay at the polls. They could not get Mr. DeLay on the House floor. Now they're trying to get him into the courtroom"

substitute "Bill Clinton" for "Tom DeLay" and this quote could have been made by Hillary. :devil:
 
I see no one wants to reply, so I'll be clear as to why I posted this here.

First, i did not see any other discussion of the topic or I would have gone there.

second, I had hoped some debate or discusion would take place, not mearly to stur the waters but becuase:

Politics are cofusing to me. There are so many sides and arguments and so forth. I know where i stand on certain things, but stuff like campain finance reform is just confusing. Anyway, I find that i can understand it better when you all here have made your points about it (sometimes, lol)-- it just helps to have real people talk about all those fancy words and what they mean.

I'm not a dummy, but sometimes I feel like it. So I guess lit has become my "Politics for Dummies site"-- but now you are all bored with politics. dang.
 
Well the problem as I see it is that the indictment does not actually list what he did that was illegal :)

Its weird, only 4 pages including the cover.

he made a surprise appearence on Fox last night and talked to Brit.

What the indictment says, if I am reading it right, is what 190,000 in 'soft' money was collected. that 190,000 can not be used for -campaigning- in texas but it can go towards administrative expenses. So both parties there collect soft money in texas.

So the soft money that was above and beyond what could be used was sent to the RNC, just like dem soft money is sent to the DNC. These organizations use that soft money either in states where it can be used or nationally or for thei administration and as delay explain the RNC it gets depositedinto a particular bank account.

Its been along time since I worked in getting contributions for a dem so I am not going to assume anything more about how the DNC works that what I have stated to this point.

well the RNC has 2 differant accounts. soft and hard.

What the RNC did, is it sent hard money back into texas, but that is what national parties do, they support local elections as well.

None of this is illegal.

I believe the indictment is trying to prove some sort of illegal money laundering for lack of a better word. soft money in, hard money out.

The indictment doesn't show this though, it stops with the check to the RNC #1161 and the only check entered into evidence in the indictment. Basically showing that the excessive soft money the texas PAC collected went to the national party to use.

So I don't really see what there is to comment on, since we're going to have to wait for pre-trial motions to find out for sure what he is even accused of.

~Alex
 
thanks alex.

seems like plenty to comment on, and you did.

I think I got that impression, but wasn't really sure what I was reading:)
 
DeLay

Here is another thing to think about. Ronnie Earle, Austin District attorney has made it a passion to go after politicians, mainly Republicans. Twice the Texas legislature has proposed bills to move the state capitol out of Austin because of him; he runs unopposed now.

After the god-awful redistricting last year I am not surprised to see Earle going after DeLay. We have congressional districts in Texas you wouldn't beleive and they were created for the sole purpose of keeping the Republicans in power.

I think it would be the same thing in reverse if the Democrats were in power; both parties play rough.

But Ronnie Earle does not lose many cases and he doesn't go into one unless he's very sure he will will win. This will be interesting.
 
Another thing to consider is Delay's shenanigans have eroded his support. If, however, he is indicted and is auited, he is going to reap a windfall by being able to claim the Dems are targetinghim with false accusations and smears because he is the majority leader.
 
redcar7 said:
Here is another thing to think about. Ronnie Earle, Austin District attorney has made it a passion to go after politicians, mainly Republicans.

Well, he might be passionate, but it's my understanding that 11 of the 15 politicians Earle has prosecuted were Democrats.
 
sweetnpetite said:
I see no one wants to reply, so I'll be clear as to why I posted this here.

First, i did not see any other discussion of the topic or I would have gone there.

second, I had hoped some debate or discusion would take place, not mearly to stur the waters but becuase:

Politics are cofusing to me. There are so many sides and arguments and so forth. I know where i stand on certain things, but stuff like campain finance reform is just confusing. Anyway, I find that i can understand it better when you all here have made your points about it (sometimes, lol)-- it just helps to have real people talk about all those fancy words and what they mean.

