http://www.countermoneylaundering.com/p01.htm

"Money laundering means different things in different places. This is because only proceeds of crime (or criminal conduct) can be laundered. Also, many countries have restricted the classification of crimes that are regarded as underlying crimes for money laundering purposes. So, in some countries any conduct which, if a person were convicted would lead to a sentence of imprisonment will be regarded as a predicate crime, whilst in others only offences described in a list are to be regarded as creating "dirty money." A further twist is that some countries will allow a person to be prosecuted for laundering the proceeds of criminal conduct overseas, provided the conduct would have been criminal conduct in both countries."

So perhaps the questions is "did the money arise from a criminal act?" Good question. That's why we have an adversarial legal system.

What's the chance that the RNC might find themselves in the middle of a RICO prosecution???

Ellen, if you read closely, you'll see that in fact the RNC is named as an unindicted co-conspirator.  (Ah, brings back such Watergate memories...)  They had to be so that the RNC's mailing of the check to the state candidates on October 4, 2002 could be counted as an overt act by one of the conspirators, thus getting yesterday's indictment in under the 3-year statute of limitations.

I think we're going to find, sooner or later, that the money conduits were wide open between RNC, corporations, and government.  And government.  I'm not even talking about the deals we know about thanks to the one-stop shopping the Pentagon has done at Halliburton and elsewhere. 

If you look at the nature of the Indian casino deals back in the '90's and the proximity of the Bush governorship to those deals, it's hard to believe that government is being used as anything but a source of profits for corporations and their consultants.  Look also at the numbers of zeros in funds which "disappeared" from Iraq and elsewhere.  These numbers keep adding up. Pretty soon it's going to look something like our current national debt.  If we were to find out that taxpayers have been paying for some of Tom DeLay's campaign expenses through an illicit back door, would you be really surprised?

Irishkg --

The essence of the crime of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law (or, rather, to commit an act that is against the law).  So for the RNC to be a co-conspirator, all they will have to show is that the RNC agreed with one or more of the defendants (DeLay, Colyandro, Ellis) to carry out the alleged scheme.  This can, of course, be quite tricky.  People don't normally put their criminal agreements down on paper (although you'd be surprised how often they actually do).    But you don't have to have direct evidence of the agreement.  The Texas conspiracy statute says specifically that "An agreement constituting a conspiracy may be inferred from acts of the parties."  As Morat points out, though, it sounds like Ronnie Earle has some pretty good evidence that connects the dots.

What's the chance that the RNC might find themselves in the middle of a RICO prosecution???

Well step one is getting DeLay indicted in Texas and implicating the RNC.   Step two is now getting him (and the RNC) tied to Abramoff criminal activities.  Then the groundwork is laid for a case being made for racketeering.  Whether the Bush administration DoJ would pursue those charges is another story completely.  I think heads would roll at DoJ if they used RICO against the RNC.  But it would be sweet if the RNC had to forfeit all their assets because of RICO conviction of Abramoff or DeLay, lol!!

TRMPAC and the RNC counted a little too heavily on the fact that the bulk of the Texas judges and prosecutors are GOP.

The law against corporate contributions is a Texas law, after all, and I would think (much like blue laws in some counties) that people from Texas, be they GOP or no, might think that there was a reason that law was passed and should be enforced.

sPh 

Wow, I was thinking something similar all day - or at least until the White Sox came on.  It seems to me that the arm of the RNC that accepted the money is part of the conspiracy no less than the corporations who funded the scheme were, provided the RNC knew of the illegal activity.  My understanding is that there was a letter/note that accompanied the initial check to the RNC that listed who the RNC was to make payments to once the TRMPAC check was cashed.  There is nothing on the check that references the contributions from corporations, but it defies logic to think that the RNC didn't know what was going on.  Why send the money from TRMPAC to the RNC unless they were hding from the law?  Maybe there are other explantions, but I am unaware of any.  Does anyone else know?

The RNC is clearly a Major RICO candidate.The US administration now operates completely outside the norms of international laws and treaties, while the corporations that buy our politicians have their offices in Bermuda P.O. boxes. Lobbiest are nothing but bag men between the criminal multi-national corporations, and the criminal RNC. Meanwhile, your climate is warming, your air is unbreathable, your water undrinkable, the coral reefs are dying, your food chain is poisoned, the great plains are turning into a desert, and a bunch of people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old want to make all the decisions concerning your future--while racing around in gas guzzling armored Hummers in the midst of an ever dwindling supply of fossil fuel. We have become the pariah nation of the planet.

Under these circumstances--if you support the RNC or its insane public policies--you are either a crook yourself, or you are an utter idiot who has been completely bamboozled by lies and deceptions--or you are completely criminally insane and need to be restrained for the protection of everybody.