« A sickening abuse of justice | Main | Memorial Taken Back - IFC Museum Out Of 9/11 Site »

DeLay Indicted, Steps Down As House Majority Leader

Political lighting rod, House Majority leader Rep. Tom DeLay, was indicted Wednesday by a Texas grand jury today for conspiracy involving campaign finance. DeLay has temporarily temporarily relinquished his leadership post. Speaker Dennis Hastert will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties. The Republican rank and file may meet as early as Wednesday night to act on Hastert's recommendation.

The Associated Press reports on the indictment:

The indictment accused [Rep.] DeLay of a conspiracy to "knowingly make a political contribution" in violation of Texas law outlawing corporate contributions. It alleged that DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee accepted $155,000 from companies, including Sears Roebuck, and placed the money in an account.

The PAC then wrote a $190,000 check to an arm of the Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they were supposed to received in donations.

The indictment included a copy of the check.

"The defendants entered into an agreement with each other or with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas election code," says the four-page indictment. "The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election."

DeLay's spokesman wasn't impressed, calling Ronnie Earle just about every name in the book.

DeLay spokesman blasts prosecutor - [CNN]


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DeLay Indicted, Steps Down As House Majority Leader:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Justice DeLayed but hopefully... Not indefinitely

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with No insider trading involved, majority leader says

» A Blog For All linked with Delay's Red Banner Day

» Danny Carlton: codenamed "Jack Lewis" linked with Ronnie Earle's legacy

» The Narrow linked with The Real Ronnie Earle

Comments (54)

Time to fix some popcorn an... (Below threshold)
JEW:

Time to fix some popcorn and open a cold one. This should be interesting.

I have to admit, it's great... (Below threshold)
judgementdaycometh:

I have to admit, it's great watching this fascist party disintegrate.

What's even funnier is the fact they replaced this vile human bieng with a closet homosexual. Can't wait until the loonie faux prophets ( Robertson, Falwell, Dobson etc) get a whiff of that.

Coming soon, Rove indictment. Will the coward republican party try to paint that one as a "political maneuver by a fanatic investigator" also?

You people are predictable and pathetic all wrapped in one.

Those of us from Tex... (Below threshold)
Bill Cook:


Those of us from Texas who remember (from the Kay Bailey Huthison) case what a shameless hack this guy Ronnie Earle is are not the least bit worried for Mr. Delay.

I hope the Reupblicans are positioned properly. They need to be fairly quiet until it becomes obvious that this was a political stunt, and then let the dems have it.

Let's hold our breath, shal... (Below threshold)

Let's hold our breath, shall we, until the MSM informs us that the prosecutor is a Democratic operative who has a history of handing out groundless indictments against Republican targets.

Ronnie Earle, wasting taxpa... (Below threshold)

Ronnie Earle, wasting taxpayers money for malicious failed prosecution of Republicans since 1976!

"Those of us from Texas who... (Below threshold)
judgementdaycometh:

"Those of us from Texas who remember (from the Kay Bailey Huthison) case what a shameless hack this guy Ronnie Earle is are not the least bit worried for Mr. Delay."


Awww, you poor thing. Considering Earle has indicted 10 Democrats and 3 republicans just isnt enough for you, is it?

Perhaps you need another drink of Kool-Aid to calm you down.

Don't confuse the self policing style of your party with true investigation. Remember checks and balances still exist in this country no matter how much you and your fascist party want that changed too.

Don't you love the "toleran... (Below threshold)

Don't you love the "tolerant" left, they keep pushing the Drier is a fag meme as if that is a negative.

I'm neither a fan of Drier (illegal alien lover) or DeLay (big spender) but when you start looking at this case, its a lot of smoke and mirrors. I'd put real money on no conviction and a possible sanction against an obviously partisian prosecutor.

This is going to end up just like the little congressional member trips broohahah of earlier in the year, when it's exposed that both political parties have been playing the shell game with softmoney.

Of course the lefty media will have a heyday convicting DeLay in the press, all the while ignoring the ample evidence that Dems have done the same thing time and time again: http://www.followthemoney.org/press/TX/20030930.pdf

An Institute on Money in State Politics study reveals that on Oct. 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC the very same day.