I'm not a dummy, but sometimes I feel like it. So I guess lit has become my "Politics for Dummies site"-- but now you are all bored with politics. dang.

SweetnPetite,

There was some talk a few weeks back about the political (mostly right-wing) radio shows really dropping off quite a bit in ratings. I was one of them. After such an emotional election last year (for either side), I personally am burned out on politics.

The Democrats are after the Republicans and vice versa. Unfortunately, there has yet to be an election to have changed that, regardless of how much "the people" have spoken out.

I don't have an opinion, because its simply politics as usual. I am sure that the govenrment has spent more on pursuing the charges than what was actually involved in the "crime."

Regardless of the administration, the opposition always spends the hell out of money in hypocritical witch hunts.
 
bholderman said:
SweetnPetite,

There was some talk a few weeks back about the political (mostly right-wing) radio shows really dropping off quite a bit in ratings. I was one of them. After such an emotional election last year (for either side), I personally am burned out on politics.

The Democrats are after the Republicans and vice versa. Unfortunately, there has yet to be an election to have changed that, regardless of how much "the people" have spoken out.

I don't have an opinion, because its simply politics as usual. I am sure that the govenrment has spent more on pursuing the charges than what was actually involved in the "crime."

Regardless of the administration, the opposition always spends the hell out of money in hypocritical witch hunts.

Delay is a crum-bum. Has been for years. Much like Clinton, he is a good enough politican to make people forgive his being a cruum-bum, at least around election time.

He's crookeder than a sidewinder in a blender.

That said, the prosecution is quitelikely politically motivated. It doesn't change the fact he's crooked and if he gets off, it may well serve as the means by which he wins another term. If convicted, I have the strange feeling it won't matter much. If Huey Long and Marion Berry can get reelected after their stunts, why should Delay be any different?
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Delay is a crum-bum. Has been for years. Much like Clinton, he is a good enough politican to make people forgive his being a cruum-bum, at least around election time.

He's crookeder than a sidewinder in a blender.

That said, the prosecution is quitelikely politically motivated. It doesn't change the fact he's crooked and if he gets off, it may well serve as the means by which he wins another term. If convicted, I have the strange feeling it won't matter much. If Huey Long and Marion Berry can get reelected after their stunts, why should Delay be any different?

That's what's so bewildering about the entire political arena, possibly including the entertainment industry as well.

Bill O'Reilly has a couple of concepts that he touches base on every now an then, "Unintended consequences" and "People rewarded for bad behavior." This will be another slate mark for the last one.
 
sweetnpetite said:
substitute "Bill Clinton" for "Tom DeLay" and this quote could have been made by Hillary. :devil:

And substitute bedroom for courtroom...
 
He's either guilty or he isn't. Personally, I look at this sum of money going to the RNC from a source in Texas and, a few days later, the same amount is sent to Texas Republicans by the RNC. I can't believe it was just a coincidence.

That's not to say that he is a bigger crook than his oppoosite number in the Democratic Party. I think of them all as being crooks.
 
The remarkable thing is: he has been indicted for breaking campaign laws in Texas. That is almost impossible. He must really be cheating big time, since in Texas politics almost anything goes.
 
thebullet said:
The remarkable thing is: he has been indicted for breaking campaign laws in Texas. That is almost impossible. He must really be cheating big time, since in Texas politics almost anything goes.

The amount of money involved, $190,000 isn't really all that big. Of course, there is probably a lot more that wasn't caught.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
The amount of money involved, $190,000 isn't really all that big. Of course, there is probably a lot more that wasn't caught.

Not that big for a congressman or senator, but damn big when you are talking state legislatomators.
 
Couture said:
Not that big for a congressman or senator, but damn big when you are talking state legislatomators.


