Delay ExoneratedFollow

Money laundering charges remain.

OMG the Liberal Conspiracy is exonerated!

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A judge dismissed the conspiracy charges Monday against Rep. Tom DeLay but refused to throw out the money-laundering charges, dashing his hopes for now of reclaiming his post as House majority leader.

Edited, Mon Dec 5 17:07:11 2005 by Jophiel

And those were dismissed on a technicality. Delay's attorney's argued that the conspiracy charges should be dropped because that law was not on the books until 2003 which was after the time that these alleged/charged/indicted deeds were done.

This is like me driving my car through your living room window, up your stairs, into your kids bedroom, then running him over back and forth 100 times untill he was dead, and the speeding ticket thrown out.

Really not a big deal, kids.

It also makes their client look better. If some of the charges are "unfounded", then, subconsciously, the public begins to think that the other charges against the defendant are unjustified as well.

What she said.

Edited, Tue Dec 6 09:52:49 2005 by Spirish

Yup. They sure are...

I'd really take the approach that while the money laundering charges have bigger teeth, it was the conspiracy to commit election fraud that had the longest legs with regard to Delay. In order to get him for the election conspiracy charge, they just needed to show that his connection to the PAC meant that he had to know that it's purpose was to funnel money to campaigns in potentially illegal ways. In order to get him for the money laundering, or conspiracy to launder money charges, they have to show that he was directly involved in the actual money dispersments or the specifics with regards to how to get that money from point A to point B. That's a *lot* harder to prove since the PAC was being run by others. He was just the front man essentially.


Eh. And that's ingoring that the entire concept of money laundering in this case is on incredibly questionable legal ground to begin with. Money laundering traditionally involves money generated via an illegal enterprise which then uses a series of transfers to make it "clean" and usable. In this case, you've got "clean" money owned by one group, being transfered to another group (the PAC) and from there transfered to a third. While you can argue that the money was used for illegal purposes, it's a bit hard to directly tie the concept of money laundering to the processe involved. I'm not aware of any precident for that kind of charge in this kind of case.


What we really saw was a PAC taking advantage of a loophole in the law. Calling that "money laundering" is a bit of a stretch. And the implications of applying that charge in cases like this is incredibly far reaching as well. Can I be charged with money laundering if I put money into a mutual fund or trust account, and then that fund or account uses the money in ways I can't or don't want to be associated with directly? Is Disney laundering money when it funnels money into say TriStar to make an R rated film but not have their own name attached to it? If the money they funnel ends up being used for illegal purposes (say someone at TriStar decides to do a little child **** or something silly), does it then become money laundering because the funds were used illegally at the end point?


Money laundering traditionally requires that the illegality be at the beginning of the transaction, not at the endpoint. It's going to be a pretty long road for the prosecution to get a conviction and even if they do, it's an almost guaranteed appeal due to the precident being set.