Mediablog at NRO is all over this: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/spruiell200407150841.asp

Just to put this $190,000 deal into perspective and demonstrate the petty, vindictive nature of this partisan investigation, the study also reveals that Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans.

"Don't you love the "tolera... (Below threshold)
judgementdaycometh:

"Don't you love the "tolerant" left, they keep pushing the Drier is a fag meme as if that is a negative."

Oh nice try at more sickening spin. Try asking all the proud and out homosexuals how they feel about what Dreier and Mehlman ( another closet homosexual) have said and done to slander them.

You people are beyond pathetic. A morally bankrupt group of bottom feeders.

Hell awaits you!

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE... (Below threshold)
judgementdaycometh:

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE

You people can now get your panties out of a wad because no sooner did Dreier become DeLay's replacement thenRove steps in and quickly pushes him aside and replaces him with fellow jack-boot wear, goose-stepping coward, Roy Blunt.

Can't have the fascist base know Dreier is in fact the enemy within.

What a breeding ground of like minded vile filth you people play with.

Where's the ham?... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

Where's the ham?

"Hell awaits you!" and here... (Below threshold)
DaveK:

"Hell awaits you!" and here I thought the way MSM tells us Hell is all ready here. They call it Bush.

Judgment Day, buddy, put do... (Below threshold)
Phinn:

Judgment Day, buddy, put down the thesaurus and take a deep breath! You're going to pop an aneurism with all this negativity.

Once you've had a glass of wine and a couple Xanax, can you show me one thing, though?

The indictment goes on for a couple of pages, outlining in detail how the other two alleged co-conspirators wrote the check, handled the check and delivered the check.

But I don't see anything in the indictment that says what Delay actually did.

Why do you think the indictment would be prepared that way? Why all the details about the two no-names, but total silence about the big fish?

Don't confuse the self p... (Below threshold)
rayabacus:

Don't confuse the self policing style of your party with true investigation. Remember checks and balances still exist in this country no matter how much you and your fascist party want that changed too.

I sure hope so. You might want to read this before you cream your jeans with your mental masturbation. Not only did the shit not hit the fan but there wasn't even a fart.

Your ad hominem attacks aside, you really are a mental midget.

This is going to end up ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

This is going to end up just like the little congressional member trips broohahah of earlier in the year, when it's exposed that both political parties have been playing the shell game with softmoney.

That's the point I have made to people over and over again. Notice how the whole softmoney scandal disappeared from the MSM once it was discovered that the Dems were doing it, too.

The Dems need to be very careful when they point fingers at the Republicans "mistakes." If they ever get back into power, they had better be perfect. They will have many, many people watching their every move.

You knew it was coming. Eve... (Below threshold)

You knew it was coming. Even when the Republicans are put in jail, somehow the Democrats are to blame for it.

If they ever get back in... (Below threshold)
rayabacus:

If they ever get back into power, they had better be perfect. They will have many, many people watching their every move.

Until the Dems can offer some type of platform that the voters can vote for this is never gonna happen.

The Dems need to be very... (Below threshold)
Pug:

The Dems need to be very careful when they point fingers at the Republicans "mistakes." If they ever get back into power, they had better be perfect. They will have many, many people watching their every move.

Some of still remember when the Democrats were in power, Steve. Seems I remember an $85 million investigation that started with real estate and ended with lying about blow jobs after about five years.

I remember civil lawsuits against the president funded by Republican groups. I remember accusations of having boys killed by a train and cocaine smuggling at Mena Airport.

I remember charges of murder and rape, Steve. Weren't you around then?


Hmmmm.Visit WizBan... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

Visit WizBangBlog and watch the hyperbole fly!

hehe. Ronnie Earle. The only prosecutor I've heard of who had to admit to the presiding judge that he didn't have a case on the first day of a criminal trial.

I remember accusations o... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

I remember accusations of having boys killed by a train and cocaine smuggling at Mena Airport.

