Oy!

Xinhua – English — I wonder how long this will go on before someone in the party actually sees this as a problem.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (Xinhuanet) — A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted US Rep. Tom DeLay on two new charges, including money laundering, just days after a conspiracy indictment concerning campaign finance forced him to step down as the second-ranking Republican in the US House of Representatives.

The new indictments, for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, accused DeLay and his two political associates of funneling 190,000 US dollars in corporate contributions to his Texans for a Republican Majority through the Republican National Committee for distribution to candidates for the Texas Legislature in 2002.

Texas law forbids the use of corporate money in political campaigns.



  1. BGreene says:

    Ever since the vote scandal in Florida in 2000, I have been led by events
    to presume the GOP believes incompetence, cronyism, mendacity, deceit, malfeasance and illegal behavior is OK– as long as it stays hidden, it seems to say to its rank and file. After all, exposure might give the GOP a bad name.
    Compared to crimes, aggravated and repeated, by multiple GOP
    stars against the law, Clinton’s dalliance, by comparison, was absurdly exploited by Starr and the GOP.– the same party which wants to lie very, very low at the moment.

  2. Awake says:

    Republican leadership nee slogan:
    Power through Deceit

    Most amazing is that there are still people in the trenches that are too blind and deaf to see and hear what is actually going on. Lies, corruption, chicanery, elitism, racism, bigotry, corporate welfare, cronyism, bribery and every other political negative has become the Republican party standard… not surprising when the leader of the USA uses every one of the above tactics as part of his ‘leadership style’.
    Republicans should take a step back and start asking for change within their party, because it is really becoming a national shame. Most members of the Republican Party are good proud patriotic Americans, that out of a sense of loyaly are standing behind their utterly innefective, lying and corrupt leaders, when in reality they should be saying “wait a minute… this isn’t the type of people that represents the America that I’m so proud of.”

  3. jim says:

    I am sure they said the same thing about Clinton and every other politician from the recent past back as far as we can remember.

  4. Ian Wallace says:

    Why is this news? How many other Senators are under indictment? Conspiracy? Money Laundering? I think if I got indictments for those I’d frame them and hang them on the wall, white collar crimes are lame and hardly newsworthy. Lets see, its pretty popular to be indicted in the senate:

    http://p136.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050928/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment_glance

    I’d hate to see how the House held up. Wasn’t there a congressman from LA under indictment? Oh well, guess THAT isn’t news. It is refreshing, still, to see that the world still holds Republicans to a much higher standard than Democrats. I guess that means the majority is safe for a while longer.

  5. Ian Wallace says:

    Why is this news? How many other Senators are under indictment? Conspiracy? Money Laundering? I think if I got indictments for those I’d frame them and hang them on the wall, white collar crimes are lame and hardly newsworthy. Lets see, its pretty popular to be indicted in the senate:

    Take a look, I’m not sure its a complete list

    I’d hate to see how the House held up. Wasn’t there a congressman from LA under indictment? Oh well, guess THAT isn’t news. It is refreshing, still, to see that the world still holds Republicans to a much higher standard than Democrats. I guess that means the majority is safe for a while longer.

  6. Ima Fish says:

    I love how the Right is blaming this on the Democrats. That’s it’s pure political BS. Yeah right. They’re completely ignoring that a GRAND JURY of TEXAS citizens are bringing the charges. How many leftists are there in Texas?! About three?

  7. AB CD says:

    The prosecutor who brought these charges had five previous grand juries empaneled, but had to get rid of them, and only got the indictment on his sixth try. Money laundering charges against politicians are almost universally bogus. By definition, money laundering is turning illegally obtained money into legal money, not funneling money between campaign accounts.

  8. Robert Jay says:

    Money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering; I wonder what hot tub Tom would be doing if he hadn’t found Jesus?

  9. Pat says:

    Ian

    Delay isn’t a Senator. And the list you refer to at Yahoo is enlightening. It lists two CONGRESSMEN that were convicted in the last ten years. First is the Republican Representative from South Dakota, convicted of vehicular homicide. The second is James Traficant, an Ohio Democrat convicted of racketeering and accepting bribes. I am unaware of any other Federal Politicians under indictment I believe that there is a California Republican Congressman under investigation for influence peddling and taking a bribe.

