• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DeLay conviction overturned

American said:
It's that what appeals are all about?
Click to expand...


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!
 
Montecresto said:
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!
Click to expand...

So partisanship is proven.
 
American said:
So partisanship is proven.
Click to expand...


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.
 
haymarket said:
12 Texas citizens who heard the case day after day and witness after witness disagree with your partisan explanation.
Click to expand...
1. First, what do you have to say about the fact that at least 3 (some say 6 )grand jury panels were convened, all apparently perfectly within the time limit allotted, yet with all but one of them the prosecutor felt the results, umm, unsatisfactory shall we put it…he is democrat, lets lay that aside even with these 2 (possibly 5) previous , he may have really really been after the truth after all, doggedly persistent they call it…but what do you surmise about the 2 or 5 before the third or sixth “successful venture”? Add to that that:

“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…
haymarket said:
Two republicans rewarding another republican for political services rendered to the party found a way to override the findings of 12 citizens entrusted to dispense justice.
Click to expand...
See above and answer for yourself first, then ask if the citizens had proper knowledge how that may have impacted their verdict.
haymarket said:
What is so "scary" about our system of justice?
Click to expand...
Actually, with the appeals justice worked out fine in the acquittal…however there should be some sort of stiff penalty for putting a man doing nothing wrong through the ringer like this. You add that he was required by tradition and rule on our side of the aisle, that if you are in leadership and indicted for a crime, under House Republican rules, you are required to step down. He did so and so this frivolous indictment destroyed a career of service…what price should be exacted for that? It also kept a strong leader from doing the good he might well otherwise have done to assist our side…and for, simply, no real reason except blatant partisanship…which ironically you keep accusing only our side of…I guess when you see it constantly, every day on your side, you just don’t notice it anymore, it is just invisible to you, is it?
Montecresto said:
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!
Click to expand...
See above, they did not hear enough in the first case… the judge withheld important information…as bad partisans do, indeed, suck, where do you now place yourself…non partisan or suckie partisan? Just wondering.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Thrilla said:
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
Click to expand...

the criminal nature of the money manifested itself the moment the funds were given over to local, tejas, candidates
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
 
justabubba said:
the criminal nature of the money manifested itself the moment the funds were given over to local, tejas, candidates
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
Click to expand...

well, i could see charging him with improper/illegal campaign contributions... but money laundering doesn't seem to jive correctly, as the money in question is not from criminal activity.
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.:lol:
 
DaveFagan said:
You have to love that Texas sense of justice. Don't forget the Branch Davidian Barbecue at Waco.. Youssah, they got it goin' on.
Click to expand...
That was a FEDERALLY CONDUCTED BBQ please remember...under the supervision of chef BJ Clinton and his asst chef, AG Janet Reno...
 
Thrilla said:
well, i could see charging him with improper/illegal campaign contributions... but money laundering doesn't seem to jive correctly, as the money in question is not from criminal activity.
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.:lol:
Click to expand...

while he prevailed using the letter of the law, we still got rid of the hammer for quite a few years
 
justabubba said:
while he prevailed using the letter of the law, we still got rid of the hammer for quite a few years
Click to expand...

And that's what it was all about. Destroying political enemies.

An odd coincidence that Waco showed up on the same thread.
 
haymarket said:
Two republicans rewarding another republican for political services rendered to the party found a way to override the findings of 12 citizens entrusted to dispense justice.
Click to expand...

When a Dem prosecutor decides to make up law as he goes to punish a Republican for being a Republican he has served the Dems well. They never have cared much about the law and probably never will.

Those "12 citizens entrusted" probably had little clue as to what the law actually was. They sure didn't hear what the law was from the Dem prosecutor. As the appeal judges made clear.

I won't blame those 12 for the miscarriage of justice when the fault lies with the political hack DA.
 
Grant said:
And that's what it was all about. Destroying political enemies.

