DeLay’s serious legal problem

September 30, 2005

The defense for Tom DeLay’s TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) relies heavily on the notion of “coincidence.” Without it, everyone involved is in for a very rough trial.

DeLay set up his Texas operation, but couldn’t use corporate contributions at the state level. It was in this context that DeLay’s TRMPAC sent $190,000 to the RNC’s State Elections Committee. Exactly two weeks later, the RNC’s State Elections Committee sent exactly $190,000 to TRMPAC’s favorite candidates back in Texas.

Obvious money laundering? It was, to hear DeLay & Co. tell it, just a coincidence. Unfortunately for TRMPAC, some are straying from the party line.

Prosecutors are expected to seize upon the testimony of one defense witness in the civil case, Charlie Spies, a former attorney for the Republican National Committee.

In one exchange during that trial, Spies was asked to add up a series of contributions that were made to TRMPAC and a series of contributions that the Republican National Committee made to legislative candidates in Texas. Both lists added up to $190,000.

“That was pure coincidence?” asked the lawyer for the Democrats, Cris Feldman.

“I don’t think I’d use the word ‘coincidence,’ ” Spies replied.

Spies, who could not be reached, acknowledged during his testimony that the donations from the Republican National Committee to the legislative candidates were unusually large. He said that happened when “people we care about” made the request — and DeLay, he testified, would qualify. (emphasis added)

And as if that weren’t bad enough, DeLay can’t seem to keep basic facts straight when it comes to the grand jury proceedings that led to his indictment.

The day after U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay’s grand jury indictment, his lawyer and the jury foreman on Thursday appeared to contradict the Texas politician’s assertions that he was not given a chance to speak before the jury.

The foreman, William M. Gibson Jr., a retired state insurance investigator, said the Travis County grand jury waited until Wednesday, the final day of its term, to indict him because it was hoping he would accept jurors’ invitation to testify.

DeLay said in interviews that the grand jury never asked him to testify.

In a Wednesday night appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, he said Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle never talked to him or asked him to testify.

“Never asking me to testify, never doing anything for two years,” DeLay said in the interview. “And then, on the last day of his fourth or sixth grand jury, he indicts me. Why? Because his goal was to make me step down as majority leader.”

On Thursday, DeLay said in another broadcast interview that he was under the impression that he wasn’t going to be indicted because he hadn’t been called to testify before the grand jury.

“I have not testified before the grand jury to present my side of the case, and they indicted me,” said DeLay, according to the Associated Press.

This is just sad. DeLay was running all over town this week, using this as proof that Earle was running an improper investigation. And it was all a lie — even according to his own lawyer. One can’t help but wonder what else he’s been lying about.

And speaking of the grand jury, jury foreman William Gibson, a former sheriff’s deputy who has publicly praised Tom DeLay, isn’t fond of the criticism that Republicans have made against him and his colleagues.

The grand jury foreman also takes great exception to accusations that he and 11 other grand jury members followed the lead of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle instead of following the evidence.

“It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us,” Gibson said. […]

Gibson thinks there is enough evidence to convict Delay. “We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed the man, if we didn’t feel there was sufficient evidence,” said Gibson.

DeLay better have an awfully good legal team. With all the high-profile Republicans under criminal investigation (DeLay, Frist, Rove, Libby, Cunningham, Safavian), is there a concern that DC might run out of conservative criminal defense attorneys?

Do defense attorneys specialize in Republicans vs. Democrats? I thought they all went to the same well as far as firms are concerned.

No question, though, that for those firms it will be a busy fall. I’d hate to see them engage in something as undignified as price gouging. heh.

  • Do defense attorneys specialize in Republicans vs. Democrats?

    No, not really, I was kind of kidding. I figure, the way the K Street Project works, Republicans wouldn’t want to hire a legal team unless they were absolutely sure all the lawyers were loyal to the GOP.

    But realistically, in a situation like this, DeLay would hire a communist if he thought it would keep him out of jail.

  • CB, Delay’s other defense was that this method of laundering was commonly practiced by both parties, and presumably nationwide. Now I realize he will use anything and everything including making thigs up to cloud the issue so, is this just more smoke or are there grains of truth in what he says?

