Before his trial began, Tom DeLay was given the choice of being sentenced by either judge or jury if found guilty. He chose the former. Nearly seven weeks after his conviction, Tom DeLay faced Judge Priest to hear his decision. But before that would happen, Texas law allows for the presentation of additional evidence and/or witnesses during the punishment phase.
Steve Brand of the prosecution team sought to question Peter Cloeren, CEO of Cloeren Incorporated, a plastics company based in Orange, TX, who in 1998 pleaded guilty to charges involving illegal campaign finance. He had funneled Cloeren corporate dollars to Texas House candidate Brian Babin by soliciting "loyal employees" of his company to make personal contributions that would later be reimbursed by the company. He claims he did so on a suggestion by parties including Tom DeLay. However, the House Ethics Committee conducted an investigation into the incident in 1998 and exonerated DeLay of any misdoing. Therefore, Priest was not willing to listen to the witness and he was excused.
His testimony might have been very compelling though. The whole series of events was more complicated than my summation indicates and are much better explained in this story by Lou Dubose and Jan Reid http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/10/04/delay.
In an attempt to display DeLay's "general lack of remorse coupled with vindictiveness", Brand played a video of DeLay's reaction to the press immediately after his guilty verdict. "It is what it is," DeLay claimed in the tape. "Maybe we can get it before people who understand the law." Brand characterized the statement as a shot at the jury, a shot at the court, and a shot at us. An equivalent to a "screw you!" to the system. "He needs to go to prison and he needs to go today," Brand concluded.
DeGuerin countered with, "No purpose will be served by sending Tom DeLay to prison. He's lost everything he worked for in his life. We do not accept the jury's verdict as correct. We will challenge it and we have that right."
In Texas, convicted felons are also not allowed to hold public office, vote, or own firearms.
The defense brought in former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a longtime friend of DeLay's, to vouch for his character, religious conviction and conservative values. In Hastert's opinion, DeLay has what it takes to survive in politics — "the three P's: passion, purpose and perspective." I expected one of them to be pompousness.
"Would it be a conservative value to obey the laws of Texas?" asked Cobb during cross-examination. "That's a value of citizenship and not necessarily conservative," responded Hastert. Cobb continued to poke at DeLay's moral compass. "The first step to redemption is admitting you did something wrong," he said. "Have you heard him express any remorse or accept any responsibility for the actions he's been convicted of?" pressed Cobb. Hastert danced around an answer before finally landing on, "no."
Cobb quoted Patrick Henry — "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
But then, when the Assistant DA recounted the dates DeLay and his co-conspirators could have met and planned the illegal money swap, DeLay actually turned to him and laughed. Cobb responded sharply, "Yes, that's exactly the way it happened!" He then concluded by requesting "a sentence of no less than 10 years in prison", and suggested that with parole alone DeLay would make himself a martyr wearing thorns like Jesus on the cross.
DeLay opted to speak for himself before sentencing. Since he did not testify during the trial, it would be his first time to address the bench since entering his "not guilty" plea. "I fought the fight, ran the race, kept the faith," he said, leading into a summation of his political career. "In '95 the Democratic leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, announced they would take me down...then the ethics charges started." He explained that he's very passionate about things he believes in and therefore his adversaries often misinterpret what he considers to be just a "Texas cocky" attitude.
DeLay promised not to retry the case during his statement, yet confessed that he's still perplexed by the Travis County DA's tactic of using criminal code to enforce election code. "Money laundering has to start with proceeds from criminal activity. If everyone's done this for years why hasn't someone else stopped them?" he said, clinging to his theory that a vindictive Ronnie Dale Earle simply had it in for Thomas Dale DeLay. "I can't be remorseful for something I don't believe I did. I've raised and spent $10 million for legal fees...fighting the criminalization of politics."
Then it was Priest's turn to speak. "Before there were Democrats and Republicans, there was America." He went on to explain that those who are entrusted to make our laws must also be bound by them, and he did not agree with DeLay's claim of an unjust indictment for his actions. He recalled the testimony of RNC leadership who himself could not recall a money exchange similar to that with the Texas Seven. And finally, he told DeLay that he agreed with the jury's verdict.
With that, he sentenced the former Congressman to five years in prison for the money laundering charge (immediately probated to 10 years of community supervision, a/k/a/ probation) and three years in prison for the conspiracy charge, to be served concurrently. He used many more words than that, though, and for several minutes it was unclear how the sentence was to play out.
Reporters huddled in groups to compare notes and verify facts before disseminating the news. Mrs. DeLay and her daughter Dani sobbed. Sheriffs escorted DeLay away for processing. DeGuerin shouted for an appeal. His client would be released on a $20,000 appeal bond the same day. Moments later Priest ordered the courtroom to be cleared.
In the hallway, current Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg was telling TV cameras that she was extremely proud of her team. When asked if the sentence sends a message to other politicians she replied, "It absolutely does."
As the crowd poured into the hallway the buzz was about the implications of the sentence. Some anticipated probation alone; other had hoped for something more strict. "Was he handcuffed?" several asked, "I couldn't see." All, however, were expecting to catch a glimpse of DeLay as he left the courtroom. The Travis County jail is located adjacent to the courthouse; word spread of a tunnel connecting the two. DeLay was probably already out of the building.
Moments later DeGuerin worked his way through the crowd. The TV crews reconvened in his path. When asked for his thoughts DeGuerin responsed, if I told you what I thought I'd be sued. This will not stand." And with that, he pushed forward.
Is he right? Time will tell as DeLay's appeal works its way through the system. It was a long uphill battle for both sides. His alleged co-conspirators, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, will face their own trial in April. Judge Priest will hear that case as well. The story is far from over, but it's been a fascinating glimpse into the real world of politics and justice in our country.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Final Stretch
Today the D.A. will rest its case, and the prosecution team seems almost giddy. Assistant D.A. Gary Cobb has examined most of the key witnesses, and co-prosecutors Beverly Matthews and Holly Taylor have questioned several others. Their boss, Rosemary Lehmberg, has checked in on them almost daily.