Actually, the woman who wrote the book that exposed these accusations is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from being a right-winger. She has been an outspoken critic of things Republican for a while.

"Awww, you poor thing. Cons... (Below threshold)
Dean:

"Awww, you poor thing. Considering Earle has indicted 10 Democrats and 3 republicans just isnt enough for you, is it?

Perhaps you need another drink of Kool-Aid to calm you down."

Ronnie Earle's "political" indictments have namely come against political enemies, Democrats and Republicans alike. Bob Bullock (Late Texas Lt. Governor), for example, was a Democrat that Earle dispised and tried discredit via an indictment. Likewise, Tom Delay is a political enemy who, in Earle's eyes, needs to be brought down. Democrats in this state are still in a state of denial after losing the power they held for over 130 years.

Perhaps you need another drink of the democratic underground kool-aid to go with the wine and xanax you sorely need.

I saw it earlier, but I can... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

I saw it earlier, but I can't remember whom to attribute the quote:

"Even a ham sandwich can be indicted these days."

Get your hipwaders on folks, you're going to be stepping a lot of dung from both sides.

The grand jury's forema... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The grand jury's foreman, William Gibson, told The Associated Press that Earle didn't pressure members one way or the other. "Ronnie Earle didn't indict him. The grand jury indicted him," Gibson told The Associated Press in an interview at his home.

Gibson, 76, a retired sheriff's deputy in Austin, said of DeLay: "He's probably doing a good job. I don't have anything against him. Just something happened."

- Link

The Dems have nothing to fe... (Below threshold)
DL:

The Dems have nothing to fear from the pubbies.
The Republicans play nerfball while the Dems throw MOABs

The pubbies feared investigating Jay Rockefeller for the (get Bush through our intelligence committee) memo. Instead they stood by helplessly as the Dems fired the whistleblower.

They should have held a (under oath) investigation of the white house personel, including Hillary, on the FBI filegate scandel.

They should have sent Bill and Hillary a bill for trashing and stealing the white house blind.

They should be demanding Sen. Schumer step down or face charges for conspiring to illegally obtain credit info on GOP (future) candidates.

They should have demanded Sandy Burglar go to jail. They should have brought much tougher charges against him. They should have brought
others under oath to find out why and who. And they never whould have dropped the issue calling it trousergate (or was that Bill?).

They should have ...you finish ..I'm too tired.
What wimps!

OK, questions:1. E... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

OK, questions:

1. Exactly how many "Texas State House candidates" received a portion of this money? 1? 2? 14?

2. What are there limits PACs can donate to a candidate in Texas? $10,000? Or none at all? It's not terribly clear.

3. "The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election." Before or after the elections? And why would it matter 60 days after the election? Would the 61st day be OK? What gives?

4. What needs to be establish is whether or not those contributions were made directly on behalf of the corporations or from individuals (likely higher ups) within the corporations. Is it at all possible a CEO at Sears wrote out the check on the company checkbook (not an impossibility mind you) and sent it to DeLay's PAC?

5. Is DeLay directly involved in the day-to-day operations of his PAC? (I doubt it, he's likely far too busy in D.C. with other things.)

Anybody else wondering these things,too? Do they matter? Just curious.

Peter, the answers to most ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Peter, the answers to most of your questions lay here

1. Exactly how many "Texas State House candidates" received a portion of this money? 1? 2? 14?

There are seven candidates listed on the indictment as having received these monies.

2. What are there limits PACs can donate to a candidate in Texas? $10,000? Or none at all? It's not terribly clear

These were not PAC contributions, but corporate contributions funneled through the Republican Majority PAC to the candidates.

3. "The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election." Before or after the elections? And why would it matter 60 days after the election? Would the 61st day be OK? What gives?

The check is dated Sept. 13, 2002

4. What needs to be establish is whether or not those contributions were made directly on behalf of the corporations or from individuals (likely higher ups) within the corporations. Is it at all possible a CEO at Sears wrote out the check on the company checkbook (not an impossibility mind you) and sent it to DeLay's PAC?

