On Monday, a Texas judge upheld a felony indictment against Tom DeLay, allowing money laundering charges to move ahead. For DeLay, who hoped to have the charges thrown out so he could reassume his leadership post in the House, it was a serious setback.
Just how close were DeLay’s lawyers to successfully arguing that the money laundering indictment was bogus? As TNR’s Jason Zengerle noted yesterday, not close at all.
Low down in its report on a Texas judge’s refusal to dismiss the money laundering charges against Tom DeLay, the Associated Press gives a summary of DeLay’s ultimately unsuccessful legal argument:
In trying to have those charges thrown out, the defense argued that the Texas money laundering law does not apply to funds in the form of a check, just coins or paper money. But the judge said that checks “are clearly funds and can be the subject of money laundering.” (emphasis added)
I can appreciate the fact that defense lawyers will pursue any angle to get a charge thrown out, but DeLay’s arguments seriously told a judge that money laundering doesn’t apply to laundered checks?
As far as DeLay is concerned, he better hope his creative legal team can craft a more persuasive pitch when they go to trial.