Reporter Laylan Copelin will testify this morning following another well-seasoned political reporter from Austin, Harvey Kronberg. After their testimony the jury will view a videotape of DeLay being interviewed by FOX News only days after stepping down from his leadership position, due to this indictment, in October 2005. By that time, DeLay had been promoted by fellow Representatives to Speaker of the House — the third most powerful position in the U.S. government. Quid pro quo?
But before testimony begins, the judge takes a moment to address the jury. "You already know everything I'm fixin' to tell ya," says Priest, before confirming that all Americans, regardless of race, creed or color, are entitled to fundamental rights including their opinions on political issues. And nowhere is that freedom recognized more than it is in our legal system. "In courts such as this one, you're allowed to be tried on your conduct — regardless of your political views," concludes Priest.
Harvey Kronberg, editor of The Quorum Report, has been reporting on Texas politics for over 25 years. He remembered seeing DeLay at the state capitol in April 2003, and again intermittently throughout the session, after Republicans had successfully gained control of the House (and Senate) and redistricting legislation was in full gear. During cross-examination, Kronberg characterized DeLay as "the most influential politician interested in redistricting." DeGuerin responded, "The governor, the state speaker, and the lieutenant governor were also interested, weren't they?"
As U.S. House Majority Whip, Tom DeLay was certainly more influential than DeGuerin's alternate suggestions.
As a matter of fact, in some circles it was well known that DeLay played a major role in the 2003 redistricting. According to Jeffrey Toobin's story on the subject published in The New Yorker, "for three days in October 2003, Tom DeLay left his duties as majority leader of the House of Representatives and worked out of the Texas state capitol." He personally shuttled proposed maps between elected officials. When asked about his role in the negotiations he responded, "I'm a Texan trying to get things done." In the same article, Texas senator John Cornyn was quoted as saying, "Everybody who knows Tom knows that he's a fighter and a competitor, and he saw an opportunity to help the Republicans stay in power in Washington."
Maybe that's why DeGuerin has gone to such great lengths to minimize his client's involvement in the '03 redistricting, and perhaps that's why he's such a legendary criminal defense attorney. He's a keen strategist who got real estate heir Robert Durst acquitted of murder in 2003 on a self-defense angle, even though dismembered parts of his victim's body were found floating in Galveston Bay.
Copelin takes the stand. His testimony will mark the first time the reporter has testified in a trial he is simultaneously covering. However, it won't be the first time Copelin is cross-examined by attorney Dick DeGuerin. He was also a witness in the trial of Austin socialite Celeste Beard, a former DeGuerin client who was convicted in 2003 of murdering her wealthy husband Steven.
There really isn't much for Copelin to say. The tape and DeLay's own words speak for themselves. "I probably could have stopped it, but why would I?" said DeLay. "Everyone was doing it." His comment correlates with one he made earlier during a taped interview with the D.A. in 2005. DeGuerin wants the jury to think that DeLay didn't know about the transaction until Oct 2, 2002, "after the deal was already done." Actually, the RNSEC checks weren't cut and mailed until Oct 4.
The FOX News interview is played to the jury on a 54" TV screen. It's Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show — lots of red, white and blue — and DeLay is the exclusive guest. The evidence, certainly the most entertaining of the lot, will be limited to a short segment dealing specifically with the indictment.
Though the interview is only five years old, the Tom DeLay on the screen looks perkier and 10 years younger than the one sitting in the courtroom. "This is a frivolous indictment. I am indicted just for the reason to make me step aside as majority leader." claims DeLay. "This is politics at its sleaziest, and people will recognize that and see it for what it is."
Jurors are now viewing a cockier Tom DeLay; the one I recall — not the one who would later embarrass himself by dancing on a reality TV show. No, this is the Tom DeLay who would more commonly embarrass himself with his words, not his actions.
"I don't know, but my lawyers tell me that this is so frivolous, so over-the-top, so embarrassing to the Judiciary that we ought to be able to get it out of here pretty quickly." It sounds as though his lawyers were telling him plenty at that time. "Everything goes though lawyers, so you don't have an intent to commit a crime if a lawyers tells you you haven't committed a crime," he continued.
Wallace questions him about his involvement with TRMPAC and presents a copy of an email sent to Texas oilman Boone Pickens.
WALLACE: And it says, "Tom DeLay agreed to help us and has been an ardent advocate for us at raising money, making phone calls, serving as a special guest at events and providing assistance with leading strategists." Here sir, is the e-mail. I mean, it looks like you're a lot more deeply involved than you say you were.
DELAY: This is nothing but telling contributors what's going on, and most of this I was doing. I was...
WALLACE: Raising money.
DELAY: ...raising money, making money phone calls when necessary, letting them use my name on fundraising letter. Yeah, sure.
WALLACE: Well, here's another...
DELAY: By the way, there's nothing illegal about that.
WALLACE: No, no, no. I know it. It just speaks to the question of how much you either knew or didn't know about the day-to-day operations of TRMPAC.
When asked about his knowledge of the money swap, DeLay responds, "The first time (I knew of it) was in, I think, October — the first time I saw Jim Ellis since that event happened was in October when he does come to a meeting, my scheduling meeting, I think that's when he, walking out of the office, said 'Oh, by the way, we sent money to RNSEC.'"
When did he know? That is for the jury to decide.
The prosecution rests its case.
Reporter Laylan Copelin will testify this morning following another well-seasoned political reporter from Austin, Harvey Kronberg. After their testimony the jury will view a videotape of DeLay being interviewed by FOX News only days after stepping down from his leadership position, due to this indictment, in October 2005. By that time, DeLay had been promoted by fellow Representatives to Speaker of the House — the third most powerful position in the U.S. government. Quid pro quo?
But before testimony begins, the judge takes a moment to address the jury. "You already know everything I'm fixin' to tell ya," says Priest, before confirming that all Americans, regardless of race, creed or color, are entitled to fundamental rights including their opinions on political issues. And nowhere is that freedom recognized more than it is in our legal system. "In courts such as this one, you're allowed to be tried on your conduct — regardless of your political views," concludes Priest.