The contributions were much more than is allowed for individuals, and are listed on the indictment.

5. Is DeLay directly involved in the day-to-day operations of his PAC? (I doubt it, he's likely far too busy in D.C. with other things.)

Yeah, I don't know, but it seems the Grand Jury thought he was involved enough to indict.

Actually, though I believe ... (Below threshold)
JD:

Actually, though I believe there are only 3 individual Republicans he has indicted, it took Earle indicted Sen. Hutchinson at least 3 times. Just got done reading the indictment. It seemed rather thin when it came to his involvement. I certainly hope he is bringing more evidence to the table than he did in the Sen. Hutchinson fiasco. On the other hand, if this plays out as the purely partisan witchhunt that it appears to be, then I will be high fiving KKKarl Rove for making judgementdaycometh and their ilk look like the maniacal barking moonbats that we have come to know and love.

And if you want a really po... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

And if you want a really poor and deeply confusing explanation of the indictment go the NY Times report

You can see where the Times is trying to make connections all over the place, instead of just giving us straight reporting.

Why does it take 13 paragraphs to get the crux of the indictment? Geezus! What ever "who, what, where, when and possibly why" in journalism. Now it's "who, what I think, where, well kinda where, so-and-so was kinda related to this thing, when, or when I feel like telling you and why? I just told you why!" LOL...funny and sad in the same breath!

mantis:Thanks for ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mantis:

Thanks for the link. It's helpful to read the actual document. BUT:

"These were not PAC contributions, but corporate contributions funneled through the Republican Majority PAC to the candidates."

Yes, but they were funneled through a PAC to at least look like a PAC contribution. But that in itself doesn't seem like a highly unusual tactic for a corporation to a support a candidate or cause. If memory serves (and it might not given it's my memory!) I need to find the answer to this next question: Was it illegal in 2002 for money to flow through a PAC this way? Or were those laws/rules passed shortly after the 2002 election?

Either way this falls, it's... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Either way this falls, it's political bad news for the GOP

I wonder who'll be the first to say" This goes straight to the White House." Oops, looks like Howie Dean beat me to it.

From the NY TImes:

"Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the indictment was further evidence that "alleged illegal activity reaches to the highest levels of the Republican Party."

Close enough for jazz and, ahem, government work.

Sorry for sounding legally ... (Below threshold)
jc:

Sorry for sounding legally dumb, but what exactly does "indictment" mean? Does that mean there's going to be a trial now?

Here's a link explaining (s... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Here's a link explaining (sort of) Texas campaign contribution Regulations. It seems that corporate contributions have been illegal in Texas since 1905, though maybe just since FECA in '72. Either way long before 2002.

jc,

An indictment is a formal criminal charge handed down by a grand jury after considering evidence presented to them by the prosecuter and establishing that enough evidence exists to persue a criminal trial. Under the fifth amendment, all federal charges involving "capital or infamous" crimes must go before a grand jury. States are free to abolish grand juries, but Texas still uses them. If the grand jury hands down an indictment, the criminal trial starts (which is decided by a petit jury, usually 6 or 12 members). So, in short, yes Delay and his associates John Colyandro and Jim Ellis will now face a felony criminal trial.

IMHO, it seems that Colyandro and Ellis are going down for this, but unless Earle has evidence of Delay's direct involvement that we're not aware of, I'll bet he walks.

Actually, Peter F., it's go... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Actually, Peter F., it's good news for Republicans, if this issue is resolved to substantiate to some point of finality that Earle is using his position to exercise vendettas and political plans -- seems there is a lot of suggestion as to that already, and in only one-fourth a working day. Imagine what we'll know after a few weeks.

Democrats are using a vulnerable time for our country to pile on about more negatives. It doesn't make them smart, or even problem solvers, it just means they're using tough situations for political advantage without regard for what's protective of our country. Pretty low down, in my view, across the board: Pelosi, Feinstein's and Schumer's nonsense about Roberts, and on it goes.

I've already read enough about Earle to form a relatively good image about a sneaky man.

mantis:Thanks, yet... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mantis:

Thanks, yet again for the link. (Darn work seems to get in the way of my amatuer sleuthing!)

