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.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
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.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Money & Politics
"Money is not the root of all evil in politics. In fact, money is the lifeblood of politics." – Thomas Dale DeLay
Congressman DeLay's quote provides a cornerstone to his defense. "Whether you like it or not, it takes money to run a campaign," DeGuerin explains to the jury. "It's business as usual. In fact, much of it has to do with who can spend the most money," said DeGuerin while cross-examining Danielle "Dani" DeLay Garcia. Mrs. Garcia is the daughter of Tom DeLay and a state witness in the trial because she simultaneously worked as an event planner for both ARMPAC and TRMPAC.
DeGuerin contends that once TRMPAC was established, his client really made no decisions and therefore can't be guilty of a crime. Running TRMPAC was John Colyandro's job. Likewise, we're to believe that DeLay wasn't a decision maker for ARMPAC either. That was Jim Ellis's job. But DC insiders all knew that Ellis was "DeLay's guy", and ARMPAC was DeLay's leadership PAC.
So, with all of that lifeblood running through those two critical veins, the jury is to believe that Tom DeLay wasn't really interested in where the money was coming from or where it was going?
"It's not like a dollar amount would impact anything he did," said Dani about her father and corporate contributions. And yet Lori Ziebart (formerly Laudien) from El Paso Corporation testified that her company donated $50K to both PACs in 2002 "because we wanted top level status with ARMPAC." Enron had recently imploded and was no longer a leading energy company. "We felt we could step in those shoes and be a leader," testified Ziebart.
Doug Lawrence, who was VP of Government Affairs for Kansas-based Westar Energy at the time, testified that his company donated $25K to TRMPAC in 2002, even though he "didn't think we did any business in Texas." The sole purpose of their donation was to obtain a special legislative favor. Its interest was pending legislation to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935, one of several Federal trust-busting regulations enacted in response to the 1929 Wall Street crash.
The energy industry as a whole supported its repeal, but Westar "faced a quandry," said Lawrence. The repeal would have jeopardized his company's aggressive expansion strategy into other states and they wanted an exception from SEC oversight written into the bill exclusively for them.
Their donation to TRMPAC bought Westar an invitation to an exclusive weekend golf outing that featured TomDeLay as the headliner. Other guests included representatives from El Paso Corporation as well as Reliant Energy. According to Lawrence, attendees were reportedly shocked when Westar executives expressed their motivation for being at the event. However, it wasn't clear from Lawrence's testimony if they were shocked by the execs offering what appeared to be a bribe...or shocked by their shameless candor in doing so.
PUCHA was later repealed in 2005, minus the Westar Energy clause, but their attempt to influence the legislation was eventually included in a broader investigation by the House ethics committee.
Congressman DeLay's quote provides a cornerstone to his defense. "Whether you like it or not, it takes money to run a campaign," DeGuerin explains to the jury. "It's business as usual. In fact, much of it has to do with who can spend the most money," said DeGuerin while cross-examining Danielle "Dani" DeLay Garcia. Mrs. Garcia is the daughter of Tom DeLay and a state witness in the trial because she simultaneously worked as an event planner for both ARMPAC and TRMPAC.
DeGuerin contends that once TRMPAC was established, his client really made no decisions and therefore can't be guilty of a crime. Running TRMPAC was John Colyandro's job. Likewise, we're to believe that DeLay wasn't a decision maker for ARMPAC either. That was Jim Ellis's job. But DC insiders all knew that Ellis was "DeLay's guy", and ARMPAC was DeLay's leadership PAC.
So, with all of that lifeblood running through those two critical veins, the jury is to believe that Tom DeLay wasn't really interested in where the money was coming from or where it was going?
"It's not like a dollar amount would impact anything he did," said Dani about her father and corporate contributions. And yet Lori Ziebart (formerly Laudien) from El Paso Corporation testified that her company donated $50K to both PACs in 2002 "because we wanted top level status with ARMPAC." Enron had recently imploded and was no longer a leading energy company. "We felt we could step in those shoes and be a leader," testified Ziebart.