Harvey Kronberg, editor of The Quorum Report, has been reporting on Texas politics for over 25 years. He remembered seeing DeLay at the state capitol in April 2003, and again intermittently throughout the session, after Republicans had successfully gained control of the House (and Senate) and redistricting legislation was in full gear. During cross-examination, Kronberg characterized DeLay as "the most influential politician interested in redistricting." DeGuerin responded, "The governor, the state speaker, and the lieutenant governor were also interested, weren't they?"
As U.S. House Majority Whip, Tom DeLay was certainly more influential than DeGuerin's alternate suggestions.
As a matter of fact, in some circles it was well known that DeLay played a major role in the 2003 redistricting. According to Jeffrey Toobin's story on the subject published in The New Yorker, "for three days in October 2003, Tom DeLay left his duties as majority leader of the House of Representatives and worked out of the Texas state capitol." He personally shuttled proposed maps between elected officials. When asked about his role in the negotiations he responded, "I'm a Texan trying to get things done." In the same article, Texas senator John Cornyn was quoted as saying, "Everybody who knows Tom knows that he's a fighter and a competitor, and he saw an opportunity to help the Republicans stay in power in Washington."
Maybe that's why DeGuerin has gone to such great lengths to minimize his client's involvement in the '03 redistricting, and perhaps that's why he's such a legendary criminal defense attorney. He's a keen strategist who got real estate heir Robert Durst acquitted of murder in 2003 on a self-defense angle, even though dismembered parts of his victim's body were found floating in Galveston Bay.
Copelin takes the stand. His testimony will mark the first time the reporter has testified in a trial he is simultaneously covering. However, it won't be the first time Copelin is cross-examined by attorney Dick DeGuerin. He was also a witness in the trial of Austin socialite Celeste Beard, a former DeGuerin client who was convicted in 2003 of murdering her wealthy husband Steven.
There really isn't much for Copelin to say. The tape and DeLay's own words speak for themselves. "I probably could have stopped it, but why would I?" said DeLay. "Everyone was doing it." His comment correlates with one he made earlier during a taped interview with the D.A. in 2005. DeGuerin wants the jury to think that DeLay didn't know about the transaction until Oct 2, 2002, "after the deal was already done." Actually, the RNSEC checks weren't cut and mailed until Oct 4.
The FOX News interview is played to the jury on a 54" TV screen. It's Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show — lots of red, white and blue — and DeLay is the exclusive guest. The evidence, certainly the most entertaining of the lot, will be limited to a short segment dealing specifically with the indictment.
Though the interview is only five years old, the Tom DeLay on the screen looks perkier and 10 years younger than the one sitting in the courtroom. "This is a frivolous indictment. I am indicted just for the reason to make me step aside as majority leader." claims DeLay. "This is politics at its sleaziest, and people will recognize that and see it for what it is."
Jurors are now viewing a cockier Tom DeLay; the one I recall — not the one who would later embarrass himself by dancing on a reality TV show. No, this is the Tom DeLay who would more commonly embarrass himself with his words, not his actions.
"I don't know, but my lawyers tell me that this is so frivolous, so over-the-top, so embarrassing to the Judiciary that we ought to be able to get it out of here pretty quickly." It sounds as though his lawyers were telling him plenty at that time. "Everything goes though lawyers, so you don't have an intent to commit a crime if a lawyers tells you you haven't committed a crime," he continued.
Wallace questions him about his involvement with TRMPAC and presents a copy of an email sent to Texas oilman Boone Pickens.
WALLACE: And it says, "Tom DeLay agreed to help us and has been an ardent advocate for us at raising money, making phone calls, serving as a special guest at events and providing assistance with leading strategists." Here sir, is the e-mail. I mean, it looks like you're a lot more deeply involved than you say you were.
DELAY: This is nothing but telling contributors what's going on, and most of this I was doing. I was...
WALLACE: Raising money.
DELAY: ...raising money, making money phone calls when necessary, letting them use my name on fundraising letter. Yeah, sure.
WALLACE: Well, here's another...
DELAY: By the way, there's nothing illegal about that.
WALLACE: No, no, no. I know it. It just speaks to the question of how much you either knew or didn't know about the day-to-day operations of TRMPAC.
When asked about his knowledge of the money swap, DeLay responds, "The first time (I knew of it) was in, I think, October — the first time I saw Jim Ellis since that event happened was in October when he does come to a meeting, my scheduling meeting, I think that's when he, walking out of the office, said 'Oh, by the way, we sent money to RNSEC.'"
When did he know? That is for the jury to decide.
The prosecution rests its case.
What a Difference a Witness Makes
It's day nine of the trial. The judge is determined to stop by 5:00pm so the court reporter may tend to her sick child. Priest comes off as a truly likeable guy who's to be commended for keeping the proceedings fair and balanced — the old-fashioned kind of fair and balanced I mean. At times, onlookers numbered as few as eight or ten, including press, but today there are 35 or 50. Energy and interest seems to be increasing as the prosecution prepares to rest its case.
The first witness, Marshall Vogt, Sr. Forensic Analyst with the Travis County DA, starts slugglshly by presenting data summaries of TRMPAC's contributions, expenses, bank records, internal ledgers, as well as those from other PACs. His testimony also includes an analysis of calls made between the cell phones of Colyandro, Ellis and DeLay staff members.
The list of RNSEC contributions proves to be most compelling. Though the organization supports U.S. candidates at all state and local levels, from governors to city councilmen, Vogt's analysis focuses only on statewide leglslative races in order to compare apples with apples. Those contributions totaled $222,850 and were distributed to 70 candidates. More than 85% of those dollars were sent to the Texas Seven, averaging a donation of $27,146.86 to each.
The most interesting part of the phone call analysis was a debate that arose surrounding the identity of DeLay's cell phone number. Vogt claimed the defense never provided it to the DA's office. The defense denied his claim. Vogt subpoenaed several wireless carriers trying to locate the Congressman's number, and even tracked phone records of DeLay associates who may have had a phone registered in their name for him — concentrating on calls placed on DeLay's birthday. Very clever.
Vogt continued, explaining that he was able to identify DeLay's Majority Whip office number only after locating a copy of the Congressional Director for that Session at the University of Texas library. The appropriate pages had to be photocopied as evidence so the book could be returned to its rightful owner by the due date.
Things got more interesting after lunch. In the closest thing to a Perry Mason moment this trial has seen, the prosecution has requested a last minute witness, Austin American-Statesman reporter Laylan Copelin. He has reported on this story as far back as the indictment itself.
During a brief interview the week before, Copelin asked DeLay about the $190K check from TRMPAC. "I probably could have stopped it," claimed DeLay, "but why would I?" It's a quote that seems to contradict part of DeLay's own defense regarding his knowledge of the transaction. A negotiation between legal teams ensued in the hallway for nearly half an hour. In the end, Copelin will testify tomorrow.
The steam really picked up once the next witness, Steve Bickerstaff, took the stand. Bickerstaff is an expert witness who has written three books on political redistricting — a prime motive at the heart of this case. His most recent book chronicles the 2002 election and the civil and criminal charges associated with the redistricting that followed in Texas.
The state's constitution requires redistricting every ten years. It's the responsibility of the legislature, and is sometimes limited to just a portion of the districts rather than the whole state. But if the legislature fails to act, or their result isn't acceptable, the Federal court is to step in and resolve the issue. That's what happened in Texas in 2001.
In the same year, Republicans had a majority of only nine seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Bills including the Patriot Act and Bush's 1st tax cuts were nearly defeated. With George W. Bush in the White House and DeLay serving as House Majority Whip, Texas was considered by many to be a tremendously efficient vehicle for increasing that majority.
The prosecution claims that an "off-season" redistricting by the Republican controlled Texas legislature, which would ultimately increase Republican representation in DC, was the prime motive for TRMPAC's money swap with the RNSEC.
Bickerstaff's testimony began with a PowerPoint presentation of the state's history of redistricting, starting in 1845 when Texas was first admitted to the union and apportioned two districts (it now has 32, and will likely gain more as a result of the 2010 census). "The DA isn't asking him any questions, your honor!" DeGuerin objected. Judge Priest sustained his objection, after which Cobb began interjecting "and then what happened?" into Bickerstaff's presentation.
"Was Tom DeLay involved in the redistricting plan?" asked prosecution. "Yes," responded Bickerstaff. DeGuerin objected. Bickerstaff then referred to the Republican plan as "a masterful stroke." DeGuerin objected again.
Unbeknownst to the jury, Bickerstaff was first contacted by DeLay's legal team in 2005 and asked to trestify as an expert witness for the defense. He declined, telling DeGuerin, "I'd be a liability to your client on the stand."
And the jury wasn't present with DeGuerin objected the previous day to the prospect of Bickerstaff even testifying. Based on the opinions in his book, DeGuerin felt that Bickerstaff's testimony might be peppered with partisan innuendo.
As it turns out, DeGuerin and Bickerstaff are colleagues as adjunct professors at the University of Texas Law School. They also have a personal friendship. "I shared our defense theories with you, Steve", said DeGuerin, expressing a sense of betrayal. "Now Dick, I consider you and Janie (his wife) friends", responded Bickerstaff, "but you asked me to serve as an expert witness on election law. That's not my expertise." Their exchange intensified.
DeGuerin continued, "Did you tell the DA that I had contacted you?" "Yessir", said Bickerstaff. "I originally declined their invitation as well. Then they sent someone to my class who asked me to reconsider."
"But I confided in you," DeGuerin persisted. A clearly agitated Bickerstaff came back with, "There's nothing about your strategy that wasn't already in my book, Dick!" The exchange between two well-seasoned attorneys, on a first name basis, became surreal. And perhaps, in itself, serves as a prime example of the current divisiveness in our country.
At the end of that witness qualifying session, Judge Priest had ruled that Bickerstaff could indeed testify, but only on what had historically occurred with redistricting in Texas. I suspect two less holiday cards may be sent out this year.
The first witness, Marshall Vogt, Sr. Forensic Analyst with the Travis County DA, starts slugglshly by presenting data summaries of TRMPAC's contributions, expenses, bank records, internal ledgers, as well as those from other PACs. His testimony also includes an analysis of calls made between the cell phones of Colyandro, Ellis and DeLay staff members.
The list of RNSEC contributions proves to be most compelling. Though the organization supports U.S. candidates at all state and local levels, from governors to city councilmen, Vogt's analysis focuses only on statewide leglslative races in order to compare apples with apples. Those contributions totaled $222,850 and were distributed to 70 candidates. More than 85% of those dollars were sent to the Texas Seven, averaging a donation of $27,146.86 to each.
The most interesting part of the phone call analysis was a debate that arose surrounding the identity of DeLay's cell phone number. Vogt claimed the defense never provided it to the DA's office. The defense denied his claim. Vogt subpoenaed several wireless carriers trying to locate the Congressman's number, and even tracked phone records of DeLay associates who may have had a phone registered in their name for him — concentrating on calls placed on DeLay's birthday. Very clever.
Vogt continued, explaining that he was able to identify DeLay's Majority Whip office number only after locating a copy of the Congressional Director for that Session at the University of Texas library. The appropriate pages had to be photocopied as evidence so the book could be returned to its rightful owner by the due date.
Things got more interesting after lunch. In the closest thing to a Perry Mason moment this trial has seen, the prosecution has requested a last minute witness, Austin American-Statesman reporter Laylan Copelin. He has reported on this story as far back as the indictment itself.
During a brief interview the week before, Copelin asked DeLay about the $190K check from TRMPAC. "I probably could have stopped it," claimed DeLay, "but why would I?" It's a quote that seems to contradict part of DeLay's own defense regarding his knowledge of the transaction. A negotiation between legal teams ensued in the hallway for nearly half an hour. In the end, Copelin will testify tomorrow.
