Posted on 12/05/2005 9:23:34 PM PST by vrwc1
Yep..............
What you said.
Yeah, well Judge Napolitano, on FOXNEWS, said that proving intent in this case will be almost impossible. Ronnie Earle based his entire case on the charge of money laundering on a single sentence when DeLay interviewed with Earle: he said he knew some money was coming into his office.
The judge might very well decide that there was prosecutorial misconduct (manipulating a jury), in which case the money laundering charge will also be thrown out.
You can say that again. :^)
The law is the law and no matter how much this idiot judge wants to make up his own laws, he can't. So DeLay's lawyer can will do things to him legally, which will make him one sorry Dem. This isn't a case that can be hidden and so hanky-panky will have high beams directed on whoever is trying to play fast and loose with the law as written.
Great summary - thanks!
Yes, the Chinese wanted their money laundered by the Clinton Whitehouse; starched and neatly pressed.
I respectfully beg to differ -- philosophically, not practically. "Intent" is a TV-drama concept for the most part. It applies to the degree of the crime, but the underlying crime remains the same. If I walk up to someone and kill them the crime is murder. If there are ZERO external indecis one way or the other, does that mean they can't charge and convict me on Capital Murder? The Prosecution need only prove that I did it. They need not prove I did it for any particular reason.
I am not a lawyer and I know that "why" goes into the defense or the prosecution argumentation before the jury or judge. But strictly legally, but intent is not an essential element of a crime.
As a follow-up, what about shoplifting? The prosecution need only prove that the theft occurred. Why someone stole is legally irrelevant.
Fair enough. So if in this case "carrying a gun" = "money laundering", what crime corresponds to "force another to give me his money"?
Yes, but trying to prove intent is often like trying to prove there is a God, especially with political money. Unless this judge thinks he's big enough to shut down the entire political system in America, I say this case is a no brainer.
The gun-carrying analogy doesn't wash.
The idea of money laundering is to disguise the ORIGIN of the illegally acquired funds, and this is what the law addresses. If the money was acquired legally, which seems indisputable, then it can't be laundered.
Further, the idea of dismissing the charges based on election law, but retaining the money laundering charges, seems bizarre. In your analogy, the election law violations would provide the only basis for illegal intent. How can it be that the basis for illegal intent is dismissed, yet felony charges based on that illegal intent are retained ?
DeLay will make pulp of this prosecutor. Wait and watch the game.
No; the $50,000 delivered in the paper bag to the White House function while Bill and Hillary were present was only a payment on an overdue Chinese laundry bill.
Unfortunately for Slick Willie, they forgot to clean Monica's dress!
Seems like Hillary's campaign finance problems are worse than this.
When will she be indicted?
And .. even when the transactions (which were legal) were taking place, there was no Texas law against it. Now there is, but at the time the incident occurred, there was no law prohibiting the act; and the democrats were doing the same thing .. so when are they going to be held up for money-laundering too!!
Reporting facts can definatly be biased. Say that I don't like atheists, so I just happen to point out that "athiests don't think that women have souls"--leaving off the fact that they don't think anybody else has a soul.
In a similar fashion the article is making the charges against DeLay sound serious by bringing up this comparison at all, and leaving out the details that pretty much acquit DeLay of any wrong doing.
Actually, it applies only to the Republicans (its their rules). But, since the Republicans control the House, perhaps they should pass a rule that it applies to all members of the House. It would be fun to see how many Democrats would have to step down.
When will she be indicted?
When she becomes a Republican.
It's legal for A to give money to B, and B to give money to C, but not legal for A to give money to C. Since A to B to C occurred then there can be no crime at all. Obviously the law was followed. This is analogous to tax evasion versus tax avoidance. The intent of both is to avoid paying taxes. One is a crime the other is not. In this case the intent is to get money to candidates. One way is legal the other is not. So?
Add'l Article - TAB
# # #
DeLAY FAILS TO GET CASE TOSSED OUT
With charges of money laundering upheld, hopes for a rapid resolution come up short
By R.G. RATCLIFFE, Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
Dec. 6, 2005, 12:44AM
AUSTIN - U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay suffered a blow to his efforts to regain his House leadership position when a judge ruled Monday that he should stand trial on felony money laundering charges in an election finance case. Senior District Judge Pat Priest threw out charges accusing DeLay and two associates of conspiring to violate the state election code, but he upheld charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
A spokesman for DeLay called the split ruling a victory, but the congressman had hoped to gain a quick resolution to the entire case by challenging the indictments against him. The Sugar Land Republican had to relinquish his post as House majority leader when he was first indicted in September. Some Republicans already are pushing for a House leadership vote in January to permanently replace DeLay. Priest has said he could not hold a trial in DeLay's case before early next year.
DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin of Houston, said he will ask Priest to hear additional motions to get the case thrown out of court next week. And if that fails, DeGuerin wants a trial to begin in January. "The longer he's out of his position, the less chance there is that he can regain it. Others are going to come in and take over," DeGuerin said. The case against DeLay, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis stems from an alleged scheme to get around the state election code's ban on corporate financing of candidates.
The DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority raised about $600,000 in corporate donations during the 2002 state elections, but Texas law restricted that money to committee administrative expenses. In September 2002, TRMPAC donated $190,000 to the Republican National Committee, which within days sent $190,000 raised from individuals to seven GOP House candidates.
Prosecutors say that was an illegal swap of money, but the three defendants claim no such trade occurred. Colyandro was TRMPAC's executive director, while Ellis was his adviser and still is the executive director of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, or ARMPAC.
Republicans, aided by TRMPAC's fund-raising activities, gained control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections. That takeover set the stage for DeLay to push a congressional redistricting plan through the Legislature in 2003 that helped Republicans win a 21-11 majority of the state's congressional seats in 2004.
DeLay's spokesman and lawyers for Ellis and Colyandro declared Priest's ruling as a major legal victory over Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. "The court's decision to dismiss a portion of Ronnie Earle's manufactured and flawed case against Mr. DeLay underscores just how baseless and politically motivated the charges were," Kevin Madden, DeLay's spokesman, said in a statement. "Mr. DeLay is very encouraged by the swift progress of the legal proceedings and looks forward to his eventual and absolute exoneration based on the facts and the law," Madden said.
DeLay, at a fund-raiser Monday evening in Houston, declined to talk to reporters. Ellis' lawyer, J.D. Pauerstein, and Colyandro's attorney, Joe Turner, said they expect their clients to have their cases severed from DeLay if he succeeds in having his trial in January.
DeLay's last chance - - DeLay's only chance now to avoid trial entirely rests with his challenge to the remaining indictment on the grounds that it was returned by a grand jury as a result of prosecutorial misconduct by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
The election law conspiracy indictment that Priest threw out was returned Sept. 28 after months of investigation by a grand jury whose term was expiring. But when Earle realized he may have legal problems with that indictment, he tried to get another grand jury to indict DeLay on money laundering charges. That grand jury declined to issue any indictments on Sept. 30. Earle then got a third grand jury to indict DeLay on the money laundering charges on Oct. 3, the first day it met. DeGuerin said Earle's actions amount to prosecutor misconduct.
Priest has offered to hear the prosecutorial misconduct motion, as well as a motion to move the trial out of Travis County, either next week or the final week of December. But Earle has 15 days to appeal Priest's ruling, which could delay further hearings.
"We have received the opinion from Judge Priest and we are studying it," Earle's office said in a statement. "We have made no decision about whether to appeal any part of his ruling."
DeGuerin said he will ask Priest to move forward on the other motions even if Earle appeals the first ruling. "The longer that Earle can drag it out, the more damage he does and the less likely it is that the congressman can resume his leadership position," DeGuerin said. DeGuerin had challenged the indictments on numerous legal issues, but DeGuerin called two the "silver bullets."
One point was that the state conspiracy law did not apply to the election code until a year after the 2002 elections, an argument Priest accepted.
DeGuerin's other point was that the definition of money laundering did not include checks until 2005. TRMPAC transferred the corporate money to the RNC by check. DeGuerin also argued the money laundering statute could not be applied to the election code. Priest rejected that argument. He said the indictment refers to "funds" in TRMPAC's checking account and that was the money allegedly laundered.
Priest said even if the money was raised legally, if it was intentionally used to swap with the RNC donations that went to individual candidates "(prosecutors) will have established that the money was laundered."
DeGuerin said no money swap occurred.
DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro each face a possible punishment of five to 99 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 on the first-degree felony money laundering charge. On the second-degree felony conspiracy charge, they face a possible two to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 each.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.