    The joy Democrats have with seeing Delay go down and hoping that other senior Republicans join them is because of the underhanded, cheap tricks they have endorsed against their competitors. Or does what the Republicans did to Max Cleland not bother you. Does the use of Government agencies for partisan politics (using Homeland Security to chase Texas State Democrats across State lines) not bother you. Or the ultimate; the lies told by the Republican Administration in order to start a war.

    This is news. And good news at that. Delay deserves to fall and fall he will.

  10. AB CD says:

    By the way, these new indictments are because the first indictment will be thrown out on a technicality. The ‘technicality’ is that Delay did nothing illegal, specifically the law he violated hadn’t been passed yet.

  11. James Hill says:

    Fish, didn’t you get your talking points? This isn’t that big of a deal anymore.

    Oh, wait. That’s next week’s talking points.

    Silly liberals.

  12. Hilarious says:

    The funniest headlines I’ve seen are “The Hammer Comes Down On The Hammer” & “The Hammer Gets Nailed.” Priceless!

  13. Hilarious says:

    Most members of the Republican Party are good proud patriotic Americans, that out of a sense of loyaly are standing behind their utterly innefective, lying and corrupt leaders, when in reality they should be saying “wait a minute… this isn’t the type of people that represents the America that I’m so proud of.”

    WTF? These people are called stupid, stupid.

    Wake up Awake.

  14. AB CD says:

    Pat, what did Republicans do to Max Cleland?

  15. R. esq says:

    To those who follow the below posting:

    “By the way, these new indictments are because the first indictment will be thrown out on a technicality. The ‘technicality’ is that Delay did nothing illegal, specifically the law he violated hadn’t been passed yet.”

    Allright. Answer yes or no to the following:

    1. As a prosecutor, would you use all allotted time prior to a statute of limitations running (time allowed to file charges) in order to squeeze fellow politicians to see if any fall into apostasy?

    2. Wait until the day before the statue of limitations has run in order to file charges, so as to make it more likely that the controversy will continue to run through, or run up closer to, an upcoming election?

    3. Use a flimsy indictment to gain a politician’s waiver of the applicable statute of limitations?

    4. Use that prior waiver to create further appearances of dishonest politicking and impropriety in the conduct of a campaign when that politician is indicted a second time, this time with live charges, and his lawyers recommend that a withdrawal of the waiver?

    5. Use every potential twist of plot to get your story into the headlines?

    Question: Very interested to know how many you answered in the positive.

    (Texans well remember the DeLay gerrymandering, and are not so gullible as to mistake the link between the two. They now have representation by politicians living 90 minutes away — instead of five.

    I may be mistaken–though I doubt it–but Ronnie Earle has been waiting years to do this and I suspect there is even better gamemanship at work than cited above.

    Requests for information:
    And further enlighten us by marshalling some support for your equally simpleton assertion “money laundering charges against politicians are universally bogus”?

    Some others in the line commented that 5 grand juries had to be empaneled–

    1. a basic knowledge of criminal law would tell you that this is standard for the course;
    2. the second indictment issued after less than 6 hours’ deliberation.

    It is unthinkable that Texas State Democrats would choose to deal with Texas State Republicans in anything but a violently partisan manner. Every Democrat in the State of Texas understands this. For those of you who are unaware, the DeLay-led Republican gerrymandering completed last year was illegal, and without comparison in the history of that State. Here’s why —

    The law states the following with respect to judicial redistricting:

    1. By court order; or

    2. Every 10 years.

    DeLay’s plan satisfied neither criteria, but certainly satisfied his desire to put 5 more Republicans in the seats of gerrymander.

    I part by saying that DeLay’s gerrymander unseated a Houston Representative, Chris Bell, who led the House Ethics Committee into DeLay’s patently unethical behavior. Now finally, fellow countrymen, is the time for DeLay’s comeuppance.

    He is an abomination to the rule of law and every thinking man in this Republic should welcome the hastening of his removal to the jails.

  16. AB CD says:

    My point on money laundering was that by definition the money has to come from a criminal activity, mainly drugs. Moving campaign money back and forth is common, but I don’t know that many politicians are cleaning up money for the mafia.

  17. AB CD says:

    As for the gerrymander, it was a correction of the 1990 Democrat gerrymander that kept giving them extra seats. Democrats had a 17-13 lead in House seats despite most votes going for Republicans. The judge first accepted a slightly Republican map, then went with a Demcorat map that left Republicans trailling 17-15. It may be unprecedented, but generally districts are drawn up by legislatures and not courts. Democrats should have just stopped with the judge’s first rulign which put in a fairer map, and they wouldn’t have had to deal with this gerrymander.