Doug Lawrence, who was VP of Government Affairs for Kansas-based Westar Energy at the time, testified that his company donated $25K to TRMPAC in 2002, even though he "didn't think we did any business in Texas." The sole purpose of their donation was to obtain a special legislative favor. Its interest was pending legislation to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935, one of several Federal trust-busting regulations enacted in response to the 1929 Wall Street crash.
The energy industry as a whole supported its repeal, but Westar "faced a quandry," said Lawrence. The repeal would have jeopardized his company's aggressive expansion strategy into other states and they wanted an exception from SEC oversight written into the bill exclusively for them.
Their donation to TRMPAC bought Westar an invitation to an exclusive weekend golf outing that featured TomDeLay as the headliner. Other guests included representatives from El Paso Corporation as well as Reliant Energy. According to Lawrence, attendees were reportedly shocked when Westar executives expressed their motivation for being at the event. However, it wasn't clear from Lawrence's testimony if they were shocked by the execs offering what appeared to be a bribe...or shocked by their shameless candor in doing so.
PUCHA was later repealed in 2005, minus the Westar Energy clause, but their attempt to influence the legislation was eventually included in a broader investigation by the House ethics committee.
Friday, November 12, 2010
They Smelled a Rat
The state began its case with testimony from two witness who, in 2003, filed independent complaints with the Travis County DA (at that time, Ronale Dale Earle) regarding suspicious activity on the part of TRMPAC.
Ronald Earle, more commonly known as "Ronnie", resigned from office in Jan '09 after 33 years of service. In the past, DeLay has described Earle as a "runaway district attorney with a long history of being vindictive and partisan." This writer finds it interesting that the two men share the same middle name.
The first witness, Craig McDonald, is Director of Texans for Public Justice, an Austin-based non-profit that researches and advocates issues relating to political corruption and corporate abuses in Texas. He testified that his office had detected discrepancies in reports detailing TRMPAC contributions and expenses that the organization had filed with the IRS and the Texas Ethics Commission in 2001-02. Their analysis concluded that some corporate contributions had been hidden, and those funds had likely been used by TRMPAC for expenses above and beyond the PAC's administrative costs.
At recess, after the prosecution's direct examination of McDonald, an unidentified associate of the defense team was overheard telling another that DeGuerin would be tearing McDonald apart during his cross-examination.
DeGuerin began by chipping away at McDonald's claim that Texans for Public Justice is truly a non-partisan organization. He spent some time dissecting an itemized list of topic labels found on their website (www.tpj.org), noting that the politicians with the highest number of associated stories seemed to be Republicans. He added that Tom Delay/TRMPAC had twice as many links as the second nearest entity.
De Guerin also pointed out that the IRS and the Texas Ethics Commission have different standards for reporting contributions and expenses, which could explain the discrepancies in TRMPAC's filings — but then neglected to backup his theory with any evidence.
During its redirect examination of McDonald, the prosecution pointed out that Texas currently has a Republican Governor, two Republican U.S. Senators, and 20 Republican U.S. Representatives (of a total of 32), and also noted that Congressman DeLay's political career had spanned nearly 30 years. McDonald confirmed it would only make sense this his organization had conducted more research on Republicans than it had on Democrats.
Contrary to what had been overheard earlier during recess, the witness left the courtroom intact. DeGuerin took the opportunity to ask for a mistrial because the witness had imposed his personal opinions on the jury during testimony. Priest denied his request.
The second witness, attorney and independent political watchdog Fred Lewis, also based in Austin, testified that in 2002 he noticed several similarities in the content and issues contained in direct mail materials he'd received from two different sources. One came from the Texas Association of Business, and the other from TRMPAC endorsed candidate for the Texas House of Representatives, Todd Baxter. His research also indicated that TRMPAC had spent corporate donations on polling, voting lists, and political consultants — items considered by many to be above and beyond typical administrative costs.
DeGuerin again requested a mistrial after Lewis's testimony, using the same rationale as before. Priest denied his request.
Ronald Earle, more commonly known as "Ronnie", resigned from office in Jan '09 after 33 years of service. In the past, DeLay has described Earle as a "runaway district attorney with a long history of being vindictive and partisan." This writer finds it interesting that the two men share the same middle name.