  • Dave,

    I overheard Shame Hannity on his radio show stating that Pelosi just started returning money to a PAC that she used for the same purposes. He said that if there were a Repug DA in Cali, they would be prosecuting here right now. I don’t know how that argument helps DeLay, and I gotta believe these guys are stretching, but I wouldn’t put it past any politician.

    So CB, can you shed any light on this?

  • So which is it?

    “The foreman, William M. Gibson Jr., a retired state insurance investigator”

    or

    “And speaking of the grand jury, jury foreman William Gibson, a former sheriff’s deputy”

    Not that I don’t want the guy cutting cain in the hot Texas Sun but I want to make sure you have the facts right C.B.

  • We Report You Decide.
    Mr. DeLay on the use of charities in politics.

    In proclaiming his innocence, Mr. DeLay said it was Mr. Earle who appeared to be breaking the law through his “extortion” of corporations that also faced criminal charges because of their donations to Texans for a Republican Majority.
    “I know that he extorted the corporations that he indicted by coming back to them and offering to dismiss the charges if they gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to his favorite charities,” Mr. DeLay said in the interview on “The Tony Snow Show” on Fox News. “He holds himself out as the savior against corruption in elections and hates corporations and union money, yet he takes corporation and union money. And I think that’s illegal.”
    Mr. DeLay was referring to plea bargains that Mr. Earle had with three companies, including Sears Roebuck and Cracker Barrel restaurants, that were drawn into the inquiry because of donations to Texans for a Republican Majority. The companies donated thousands of dollars to the School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas for a program on corporate money and politics.

    NYTimes, 9/30/05
    On the charitable Mr. DeLay:

    RoBold’s multiple fundraising roles for DeLay’s various enterprises exemplify the close relationship between DeLay’s charity work and his political machinery. Indeed, a review of tax records, financial-disclosure forms and campaign-finance records by Salon from the past five years shows that DeLay’s political operatives have routinely worked both for his PACs and his charity organizations. And doing double time, the fundraisers sometimes simultaneously hit up corporations with big stakes in bills before Congress.


    Golfing with Tom DeLay By Mark Benjamin

  • I’ve been a little worried since reading that Dick de Guerin will be on the team. De Guerin wants a change of venue, fearing Austin’s liberality (fading) and resentment of being carved up in the 2002 redistricting. A change of venue would mean a delay, and Republicans want the trial soonest so it doesn’t bump into the run-up to the 2006 election season.

  • #5 So which is it?

    “The foreman, William M. Gibson Jr., a retired state insurance investigator”

    or

    “And speaking of the grand jury, jury foreman William Gibson, a former sheriff’s deputy”

    ~~~~~
    Both, according to an Austin TV station. See bradblog.com for a link to the video. The reference to Gibson’s employment is at the end.

  • I was just reading something about Tom saying he had all this evidence of a massive conspiracy between Earle, Pelosi and others to get him. That reminds me of Jim Traficant. Remember him? He was the nut job that threatened to use all this secret evidence he had against other members of congress when they were throwing him out. I think I’m going to start calling Tom “GOP Jim”.

  • CB, Delay’s other defense was that this method of laundering was commonly practiced by both parties, and presumably nationwide.

    Sorry I’m late in responding to questions raised in this thread.

    The idea of shifting funds between committees is, to be fair, not entirely without precedent. But the details matter here, particularly as they relate to elections law in Texas.

    On the national level, both parties recognize that there are limits on what a national party, a state party, and vaguely-affiliated “independent” groups can do. Does everyone play it pretty close to the line? No doubt about it. But is money laundering systematic? Not like DeLay’s scheme it’s not.

    DeLay’s TRMPAC had corporate $ in one hand and a bunch of candidates in the other. They identified the legal restrictions with the apparent intent to break them by laundering the money through DC. There were no accidents or coincidences — they knew what they were doing was legally “problematic” and took steps to make it appear legit.

    I know of no Dem parallel in any state — and if Republicans want to use this as a defense, they should start pointing to actual examples instead offering ambigious generalities.

  • So which is it? “The foreman, William M. Gibson Jr., a retired state insurance investigator” or “And speaking of the grand jury, jury foreman William Gibson, a former sheriff’s deputy”

    They’re both right. Apparently, Mr. Gibson has worn a variety of hats.

    • Comments are closed.