DeLay's Money Laundering Charges Upheld

Yahoo! News ^ | December 5, 2005 | APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press Writer

[flattorney]

Add'l Article - TAB
###

Ruling Diminishes Likelihood DeLay Regains Leader's Post
CNN poll shows over half of the voters in his House district feel he likely broke law

By SAMANTHA LEVINE and MICHAEL HEDGES, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
Dec. 5, 2005, 11:24PM

WASHINGTON - Just hours before he was to be feted by Vice President Dick Cheney at a Houston fundraising event for his re-election campaign, Rep. Tom DeLay learned that the race will remain under a legal cloud.

Also, a Texas judge's Monday ruling upholding money-laundering charges against DeLay sharply diminished his chances of regaining his majority leader post in the House early next year.

And the longer the legal process takes, the more likely it is that DeLay could permanently lose the powerful job, experts said.

House Republicans likely will move to hold leadership elections in late January or February to replace DeLay, according to senior aides who spoke on condition of anonymity because of DeLay's power in Congress and the preliminary nature of the plans.

DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land, had to step aside as majority leader when he was indicted by a Travis County grand jury. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri took his place.

DeLay, for his part, remains confident that his days at the top are far from over.

"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," DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said in an e-mail to reporters.

DeLay, indicted on conspiracy charges in September and money-laundering charges in October, had hoped that state District Judge Pat Priest would toss out both charges, allowing him to return to his leadership post. The judge dismissed only the conspiracy charges.


Trial date to come - - With no trial date set, no guarantee that a trial would be completed soon and the possibility that it would tarnish DeLay whatever the outcome, House Republicans now may be forced to reconsider the arrangement by which Blunt became the temporary House leader.

>>>Thomas Spencer, a prominent Miami lawyer with strong GOP ties, said he doubted DeLay could beat the money-laundering rap in a matter of weeks or even a couple months, noting that pretrial matters, including potential motions on prosecutorial misconduct and an effort to move the trial out of Austin, are still pending. "To proceed carefully could take six months," he said. "I'd want to cross all the T's and dot all the I's and play this out."<<<

Adding to DeLay's full plate is a 2006 re-election effort in the 22nd Congressional District, where his Democratic opponent likely will be former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson.

A CNN poll released Monday evening showed that 49 percent of registered voters in DeLay's district say they would not vote for him while 36 percent said they would. The poll also showed that 55 percent think DeLay probably broke the law in the Texas campaign financing case. DeLay still has strong support among many GOP lawmakers, including Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston. He predicted the Sugar Land lawmaker will return to his leadership post "because Republican House members understand that Tom DeLay is being targeted by Democrats and the media."

Fear of 'The Hammer' - - DeLay's legislative power and keen awareness of who is and is not supporting him means that Republicans may avoid voicing doubts about him in public, Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jilson said. "They don't want to move early, because if 'The Hammer' returns, it could come down on them," he said, using a DeLay nickname. "Tom DeLay is a character who inspires fear and admiration in Washington, but fear first."

[An.American.Expatriate]

...carrying a gun might not be illegal, but carrying a gun with the intent to force another to give me his money is.

Ummm, not yet anyway!!! Intent only becomes relevant when an actual attempt (an overt act) is made. In other words - I may intend to injure somebody, but until I actually make an attempt to do so, my intent is not a crime.

... intent is one of the most important elements of a crime.

Agree - it makes the difference bewteen an act committed spotaneoulsy and one of forethought - committing a crime with intent is generally considered more serious than one committed spontaneously.

[buckeye2159]

yes, for those crimes intent is assumed by the circumstances of the crime and through evidence. for murder, we may infer intent by seeing whether or not the killer followed/stalked the victim, etc.

also, for shoplifting the intent is assumed by the substantive crime itself. but for other crimes there is obviously a higher burden to prove (as the poster which pointed out judge napoliatano's comments show).

If the underlying conduct is not criminal (transfer of money from one entity to another), the intent is harder to prove.

[buckeye2159]

proving intent is extremely important, especially in a crime like murder.

If I commit a homicide and there is no way to prove my purposeful intent then it's highly unlikely that i can be convicted of capital murder. it depends really on what the jury can be made to believe regarding the circumstances of the death.

on the other hand there are countless violations of the law where NO criminal intent is required. these are called strict liability violations, where even if it was an honest accident you will be considered guilty.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

When she becomes a Republican.

I'm afraid you're right.

[tbpiper]

...with the express intent...

Wouldn't that envolve the very conspiriacy the judge threw out?

