Tom Delay -The Dismissal Is In The Mail

A Texas state appeals court backs Delay's argument that his indictment is flawed because the relevant statute covered cash, not checks:

Money-laundering charges against former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two indicted co-conspirators may be dismissed because the 2002 campaign finance case involved checks and not cash, a lawyer for DeLay said Sunday night.

"We win," said Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's lawyer, "because there's nothing but checks in the case."

The state's 3rd Court of Appeals on Friday actually upheld the money-laundering indictments against DeLay's two campaign associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington.

But the ruling contained a silver lining for the trio's lawyers because it concluded that the state's money-laundering statute — written in 1993 to combat illicit drug activity by focusing on the cash in the criminal transactions — did not apply to checks at the time DeLay is accused of laundering corporate money into campaign donations. The Legislature changed the law in 2005 to include checks.

Lawyers for the three defendants have included the check-versus-cash argument in other legal motions. But it was not part of the constitutional challenge that was before the 3rd Court of Appeals, so the appellate court could not dismiss on those grounds, DeGuerin said.

Instead, the court upheld the money-laundering indictments against DeLay's associates, saying the law is not unconstitutionally vague and gives adequate notice of the conduct that would be considered illegal. Three judges, all Republicans, issued Friday's opinion, which was written by Justice Alan Waldrop.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said the check-versus-cash argument is absurd: "The court's reasoning is like saying that you can get away with murder if you pay the hit man with a check."

Prosecutors can file a motion for a rehearing before the appellate court.

DeLay is technically not a part of Friday's opinion because he was indicted a year after Colyandro and Ellis. But the ruling could effect all three.

DeGuerin said he would take the appellate court's opinion back to Pat Priest, the trial judge in San Antonio, who has dismissed the check argument previously. Armed with the opinion, however, DeGuerin said he expects Priest to reconsider DeLay's motion to dismiss the charges because only checks — not cash — were involved in the transactions.

This is not over, but it looks as if we are in the late innings.

Comments

[JM Hanes]

The same folks who bristle mightily when Obama critics say voters were booted from competing election petitions on "technicalities" (and ditto for Ayers escaping jail!) will start speaking out of the other side of their mouths, loudly, the moment Delay's legal troubles are resolved, no?

[matt]

I just hope DeLay doesn't try to run for public office again. He should take his ill gotten gains and retire to an island somewhere. He's a poster child for what is wrong with the Republicans.

[ParseThis]

I'll just add the prediction that DeLay will remain unrepentant.

Rough day in the stock market. I wonder if the markets are pricing in the improved prospects of a McCain presidency?

[capitano]

Rough day in the stock market. I wonder if the markets are pricing in the improved prospects of a McCain presidency?

Here's your answer.

[Rick Ballard]

It's the Biden Market Bounce! Carrying the Obama Bear on down quite briskly.

[Joan]

Undoubtedly there are dozens of Democrats who have done the same thing as Tom Delay is accused of, or worse. As to him being what is wrong with Republicans, ahem, I disagree. The majority of Republicans are wusses (sp?). Tom Delay was tough, that's why the Democratic prosecutor went after him. Goodness, just look at Harry Reid's deals, also Dianne Feinstein is reported to have dealt her husband sweetheart deals.

I wish we had ten Tom Delays, not skirting or breaking the law, but hammering away at those supercillious, sanctimonious, hypocritical Democrats.

[Nenicho]

I love Tom Delay. He never backed down from a good fight. What is wrong with Republicans is that they show no spine. To me Ronnie Earle should be behind bars. He hounded Delay for years.

[matt]

just because DeLay is a street fighter doesn't make what he did right. Washington is an incestuous, corrupt sink hole and we should run em all out of town on a pole....

[Joan]

When I was reading about the Delay case most of what I read was that an overzealous prosecutor was after Delay on questionable charges. So, when you say what he did wasn't 'right', what did he actually do that was illegal and/or wrong? He redistricted parts of Texas and this enraged the Democrats. Don't think that was illegal. Nowhere did I read that he was truly corrupt. I thought that the "money trail" used by the prosecutor was questionable, at best. I would be really interested if you could find the basis of the corruption charges, etc.

[BOATBUILDER]

Ahem--could it be that the reason the statute applies only to cash and not checks is that checks by necessity create a paper trail--and if your purpose is to launder money or sell drugs its a pretty stupid way to go about it (do people actually buy illegal drugs with checks?--sheesh).
Tom Delay isn't stupid. I don't think Ronnie Earl is, either, but someone who would pay a hit man with a check is--so I wonder about Earl as well.
I really don't know enough about the case to know whether Delay did anything that would be a crime if he were a Democrat--but I doubt it.

[Joan]

Okay, I googled Tom Delay's case. The prosecutor took the case against Delay to three grand juries before he could get charges. The ins and outs of the case are typical political carp, with the added idiocy of the Texas Democrats running away to Oklahoma and New Mexico, using childish shenanigans to prevent a vote on redistricting. The charges against Delay re money laundering are disputed and still haven't been proven.

[Orion]

This thing just keeps dragging on and on and it's doubtful that Delay did anything wrong at all. Even Democrat partisans go cross-eyed trying to explain how he could have broken a law that wasn't on the books the day he broke it.

As mentioned above, Earle had 2 separate grand juries weigh the evidence in detail over several months and refuse to return indictments against Tom Delay. The Monday after Grand Jury #2 thumbed its collective nose at him Earle "borrowed" another grand jury and rammed through an indictment, arguing essentially that the statute of limitations was running out in 2-3 days so they HAD to indict now. He didn't disclose that two other Grand Juries had turned him down after sifting the evidence for months.

[jt007]

The commenters who point out that Delay was a strong leader are right. That is the reason that he was taken out. The media painted him as "corrupt" but he wasn't. DeLay was a target of the Democrats because he was very good at keeping the Republicans in the House united and because he had the cojones to stand up to the Democrats' hijacking of the Texas re-districting process.

Travis County District Attorney, Ronnie Earle, originally indicted DeLay for alleged acts that predated passage of the campaign finance law that they supposedly violated. (he Court has already dismissed that indictment with prejudice). Nonetheless, when that problem became apparent, Earle frantically presented evidence of alleged "money laundering" to a second grand jury which, despite several jurors’ claims of intimidation by Earle, refused to issue an indictment. The third time was a charm, however, when Earle went to yet another grand jury three days later and obtained an indictment on the money laundering charge.

In addition to the checks v. cash issue, the charge is questionable because of a lack of evidence. The indictment alleges that there was a memo instructing the two other defendants to substitute specific soft money contributions for hard money contributions. That memo is the only alleged evidence of the alleged conspiracy to launder money.

However, defense counsel requested a copy of the document referenced in the indictment (the only evidence supporting the allegations) and Earle’s stooges were forced to admit that, while they think it exists, they’ve never seen it and don’t know anyone who has. In sum, the indictment is a joke and Earle’s conduct is outrageous. Regardless of the legal arguments, the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to convict.

I've followed this matter fairly closely and I know a lawyer who works in Mr. DeGuerin's office. I have been very frustrated by the approach taken by DeLay's attorneys. They have a very strong case and I have wondered why they have dragged matters out so long. The only thing that I can think of is that they don't want to go to a jury in liberal Travis County. Regardless of the evidence, they may convict DeLay out of political animosity.