The steam really picked up once the next witness, Steve Bickerstaff, took the stand. Bickerstaff is an expert witness who has written three books on political redistricting — a prime motive at the heart of this case. His most recent book chronicles the 2002 election and the civil and criminal charges associated with the redistricting that followed in Texas.
The state's constitution requires redistricting every ten years. It's the responsibility of the legislature, and is sometimes limited to just a portion of the districts rather than the whole state. But if the legislature fails to act, or their result isn't acceptable, the Federal court is to step in and resolve the issue. That's what happened in Texas in 2001.
In the same year, Republicans had a majority of only nine seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Bills including the Patriot Act and Bush's 1st tax cuts were nearly defeated. With George W. Bush in the White House and DeLay serving as House Majority Whip, Texas was considered by many to be a tremendously efficient vehicle for increasing that majority.
The prosecution claims that an "off-season" redistricting by the Republican controlled Texas legislature, which would ultimately increase Republican representation in DC, was the prime motive for TRMPAC's money swap with the RNSEC.
Bickerstaff's testimony began with a PowerPoint presentation of the state's history of redistricting, starting in 1845 when Texas was first admitted to the union and apportioned two districts (it now has 32, and will likely gain more as a result of the 2010 census). "The DA isn't asking him any questions, your honor!" DeGuerin objected. Judge Priest sustained his objection, after which Cobb began interjecting "and then what happened?" into Bickerstaff's presentation.
"Was Tom DeLay involved in the redistricting plan?" asked prosecution. "Yes," responded Bickerstaff. DeGuerin objected. Bickerstaff then referred to the Republican plan as "a masterful stroke." DeGuerin objected again.
Unbeknownst to the jury, Bickerstaff was first contacted by DeLay's legal team in 2005 and asked to trestify as an expert witness for the defense. He declined, telling DeGuerin, "I'd be a liability to your client on the stand."
And the jury wasn't present with DeGuerin objected the previous day to the prospect of Bickerstaff even testifying. Based on the opinions in his book, DeGuerin felt that Bickerstaff's testimony might be peppered with partisan innuendo.
As it turns out, DeGuerin and Bickerstaff are colleagues as adjunct professors at the University of Texas Law School. They also have a personal friendship. "I shared our defense theories with you, Steve", said DeGuerin, expressing a sense of betrayal. "Now Dick, I consider you and Janie (his wife) friends", responded Bickerstaff, "but you asked me to serve as an expert witness on election law. That's not my expertise." Their exchange intensified.
DeGuerin continued, "Did you tell the DA that I had contacted you?" "Yessir", said Bickerstaff. "I originally declined their invitation as well. Then they sent someone to my class who asked me to reconsider."
"But I confided in you," DeGuerin persisted. A clearly agitated Bickerstaff came back with, "There's nothing about your strategy that wasn't already in my book, Dick!" The exchange between two well-seasoned attorneys, on a first name basis, became surreal. And perhaps, in itself, serves as a prime example of the current divisiveness in our country.
At the end of that witness qualifying session, Judge Priest had ruled that Bickerstaff could indeed testify, but only on what had historically occurred with redistricting in Texas. I suspect two less holiday cards may be sent out this year.
The Texas Seven
The Texas House candidates who received checks from RNSEC totaling $190K were: Dwayne Bohac, Todd Baxter, Larry Taylor, Rick Green, Dan Flynn, Jack Stick, and Glenda Dawson. All but Dawson, who passed away in 2006, testified in this trial. The prosecution has labeled the group as "The Texas Seven" — to the chagrin of Dick DeGuerin.
Dwayne Bohac is still serving as State Representative for District 138 in Houston. He told the jury, "There are so many PACS, even after eight years I don't know all of them." His campaign received $10K from TRMPAC, $2K from ARMPAC, and it's check from RNSEC for $20K. Bohac had once interned with DeLay for course credit through Houston Community College in the 80's.
In October of '02, Todd Baxter's campaign received three checks from TRMPAC totaling $16K, one from ARMPAC for $2K, and its check from RNSEC for $35K. "It was one of the larger checks I received", he said on the witness stand.
Kevin Brannon was contracted by TRMPAC in late '01 to serve as its "eyes and ears" in the field. His main responsibility was to be on top of what was going on in the races by calling into districts, collecting info, and preparing reports for Colyandro. Brannon had previously worked for Texas senator Phil Gramm.
Larry Taylor, like Bohac, is also a current member of the Texas House, serving District 24 in Galveston. In 2002, he received $32K from TRMPAC, $1K from ARMPAC, and $20K from RNSEC. Rick Green was the only member of the Texas Seven to lose his race that year. Leading up to it, his campaign received $20K from TRMPAC, $2500 from ARMPAC, and $20K from RNSEC.
Brannon's research in the field would ultimately help determine not only which candidates would be supported by TRMPAC, but also how much money each would receive. Those final decisions have been the subject of much discussion during the trial.
According to Bill Ceverha, who served as Treasurer of TRMPAC's Advisory Board, there was never a meeting or decision to allocate those dollars. "It just happened," he explained. He actually said that twice during his testimony. Ceverha, a journalist who later served in the Texas House from 1977-89, is well known in Dallas and currently works as a political consultant in that area.
It's believed that TRMPAC's Executive Director, John Colyandro, made the final decision on those allocations. Since Colyandro is named as a co-conspirator in this case, and will later be facing his own trial, he won't be testifying at this one. It was previously established that DeLay always granted final approval for ARMPAC's contributions to candidates (not to be confused with incumbents, who had pre-approval established by previous contributions), and the prosecution contends that Colyandro was certainly consulting with DeLay on those decisions for TRMPAC as well.
Dan Flynn is also still serving in the Texas House for District 2, located just east of Dallas. Mr Flynn let the court know that he was referred to as "Dan from Van (TX)", since a man on DeLay's staff had the same name as his. In 2002, Flynn's campaign received $115K from TRMPAC, $1K from ARMPAC, and $20K from RNSEC. His candidacy was for an open seat — a particularly important race for either side. When asked if the RNSEC check was the second largest he received that year, he responded, "probably that's right." (His largest check was $50K from Texans for Lawsuit Reform.)