[wildbill]

"upheld" is a word with charged meaning. It implies that the trial has already been held and the conviction is being confirmed.

All this ruling means is that the remaining charges in the indictment have enough merit for the judge to let them go to trial--absent any prosecutorial malfeasance which is another issue that will be adjudicated later.

[mandatum]

flattorney, would you happen to have Judge Priest's written opinion on your website yet?

[krazyrep]

But the judge rejected that argument, too, saying the money became suspect when "it began to be held with the prohibited intent."

[The judge] said if prosecutors can prove that DeLay and his associates obtained the corporate donations "with the express intent of converting those funds to the use of individual candidates," or that they converted money legally collected by sending it to the RNC and asking for the same amount to be sent back to Texas candidates, "then they will have established that money was laundered."

I think this is the (somewhat tortured) logic behind the judge's thinking:

According to Chapter 34 of the Texas Penal Code, money laundering involves the "proceeds of criminal activity." "Criminal activity" is defined under the same chapter as "[A]ny offense, including any preparatory offense, that is classified as a felony under the laws of this state or the United States."

Section 253.104 makes it a third degree felony to knowingly make campaign contributions in violation of Section 257, which governs the uses of funds by political parties. Section 257 states corporations can only make donations to political parties to defray normal operating expenses of the party or to administer a primary election or convetion held by the party. Corporations are prohibited from direct contributions to candidates.

So, in plainer English, the judge is saying if the prosecution can prove that DeLay and his associates sent the money to the RNC with express intent to receive the same amount back to distribute to candidates, then they intended to violate Section 257 of the Texas Election Code, a third degree felony, which raises their act to the level of money laundering.

It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg argument.

This - in my view - turns the legal definition of money laundering on its head. DeLay & Co. are accused of intending to put money gained from a legal source to an allegedly illegal use, whereas money laundering is the process of transferring, in some legal fashion, money gained through illegal activity in order to conceal its origin.

[Logical me]

This will eventually be a conviction, but on it's way to the Supreme Court, it will be overturned.

[vrwc1]

This - in my view - turns the legal definition of money laundering on its head. DeLay & Co. are accused of intending to put money gained from a legal source to an allegedly illegal use, whereas money laundering is the process of transferring, in some legal fashion, money gained through illegal activity in order to conceal its origin.

That's my whole point. The judge is re-defining the Texas money laundering statute to mean something entirely different that what it plainly says in an effort to convict Tom Delay.

[flattorney]

flattorney, would you happen to have Judge Priest's written opinion on your website yet?

Yes, it's under the "Current Hot Topics & Comments" Section in "The DeLay Chronicles". I also posted it on another thread for FLA last night but here is the post again on this thread. - TAB

12.05.05 - FlAttorney, and several of his colleagues, attended the Houston campaign fundraiser for Tom DeLay tonight, which was headlined by VP Dick Cheney. I also noted FLA was quoted in the National Media regarding Judge Priest's rulings today.

FLA will have a post on the ruling today by Judge Priest, along with his fundraiser attendance, when he returns to Miami. Overall, the ruling today was positive for DeLay, and Judge Priest made it basically impossible for Earle to succeed on his manufactured money laundering charges against DeLay. - TAB

12.05.05 - Video: Judge Ruling & DeLay Houston Fundraiser
12.05.05 - PDF File: Judge Priest's Indictment Ruling-12pgs

12.05.05 - Tom DeLay and wife Christine arrive at Houston campaign fundraiser

[AZRepublican]

He said if prosecutors can prove that DeLay and his associates obtained the corporate donations "with the express intent of converting those funds to the use of individual candidates," or that they converted money legally collected by sending it to the RNC and asking for the same amount to be sent back to Texas candidates, "then they will have established that money was laundered."

Oh Chit! This means if you obey all traffic laws and come to a full stop at a stop sign because the stop sign told you to STOP you can still be charged with attempted vehicular manslaughter. Or like being charged with tax invasion by claiming lawful deductions on your tax return.

This is dangerous logic being applied to DeLay.

[krazyrep]

That's my whole point.

Agreed. I was just putting a little background to it. I'm guessing as to the specifics, but I think this bodes well overall for DeLay.

I also think that a guilty verdict could potentially be challenged on First Amendment grounds, as it would produce a chilling effect on corporate political contributions - which the Supreme Court has ruled is a de facto violation of free speech. Corporate entities could be inhibited from making their contributions fearing that any monies paid to candidates in like amounts could be perceived as money laundering, even though there was no intent. SOme might argue that guarding against corruption overrules this, but I think it a valid argument to be made.