Pardon me, Mr. DeLay

On Tuesday, Alexander Bolton of The Hill newspaper reported that lawyers for our former Congressman, Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County), do not anticipate asking President Bush for a pardon to remove the threat of a criminal indictment on Mr. DeLay:

Tom DeLay’s legal advisers are ruling out seeking a presidential pardon for the embattled former House majority leader...

Richard Cullen, who is representing DeLay in the federal investigation against him, said there should be no question of a pardon.

“I would rule it out,” he said. “No one has suggested that Mr. DeLay is guilty of a crime. He has stated clearly that he has not committed a crime.”

Pardons loom large in the waning months of any presidency, and DeLay’s case could be especially salient because his legal travails have already cost more than a million dollars in legal fees, with no end in sight.

Honestly, I find this news to be rather unremarkable. I want to know what did happen and what will happen. I don't really care what won't happen.

The primary purpose of this post is to highlight the reason behind the federal investigation into Mr. DeLay's activities:

[Mr. DeLay] is involved in a federal probe in Washington related to his relationship with former lobbyist Ed Buckham. Those cases have stretched out for years and cost DeLay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills...

DeLay and his wife, Christine, have also been involved in a long-running FBI investigation scrutinizing several years of income Christine received from two organizations affiliated with Buckham.

Money received by Christine DeLay from Ed Buckham. Nearly two and a half years ago, it became clear to me that these payments to Mrs. DeLay would be very problematic for Mr. DeLay. To this day, I like to see this story in print.

==

Asking for a Pardon

I believe that Mr. DeLay's attorneys do not intend to ask President Bush for a pardon. But that doesn't mean a pardon is out of the question:

Margaret Colgate Love, the U.S. pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997, said: “Historically, most people who have been pardoned have asked to be pardoned, but there have been exceptions.”

The Hill goes through a list of some of those exceptions. President Clinton pardoned former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) after he was convicted of mail fraud. The Hill doesn't mention that President Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide Scooter Libby without being asked. Usually, pardons are issued after the judicial system has completed the process of trying and convicting an individual. But there have been exceptions to that rule, too.

So while Richard Cullen, Mr. DeLay's attorney, rules out petitioning for a pardon, that doesn't mean that a pardon is out of the question. Let's hope President Bush doesn't issue a pardon to Mr. DeLay. While the power to pardon is indisputably within President Bush's authority, it would not, in my opinion, be in the interests of justice.

==

Running Amok

The Hill article reminds us of an episode that occurred in the spring of 2007:

DeLay told The Hill in May 2007 that the federal probe had “run amok” and that prosecutors should bring charges or drop the case. Justice Department officials still have not brought charges or exonerated DeLay more than a year later.

The Hill accurately described Mr. DeLay's May 2007 temper tantrum. Mr. DeLay clearly attacked the federal probe being conducted by the Justice Department. But as I observed at the time, Mr. DeLay's attorney, Mr. Cullen must not have heard what his client said even though Mr. Cullen was present at the press conference. Mr. Cullen suggested that Mr. DeLay didn't mean it when he said, “[Christine DeLay] did her work and she was underpaid for the work she did and they can’t make the case. It’s a Justice Department that is running amok. Fish or cut bait. Do something." Mr. Cullen said that Mr. DeLay was not actually referring to the Justice Department's inquiry in to his wife's "employment" in that statement. Rather, Mr. Cullen suggested that Mr. DeLay was actually angry about Ronnie Earle's partisan prosecution on state money laundering charges.

ARMPAC Related Civil Suit Moves Forward

In an order issued on July 15 (.pdf), US District Judge Henry H. Kennedy allowed the civil suit filed by former ARMPAC treasurer Corwin Teltschik to go forward.

On October 5, 2007, several of the defendants in this case filed a Motion to Dismiss (.pdf) the case filed by Teltschik, the former treasurer of Tom DeLay's political action committee, ARMPAC. Judge Kennedy's order only affects certain defendants: Williams & Jensen, PLLC, Barbara Wixon Bonfiglio, Meredith G. Kelley and Robert J. Martinez (the W&J defendants). In Judge Kennedy's order, the W&J defendants were successful in getting Mr. Teltschik's claim for declaratory judgment dismissed, but Judge Kennedy denied the request to dismiss in all other respects.