In the final months of that race, Flynn's campaign was also one of three that received targeted consulting from Kevin Brannon while he simultaneously worked as TRMPAC's man in the field. To comply with Texas Election Code, Brannon was paid by TRMPAC in hard dollars for his direct work with the candidates, and soft dollars to continue as the "eyes and ears" of the same organization.
Jack Stick was a candidate for State Rep in Travis County's District 50. His campaign was particularly interesting because he barely finished second during a non-conclusive primary race, but then prevailed as the Republican winner in the run-off. Stick is also the father of a 10-month old boy. He must have had babysitting duties on the day he testified, and when it became apparent that the surrogate sitter wasn't going to keep the young boy from wailing while Stick was on the stand, the court allowed the pacified toddler to sit on his father's lap.
"I wasn't enamored with TRMPAC," testified Stick. "They'd supported someone else (in the primary) without interviewing me." Nonetheless, Stick was running in a Democratic stronghold so his campaign received $30K from TRMPAC and $35K from RNSEC. "I can't recall a larger donation check," said Stick of the latter.
After completing Stick's testimony, the prosecutor noted that they had put the baby to sleep. "He may not be alone," responded Judge Priest.
Craig McDonald, who had filed one of the original reports about TRMPAC with the DA's office and testified earlier, heard about the incident later and was quoted as saying, "If I had known you could bring a prop, I would have brought a puppy."
Dwayne Bohac is still serving as State Representative for District 138 in Houston. He told the jury, "There are so many PACS, even after eight years I don't know all of them." His campaign received $10K from TRMPAC, $2K from ARMPAC, and it's check from RNSEC for $20K. Bohac had once interned with DeLay for course credit through Houston Community College in the 80's.
In October of '02, Todd Baxter's campaign received three checks from TRMPAC totaling $16K, one from ARMPAC for $2K, and its check from RNSEC for $35K. "It was one of the larger checks I received", he said on the witness stand.
Kevin Brannon was contracted by TRMPAC in late '01 to serve as its "eyes and ears" in the field. His main responsibility was to be on top of what was going on in the races by calling into districts, collecting info, and preparing reports for Colyandro. Brannon had previously worked for Texas senator Phil Gramm.
Larry Taylor, like Bohac, is also a current member of the Texas House, serving District 24 in Galveston. In 2002, he received $32K from TRMPAC, $1K from ARMPAC, and $20K from RNSEC. Rick Green was the only member of the Texas Seven to lose his race that year. Leading up to it, his campaign received $20K from TRMPAC, $2500 from ARMPAC, and $20K from RNSEC.
Brannon's research in the field would ultimately help determine not only which candidates would be supported by TRMPAC, but also how much money each would receive. Those final decisions have been the subject of much discussion during the trial.
According to Bill Ceverha, who served as Treasurer of TRMPAC's Advisory Board, there was never a meeting or decision to allocate those dollars. "It just happened," he explained. He actually said that twice during his testimony. Ceverha, a journalist who later served in the Texas House from 1977-89, is well known in Dallas and currently works as a political consultant in that area.
It's believed that TRMPAC's Executive Director, John Colyandro, made the final decision on those allocations. Since Colyandro is named as a co-conspirator in this case, and will later be facing his own trial, he won't be testifying at this one. It was previously established that DeLay always granted final approval for ARMPAC's contributions to candidates (not to be confused with incumbents, who had pre-approval established by previous contributions), and the prosecution contends that Colyandro was certainly consulting with DeLay on those decisions for TRMPAC as well.
Dan Flynn is also still serving in the Texas House for District 2, located just east of Dallas. Mr Flynn let the court know that he was referred to as "Dan from Van (TX)", since a man on DeLay's staff had the same name as his. In 2002, Flynn's campaign received $115K from TRMPAC, $1K from ARMPAC, and $20K from RNSEC. His candidacy was for an open seat — a particularly important race for either side. When asked if the RNSEC check was the second largest he received that year, he responded, "probably that's right." (His largest check was $50K from Texans for Lawsuit Reform.)
In the final months of that race, Flynn's campaign was also one of three that received targeted consulting from Kevin Brannon while he simultaneously worked as TRMPAC's man in the field. To comply with Texas Election Code, Brannon was paid by TRMPAC in hard dollars for his direct work with the candidates, and soft dollars to continue as the "eyes and ears" of the same organization.
Jack Stick was a candidate for State Rep in Travis County's District 50. His campaign was particularly interesting because he barely finished second during a non-conclusive primary race, but then prevailed as the Republican winner in the run-off. Stick is also the father of a 10-month old boy. He must have had babysitting duties on the day he testified, and when it became apparent that the surrogate sitter wasn't going to keep the young boy from wailing while Stick was on the stand, the court allowed the pacified toddler to sit on his father's lap.
"I wasn't enamored with TRMPAC," testified Stick. "They'd supported someone else (in the primary) without interviewing me." Nonetheless, Stick was running in a Democratic stronghold so his campaign received $30K from TRMPAC and $35K from RNSEC. "I can't recall a larger donation check," said Stick of the latter.
After completing Stick's testimony, the prosecutor noted that they had put the baby to sleep. "He may not be alone," responded Judge Priest.
Craig McDonald, who had filed one of the original reports about TRMPAC with the DA's office and testified earlier, heard about the incident later and was quoted as saying, "If I had known you could bring a prop, I would have brought a puppy."
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Ka-ching!
The jurors heard testimony from 12 witnesses representing companies who had made contributions to TRMPAC and/or ARMPAC in 2002. The corporate fundraiser for both organizations was Warren Robold. He began working with ARMPAC in 2000 and added TRMPAC to his roster of clients two years later.
"Government is our customer," said Paul Doucette of Houston-based Cornell Companies, a private corrections provider. Doucette got the impression from Cornell's lobbyist that "contributing to TRMPAC was a good idea because it was DeLay's leadership PAC."