The first witness, Craig McDonald, is Director of Texans for Public Justice, an Austin-based non-profit that researches and advocates issues relating to political corruption and corporate abuses in Texas. He testified that his office had detected discrepancies in reports detailing TRMPAC contributions and expenses that the organization had filed with the IRS and the Texas Ethics Commission in 2001-02. Their analysis concluded that some corporate contributions had been hidden, and those funds had likely been used by TRMPAC for expenses above and beyond the PAC's administrative costs.
At recess, after the prosecution's direct examination of McDonald, an unidentified associate of the defense team was overheard telling another that DeGuerin would be tearing McDonald apart during his cross-examination.
DeGuerin began by chipping away at McDonald's claim that Texans for Public Justice is truly a non-partisan organization. He spent some time dissecting an itemized list of topic labels found on their website (www.tpj.org), noting that the politicians with the highest number of associated stories seemed to be Republicans. He added that Tom Delay/TRMPAC had twice as many links as the second nearest entity.
De Guerin also pointed out that the IRS and the Texas Ethics Commission have different standards for reporting contributions and expenses, which could explain the discrepancies in TRMPAC's filings — but then neglected to backup his theory with any evidence.
During its redirect examination of McDonald, the prosecution pointed out that Texas currently has a Republican Governor, two Republican U.S. Senators, and 20 Republican U.S. Representatives (of a total of 32), and also noted that Congressman DeLay's political career had spanned nearly 30 years. McDonald confirmed it would only make sense this his organization had conducted more research on Republicans than it had on Democrats.
Contrary to what had been overheard earlier during recess, the witness left the courtroom intact. DeGuerin took the opportunity to ask for a mistrial because the witness had imposed his personal opinions on the jury during testimony. Priest denied his request.
The second witness, attorney and independent political watchdog Fred Lewis, also based in Austin, testified that in 2002 he noticed several similarities in the content and issues contained in direct mail materials he'd received from two different sources. One came from the Texas Association of Business, and the other from TRMPAC endorsed candidate for the Texas House of Representatives, Todd Baxter. His research also indicated that TRMPAC had spent corporate donations on polling, voting lists, and political consultants — items considered by many to be above and beyond typical administrative costs.
DeGuerin again requested a mistrial after Lewis's testimony, using the same rationale as before. Priest denied his request.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Jury Selection
The defense team is led by Dick DeGuerin, a Texas criminal defense attorney of mythical proportions. He's concerned that his client can't get a fair trial in politically liberal Austin. "It's a bad time for this trial because it's political season," said DeGuerin. His firm even hired a pollster (how appropriate) who assessed that 90% of voters in Travis County know who Tom DeLay is, and of those, 59% have a negative opinion of him.
However, Judge Pat Priest of San Antonio (not to be confused with the actress best known for portraying Marilyn Munster) denied the defense's request to hold the trial elsewhere in Texas. "I believe, with appropriate safeguards, we can get Mr. DeLay a fair trial right here in Travis County", said Priest.
The pool initially included 320 prospective jurors who each completed a 19-page questionnaire. Their responses were evaluated and the group was whittled down to 91. They all sat together on October 26, 2010 for final questioning by Cobb and DeGuerin so each could begin striking candidates.
DeGuerin tries to connect with the pool as best he may — as an Austin native, as a UT alum — but it feels forced and inappropriate. When learning that one prospective juror works for locally based Dell Computers, he responds "Let's see a raise of hands of those with email accounts." Most all hands are raised. "Isn't that something?", he notes, "I didn't use email until two years ago but thanks to Dell all you people have email addresses." His statement was followed by an awkward silence in the room.
As questioning continued, one claimed to be too partisan to make an objective decision, and another couldn't do so because of his total distrust of government. One wouldn't be comfortable passing any type of judgment on another person, and yet another had surgery scheduled for their pet dog the following week.