I suspect. with Delay, the amount is trivial because the prosecutor is going after the one transaction he can prove. Adding a lot of other counts he suspects, or where the evidence is not concrete, can only serve to hurt his chances of a conviction on any charge.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I suspect. with Delay, the amount is trivial because the prosecutor is going after the one transaction he can prove. Adding a lot of other counts he suspects, or where the evidence is not concrete, can only serve to hurt his chances of a conviction on any charge.

I'm sure that's the case. There seems to be a very solid paper trail of the specific donation and they can question the specific corporation that made it. It's common knowledge that political donations like this are made either to sway the opinion of an individual or to curry favor. Maybe they can ask the donator something like "Why did you make this donaton to the RNC?" That would especially apply if the donator is one who would suck up to local politicians rather than national ones. I wonder where the money went once it got to Texas.

By the way, I am sure the Democrats do the same thing. I think they are all equally crooked and equally guilty. It's just that this time a big fish seems to have been caught.
 
By the way, I am sure the Democrats do the same thing. I think they are all equally crooked and equally guilty. It's just that this time a big fish seems to have been caught.

This 'big fish' as you say, used every devious means at his disposal, (legal or illegal apparently) to re-district the state of Texas in such a way to insure that Republicans would control the US House of Representitives. Don't say that if they had the opportunity to do it the Dems would do the same thing, because it isn't true. Sure they did their fair share of gerrymandering, but every year, over and over until many seats of the opposing party were redistricted out of existence?

This guy is evil and shameless.

I agree that all politicians are whores. But Tom DeLay Is the motherfuckin' queen whore.

(BTW, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Democrat.)
 
thebullet said:
This 'big fish' as you say, used every devious means at his disposal, (legal or illegal apparently) to re-district the state of Texas in such a way to insure that Republicans would control the US House of Representitives. Don't say that if they had the opportunity to do it the Dems would do the same thing, because it isn't true. Sure they did their fair share of gerrymandering, but every year, over and over until many seats of the opposing party were redistricted out of existence?

This guy is evil and shameless.

I agree that all politicians are whores. But Tom DeLay Is the motherfuckin' queen whore.

(BTW, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Democrat.)

I don't know that much about Texas but in California, the Dems. control both houses of the legislature. They make sure to gerrymander the various districts so that they lose as few seats as possible. The result is that seats virtually never change party. In the last general election, not one seat anywhere went from being Republican to Democratic or vice versa. Because of term limitations for members of the legislature, this is even more amazing because it is not the same people holding office for decades, just the same party. There is an ititiative on a special election ballot in November and I am certainly going to vote for it.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
I don't know that much about Texas but in California, the Dems. control both houses of the legislature. They make sure to gerrymander the various districts so that they lose as few seats as possible. The result is that seats virtually never change party. In the last general election, not one seat anywhere went from being Republican to Democratic or vice versa. Because of term limitations for members of the legislature, this is even more amazing because it is not the same people holding office for decades, just the same party. There is an ititiative on a special election ballot in November and I am certainly going to vote for it.

The difference is that in Texas, the decenial (? every ten years, coincident with the census) redistricting was already done and certified by the courts. As it is in CA. What Delay orchestrated was first, a takeover of the state legislature using dubious campaign funding (for which this indictment holds account), and second, the use of the turnover ni the state legislature to redraw the Congressional districts. Up till now, gerrymandering has been the prerogative of the party in control of the state legislatures in charge at the time of the census re-districting.

What Delay engineered is a mid-term redistricting on the basis of a shift in state legislative power; not a census, as specified by the Constitution. The precident is that a change in state legislative races will inexorably lead to gerrymandering of Congressoinal districts. This resulted in a net gain of four or five Republican Congressional seats, with the coincident loss of the same number of Democratic seats.

So, this isn't just a Texas issue. What this represnents is the funding of state legislative campaigns by corporations at a federal funding level. Essentially, local corporate interests funded highly targeted state races through money laundered through the national party.