-S-:

I agree with you on the basic premise that if DeLay's found not guilty it will certainly show's that Earle has used his office for political vendettas and promoting his political agenda. However, it's doubtful the MSM and the Dems will spin it that way. I can see it now:

"It's Bush cronyism at it's most blatant."

"Of course DeLay got off! It was a Republican judge!"

Or whatever crackpot way the Dems can spin it you bet they will. So you can see where I'm going with this thing. (Sorry, I do a poor impression of a moonbat flapping its lips.)

I guess my second and final point would be that given this, on top of the Katrina and Rita fiasco, gas prices, Cindy Shee-nanigans and the stepped up attacks by terrorists in Iraq (which will be even greater in the coming month with the next election), it's not a very good time for the GOP from a publicity standpoint.

Personally, given all this I wouldn't be surprised to see another major (and more public) push by the US and Iraqis against Tal Afar on the Syrian in border in the coming weeks. Not a wag the dog situation, but darn close. A big victory, a quiet and uneventful election and a dead Zarqawi would help Bush and the GOP A LOT right now.

I'm gone for the night.

However, it's doubtful t... (Below threshold)

However, it's doubtful the MSM and the Dems will spin it that way.

When were either ever concerned with the truth?

JDC screeched:"Con... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

JDC screeched:

"Considering Earle has indicted 10 Democrats and 3 republicans just isnt enough for you, is it?"

How many convictions?


"Earle is using his positio... (Below threshold)
Chris:

"Earle is using his position to exercise vendettas and political plans -- seems there is a lot of suggestion as to that already, and in only one-fourth a working day. Imagine what we'll know after a few weeks."

-S-, you never disappoint. These Ronnie Earle talking points have been in the can for months. It's pretty consistent behavior by the Republicans: a charge is made against a Republican, and almost instantly the attacks on the person bringing the charge begin. Never mind that DeLay has been involved in enough questionable escapades to even make fellow Republicans nervous. This doesn't make him guilty, it's just amazing how short a time it takes for the people on this board to declare him innocent. And it's never because the facts are not quite convincing, or that the law can be interpreted a different way. No, it's always some Democrat with nefarious goals, out to tar some poor innocent Republican. And the proof, of course, lies in the fact that the great legal minds on this board have read the indictment and are condemning the fact that there will actually have to be a trial before all of the facts come out. Why, usually the DA just presents the indictment and the jury rules. Imagine that there might be facts and testimony we haven't heard yet.

"I've already read enough about Earle to form a relatively good image about a sneaky man." I'm just curious - what exactly have you read, besides the comments on various blogs? What have you substantiated about Ronnie Earle that convinces you that he's a "sneaky man?"

And Peter F., nice try, but what Dean said is not the same as saying it goes to the White House. He said it "reaches to the highest levels of the Republican Party." I think since DeLay is arguably the second most powerful Republican, what Dean said is exactly accurate. He never mentioned the White House.

And rayabacus, you've really got to expand your horizons a little more. Yoy post a link to another right wing blog, as if that somehow proves some kind of point. Just because more than one blog says something, doesn't make it true. Tell me, do you agree with DeLay that this is "one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history?" Just a little self-aggrandizing, don't you think?

By the way, the Kay Bailey Hutchinson case isn't quite as cut and dried as a lot of you like to portray it. The trial judge engaged in some pretty outrageous behavior himself, it seems.

"or that the law can be ... (Below threshold)

"or that the law can be interpreted a different way."

The left has no problem with defying the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, or any other part of it when it suits their goals. They even admit it from time-to-time, just not on purpose. They can be honest, just never on purpose.

The liberal hubris right no... (Below threshold)

The liberal hubris right now is hilarious.

Yes, Chris, it was truly ou... (Below threshold)
JD:

Yes, Chris, it was truly outrageous of the Judge to ask the prosecutor to actually present his case. Quite outrageous, that.

Note how Chris comes on here to refute the alleged use of talking points, and then proceeds to trot out the exact same talking points used by all of the other liberal talking heads and blogs? Pot, meet kettle.