A particularly interesting exchange came after mention of a recent article in the hometown Austin American-Statesman. The story had chronicled the case to date. Defense requested a raise of hands from those who had read it. Only a few responded that they had. DeGuerin zeroed in on one of them. "And what did you think?", he asked. She responded, "I know the Statesman tends to give a particular slant on things so I followed up some research online." DeGuerin pressed on. "Do you think you could give Mr DeLay a fair trial?" With no hesitation, she chuckled and responded, "No."
After those exchanges, Judge Priest announced that the trial could last three weeks or longer. When he asked who might be troubled by such a lengthy commitment,a flurry of hands rose in the air. Upon questioning, several claimed it could cause economic hardship (jurors are compensated $40 per day for their service) or extreme disruption to their lives.
DeGuerin wants the prospective jurors to know that he's a registered Democrat, and, in spite of their political differences, he knows DeLay to be a man of good character. "These charges are all about politics," claims DeGuerin. Will that angle work for his client? Tom Delay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro are, or were, themselves defined by politics. And that's the elephant in the room.
DeGuerin contends that one party's victory doesn't deem its actions illegal. Some advocates for the opposing party are simply poor losers. But the prosecution claims that the end does not justify the means, and all parties must play by the rules.
By the end of the day, after some haggling over whether or not African-American candidates were being categorically dismissed by the defense, 12 jurors and two alternates were assigned to the trial — with the group representing a virtual rainbow.
However, Judge Pat Priest of San Antonio (not to be confused with the actress best known for portraying Marilyn Munster) denied the defense's request to hold the trial elsewhere in Texas. "I believe, with appropriate safeguards, we can get Mr. DeLay a fair trial right here in Travis County", said Priest.
The pool initially included 320 prospective jurors who each completed a 19-page questionnaire. Their responses were evaluated and the group was whittled down to 91. They all sat together on October 26, 2010 for final questioning by Cobb and DeGuerin so each could begin striking candidates.
DeGuerin tries to connect with the pool as best he may — as an Austin native, as a UT alum — but it feels forced and inappropriate. When learning that one prospective juror works for locally based Dell Computers, he responds "Let's see a raise of hands of those with email accounts." Most all hands are raised. "Isn't that something?", he notes, "I didn't use email until two years ago but thanks to Dell all you people have email addresses." His statement was followed by an awkward silence in the room.
As questioning continued, one claimed to be too partisan to make an objective decision, and another couldn't do so because of his total distrust of government. One wouldn't be comfortable passing any type of judgment on another person, and yet another had surgery scheduled for their pet dog the following week.
A particularly interesting exchange came after mention of a recent article in the hometown Austin American-Statesman. The story had chronicled the case to date. Defense requested a raise of hands from those who had read it. Only a few responded that they had. DeGuerin zeroed in on one of them. "And what did you think?", he asked. She responded, "I know the Statesman tends to give a particular slant on things so I followed up some research online." DeGuerin pressed on. "Do you think you could give Mr DeLay a fair trial?" With no hesitation, she chuckled and responded, "No."
After those exchanges, Judge Priest announced that the trial could last three weeks or longer. When he asked who might be troubled by such a lengthy commitment,a flurry of hands rose in the air. Upon questioning, several claimed it could cause economic hardship (jurors are compensated $40 per day for their service) or extreme disruption to their lives.
DeGuerin wants the prospective jurors to know that he's a registered Democrat, and, in spite of their political differences, he knows DeLay to be a man of good character. "These charges are all about politics," claims DeGuerin. Will that angle work for his client? Tom Delay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro are, or were, themselves defined by politics. And that's the elephant in the room.
DeGuerin contends that one party's victory doesn't deem its actions illegal. Some advocates for the opposing party are simply poor losers. But the prosecution claims that the end does not justify the means, and all parties must play by the rules.
By the end of the day, after some haggling over whether or not African-American candidates were being categorically dismissed by the defense, 12 jurors and two alternates were assigned to the trial — with the group representing a virtual rainbow.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The Charges
If Homer Simpson earned $200K selling cocaine, then deposited the cash into Marge's checking account, and she in turn purchased the Springfield Kwik-E-Mart from Abu - would that series of events constitute money laundering? Such was the example used by Travis County Assistant District Attorney Gary Cobb in his PowerPoint presentation, to a pool of 91 potential jurors, of the DA's Cause #D-1-DC-05-904161 in the 331st District Court of Texas against Thomas Dale DeLay.
