The state keeps presenting its case.
A former Republican National Committee official testified Thursday that he was told Tom DeLay wanted the RNC to swap corporate money for campaign donations to Texas candidates during the 2002 election campaign.
Terry Nelson, the RNC chief of staff at the time, testified that DeLay’s political aide, Jim Ellis, wanted to swap corporate dollars for the same amount in campaign donations. Texas law prohibits corporate donations to candidates.
Nelson said it was common for the RNC to do money swaps with state political parties — but not with political action committees such as the one Ellis represented.
He also said the dollar-for-dollar exchange rate was “unusual” because corporate money is worth less in politics because of the restrictions on how it can be spent.
“Tom DeLay wanted us to do that,” Nelson said Ellis told him.
After four days, Nelson’s testimony is the most direct connection prosecutors have made between DeLay and the $190,000 exchange at the heart of the money laundering and conspiracy charges against the former U.S. House majority leader.
All that is very interesting, but I have a strong feeling that in the end this is going to come down to DeLay testifying in his own defense. Yes, I know, he doesn’t have to, but does anyone think he won’t insist on it? I almost want to drive to Austin just to see that in person.
Under cross-examination, Nelson said he had “no doubt” that corporate money was never given to a candidate because the RNC keeps corporate dollars in a separate account from political donations raised from individuals.
The argument that campaign donations and corporate money were kept in separate accounts is a crucial element in DeLay’s defense.
DeGuerin repeatedly has argued, “It’s different money.” During testimony, DeGuerin has objected when prosecutors talk about “the money coming back to Texas.”
DeGuerin and his team of defense lawyers have not persuaded Judge Pat Priest.
Earlier this week, outside the presence of the jury, the judge said the fact that the corporate money might be kept separate wouldn’t matter if there were criminal intent to launder it into political donations.
“I don’t care if you put it in one pocket and took money out of the other pocket,” Priest said. “Money is absolutely fungible. It’s like beans.”
The six-man, six-woman jury will decide guilt or innocence. But the judge gives jurors written directions on the law before they deliberate.
That sound you hear is DeLay’s appellate brief being written. Finally, a mystery gets solved. Sort of.
[Warren] Robold, a Washington-based fundraiser who raised more than $400,000 in corporate donations in 2002, helped prosecutors paint a picture of the finances of Texans for a Republican Majority.
John Colyandro, the committee’s executive director, sent Robold several urgent e-mails — presented into evidence Thursday — because the committee was struggling to raise donations from individuals.
[…]
Under cross-examination, Robold said he relied on legal advice when he told corporate donors that they didn’t have to disclose their donations to Texas authorities. He said some were upset when the donations appeared on the committee’s Internal Revenue Service document.
But he said, “I did nothing wrong.”
Travis County prosecutors apparently agreed. In August, they dismissed nine felony counts of illegally accepting corporate donations against Robold, who said he testified without a deal.
So Robold is testifying for the prosecution, and he did get his charges dismissed. He says the two are not connected, which who knows? I think I’m enjoying this a little too much.