  18. NYCmESQuite says:

    PART I

    Facile typos indeed, but there’s no hiding that you’re 100% wrong on your definition of “criminal activity”.

    Donations from corporations are criminal activity as defined under the Texas Penal Code. What’s so difficult with that counsellor!

    AB CD now, you’re arguing for a change in the law — you wish that the circulation of policital moneys from a PAC, to another organization, to a campaign, would not constitute money laundering — you’re not arguing the law — we request that you please distinguish between the two.

    Now, had you read the indictments, you would know that “illegal purpose” is the salient language in the definition of money laundering. Predigested, for corporations to make political donations as described and proscribed under the penal statute constitutes an Illegal purpose.

    Please read the law and stop trying to mislead the readership.

    Here’s a rough outline to gain some grounding in the current debate:

    1 go to some website (statesman.com, perhaps?), figure out what the alleged criminals are being charged with,
    2 read the Texas Election Law,
    3 find the definition of money laundering in the Texas Penal Code,

    THEN, we’ll have a meaningful, intelligent–and unmischaracterized–discussion on the economics of Earle’s political gamesmanship.

    PART II

    You cite and attempt to justify the “reason” for the redistricting, but fail to address the only issue I raised:
    The illegality of the redistricting.

    Illustrating a much greater level of moral culpability (or, if as I suspect, a simple lack of intellectual integrity) is your attempt to then fudge the argument by saying:

    “The democrats did it in 1990 (which, I add again, was done according to and PERMITTED BY LAW), so the Republicans should be able to do it, too!” Not to be outdone, you blamed the Democrats for not accepting the first plan, to boot! !! Whoo – hoo!

    I disagree 100% with your characterization of the 1990 Democrat redistricting as a just and lawful redistricting on par with the 2003-04 Republican gerrymander:

    Why? AGAIN: Redistricting is LEGAL, EVERY 10 YEARS, i.e., in 1990, in 2000, etc. The redistricting of 1990 was therefore NOT ILLEGAL. This is entirely too elementary.

    (let me say that even if LAW is not a forte, proper restatement of FACT should be!)

    All right, okay, so we see law and facts are not fortes, yeah, and the legality or illegality of one of your favorite politician’s successes is not really an issue for you — yeah, I know, it’s all in keeping with your blind adherence to rule by force.

    PLEASE further demonstrate your predilections or abhorrence for (unenlightened) despots further:

    QUESTION:
    Let us know whether you disagree, or agree, with the following proposition:
    Whatever a judicial redistricting plan proposes to accomplish, in order for such a plan to be democratic, it must allow for the adequate representation of the constituency it governs.

    (btw, i didn’t get your responses to my first round of questions)

    Alas, I am highly skeptical of your ability, or inclination, to base your arguments on solid facts, or law for that matter, and it’s exhausting to repeat myself again and again.

    so I’m highly skeptical of trusting any numbers you provide, as in 19 above — perhaps you can provide the readership with some cites to support your numbers and position in 19.

    The readership is certainly interested in your response to the paragraph labeled “QUESTION” above.

    btw – #19 above is rather unintelligible.

  19. AB CD says:

    You say that donations from corporations are illegal activity. My understanding is that it’s donations to candidates in Texas that is criminal, and maybe even excluding US Representatives and Senators from Texas. Thus donations to other candidates and to the Republican National Committee are not illegal. Perhaps Texas has its own definition of money laundering, as according to Wikipedia, the definition has evolved over the years.

    Your questions make no sense as the gerrymander has nothing to do with judicial redistricting, which the Texas legislature is allowed to do whenever it wants. As for the gerrymander’s illegality, I don’t see anything in the Constitution which forbids it, the courts haven’t said it was illegal, and it has happened in the past in other states, though not recently. Arguably an activist judge could say reredistricting was required by the Constitution using the reasoning in Baker v Carr. I don’t know what you find unclear about #19. After the 2000 elections, the last one using the Demcorat gerrymander, there were 17 Democrats and 13 Republican Congressmen from Texas. Under the new map for the 2002 elections there were 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

  20. AB CD says:

    I suppose you are going to oppose a California redistricting as well? This is on the ballot next month, and I suspect that this will cost Republicans seats in Congress, but it’s not like Texas since they’re already in the minority in California..