I do not recall anyone declaring him innocent, but I could be mistaken. I think what most people said was that they were willing to allow the judicial process to take its course, rather than sitting back and declaring his guilt from the liberal position of moral superiority.

"I think what most people s... (Below threshold)
Chris:

"I think what most people said was that they were willing to allow the judicial process to take its course"

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had stumbled on a discussion group of the nicetiew of the legal system. I guess these statements threw me off:

"what a shameless hack this guy Ronnie Earle is"

"I'd put real money on no conviction and a possible sanction against an obviously partisian prosecutor."

"On the other hand, if this plays out as the purely partisan witchhunt that it appears to be,"

"I've already read enough about Earle to form a relatively good image about a sneaky man."

"I agree with you on the basic premise that if DeLay's found not guilty it will certainly show's that Earle has used his office for political vendettas and promoting his political agenda."

This bullshit about people trotting out talking points is just that, bullshit. Are you suggesting that every time one side trots out the same tired charges, the other side is compelled to come up with some new and novel retort? Repeating the truth is not the same as repeating talking points. As for the Hutchinson case, the judge refused to rule on a pre-trial motion to determine whether the key prosecution evidence was admissible. Earle then didn't want to proceed with the trial, because he feared the judge would toss out his evidence in mid-trial, thereby allowing Hutchinson to be acquitted and protecting her from double jeopardy. Earle therefore asked for a continuance, which I understand is pretty standard procedure. The judge refused, swore in the jury, and directed them to deliver a not guilty plea, thereby providing her with double jeopardy protection and killing Earle's case. I'm sure there are arguments to be made for both sides, but it's certainly not as cut and dried as "the trial started and Earle decided not to present his case."

Even the liberal Washing... (Below threshold)

Even the liberal Washington Post editorialized against this indictment.

I've got a crazy idea for e... (Below threshold)
ICallMasICM:

I've got a crazy idea for everyone either declaring his innocence or guilt. Why not let the legal system determine it? As we all like to say whenever someone on the other side is charged, 'We're a nation of laws not men'.

Was anyone else just overco... (Below threshold)

Was anyone else just overcome with laughter when the AP first rushed this story out with a quote from one person...

Who, you ask?

Why none other than Nancy Pelosi, Ms. Campaign Finance Fine herself.

Say what you want about the 'indictment' (actually all it says about DeLay is that he has agreed to waive the 3 year statute of limitations on the conspiracy charge, which probably means he knows they got nothing on him, allowing them time to bring, if they can, an actual indictment like they did against the other 2 guys, see pages 3 and 4 of the indictment), going to Pelosi for the money quote was just a stroke of mainstream media genius! (yes, that's sarcasm) Why don't we go see what James Traficant has to say about bribery?

Chris:A note on De... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Chris:

A note on Dean. I was trying to imply what Dean said was very close to what I was saying. In our culture, we call what I was doing (or attempting to do) a " sarcastic joke", whereby I give people a chance to laugh. Or, at the very least, shake their head, smile and chuckle at the silliness in life. In this instance, I used the same hyperbole that Dean was using and played them off each.

Geez, I never thought I'd have to hold a class in Sarcastic Jokes 101, but I guess I have to. (See, that's another one right there.)

"Lighten up, Francis." (That's from "Stripes". It's a movie with lots of jokes in it, not all sarcastic though. Watch it sometime, you might enjoy it.)

Peter F.You forgot... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Peter F.

You forgot one more essential element of jokes. They tend to be funny.

Hmmm."By the way, ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

"By the way, the Kay Bailey Hutchinson case isn't quite as cut and dried as a lot of you like to portray it. The trial judge engaged in some pretty outrageous behavior himself, it seems."

Then please list them.

Why does it take 13 para... (Below threshold)

Why does it take 13 paragraphs to get the crux of the indictment?

The "MEGO factor" (My Eyes Glaze Over). The NYT wants you to read and accept the headline meme then become comatose before you find out that there is no "there" there.

