About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Newspapers uncritically reported DeLay's denial of "day-to-day" involvement in TRMPAC

September 29, 2005 6:18 pm ET
image

10 Comments

In reporting on the September 28 indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) for conspiracy to violate Texas campaign finance laws, The Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, and The Baltimore Sun all quoted DeLay denying involvement in the day-to-day operations of the political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) but failed to present any of the publicly available evidence that undermines DeLay's defense.

The grand jury indictment hinges upon DeLay's involvement with TRMPAC, which he helped to organize and allegedly used to redirect corporate contributions to Republican candidates in the 2002 Texas state elections -- a violation of state campaign finance laws. Appearing on the September 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, DeLay denied hands-on involvement in TRMPAC's operations, claiming: "I didn't know the candidates that they were giving money to. I just had nothing to do with the day-to-day operation." DeLay also appeared on the September 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and similarly denied involvement, saying: "I had no idea what they were doing."

September 29 articles in The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), the San Francisco Chronicle, and The Baltimore Sun all quoted DeLay's denial on Fox News and noted that the indictment doesn't contain extensive details about DeLay's role in the alleged conspiracy.

The articles provided no indication, however, that DeLay may be more involved with TRMPAC than he alleges. A March 9 New York Times article described a series of documents from former TRMPAC staffers Warren Robold and John Colyandro, and lobbyist Drew Maloney -- who at one time worked on DeLay's congressional staff -- suggesting that "DeLay was more actively involved than previously known in gathering corporate donations" for TRMPAC. Both Robold and Colyandro are also under indictment. According to the New York Times:

In an August 2002 document subpoenaed from the files of the indicted fund-raiser, Warren M. RoBold, Mr. RoBold asked for a list of 10 major donors to the committee, saying that "I would then decide from response who Tom DeLay" and others should call to help the committee in seeking a "large contribution."

Another document is a printout of a July 2002 e-mail message to Mr. RoBold from a political ally of Mr. Delay, requesting a list of corporate lobbyists who would attend a fund-raising event for the committee, adding that "DeLay will want to see a list of attendees" and that the list should be available "on the ground in Austin for T.D. upon his arrival."

[...]

In one of his more detailed references to Mr. DeLay in the documents, Mr. RoBold seemed to suggest in an e-mailed message on Aug. 19, 2002, that Mr. DeLay would follow the committee's direction in fund-raising, not direct the fund-raising himself.

"John," he wrote, referring to Mr. Colyandro, the committee's executive director. "Create a top 10 list of givers and let me call them to ask for large contribution. I would then decide from response who Tom DeLay others [sic] should call. If this is successful than I will do more of them."

[...]

One of the most intriguing documents, he said, was a printout of a September 2002 e-mail exchange between Mr. RoBold and Drew Maloney, a Washington lobbyist who is Mr. DeLay's former legislative director and administrative assistant in the House.

Mr. Maloney, who has lobbied on behalf of Reliant Energy, the Houston-based energy company that was a major contributor to Texans for a Republican Majority, offered Mr. RoBold a list of possible corporate donors to the Texas committee, adding: "I finally have the two checks from Reliant. Will deliver to T.D. next week."

The Texas committee's donation records show that it received a check for $25,000 from Reliant that month.

Maloney's email is available here.

Referring to the same documents, the Los Angeles Times reported on June 12 that "[w]atchdog groups say the documents suggest that DeLay's involvement in the committee -- which he founded in 2001 using $50,000 provided by a parallel group he had run for years in Washington, Americans for a Republican Majority -- was deeper than he has acknowledged."

A September 29 Washington Post article also referred to the same documents in reporting on the DeLay indictment:

Some evidence collected in a related civil case has pointed to heavy involvement by DeLay in the operations of the Texas committee. Its start-up was financed by a transfer of corporate funds from his leadership fund. He was a member of the Texas committee's advisory board in 2001 and 2002, participated in its strategizing, appeared at its fundraisers, and signed its solicitations. He also attended dinners with corporate donors that agreed to contribute tens of thousands of dollars to it; his fundraisers recorded the favors that donors sought.

But DeLay has long denied participating in its day-to-day operations and said that its activities were vetted by lawyers.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (September 29, 2005 8:25 pm ET)
         

      i'm sure the two underlings already indicted are going to turn on delay. but it sounds like the paperwork is there to prove he was more involved than he claims. and the white house, naturally, issued a statement of support for delay. the love their thieves over at 1600 pennsylvania ave.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by carramba (September 30, 2005 7:46 am ET)
         

      I read the MMFA report on this day to day activity, and I am unconvinced by MMFA's arguments to the contrary. They are not compelling. I also heard a report yesterday that stated that Earle prosecuted Kay Baily Hutchison right after her first election. After all the runup to the trial, the accusations and leaks, when the time came to present evidence, Earle refused to put on his case and the Judge ordered an instructed verdict of not guilty. This seems awfully bizarre behavior by Earle. Is he a crackpot? Travis County is the most liberal, and perhaps the only liberal county in Texas after all. Time will tell, but it sounds like Delay will be very aggressive and has indicated that he intends to make some charges against Earle. Earle did speak very negatively about Delay at a fundraiser and it would seem that he has some personal agenda's at work here. Normally, a prosecuter would recuse himself under those circumstances. Smells fishy to me.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by losingfaith (September 30, 2005 10:10 am ET)
           

        "I read the MMFA report on this day to day activity, and I am unconvinced by MMFA's arguments to the contrary."

        He didn't need to be involved with "day to day" activity in order to be involved with the illegal manuveurs. Is it your contention that they would go to ANYONE else to handle the money going to and coming back from DC? What sense does it make to try it another way when he's got so much power their and he's part of the PAC? His lawyer has already stated that he was involved in this activity, but his defense to it is that it's not illegal. Even DeLay has been running around saying "everyone does it" (as in it's not illegal) as a defense.

        "I also heard a report yesterday that stated that Earle prosecuted Kay Baily Hutchison right after her first election. After all the runup to the trial, the accusations and leaks, when the time came to present evidence, Earle refused to put on his case and the Judge ordered an instructed verdict of not guilty."

        Well I heard a report two days ago that said the judge was clearly biased and disallowed much of Earle's evidence when he tried to submit it due to some technicality. Without either of us providing proper sources, I guess we'll never know.

        "This seems awfully bizarre behavior by Earle. Is he a crackpot?"

        Now this I can kind of agree with in some fashion only because I heard he even indicted himself at one point. I don't know how true it is. I've only heard it on...Hardball I believe. I can't remember specifically as I can't stomach most of those shows and tend to turn them rather quickly after trying to watch them.

        "Earle did speak very negatively about Delay at a fundraiser and it would seem that he has some personal agenda's at work here. Normally, a prosecuter would recuse himself under those circumstances."

        Really? Prosecutors recuse themselves from cases when they develop an apparent bias against who they're prosecuting? I won't believe this until you can show me something to back it up. The great majority, if not all, of prosecutors develop a bias against who they're prosecuting. Just like a great majority, if not all, of defense lawyers develop a bias in favor of who they're defending. It's not the attorney's job to stay unbiased. They're SUPPOSED to be an advocate for their case. JUDGES recuse themselves for bias issues.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by carramba (September 30, 2005 10:25 am ET)
             

          MMFA's article disputed the day to day activity and that's what I was commenting about, I remain unconvinced. How that relates to the particulars here remains to be seen.

          You're wrong about "prosecutorial" bias. Prosecutors are supposed to see that justice is done, innocent or guilty. Here is an excerpt that might be informative for you:

          Under legal ethics rules, defense lawyers have an ethical duty to "zealously" represent their clients. Many interpret that duty -- properly, I think -- to require them to go to the very limits of the law, though not beyond them, in their clients' defense. But prosecutors have a very different duty: To ensure that justice is done. That means not only making sure there is strong evidence against the defendant before indicting him, but also making sure that he receives a fair trial.

          [link to writ.news.findlaw.com]

          Ronnie Earle's comments about Delay are well known, but summary is here:

          [link to www.gop.com]

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brian in FL (September 30, 2005 11:02 am ET)
               

            I'm sure you had this same view while Ken Starr was going after Clinton for years and years, using tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.

            I'm sure you had this opinion (about the responsibility of the prosecutor, etc.) while Starr was using illegally taped private conversations between Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky in order to bring down the former President for lying about a consentual affair.

            I'm sure you thought that was completely fair at the time, and that Starr was just doing his job as a prosecutor.

            If Delay did nothing wrong, the legal proceedings will prove that.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by losingfaith (September 30, 2005 11:02 am ET)
               

            "But prosecutors have a very different duty: To ensure that justice is done."

            Thanks for the link. I'll take findlaw as a reputable source on the matter. I stand somewhat corrected. It certainly is their duty, so now you'd have to show clear bias...

            "Ronnie Earle's comments about Delay are well known, but summary is here:"

            Well I've never actually seen any of these Earle quotes and the link you provided has none. Only one little blurb about what the quotes supposedly imply and it's on the GOP website. If you think I'll take that as an unbiased source, you're off your rocker. I wouldn't take the DNC's website as an unbiased source either. So I still don't see the relevance.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by carramba (September 30, 2005 12:31 pm ET)
                 

              Well I've never actually seen any of these Earle quotes and the link you provided has none. Only one little blurb about what the quotes supposedly imply and it's on the GOP website. If you think I'll take that as an unbiased source, you're off your rocker. I wouldn't take the DNC's website as an unbiased source either. So I still don't see the relevance.

              by losingfaith - Friday September 30, 2005 11:02:23 AM EST -

              It's not THAT important to me to prove it to you, the remarks by Earle are out there, if its important to you that you know the whole story, you'll come across his remarks, AND his non impartial position. That may not matter to you, getting Delay might in and of itself be THAT important to you. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but thanks for the dialogue none the less.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Dem02020 (September 30, 2005 12:36 pm ET)
                   

                yet again, the wrongfully accused argue against the evidence and testimony which has been presented against them, as being insufficient to convict; and an informal jury weighs all, and acquits the wrongfully accused.

                but to attack the motives of the prosecution, is a sure sign of guilt.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by losingfaith (September 30, 2005 1:05 pm ET)
                   

                "It's not THAT important to me to prove it to you, the remarks by Earle are out there, if its important to you that you know the whole story, you'll come across his remarks, AND his non impartial position."

                Somehow I kind of figured that'd be your response after I looked at your one source for said quotes. Oh well, I'm not interested in searching through countless opinion pieces and blogs making the claims just to find that none of them have a solid source. I've done it too many times trying to prove to myself something someone else said. I'm done trying to prove other people's opposing views. If you're actually interested in presenting truth, then you'll show what brought you to the conclusions you have. Otherwise, you're only interested in arguing.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by chiefsjen (September 30, 2005 2:41 pm ET)
                   

                So in another words, poor Tommy DeLay is completely UNAWARE and OUT OF TOUCH with the RNC, and Texas for Repuglican Majority PAC and has NO idea what is going... those big mean lobbyists, who happen to be his best friends for years, are just using Tommy, he's a tool, that's all.

                It's all so clear to me now...Tom DeLay is just a tool for the right and he has no power, no knowledge, no awareness of what his own PAC is doing. I feel sorry for him -- i think I'll throw him a pity party tonight...

                Report Abuse