Actually, ARMPAC was DeLay's leadership PAC, but the two are easily confused. They shared the same fundraiser, the same event planner, and the same DC address.
Christine Pellerin, Director of Federal Affairs at MWW Group, a healthcare lobbying organization, told the jury "my understanding was that ARMPAC and TRMPAC were both leadership PACS associated with Tom DeLay. Because Robold was involved, Pellerin was under the impression that DeLay had requested their donation.
Penelope Cate was VP of Government & Community Affairs at Sears in 2002. Her job was "monitoring legislation, and, where appropriate, trying to influence it." She coordinated campaign donations from Sears corporate account (soft money) as well as its own employee funded PAC (hard money). "We didn't usually volunteer to give money," recalled Cate. She remembered Robold calling her about a new leadership PAC (TRMPAC) and wondering if Sears could contribute to it.
Some of the witnesses attended a weekend golf outing at The Homestead in Hot Springs, VA. The flyer described it as an ARMPAC event with Tom DeLay as the headliner, also to include a welcome reception and update on federal energy policy.
One attendee was Glenn Jackson from the Williams Companies, a leading natural gas corporation. Office manager Suzanne Treis processed the check for their $25K contribution and vividly recalled what happened the day the request passed her desk. "We thought it was an ARMPAC event, but I phoned Dani (DeLay) and she told me the check should be made out to TRMPAC — another of her father's leadership PACs."
Clarence Albright of Reliant Energy also attended the Homestead event. "DeLay was a pro-business supporter of energy who understood the needs of the industry. We budgeted for annual contributions and ARMPAC was always part of that. We had $50K budgeted." When Robold asked if Reliant could split their donation with half going to ARMPAC and the other half to TRMPAC Albright responded, "it made no difference to him."
In the end, no matter which vehicle they used, corporations were throwing money at Congressman Tom DeLay in order to gain influence with him. Would they have been disappointed to know in some cases their dollars were rerouted to the RNSEC then redistributed among candidates unknown to them? Or, did their donations actually benefit Texan legislators as intended?
"Government is our customer," said Paul Doucette of Houston-based Cornell Companies, a private corrections provider. Doucette got the impression from Cornell's lobbyist that "contributing to TRMPAC was a good idea because it was DeLay's leadership PAC."
Actually, ARMPAC was DeLay's leadership PAC, but the two are easily confused. They shared the same fundraiser, the same event planner, and the same DC address.
Christine Pellerin, Director of Federal Affairs at MWW Group, a healthcare lobbying organization, told the jury "my understanding was that ARMPAC and TRMPAC were both leadership PACS associated with Tom DeLay. Because Robold was involved, Pellerin was under the impression that DeLay had requested their donation.
Penelope Cate was VP of Government & Community Affairs at Sears in 2002. Her job was "monitoring legislation, and, where appropriate, trying to influence it." She coordinated campaign donations from Sears corporate account (soft money) as well as its own employee funded PAC (hard money). "We didn't usually volunteer to give money," recalled Cate. She remembered Robold calling her about a new leadership PAC (TRMPAC) and wondering if Sears could contribute to it.
Some of the witnesses attended a weekend golf outing at The Homestead in Hot Springs, VA. The flyer described it as an ARMPAC event with Tom DeLay as the headliner, also to include a welcome reception and update on federal energy policy.
One attendee was Glenn Jackson from the Williams Companies, a leading natural gas corporation. Office manager Suzanne Treis processed the check for their $25K contribution and vividly recalled what happened the day the request passed her desk. "We thought it was an ARMPAC event, but I phoned Dani (DeLay) and she told me the check should be made out to TRMPAC — another of her father's leadership PACs."
Clarence Albright of Reliant Energy also attended the Homestead event. "DeLay was a pro-business supporter of energy who understood the needs of the industry. We budgeted for annual contributions and ARMPAC was always part of that. We had $50K budgeted." When Robold asked if Reliant could split their donation with half going to ARMPAC and the other half to TRMPAC Albright responded, "it made no difference to him."
In the end, no matter which vehicle they used, corporations were throwing money at Congressman Tom DeLay in order to gain influence with him. Would they have been disappointed to know in some cases their dollars were rerouted to the RNSEC then redistributed among candidates unknown to them? Or, did their donations actually benefit Texan legislators as intended?
My Motive
At this point, let me clarify my motivation for creating this account of Congressman DeLay's trial. I don't pretend to be a legal expert, nor even an objective observer. I'm just a citizen and taxpayer.
It's hard to argue with DeLay's statement that, "money is the lifeblood of politics." He's probably correct about that. But I say, "money has become the lifeblood of politics," in a way that our founding fathers couldn't have possibly imagined. I believe political campaigns in our country are overly financed. And I object.
Our laws regarding corporate donations to political campaigns have changed considerably since the events of this trial occurred. Between McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, they have boomeranged in only eight years. And the debate is not over. I believe the reversals have destabilized our political process to the point where it's now a virtual free-for-all. Campaign spending during the 2010 mid-term elections topped all previous records, and I'm not convinced the voters were better served because of it.
Finally, I believe that Tom DeLay (with the help of Jim Ellis, John Colyandro, and probably others) helped lay the groundwork for the fund-raising orgies we're now experiencing. I believe other organizations may have been guilty of similar violations of the law at the same time — but they weren't caught. I can't help but wonder if any of the jurors will feel the same way after hearing the facts.
And now, for the rest of the story.
It's hard to argue with DeLay's statement that, "money is the lifeblood of politics." He's probably correct about that. But I say, "money has become the lifeblood of politics," in a way that our founding fathers couldn't have possibly imagined. I believe political campaigns in our country are overly financed. And I object.
Our laws regarding corporate donations to political campaigns have changed considerably since the events of this trial occurred. Between McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, they have boomeranged in only eight years. And the debate is not over. I believe the reversals have destabilized our political process to the point where it's now a virtual free-for-all. Campaign spending during the 2010 mid-term elections topped all previous records, and I'm not convinced the voters were better served because of it.