Chris:Was it a kne... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Chris:

Was it a knee-slapper? No. Did it incite a chuckle? Maybe not, maybe so. How about a brief chuckle? It did with me. But, then again, I have a pretty easy going sense of humor so I can laugh at a lot of things. Including taking myself too seriously. Maybe you should try it, too.

And rayabacus, you've r... (Below threshold)
rayabacus:

And rayabacus, you've really got to expand your horizons a little more. Yoy post a link to another right wing blog, as if that somehow proves some kind of point. Just because more than one blog says something, doesn't make it true. Tell me, do you agree with DeLay that this is "one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history?" Just a little self-aggrandizing,don't you think?

You don't know what my horizons are, you sanctimonious twit. Evidently you also do not know the profession or abilities of the person I linked to. There was a good analysis of the indictment itself and the law pertaining to that indictment. There are also many other analyses out there that follows along that line. Hell, even the WaPo (one of my horizons) denigrate this indictment.

You might also consider that a local DA can, if he wants to, get an indictment against you. IMHO this whole thing goes down the rat hole shortly. Nothing to see here folks, just move on.

IMHO this whole thing go... (Below threshold)

IMHO this whole thing goes down the rat hole shortly.

Don't bet on it. Earle will try to stretch it out as long as he can in an attempt to influence the 2006 elections in the Dems favors. He may succeed.

Hmmmm.This is a re... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

This is a repost of something I posted over on RedState.org. I'm reposting it here because I have no intention of re-writing it. :)

YMMV.

----------------
Hmmmm.

Interesting.

1. Delay did an interview with Brit Hume yesterday (Wednesday) where he explain the routing of the corporate donations.

A. Corporation donates to Texas PAC.
B. Texas PAC delivers money to RNC.
C. RNC deposits money into non-campaign account dedicated to RNC administrative purposes. I.e. "soft" money.
D. RNC cuts a series of checks to various Texas Republican candidates from a completely different account dedicated to lawful campaign purposes. I.e. "hard" money.

The essence of this technique is that the money is never comingled and that the corporate donations are themselves not used for any illicit purpose.

However the indictment itself does not in any way, shape or form acknowledge steps "C" and "D" and instead combines the two without acknowledging that the money isn't comingled. While the indictment doesn't specifically state so, the intent is that the reader assumes the money is in fact comingled since it leaves out the existence of the two separately controlled accounts by the RNC.

Since Earle was apprised of this by Delay and his attorneys, according to Delay in that Brit Hume interview, that means this omission is deliberate.

So....

This means that Earle is either alleging that the RNC did in fact comingle the money before writing those checks

or

That the RNC maintaining two separate accounts is not a defense against this charge. That comingling of funds is not necessary to violate this Texas law and that any corporate donations cannot be used to offset expenses in order to free up money for campaigns.

Hmmm.

Frankly I don't believe the RNC is dumb enough to do the former. And I specifically don't believe Delay is dumb enough to be involved in the former either.

And the latter option is, IMHO, just completely absurd.

Texas Election Code:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/el.toc.htm

Ok.

253.003:
"(a) A person may not knowingly make a political contribution in violation of this chapter.
(b) A person may not knowingly accept a political contribution the person knows to have been made in violation of this chapter."

253.094:
"(a) A corporation or labor organization may not make a political contribution or political expenditure that is not authorized by this subchapter."

253.104:
"(a) A corporation or labor organization may make a contribution from its
own property to a political party to be used as provided by Chapter 257.
(b) A corporation or labor organization may not knowingly make a contribution authorized by Subsection (a) during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for
state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election."

This is interesting:

257.002:
"(b) A political party that accepts contributions authorized by Section 253.104 shall maintain the contributions in a separate account."

Which describes what the RNC has setup in it's transactions with the Texas PAC.

Frankly I think the important section is 253.032 which covers "Limitation on contribution by Out-of-State Committee". In essence these sections prohibit the direct contribution of corporate donations to campaigns in Texas which also require these donations to be maintained in a separate account and reported on regularly.