YOu can assert that this is something the Democrats do too - so cite some cases. YOU can assert that this is a partisan indictment - but the prosecutor has indicted Democrats at a rate of 4-5 to one vs. Republicans. Plus, this was a grand jury indictment, not a prosecutor indictment.

Supporting Delay in this indictment is an unequivocal vote for greater influence from wealthy special interests in local and federal government.

Boxlicker, if the state legislature has been Democratic, and the Congressional reps have been Democratic, I think the logical conclusion is that you live in a majority Democratic state. Do you honestly think that introducing greater financing of local races from corporate interests with a national agenda and unlimited pocketbooks is a way to increase governmental accountability? If your local representatives are bought and paid for by corporate interests and then redraw districts to suit their needs, is that somehow more democratic?

Complain all you want about how there hasn't been any change in CA - you haven't proven that the electorate wants change and is somehow prevented from achieving it.
 
Last edited:
What Delay engineered is a mid-term redistricting on the basis of a shift in state legislative power; not a census, as specified by the Constitution.
Thanks, Huckleman. I knew all this, but at 2:47AM it's awfully hard to articulate.
 
Huckleman2000 said:
The difference is that in Texas, the decenial (? every ten years, coincident with the census) redistricting was already done and certified by the courts. As it is in CA. What Delay orchestrated was first, a takeover of the state legislature using dubious campaign funding (for which this indictment holds account), and second, the use of the turnover ni the state legislature to redraw the Congressional districts. Up till now, gerrymandering has been the prerogative of the party in control of the state legislatures in charge at the time of the census re-districting.

What Delay engineered is a mid-term redistricting on the basis of a shift in state legislative power; not a census, as specified by the Constitution. The precident is that a change in state legislative races will inexorably lead to gerrymandering of Congressoinal districts. This resulted in a net gain of four or five Republican Congressional seats, with the coincident loss of the same number of Democratic seats.

So, this isn't just a Texas issue. What this represnents is the funding of state legislative campaigns by corporations at a federal funding level. Essentially, local corporate interests funded highly targeted state races through money laundered through the national party.

YOu can assert that this is something the Democrats do too - so cite some cases. YOU can assert that this is a partisan indictment - but the prosecutor has indicted Democrats at a rate of 4-5 to one vs. Republicans. Plus, this was a grand jury indictment, not a prosecutor indictment.

Supporting Delay in this indictment is an unequivocal vote for greater influence from wealthy special interests in local and federal government.

Boxlicker, if the state legislature has been Democratic, and the Congressional reps have been Democratic, I think the logical conclusion is that you live in a majority Democratic state. Do you honestly think that introducing greater financing of local races from corporate interests with a national agenda and unlimited pocketbooks is a way to increase governmental accountability? If your local representatives are bought and paid for by corporate interests and then redraw districts to suit their needs, is that somehow more democratic?

Complain all you want about how there hasn't been any change in CA - you haven't proven that the electorate wants change and is somehow prevented from achieving it.

I can see this is not just a Texas issue because the change in congressional seats solidified the Republican majority in the House. All I am saying, and as I have said repeatedly, is that all politicians are crooks, and the party affiliation has little to do with their crookedness. If they weren't crooks, they wouldn't be politicians.

I can see this is not a partisan indictment and the DA didn't indict; the grand jury did, using evidence the DA presented. I also see that he has mostly gone after Dems. A margin of 11 to 4, which wouls be 3.75 to 1.

Calif. tends to be a Demo state. The state voted for Kerry and both senators are Dems although the governor is a Rep. Of course, he is a celebrity, rather than a career politician.

I'm not sure what you are saying about financing of elections in Calif. because I haven't mentioned it.

What I have said is that the districts in Calif., Assembly, State Senate and congressional, are gerrymandered by the Dems, as the party in power. The proof of this is a look at the district lines, which are drawn contrary to law, and the fact that no district elected somebody from a party other than that of the incumbent. I don't know the odds against that with honest districting but I am sure they would be very high.
 
Back
Top