Finally, I believe that Tom DeLay (with the help of Jim Ellis, John Colyandro, and probably others) helped lay the groundwork for the fund-raising orgies we're now experiencing. I believe other organizations may have been guilty of similar violations of the law at the same time — but they weren't caught. I can't help but wonder if any of the jurors will feel the same way after hearing the facts.
And now, for the rest of the story.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Family & Friends Plan
"We're just following the old adage of punish your enemies and reward your friends." — Thomas Dale DeLay, circa 2003
The testimony of DeLay's daughter, Dani DeLay Garcia, may best illustrate the fuzzy lines that existed between the Congressman, ARMPAC and TRMPAC. In addition to acting as event planner for both organizations, Dani was also DeLay's campaign manager from 1996-2006. Admittedly, she sometimes had difficulty identifying which role she was playing.
For example, at the 2002 Texas Republican Convention in Dallas she was responsible for booking her father's two-bedroom hotel suite. She also stayed in one of those bedrooms. The suite was also used by John Colyandro to conduct interviews with candidates seeking a TRMPAC endorsement. "When you reserved the room," asked the prosecution, "were you acting as Congressman DeLay's campaign manager, or TRMPAC's event planner?" She couldn't recall.
Colyandro and Jim Ellis shared a different room in the same hotel during that convention. "Was it a money saving tactic?" asked DeGuerin during cross-examination. "Yes. They often did that," she explained. "They're related by marriage." One might wonder which of the two PACs paid that bill? Maybe they split it.
While speaking about DeLay's leadership PAC, Dani explained, "his PAC was about getting into the trenches and getting people elected." She also testified, "if Dad told Jim (Ellis) to do something, he would do it."
There were several other things Dani couldn't recall during her testimony though. "It was so many years ago," she responded — over, and over again. She couldn't really remember if she had been paid as an employee or as an independent contractor. She seemed to recall that the status changed more than once. "It had to do with health insurance," she explained. She also couldn't remember the name of her business in 2002. "Was it Coastal Consulting, or Ferro (her last name at the time) Consulting?" she wondered. It was Coastal Consulting. She changed it to Ferro Consulting in 2004.
Understandably, it's got to be tough — really, really tough — testifying as a witness at your own father's conspiracy and money laundering trial. But according to the evidence, Dani was paid more than $130,000 in 2002 for wearing three hats that were undeniably connected in one way or another to Tom DeLay. And, in spite of that, she couldn't even lay claim as to which events she may or may not have organized and/or attended that year.
Dani also had a baby in August of 2002, which could explain her vague recall of political events. Perhaps she had more important things on her mind at the time. But if she knew of her maternal condition earlier in the year, when first taking on the TRMPAC contract, was she irresponsibly spreading herself too thin during an election year?
Speaking of family, here's an item the jury won't be hearing about. In that same year, Tom's wife Christine DeLay was employed as a consultant by Alexander Strategy Group (ASG), a DC-based lobbying firm founded by former DeLay staffer Ed Buckham. Christine worked from home in Texas and her responsibilities included polling member of Congress about their favorite charities. ASG, which shared office space with ARMPAC in Washington, was shut down in 2006 due to suspicious dealings with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. ARMPAC was shut down the same year after settling with the Federal Election Commission over various violations.
The testimony of DeLay's daughter, Dani DeLay Garcia, may best illustrate the fuzzy lines that existed between the Congressman, ARMPAC and TRMPAC. In addition to acting as event planner for both organizations, Dani was also DeLay's campaign manager from 1996-2006. Admittedly, she sometimes had difficulty identifying which role she was playing.
For example, at the 2002 Texas Republican Convention in Dallas she was responsible for booking her father's two-bedroom hotel suite. She also stayed in one of those bedrooms. The suite was also used by John Colyandro to conduct interviews with candidates seeking a TRMPAC endorsement. "When you reserved the room," asked the prosecution, "were you acting as Congressman DeLay's campaign manager, or TRMPAC's event planner?" She couldn't recall.
Colyandro and Jim Ellis shared a different room in the same hotel during that convention. "Was it a money saving tactic?" asked DeGuerin during cross-examination. "Yes. They often did that," she explained. "They're related by marriage." One might wonder which of the two PACs paid that bill? Maybe they split it.
While speaking about DeLay's leadership PAC, Dani explained, "his PAC was about getting into the trenches and getting people elected." She also testified, "if Dad told Jim (Ellis) to do something, he would do it."
There were several other things Dani couldn't recall during her testimony though. "It was so many years ago," she responded — over, and over again. She couldn't really remember if she had been paid as an employee or as an independent contractor. She seemed to recall that the status changed more than once. "It had to do with health insurance," she explained. She also couldn't remember the name of her business in 2002. "Was it Coastal Consulting, or Ferro (her last name at the time) Consulting?" she wondered. It was Coastal Consulting. She changed it to Ferro Consulting in 2004.
Understandably, it's got to be tough — really, really tough — testifying as a witness at your own father's conspiracy and money laundering trial. But according to the evidence, Dani was paid more than $130,000 in 2002 for wearing three hats that were undeniably connected in one way or another to Tom DeLay. And, in spite of that, she couldn't even lay claim as to which events she may or may not have organized and/or attended that year.
Dani also had a baby in August of 2002, which could explain her vague recall of political events. Perhaps she had more important things on her mind at the time. But if she knew of her maternal condition earlier in the year, when first taking on the TRMPAC contract, was she irresponsibly spreading herself too thin during an election year?
Speaking of family, here's an item the jury won't be hearing about. In that same year, Tom's wife Christine DeLay was employed as a consultant by Alexander Strategy Group (ASG), a DC-based lobbying firm founded by former DeLay staffer Ed Buckham. Christine worked from home in Texas and her responsibilities included polling member of Congress about their favorite charities. ASG, which shared office space with ARMPAC in Washington, was shut down in 2006 due to suspicious dealings with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. ARMPAC was shut down the same year after settling with the Federal Election Commission over various violations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)