However there is, from what I can find out, nothing that forbids either generally, specifically or tangentially a shifting of funds as described by Delay.

I wonder if it's possible for Delay to sue Earle and Travis County.

[email protected] Peter F.</... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ Peter F.

"1. Exactly how many "Texas State House candidates" received a portion of this money? 1? 2? 14?"

Not a clue. And somewhat immaterial really. If it's illegal then it's just as illegal with one as with twenty. *shrug* I know I'm telling you something you already know. It's really for anyone else reading this.

2. What are there limits PACs can donate to a candidate in Texas? $10,000? Or none at all? It's not terribly clear.

It depends on whether or not the PAC has a treasurer. Without a treasurer the PAC cannot donate more than $500 to a candidate. Though that limit might be lifted if there's some additional reporting done by the PAC and the candidate. On the other hand if the PAC has a treasurer, no limit on how much a PAC can give.

The primary limitation is on the *source* of the money, not on the amounts. And that limitations is on whether or not the donation was by an individual or a corporation. If the donation was by an individual, then I think the limit in Texas is $100 per individual donating. If the donation is from a corporation, then the limitation is based on date/time and is restricted 60 days prior to an election.

3. "The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election." Before or after the elections? And why would it matter 60 days after the election? Would the 61st day be OK? What gives?

The money given by the Texas PAC to the RNC has no limitations. The limitations are on *corporate* donations TO a Texas candidate. There are no limitations to the amounts of money transferred between local PACs, national PACs or local vs national PACs.

The limitation comes into play when the money goes to a candidate. The 60 day limit is on corporate donations that end up in the campaign of a candidate.

4. What needs to be establish is whether or not those contributions were made directly on behalf of the corporations or from individuals (likely higher ups) within the corporations. Is it at all possible a CEO at Sears wrote out the check on the company checkbook (not an impossibility mind you) and sent it to DeLay's PAC?

The corporations made the checks. I.e. a corporation is, to an extent, an individual entity unto itself. A CEO can write a check for himself. Or he can write a check on behalf of a corporation. This same mechanism is used in forfeiture cases where your *house* is considered to be an individual entity that doesn't have explicit constitutional rights afforded by the US, or state, constitutions.

I.e. in a forfeiture case charges are brought against your *house* and if your *house* is found guilty, the *house* is forfeited. Wierd but true, YMMV. I.e. non-human entities are treated as individuals of a sort. This is also how Arthur Andersen Consulting was found guilty.

5. Is DeLay directly involved in the day-to-day operations of his PAC? (I doubt it, he's likely far too busy in D.C. with other things.)

According to his interview with Brit Hume yesterday at about 6:45pm EST, the answer is no. Delay helped setup the PAC and then turned over the day to day operations. He did help with some fund raising and allowed the PAC to use his name and likeness, but evidently he didn't run the PAC.

Anybody else wondering these things,too? Do they matter? Just curious."

IANAL so take everything with some serious salt. But that's my reading of this nonsense.

RE: Purple Avenger's insigh... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Purple Avenger's insight (September 29, 2005 01:35 PM)
"Why does it take 13 paragraphs to get the crux of the indictment?"

The "MEGO factor" (My Eyes Glaze Over). The NYT wants you to read and accept the headline meme then become comatose before you find out that there is no "there" there.
------

Yes. Another tip: Read the last paragraph of a long story first. Oftentimes that saves you a lot of effort. I usually do that to get through the spin of my local rag.

Good tip, AD. (Also works ... (Below threshold)
BR:

Good tip, AD. (Also works for long moonbat comments on blogs:) )

Jim Kouri, Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has written on the DeLay matter: 9/29/05 article entitled:
Delay's Prosecutor Pals with Dan Rather's Daughter and Ben Barnes.

Deja vu all over again! Same old crowd at it again.

Remember Ben Barnes? The ex-Texas Lt. Gov. who appeared on CBS 60 Minutes - the CBSgate show. The same Barnes who claimed to have pulled strings for George Bush at a time when Barnes wasn't even in office.

Link: See "Posted by: Kathleen on September 12, 2004 12:09 PM"




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy