Politically Charged .org

Balanced coverage about law, politics and abuse of power.

by Melissa Hopkins

In September of 2005, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted in Travis County Texas by Democrat District Attorney Ronnie Earle for conspiring to launder money in the 2002 election cycle, after a three-year investigation. It was an explosive move by DA Ronnie Earle because under a Republican-only House rule, Tom DeLay had to step down as Majority Leader regardless of the validity of the charge. The self imposed rule says that no Republican Member of the House of Representatives can hold a leadership position once indicted for a crime. The Democrats have no such rule.

Just hours after the indictment, Tom DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin realized there was no such law on the books in Texas and immediately filed a motion on a Friday for the charge to be dismissed. In a panic, Ronnie Earle went to three new grand juries over that weekend to try and get new charges filed against DeLay knowing that the first charge might not hold up.

One of the three grand juries that Earle shopped, actually sent up a "no bill" which means not only did they not indict DeLay but sent an official written notice to Earle saying that there was no evidence whatsoever to even consider an indictment. That did not stop Earle. So the third grand jury that Earle approached had only been convened for a few hours -- not a few days or a few weeks -- but only a few hours. But somehow those jurors were approached with such compelling evidence that in just a few hours they saw enough to indict Tom DeLay on new charges of money laundering when 7 grand juries in three years before them found nothing. The investigation took three years because the grand juries are convened for 6-month sessions each and the first five juries chose not to indict.

Most interestingly is the foreman who sat on the 6th grand jury, the first to indict DeLay, was a good friend of one of DeLay's political foes. The jury foreman admitted in a radio interview on WLBJ in Austin that he didn't even have to look at the evidence because he already knew that DeLay was guilty. Click here to read the transcript and listen to the interview.

So one indictment from a rogue district attorney in Texas was enough to completely change the tone and direction of the Republican party in Congress even though all indications are that the charges are invalid and eventually will be dropped.

Following the chaos of September 2005 were a series of pre-trial motion hearings that are still ongoing today. As of November 2006, they are still no step closer to trial because of Earle's appeal delays. However, the motion that is next up before the district court, after the criminal court decision is announced, is the malicious prosecution motion that DeLay filed against Earle. This motion states Earle purpsosely charged DeLay with a crime with a law that did not exist for the sole purpose of stripping him of his title as Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. The motion also charges that Earle illegally tampered with Grand Jury proceedings. When that motion gets heard by the court, it will be the first time that the defendants in this case will be able to present specific evidence and lack thereof to highlight the absurdity of Earle's charges.

Here are the critical and often overlooked facts in this case and how it all began:

In early 2003, Craig McDonald, President of the liberal watch group, Texans for Public Justice (TPJ), funded by liberal financier Geoge Soros, writes a letter to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to investigate Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC). (Read TPJ letter here.)(UPDATE, the site has removed the letter). for suspicion of violating the Texas Election Code by not reporting corporate money raised to the Texas Ethics Commission and only to the IRS (which is a regular practice in Texas.)

Also in 2003, a civil trial is filed against Colyandro, Ellis and Bill Cevehera, TRMPAC's treasurer. The civil court decides to puruse only Cevehera since the criminal case against Ellis and Colyandro was still pending. Cevehera demands a speedy trial and gets his wish in early spring of 2004. He chose a judge trial, not a jury. Judge Hart, a democrat, found him and TRMPAC guilty of improperly filing with the Texas Ethics Commission after a week of testimony. Burden of proof in a civil trial has a much lower threshold than in a criminal trial.

In September, 2004, Earle indicts TRMPAC consultant Jim Ellis, TRMPAC executive director John Colyandro, fundraiser consultant Warren Robold and 8 corporations who contributed to TRMPAC in the 2002 election cycle.

Soon after the indictments in the fall of 2004, Earle goes to the 8 corporations named in the charges and tries to shake them down for $1 million a piece to give to Stanford University's Center for Deliberate Democracy, run by Dr. James S. Fishkin. Earle asked each of them for $1 million to fund a documentary and television show for PBS to talk about corporate money in politics, in exchange for their dismissals. Note this was not a plea agreement, these companies were not convicted of anything. This was a shakedown for money in exchange for charges being dropped. See "Dollars for Dismissals" by Byron York of NRO .

One of the companies that Earle indicted, Bacardi, Inc., also gave a contribution to Democrat Congressman Martin Frost's PAC, the Lone Star Fund, (see IRS report) at the same time that they donated to TRMPAC but Frost received no indictment.

Frost, a Member of Congress and in the Democratic leadership (who was defeated in 2004,) and his state PAC, The Lone Star Fund, engaged in multiple money trades between his Texas PAC (Lone Star Fund Texas) and the Texas Democrat Party, many of which went unreported to the Texas Ethics Commission.  None of the Lone Star filings were done electronically because the treasurer claimed the organization had no access to a computer.  Therefore, most of the key filings were never online, thus shielding them from public scrutiny unless an individual physically went to the Secretary of State’s office in Austin.  Republican state Senator Bob Deuell requested by letter that Earle investigate Frost’s PAC on May 27, 2004 for what he believed were illegal contributions to his 2002 opponent, the DA gave it a cursory, eight-week review and wrote ‘nothing looked improper’. 

Earle later made false public statements (listen here, to the first 10 minutes), possibly deliberately, when he was interviewed on "Texas Monthly Talks" a television interview program airing on May 5, 2005.  The program is affiliated with the leftwing “Texas Monthly” magazine.  Earle was asked if he was investigating any Democrats similar to TRMPAC in that same 2002 election cycle.  He said no, because ‘nobody has made allegations against Democrats engaging in similar activities.’  He said this despite personally signing a two-page letter dated July 30, 2004 to Sen. Deuell informing him of the results of his so-called “investigation”.  The letter clears Frost of any wrongdoing because his funds were kept separately.  That is, the corporate and non-corporate money were kept in separate accounts, even though the PAC reported it as being all together. 

It was Earle's contention that the corporation making the contribution is what made the money illegal -- but apparently only to Republicans. A May 2, 2005 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram entitled “DeLay inquiry lengthy, complex” quotes Mr. Earle as stating, “The underlying illegality is the corporate contribution.”  This statement implies that there has already been a determination that the contributions at issue were illegal and that the defendants are guilty as charged.  Earle further states in this article, “To wash that money in an attempt to make the money legal doesn’t change the nature of the source of the money.” 

What about the Lone Star Fund? In the reporting period ending October 26, 2002 the Lone Star fund's report to the Texas Ethics Commission said that they received $112,500 in contributions. See the Texas Ethics Commission report here. However in a separate report to the IRS for the same time period the Lone Star fund reported $398,237 in contributions including $40,000 from American Airlines, $7,500 from Microsoft and $100,000 from the law firm of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, none of which showed up on the Texas Ethics Commission report. See Lone Star's IRS report here. Earle said there was nothing illegal for the Lone Star Fund to receive that corporate money or report it to the Texas Ethics Committee but did indict TRMPAC and 8 corporations for doing the exact same thing.

A series of motions to quash, or to throw out the indicments, by defendants Ellis and Colyandro, took place throughout 2004 and 2005. One of the charges is now before the 3rd Ciruit Court of Appeals, the second highest criminal court in Texas, on whether the money laundering statue applies to a check since a check is fully traceable, and whether the Texas law is vague and overbroad. Ellis and Colyandro initially won their motion to have that charge thrown out and it has been appealed twice by Earle. That is why it is now before the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The court heard oral arguments on August 22, 2006 and as of July 2008, there still has been no ruling from that Court. Travis County Judge Pat Priest said he will not schedule a trial until the 3rd Circuit Court rules.

In June of 2007 however the Criminal Court of Appeals, the highest court, upheld the quash of one of the indictments, conspiracy to violate the election law. Since there was no law on the books in Texas, the Democrat Judge Pat Priest threw out the charge and the highest court agreed. Only one news outlet covered the thrown out charge and Associated Press did not put it on their wires.

In a separate case, theTexas Association of Business (TAB), a completely separate group, was also indicted by Earle on similar charges of violating Texas Election Law. On June 30, 2006 a democrat judge dismissed the case against TAB with some harsh words for Earle's camp. Judge Mike Lynch said, "...a pivotal term within the election code is so broad that narrowing language from the U.S. Supreme Court must be read into the term's definition producing a statutory provision that doesn't really mean what is says". The judge goes on to say, "Despite the ingenuity and determination evident in the State's (Earle) arguments, they must ultimately fail for several reasons...you simply cannot make a silk purse out of sow's ear. The Defendant's Motion to Quash must be granted." Read full story here. Note that only one media outlet reported on this story and the Associated Press did not follow it.

TAB has one charge left and is set to go to trial on November 7, 2008. Earle has appealed the TRMPAC/ Tom DeLay rulings at least five times and are still in the pre-trial stage. Note that Earle has yet to bring forward any evidence whatsoever in the DeLay case. A Third Court of Appeals ruling in August relating to two of DeLay's associates seems to have put forth the legal framework for all charges in this case to be dropped. While The Court denied Habeas Corpus to the associates, they articularly explained that "checks" were not included in the money laundering statute in 2002 and therefore Earle's indictment was not based on law. Law doesn't get in Earle's way however. While speaking on a panel at NetRoots Nation conference in July, he said that, "law does not definite justice. Law does not define justice anywhere" and so he has to make up his own definition. That seems apparent in this case. Listen to Earle's complete quote.