The charges against DeLay are conspiracy and money laundering relating to corporate campaign contributions during the 2002 mid-term elections. Texas is one of 20 states prohibiting the use of corporate donations. It's a law that's been on the books for over one hundred years. Corporations are forbidden from donating directly to candidates, and their donations to political action committees (PACs) may only be applied to administrative costs — so the defendant's guilt or innocence may rely in part on the jury's definition of what those costs include. If found guilty, the conspiracy charge would result in a sentence of 2 yrs probation to 20 yrs in prison, and a money laundering conviction could result in 5 yrs probation to 99 yrs in prison.
The prosecution claims DeLay's motive was to influence enough elections in Texas to gain a Republican majority in the House, then redistrict the entire state (a process typically practiced every ten years after the national census) in a way that would give the GOP an advantage toward maintaining control of the Texas House in the future. The 2001 redistricting was resolved judicially after Republicans and Democrats were unable to agree on a new map, and the results were not to DeLay's liking.
Several companies, some of which neither conducted business or engaged lobbyists in Texas, each donated $25-100K to a short-lived PAC known as Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC). The organization's corporate fundraiser was Warren Robold, who also acted as the corporate fundraiser for DeLay's leadership PAC, based in DC, known as Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC). TRMPAC was the brainchild of DeLay, intended as a localized version of his national ARMPAC.
Once those corporate donations (referred to as 'soft money') were collected from the state based TRMPAC, the organization sent a check for $190,000 to the Republican National Committee (RNC), another national PAC based in Washington, DC. A few weeks after that check was received, the RNC sent checks totaling the same amount from the private donations account (known as 'hard money') of its affiliate the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC) to several candidates in Texas who were running very competitive races in districts critical to the success of the GOP's redistricting strategy.
John Colyandro, as well as Jim Ellis who was the former Executive Director of ARMPAC, are also indicted on charges related to the exchange in question and will be facing trial separately as DeLay's co-conspirators.
The charges against DeLay are conspiracy and money laundering relating to corporate campaign contributions during the 2002 mid-term elections. Texas is one of 20 states prohibiting the use of corporate donations. It's a law that's been on the books for over one hundred years. Corporations are forbidden from donating directly to candidates, and their donations to political action committees (PACs) may only be applied to administrative costs — so the defendant's guilt or innocence may rely in part on the jury's definition of what those costs include. If found guilty, the conspiracy charge would result in a sentence of 2 yrs probation to 20 yrs in prison, and a money laundering conviction could result in 5 yrs probation to 99 yrs in prison.
The prosecution claims DeLay's motive was to influence enough elections in Texas to gain a Republican majority in the House, then redistrict the entire state (a process typically practiced every ten years after the national census) in a way that would give the GOP an advantage toward maintaining control of the Texas House in the future. The 2001 redistricting was resolved judicially after Republicans and Democrats were unable to agree on a new map, and the results were not to DeLay's liking.
Several companies, some of which neither conducted business or engaged lobbyists in Texas, each donated $25-100K to a short-lived PAC known as Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC). The organization's corporate fundraiser was Warren Robold, who also acted as the corporate fundraiser for DeLay's leadership PAC, based in DC, known as Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC). TRMPAC was the brainchild of DeLay, intended as a localized version of his national ARMPAC.
Once those corporate donations (referred to as 'soft money') were collected from the state based TRMPAC, the organization sent a check for $190,000 to the Republican National Committee (RNC), another national PAC based in Washington, DC. A few weeks after that check was received, the RNC sent checks totaling the same amount from the private donations account (known as 'hard money') of its affiliate the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC) to several candidates in Texas who were running very competitive races in districts critical to the success of the GOP's redistricting strategy.
John Colyandro, as well as Jim Ellis who was the former Executive Director of ARMPAC, are also indicted on charges related to the exchange in question and will be facing trial separately as DeLay's co-conspirators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)