FNC: Judge in Texas throws out Part of charges against DeLay(Upholding charge on money laundering)

Fox News

[sully777]

The headline in AP and on this site makes it sound as if he is guilty. The actual story has the judge throwing out 1/2 the crap as total bogus indictment. Hope this AG is canned when this case is acquitted.

[flattorney]

12.05.05 - FlAttorney, and several of his colleagues, attended the Houston campaign fundraiser for Tom DeLay tonight, which was attended by VP Dick Cheney. I also noted FLA was quoted in the National Media regarding Judge Priest's rulings today.

FLA will have a post in "The DeLay Chronicles" on the ruling today by Judge Priest, along with his Houston fundraiser attendance, when he returns to Miami. Overall, the ruling today was positive for DeLay, and Judge Priest made it basically impossible for Earle to succeed on his manufactured money laundering charges against DeLay. - TAB

12.05.05 - Video: Judge Ruling & DeLay Houston Fundraiser
12.05.05 - PDF File: Judge Priest's Indictments Ruling-12pgs


12.05.05 - Tom DeLay and wife Christine arrive at Houston campaign fundraiser

[BufordP]

Almost. There's still money laundering charges to go.

[jveritas]

You are a Bush basher and a Republican basher and all what you do is posting negative doom and gloom posts all over the forum. You are not fooling the vast majority of freepers regarding who you are.

[moose2004]

Delay will beat the remaining charges, I'm confident. If you remember, the conspiracy charge was the first count Ronnie Earle sought, and he made a very big deal about it. But when he discovered there was or could be a problem with the statute of limitations he immediately went to a second GJ which, funny enough, refused to indict Delay on money laundering charges. Earle then went to a third GJ which did indict the former Majority Leader on money laundering charges. I think Earle was desperate, I think the remaining charges will be easily defeated in court and I believe Earle should be investigated for abuse of his office.

[Sacajaweau]

You're right. There's a motion coming....but the charge had to stand in order for that to occur.

[Republican Wildcat]

Tom Delay was never the Speaker. What are you talking about?

[Max_Parrish]

Priest's ruling has a distinctly rotted oder. To wit:

1) He stated that "a person commits the offense of money laundering if he knowingly conducts, supervises, or facilitates a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity (any offense, including preparatory offense)".

"Proceeds" under Texas law are "funds" derived FROM, produced through, or realized through a (criminal) act."

Priest apparently believes that the criminal act was not the individual actions but that "if one solicits corporate contributions with an intent to divert the funds to a candidate a violation by the diverter occurs when the funds are so diverted" or if "corporate contributions are received for a lawful purpose and then diverted for an unlawful purpose, the violation OCCURING when the funds are so diverted and actually distributed to individual candidates".

However, he then makes reference to an "incomplete crime" and states the money was "dirty" (proceeds from or produced through a criminal act) at the moment of its collection and holding and that any transaction with this 'dirty' money is, therefore, money laundering.

I find his thinking muddy and (for the most part) to be incorrect

First, there is no such thing as a 'proto' crime. Either it is a crime at a moment in time or it is not. By his own admission it is only a crime when the money is actually given or received by the candidate. Money "from" (vs "to" use in) a crime can only be dirty when the crime is committed and the funds are from or produced by that activity (actually giving to a candidate), prior intentions not with standing. It is the "gift" that is a crime under the election code (not collections and holding)...it is the "gift" that generates (produces) funds that cannot be "laundered" (used in transactions).

His error is that he ignores that the the 'proceeds' are not "from" a criminal activity (from violating the election code) but used "to" facilitate a criminal activity (which is only a criminal act when it is completed).

By Priest's reasoning, money laundering must include 'any transaction' of funds either from, devoted to, or a part of a criminal activity (e.g. getting a loan to purchase crowbars to break into a house must be money laundering.)

If so, Priest's novel understanding would make every crime committed anywhere "money laundering" (e.g. buying gas on credit to drive to the supermarket to steal a steak is "money laundering" using Priest infantile reasoning).

Does he not know the history of money laundering law and its intent? Has he only skimmed his case law?

In his own list of case law, every act of "money laundering" is based on a predicate act and a realized gain (proceeds) - none include any transaction used to facilitate a crime as a 'Proceed'.

BTW - If conspiracy to violate the election code had been upheld, money laundering could have been charged. The criminal act (conspiracy) would have generated (produced)money transactions (the realized gains).

Second, I think he is wrong on the use of checks. But I'll save that....

[rcrngroup]

Money laundering charges were not thrown out. This isn't over yet. However, if Delay gets convicted on this I would think that there will be a lot of other politicians facing the same charges.

No, probably only the Republican politicians. The DemonRATS would get a free pass from the media whores and liberal partisan DA's (like Patrick Fitzgerald and Ronnie Earle) who target Republicans. And of course the Republican politicians are such cowards that none of them stand up and denounce these witch hunters by name. No wonder the DimWits get away with crap like this!

And by the way, "Cut & Run" Murtha should be hauled up for House Ethics violations and so far no (cowardly) House Republicans are calling for his head. Instead they're giving the RAT B@st@rd standing ovations and praising him like the greatest American since George Washington!!! What a bunch of Republican cowards!!!

[1L]

There is a state tort called malicious prosecution. There is also federal civil rights actions. The former is darn near impossible due to sovereign immunity issues. The latter likely requires evidence DeLay won't be able to get.

We've essentially got a government that has granted itself immunity from virtually any wrong doing.

[California Patriot]

I criticize Bush and the GOP leadership when warranted, which is often.

I have worked hard for the party over the years, very intensively from 2002-2005; much, much harder than most FReepers, I'd bet you.

So the hell with your name-calling. I know who I am.