Let's take a closer look at what the W&J defendants requested so that we can determine what exactly Judge Kennedy allowed to proceed. From the Motion to Dismiss (.pdf):

[T]he Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Defendants. Plaintiff's allegations do not prove the existence of an attorney-client relationship, and thus no corresponding duties would exist such that Defendants could be liable for negligence or breach of duty. Plaintiff's libel and business disparagement claims find no support in the factual allegations which reference not false and defamatory statements about the Plaintiff, nor an exception to the absolute and qualified privilege which would attach to statements in the Conciliation Agreement. Plaintiff's allegations would not state a tortious interference or misappropriation claim, and again, such claims are barred by privilege ... Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed ...

Now Judge Kennedy did not make any conclusions in his order, but the fact that he refused to dismiss Mr. Teltschik's case means he doesn't think that these statements are as clear cut as the W&J defendants claim. Judge Kennedy thinks there is enough uncertainty about these claims to warrants a trial. The trial will determine:

1. Whether or not the facts laid out by Mr. Teltschik have stated a claim against the W&J defendants.

2. Whether or not an attorney-client relationship existed between the W&J defendants and Mr. Teltschik.

3. Whether or not the W&J defendants made false and defamatory statements about Mr. Teltschik.

a. If false and defamatory statements were made, whether or not they were privileged as part of a quasi-judicial hearing before the FEC.

b. If unprivileged false and defamatory statements were made, whether or not they disparaged Mr. Teltschik's business.

4. Whether or not Mr. Teltschik has stated a tortious interference or misappropriation claim.

Now I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if the W&J defendants have any further means to get this case dismissed. But Judge Kennedy's July 15 order undoubtedly makes a trial more likely.

==

Headed Toward Discovery

Of course if a trial is held to answer these questions, discovery must come first. Recall that Mr. Teltschik has already indicated he intends to name DeLay family members as witnesses. This could include Tom DeLay himself since he was Chairman of ARMPAC. It could include Christine DeLay since she enticed Mr. Teltschik to accept the position of treasurer of ARMPAC. Lastly it could include Dani DeLay Ferro, who received "retroactive" "payroll" payments that Mr. Teltschik seems to suggest were improper in some way. Let me say again what I've said before: I'd truly like to see Mr. DeLay under oath answering questions about ARMPAC. I just hope we'll be able to see a videotape of such a deposition or at least a transcript. If Mr. DeLay is ever deposed and a transcript is filed with the court, I promise it will appear on this blog.

==

Now notice that Judge Kennedy's order does not affect former ARMPAC attorney and newly appointed Federal Election Commission chairman Don McGahn in any way. However, by the end of the weekend, I will try to put together some points on the predictive power the July 15 order has on Mr. McGahn's efforts not to be drawn back into this case. Also, I will monitor PACER to see if Judge Kennedy issues any orders with respect to Mr. McGahn.

==

Click on the "Teltschik" tag below for more entries on this subject

"All Summer Long"

My July music video has to be Kid Rock's "All Summer Long". There's just something about a southern rock song about coming of age in northern Michigan during the late 80s that resonates with me.

Carefree: Check.

Having fun on the lakes: Check.

References to marijuana: Could have done without.

The cultural divide in today's America is not north vs. south. It is rural vs. urban. And I'm proudly rural. Perhaps that's why I fit in so well at Texas A&M. It is amazing how southern those of us from northern Michigan are. I think my fellow Michiganian and co-generationist Kid Rock captures that a bit.

The challenge for me today is to try to instill rural values in my suburban kids. Up to this point, Mrs. Anti-Corruption (another rural Yankee) and I have been pretty successful.

The opening lyrics are the best:

It was 1989, my thoughts were short my hair was long
Caught somewhere between a boy and man
She was seventeen and she was far from in-between
It was summertime in Northern Michigan

"All Summer Long" (2008)
Kid Rock

Covington & Burling

Covington & Burling partner David Remes

=======

From the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, we learn:

In a recent interview with the Yemen Observer, David Remes, a Covington & Burling partner who was in Yemen working on his representation of 15 Yemeni detainees at Gitmo, told the journalist that he had “two missions” during the visit: “first to meet the families of the men that I represent in Guantanamo and second, to do what I can to promote the cause of these men.”

It was in the name of this zealous advocacy that Remes (Columbia, Harvard Law) removed his pants at a news conference on Monday. This morning, we caught up with Remes, who had just landed at JFK after a 14-hour flight from Dubai.

Apparently, Mr. Remes dropped his trousers in an effort to generate sympathy for his terrorist clients. It is not clear to me whether this unorthodox tactic worked.

Covington & Burling has been described as an exemplary model of a white shoe law firm. We here at the Anti-Corruption Republican weblog always strive for precision in the written word. Henceforth, we will no longer refer to Covington & Burling as a "white shoe" firm. Evidently, Covington and Burling is a tighty-whitie law firm.

We would, however, like to point out that it is good that Mr. Remes listened to his mother's advice. Let this be a lesson for us all. Always wear clean underwear because you never know when you might pull down your pants during a press conference.

(h/t Best of the Web)

===

In other news, lawyers at the tighty-whitie law firm of Covington & Burling represent Donald McGahn, the new Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Upon information and belief, there was a hearing yesterday in the Curious Case of Corwin Teltschik^TM in Washington DC. Mr. Teltschik is trying to get Mr. McGahn added back as a defendant in a civil case he filed regarding events during Mr. Teltschik's tenure as treasurer of former Rep. Tom DeLay's political action committee, ARMPAC. In short, Mr. Teltschik alleges that Mr. McGahn made some representations to the Federal Election Commission on Mr. Teltschik's behalf without Mr. Teltschik's knowledge or consent. Specifically, Mr. Teltschik alleges that Mr. McGahn caused a Conciliatory Agreement (.pdf) to be filed with the FEC that indicates that Mr. Teltschik committed a felony. Mr. Teltschik says this has put his law license in jeopardy.

I have tried to no avail to get any recent court documents regarding this motion. The case number is C. A. No. 08-0089 HHK if anyone wants to be helpful (hint, hint). E-mail at right and discretion assured.

I'll echo what I've said before. It would be very embarrassing if the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission was a defendant in a campaign finance related civil case dealing with actions before the Federal Election Commission.

July 11: Paul Vinovich Update

Special update from Steamboat Springs, Colo., where the highs are in the low 80s and the dew point is in the 30s. . .

==

Original Post on Paul Vinovich

My anti-corruption intelligence services are providing me with more information. With only moderate confidence, I believe that the movement surrounding Paul Vinovich has to do with travel disclosure forms submitted by Mr. Vinovich with respect to his trip with convicted Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) to Scotland. I first wrote about these travel disclosure forms in August 2007. It is my considered opinion that convicted Ney staffer Will Heaton provided Vinovich's disclosure forms to the Justice Department.

At the time of my August 2007 post, I couldn't figure out whom Mr. Vinovich could provide information about. I still can't answer that question. But I still have a sneaking suspicion that it might actually have to do with Tom DeLay somehow.

Something's Up with Paul Vinovich

Paul Vinovich (right) at St. Andrews golf course in Scotland

===

I've been way behind in my blogging. Too much traveling. Junior Anti-Corruption has been on a Civil War kick, so we took him to Shiloh a couple of weeks ago. (It warmed my thick Yankee blood when Jr. Anti-Corruption innocently looked up at me and said with horror and disgust, "Dad, did you know that Texas was part of the Confederacy?") Now we're off for a couple of weeks to Colorado, so the blogging won't pick up any time soon.

Anyway, my anti-corruption intelligence services are picking up a lot of "Paul Vinovich" chatter. I'm not sure what's going on, but since I don't believe in coincidences, I'm convinced something is afoot. I mentioned Mr. Vinovich briefly in early 2007. Mr. Vinovich was a staff member of convicted former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio). Mr. Vinovich went on an Abramoff-funded trip to Scotland that resulting in guilty pleas from Rep. Ney and another staffer, Will Heaton. Mr. Vinovich is currently serving as counsel to the Minneapolis Host Committe for the 2008 Republican Convention.

Again, I don't know for sure what's up, but my wild speculation is that Mr. Vinovich is cooperating and that this is specifically bad news for our own former Congressman, Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County). As of 1:30 p.m. CDT, there are no news stories about Mr. Vinovich on Google News. Expect that to change.