There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
If there was an appeals court where a jury panel heard the case again or new 'evidence' was presented I would feel differently about it. And if a convicted democrate law maker had his conviction overturned by a judge GOPpers would be raising hell. And I would be saying the same thing that I am about this one. Partisans suck!
If by that you mean the panel of judges, then no, I'm not saying that. While that could be possible, I don't know because I don't know anything about their politics. But on the forums which I participate, it's all righties that think this is cool and "think" this means Delay is exonerated.
“Mr. DeLay was first accused by Mr. Earle, the chief prosecutor of Travis County, Texas, of conspiring to violate Texas campaign laws. That indictment immediately was challenged because, even if there had been sufficient evidence of wrongdoing — which there emphatically was not — it would have necessitated prosecuting Mr. DeLay for violating a law that had not yet been passed at the time he was alleged to have broken it, a clear violation of the constitutional ban on ex post facto prosecution. Knowing that his indictment was doomed, Mr. Earle scrambled to convene a new grand jury in order to secure additional charges. The second grand jury refused to cooperate and rejected Mr. Earle’s plea for a second indictment, issuing what is called a “no bill,” meaning a formal refusal to indict based on the evidence presented. Under normal Texas procedure, a no-bill document is made public on the day it is issued; Mr. Earle schemed to keep the grand jury’s rejection of his case secret until he could convene yet another grand jury. He found a brand-new one that had just been seated and, with the statute of limitations hanging over his head, wrung out of them indictments on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering after only a few hours of presenting his evidence. The refusal of the second grand jury to indict was kept secret until the third grand jury had done so. Mr. DeLay’s attorneys filed a formal complaint of prosecutorial misconduct, including the use of coercive and misleading measures in the matter of the third grand jury.” DeLay
2. Now after the scramble Delay was indicted on “money laundering and conspiracy” to commit same, a very desperate maneuver never destined to stand up to final judgment. That is because to be guilty of the charge of money laundering, one must be guilty of producing the money in question through some prior felony offense. Not the case.
3. And then you have this, the situation in which a jury, the jury of which you speak, rendered a flawed judgement as they were lacking proper knowledge of the law that would most probably lead to an acquittal. This conviction was more out of judicial incompetence [or malfeasance, possibly? Who knows this judge’s politics, it was in the leftist’s People’s Republic of Austin at the trial-court level]. The jury was justifiably confused how Mr. Delay could be convicted of money laundering charge without the underlying crime producing “dirty money” to be laundered. They even sent the judge this question:
"The jury asked the trial judge that question of law in this way: 'Can it constitute money laundering if the money wasn't procured by illegal means originally,'" Goodwin [one of the appeal judges] wrote. "The proper answer to the question is 'no.' The jury's question about the law was not answered, however; the court simply referred the jury to the court's charge." Courthouse News Service
So, the judge refused to answer an explicit jury inquiry about the fundamental legal question at stake in the case. I am not saying the judge was partisan…so was it incompetence or malfeasance? Just wondering if you are looking for justice or possibly just being partisan…
Last edited by Gaugingcatenate; 09-22-13 at 09:38 AM.
Get there firstest with the mostest. Trust, but verify. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
can anyone point out how the money he funneled to local races were proceeds from criminal activity?
surely there must be some factual evidence that back the charges of money laundering ( which requires the proceeds to be from criminal activity)
if the folks donating this money did not gain this money from criminal activity, then money laundering is not the proper charge to levy.
if Delay was unaware that this money was indeed money gained from criminal activity.. then the charges are still improper. ( Texas laws requires knowledge of criminal activity)
I could almost understand charging him based upon the new law ( the law was changed after he committed his act.) in which checks are considered "money".... and investing or financing in something to which furthers criminal activity..... but the ex post facto application of a law is universally unacceptable in our legal system
those corporate provided monies could not be used in that manner
however, the law then ignored the prospect that criminal monies could move by check ; state law provided a loop hole for such illicit money tendered by check ... which loop hole is what allowed the hammer to keep from being a nail
legal "clean" money going to a person pretty much disqualifies money laundering charges..even if that legal money went on to eventually be "dirty" money.
if it were true that we could charge folks with money laundering for using legal money to do illegal things with, we'd have a whole lot more folks in prison...
nah, the whole idea behind money laundering laws is that it assumes illegal money is being laundered into clean money... not the inverse.
but yeah, the "old law" did allow for checks to be used... checks were not recognized as money under the old law....(ex post facto application of the law is a bad thing, i think we can all agree.)
I think it was improper to charge him with money laundering... and I pretty much agree that the evidence doesn't support a conviction under that particular statute.
personally, I think he should have been convicted of illegal campaign contributions... he knew the money was from corporations, and he knew that money shouldn't go to campaigns... that stuff is illegal in Texas and it seem like that charge would have a more solid legal footing.( the check "loophole" still stands in the way, though)
I'd be happy with some good old country boy justice ... a couple of nice hard punches to the assholes nose sits well with me, for some reason.