Friends in Texas have long regaled me with the outlandish doings of their Lege and courts, and now I gotta show you this Austin Statesman story (h/t riddenword) because it’s just so nutz:
Money-laundering charges against former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two indicted co-conspirators may be dismissed because the 2002 campaign finance case involved checks and not cash, a lawyer for DeLay said Sunday night.
“We win,” said Dick DeGuerin, DeLay’s lawyer, “because there’s nothing but checks in the case.” …
Go read the rest (it’s really impressive), including this from commenter “OlTex”:
No, Dickie D, it just means that the Republican-dominated judiciary is willing to twist itself into pretzelian knots to keep Tom DeLay from being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.
First a one-vote majority of the Court O’Crims adopts a dimwitted theory of what felonies can involve conspiracies, (even though the state prosecutor warned them it threatened future prosecutions) and now the Third Court says it’s only money-laundering if it involves scrubbing currency in a galvanized washtub.
Combine these rulings with the grifter-coddling decisions of the Texas “Ethics” Commission and it’s open season again in Texas for political crime.
Remember what OlTex is referring to? Back in January when that great Molly Ivins video about sex-toy shops first came up in conversation here, riddenword told us:
Speaking of d*ldoes, I offer in contention at this here rodeo The Texas Ethics Commission, which actually ruled that public officials were required by law to disclose "gifts" given to them, but were not legally required to disclose the amount of said "gift".
I am not making this up.
In other words, the (100% GOPer) Texas Ethics Commission said public officials need only report that they received a "check" as a gift, without disclosing the amount for which said check was written, since the law only requires them to "describe" gifts received and the name of the donor.
As to OlTex’s “Court O’Crims” reference: as I understand it, Texas has two Supreme Courts — one of that name that handles civil cases, but also the Court of Criminal Appeals. When, in a narrow decision a year or so ago, the latter threw out conspiracy charges against Tom DeLay and two co-defendants, state prosecutor Ronnie Earle argued for a rehearing, saying that the court’s reliance on a flawed ruling in a 30-year-old drug case perpetuated a system where there would effectively be two kinds of law — one for white-collar criminals and one for blue-collar.
(As riddenword once explained to me, the general criminal charge “conspiracy” is located in the general Texas penal code, but lots of other felonies are located in special codes of their own — the Finance Code, the Election Code, the Tax Code, the Natural Resources Code, etc. Many of those felonies involve white-collar crimes.
(What the Court of Criminal Appeals did for DeLay was to say that the general concept of "conspiracy" to commit a crime only applies to penal-code crimes: If chemical plant operators, for example, get together to falsify records about pollutant discharges, you can’t charge them with conspiracy because that felony is in the Water Code; if bankers scheme to conceal or destroy bank records, you can’t charge them with conspiracy because that felony is part of the Finance Code.)
Well, when the TCCA ruled that you can only "conspire" in non-penal code cases if the Legislature has specifically adopted a conspiracy law applicable to that particular violation, Ronnie Earle argued that not only was this bad public policy that goes far beyond the DeLay case, but it endorsed a system of crime and punishment in which, to paraphrase the old Woody Guthrie song, those who conspire to harm you with a six-gun can be prosecuted, but those who conspire to harm you with a fountain pen get to skate. But the court told him — and the many Texas prosecutors who supported his position — “Get lost.”
Words may fail me but initials don’t: AYFKM? FTS.
(And yes, I did hesitate to discuss this at all, knowing that this blog’s readership includes some MS Lege and Supreme Court types with proven sweet-teeth for bad ideas. But finally I couldn’t resist. Forewarned is forearmed.)
Have you seen recent TV appearances by Tom DeLay? He must have been feeling bulletproof for a while as he was practically daring the authorities to go after him further. With Fox News always lamenting that the Dems do not pay consequences for offenses, they have sure been trotting out Mr. Multi-Count Indictment alot.
What do you expect. It is Texas, my native state of Louisiana is widely regarded as the most corrupt state in this country. Rightly so. However, Texas has to be a close second and there is no one more corrupt than a Texas Oilman. They just find ways to make it legal.
Hi, OWIL and I4a. Um, does it strike y’all as a weird time for the GOP to wanna be showing off Tom DeLay?
Cujo359 ran into The Glitch from Hell trying to post this comment:
Is there some “stupid serum” that Republican office-seekers are required to take? I’ve been a Republican my entire adult life, but the events of the past 8 years have finally nauseated me to the point that I intend never to vote Republican again as long as I live. Say what you will about the Democrats, in large part they at least pause to think about the ethics and longer-term effects of their actions before jumping off a cliff. I can no longer say that of most Republicans in office.
Believe it or not, in local races I have occasionally found the Republican more tolerable than the Dem and voted accordingly (though it’s been many years since that was feasible).
I dunno, soms, at this point the correlation between “Republican candidate” and “basic character flaw” (add, quite often, “basic psychological flaw”) looks awfully damn strong. I don’t know where they find these people, but it’s nowhere I want to visit.
somslawyer @ 5, Oh, pluuuhleezeee!
The case against DeLay was nothing but political to begin with.
A politically initiated case should end on a political basis.
Ronnie Earle indicted DeLay because DeLay is a Republican. DeLay was indicted in Austin for acts which occurred in Houston. DeLay was initially indicted for acts which occurred BEFORE the statute was enacted.
Earle, you should remember, also indicted Kay Bailey Hutchison for the same crime — being a Republican. Earle’s case against her fell completely apart.
Complaining about GOP politics ending the case against DeLay is akin to German Nazis complaining about the treatment they received at the hands of the Red Army.
Both parties have rotten apples. Period. Always will. Democrats don’t “pause to think.” They are as slimy as anybody else. Let’s start with Bill Clinton and Marc Rich. Let’s consider Dan Rostenkowski. Anyone remember a girl named Mary Jo Kopechne?
Yeah, the Democrats are such paragons of virtue. Meanwhile, Tom DeLay has actually done wonderful real-world work for abused children, but political opponent-idiots like Ronnie Earle claim the charity work is merely a cover for political money laundering. Yeah, right.
Excuse me, I have to go puke now.
But this wasn’t DeLay’s first dip into the indictment pool, Observer. Wasn’t he even censured more than once for ethics violations?
Observer,
Tom Delay was indicted in Austin because that’s where, by law, corruption cases originate, and Ronnie Earle indicted him because he broke a hatful of laws. If you’ll check the records, he’s prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans through the years, although in all likelihood, that’s because there’ve been more Democratic officeholders during his tenure.
You have one thing right though. Both parties have rotten apples. It certainly seems as if that Republican basket has gotten a lot wormier lately, though. I can’t speak for Mississippi, but it’s for certain that way here in Texas.
Forget your pills this morning, Observer?
Ben Cole, all of the pundits say Dubba won because we vote for the person we would rather have a beer with (gawd help us)…want to run for office and have a beer?
Don’t look to me for knowing anything, GlitterGirl (love that sobriquet). But I’d take you up on the beer.
In 2000 I voted for the guy who got the most votes, but my guy lost.
In 2004 I voted for the guy who got the fewer votes, but he lost too. Clearly, I don’t understand everything I know about the system.
On behalf of Pith & Vinegar, I thank you for that one, Ben Cole.
Ben, I wasn’t attempting to credit you with an abundance of political wisdom :>)…I, by the way hold the same dubious voting record…just commenting on your wonderful sense of humor, thus being the kinda guy we’d like to have a beer with. So, why not run?
And-re the gg nickname, I am one of 11 Yazoo City (MS) girls (of a certain age) who gather regularly to celebrate our..ahem ..years of friendship.