  21. AB CD says:

    You make yourself sound so knowledgeable, but I find no appearance of ‘illegal purpose’ in the Texas Penal Code definition of money laundering, and it appears my common sense definition is correct.
    34.02. MONEY LAUNDERING. (a) A person commits an
    offense if the person knowingly:
    (1) acquires or maintains an interest in, receives,
    conceals, possesses, transfers, or transports the proceeds of
    criminal activity;
    (2) conducts, supervises, or facilitates a
    transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity; or
    (3) invests, expends, or receives, or offers to
    invest, expend, or receive, the proceeds of criminal activity or
    funds that the person believes are the proceeds of criminal
    activity.

    The only arguable case is that criminal activity includes actions which are punishable by more than one year in jail in other states, though I doubt that Texas lets other states decide what is illegal in Texas.

  22. NYCmESQuite says:

    I had expected much more. You remain 100% wrong on redistricting, and your research on MONEY LAUNDERING vindicates me.

    –34.02(2) is not remotely applicable to DeLay, is it, those grand juries! (and those “runaway judges” and that “liberal media” and those “vindictive prosecutors”).

  23. AB CD says:

    By your logic, if you rob a bank, you are guilty of money laundering, because robbing a bank is criminal activity. If the corporartions gave the money to Delay illegally(let’s assume he’s in the Texas House), and then he started moving it back and forth, then you have a case of money laundering because the original donation is illegal. However, if it’s legal to give the money, the fact that it goes somewhere else might be a violation of campaign laws, but is not money laundering as the act clearly states. As for redistricting, you said judicial redistricting, and the state of Texas website on redistricting makes it clear that judicial redistricting is a separate thing. Everytime you’ve advised people to look things up, the facts have not been what you said. I’m still looking for this illegal purpose in the definition of money laundering.

  24. NYCmESQuite says:

    Well, Mr. AB CD, it`s now quite clear that you were 100% wrong, as I had argued. Texas has such a notorious history of voting discrimination that it is required to get Justice Department approval to redistrict! Just as I had asserted, you`re a blowhard, just like DeLay himself !

    Reading from Yahoo, today+ “Because of past discrimination against minority voters, Texas is required to get Justice Department approval for any voting changes to ensure they don’t undercut minority voting.“

    You died with your ignorant boots on, AB CD.

    It`s people like you who elected that charlatan to office and who refuse facts in lieu of a self aggrandizing fantasy of righteous rightness.

    Now that you have been proved 100% wrong, you should come clean!

  25. AB CD says:

    Umm, I never mentioned the Justice Department, so I’m not sure what you think I’m wrong about. Still waiting for you to point out ‘illegal purpose’ in the definiton of money laundering. I’ll never respond as I only spotted this while searching for something else.

  26. nycmequite says:

    To Mr. Caviller:

    Caviller writes, supra:
    Money laundering charges against politicians are almost universally bogus.

    Caviller, that’s brilliant. Can you further qualify (please) “almost universally” for the readership?

    By definition, money laundering is turning illegally obtained money into legal money, not funneling money between campaign accounts.

    CAVILLER, by your definition, there could never be money laundering by a politician who received money illegally and/or for illegal purposes, or from an illicit source, and then transferred it (the process of “laundering”, caviller) in order to get it back “cleaned”.

    I don’t understand what part of this you can’t get, Caviller.

    Caviller wrote, supra:
    The ‘technicality’ is that Delay did nothing illegal, specifically the law he violated hadn’t been passed yet.

    Seems that you and the judge have a little disagreement. And oh my goodness, Mr. DeLay has been dragged into the Abramoff scandal (though the subpoenas for records were quashed), and oh, he’s leaving office in 8 days. Nice.

    Caviller wrote, supra:
    “My point on money laundering was that by definition the money has to come from a criminal activity, mainly drugs. Moving campaign money back and forth is common, but I don’t know that many politicians are cleaning up money for the mafia. ”

    problem here, caviller, is that moving money the way TRIMPAC and the RNC did IS illegal, so the purpose was, therefore, illegal. You not gettin’ it now are you!

    What kind of law do you practice, Caviller, just curious.

    Awaiting your (reasoned) response, Caviller. Come clean on some of ANYTHING you wrote above, c’mon, stop pussyfooting around, i know you think you have some all-trumping argument, it’s just that every last pronouncement of yours on this website has been wrong on the facts and analysis.

    More curia – what part of ft bend you live in?

    MJS


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5997 access attempts in the last 7 days.