An odd coincidence that Waco showed up on the same thread.
Click to expand...

that's the way the game is being played. anyone who is even barely awake sees it
and the hammer exposed himself to such a hit when he violated tejas state law prohibiting the use of corporate donations to fund state political races
that's exactly what delay did
only texas law makers specifically excluded checks (at that time) from being found a conduit of criminal money. that minor - and odd - distinction is what got the hammer a get out of jail free card
 
ItAin'tFree said:
When a Dem prosecutor decides to make up law as he goes to punish a Republican for being a Republican he has served the Dems well. They never have cared much about the law and probably never will.

Those "12 citizens entrusted" probably had little clue as to what the law actually was. They sure didn't hear what the law was from the Dem prosecutor. As the appeal judges made clear.

I won't blame those 12 for the miscarriage of justice when the fault lies with the political hack DA.
Click to expand...

the political hack in that whole matter was one congressman delay, aka the hammer
just be glad he is now gone from the political scene, despite now being away from incarceration
 
justabubba said:
that's the way the game is being played. anyone who is even barely awake sees it
and the hammer exposed himself to such a hit when he violated tejas state law prohibiting the use of corporate donations to fund state political races
that's exactly what delay did
only texas law makers specifically excluded checks (at that time) from being found a conduit of criminal money. that minor - and odd - distinction is what got the hammer a get out of jail free card
Click to expand...

The US is becoming more and more like the old Soviet Union. Leftists must have their way at any cost, never understanding what the consequences of their ignorance will be.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. First, what do you have to say about the fact that............................
Click to expand...

a jury of 12 Texas citizens heard the case and pronounced him guilty. That pretty much says it all.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
When a Dem prosecutor decides to make up law as he goes to punish a Republican for being a Republican he has served the Dems well. They never have cared much about the law and probably never will.

Those "12 citizens entrusted" probably had little clue as to what the law actually was. They sure didn't hear what the law was from the Dem prosecutor. As the appeal judges made clear.

I won't blame those 12 for the miscarriage of justice when the fault lies with the political hack DA.
Click to expand...

A jury of 12 Texas citizens heard the case from both sides, heard the judge explain the law and rendered a verdict of GUILTY.
 
haymarket said:
a jury of 12 Texas citizens heard the case and pronounced him guilty. That pretty much says it all.
Click to expand...

Well, says it all if you add that this was after the prosecutor, a partisan democrat, subverted the grand jury system convening as many as necessary to get the results he wanted rather than looking for justice...and it says it all if you ignore the fact that even when asked by this very "jury of 12 Texas citizens" the judge failed to identify the true nature of the law in the case which, since they asked and had they been told, if they were honest Texans they would probably acquitted...and says it all if the country allowed ex post facto laws [ which we have all be taught since middle school that it absolutely does not ]...

So, yeah, your statement says it all if you want the truth to be absent of the truth...but why would one want that?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, says it all if you add that this was after the prosecutor, a partisan democrat, subverted the grand jury system convening as many as necessary to get the results he wanted rather than looking for justice...and it says it all if you ignore the fact that even when asked by this very "jury of 12 Texas citizens" the judge failed to identify the true nature of the law in the case which, since they asked and had they been told, if they were honest Texans they would probably acquitted...and says it all if the country allowed ex post facto laws [ which we have all be taught since middle school that it absolutely does not ]...

So, yeah, your statement says it all if you want the truth to be absent of the truth...but why would one want that?
Click to expand...

and did the court appointed lawyer right out of a fourth rate law school for DeLay have the opportunity to make his case before those same 12 Texas citizens? :doh:roll:
 
haymarket said:
This development is very sad indeed and a serious blow to those who advocate removing big money from government and politics. Its a victory for the cynical and for big money..... not to mention crooks like tom DeLay.
Click to expand...

It is not a victory for anyone but Tom DeLay.

He was charged with a crime that was not a crime at the time it was done. The government retroactively prosecuted DeLay under a law that made the "contributions" illegal.

As much as what he did, yes it was unethical...IMO, but you cant prosecute someone retroactively.

Prosecuting him under this law would be like the government coming up with a law in 2013 and prosecuting you for breaking that law in 1973.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom