If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay no longer has the courage of his conviction   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 142
    More: Followup, broadcast delay, money launders, Texas, convictions, Appeals Court, repeal  
•       •       •

6683 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Sep 2013 at 12:27 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-19 12:28:49 PM
This guy needs some fast karma.
 
2013-09-19 12:29:17 PM
Still legally an asshole.
 
2013-09-19 12:29:57 PM
Well, I guess another $200k ended up in a judges reelection campaign in Travis county.
 
2013-09-19 12:30:15 PM
Shocking.
 
2013-09-19 12:31:27 PM
Haha did you really think there would ever be any justice dished out for this scumbag? A rich white Republican In Texas??? I'm surprised he didn't get a medal for what he did.
 
2013-09-19 12:32:20 PM
Tom Delay brought a revolution to Congress.  His very first month in office he set up a chart of how much money each special interest had paid Dems versus Reps.  If you wanted something from the GOP, you had to cough up more cash to the Rs than the Ds.

Of course it had always worked this way, but up to that point no one had been craven enough to actually make a chart out of it and rub the briber's nose in it.
 
2013-09-19 12:32:53 PM
Wait it out on "bail". Quietly dismiss it years later when the heat had died down.

/Thats some fine lawyerin'
 
2013-09-19 12:32:55 PM
Farking Tory.
 
2013-09-19 12:33:26 PM
All in all, still a successful voodoo witch hunt libs, nice job.
 
2013-09-19 12:34:08 PM
Not enough evidence for a jury to find him guilty? The jury must have disagreed since they found him guilty

/maybe it's how the article worded it but that seems like an odd overturn
 
2013-09-19 12:34:15 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Wait it out on "bail". Quietly dismiss it years later when the heat had died down.

/Thats some fine lawyerin'


I hope the prosecutors sack up and try him again.
 
2013-09-19 12:34:22 PM
FTFA:  ... DeLay conspired ...to use his Texas-based political action committee to send a check for $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under state law, corporate money cannot be given directly to political campaigns....But in a 22-page opinion, the appeals court said prosecutors "failed in its burden to prove that the funds that were delivered to the seven candidates were ever tainted."

DeLay can't send money directly to his 7 candidates. So he sends a large check to the RNC, and the RNC splits that large check up into 7 smaller checks and sends them to the 7 candidates. But there's insufficient evidence that the $190,000 check from DeLay to the RNC was in any way related to the $190,000 worth of checks from the RNC to the candidates? Sounds like Texas justice, all right.
 
2013-09-19 12:34:33 PM
How long before he's elected speaker again?
 
2013-09-19 12:34:46 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: All in all, still a successful voodoo witch hunt libs, nice job.


If you think he's honest and hasn't violated any laws, you're a moron.
 
2013-09-19 12:35:19 PM
Wasn't enough evidence to convict??? This wasn't a murder case with a shady witness and no DNA. They had a farkin paper trail. IT was illegal.

/must be nice to be rich and connected.
 
2013-09-19 12:36:01 PM
1. Texas

2. Justice


Pick one.
 
2013-09-19 12:36:31 PM

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA:  ... DeLay conspired ...to use his Texas-based political action committee to send a check for $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under state law, corporate money cannot be given directly to political campaigns....But in a 22-page opinion, the appeals court said prosecutors "failed in its burden to prove that the funds that were delivered to the seven candidates were ever tainted."

DeLay can't send money directly to his 7 candidates. So he sends a large check to the RNC, and the RNC splits that large check up into 7 smaller checks and sends them to the 7 candidates. But there's insufficient evidence that the $190,000 check from DeLay to the RNC was in any way related to the $190,000 worth of checks from the RNC to the candidates? Sounds like Texas justice, all right.


FTFA:

The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals said the evidence was "legally insufficient," and in a 2-1 ruling decided to "reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal."

So 2 of 3 judges overruled a jury?

Texa$ Ju$tice.
 
2013-09-19 12:36:44 PM

Blues_X: Lt. Cheese Weasel: All in all, still a successful voodoo witch hunt libs, nice job.

If you think he's honest and hasn't violated any laws, you're a moron.


It's not what you know.  It's what you can prove.

You want a tissue?
 
2013-09-19 12:37:01 PM
FTFA: A jury in Austin had determined that DeLay conspired with two associates, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, to use his Texas-based political action committee to send a check for $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under state law, corporate money cannot be given directly to political campaigns.

Seems open and shut to me: corporate money was simply given INDIRECTLY to political campaigns.
 
2013-09-19 12:37:07 PM

Blues_X: Lt. Cheese Weasel: All in all, still a successful voodoo witch hunt libs, nice job.

If you think he's honest and hasn't violated any laws, you're a moron.


I'm betting on "he's a moron".
 
2013-09-19 12:37:22 PM
Activist judges overriding the will of the people!!11
 
2013-09-19 12:37:39 PM

Aar1012: Not enough evidence for a jury to find him guilty? The jury must have disagreed since they found him guilty

/maybe it's how the article worded it but that seems like an odd overturn


Because juries are the ones to be able to evaluate the witnesses' demeanor and appellate courts are simply reading a transcript, jurors are given great deference in fact finding. I don't practice criminal law, and not at all in Texas, but the standard to overturn a jury verdict based on a factual error is generally that the jury abused its discretion. It is supposed to be vanishingly rare for a jury verdict to be overturned on these grounds.

I'm not going to bother to read the opinion because I don't really give a shiat, but Good Ole Boy shenanigans are definitely not out of the question here.
 
2013-09-19 12:37:44 PM
Finally!!  Score one for the underdog, who represents the interests of the poor and oppressed!!!
 
2013-09-19 12:38:44 PM
It just proves in Texas it is the finest justice money can buy and often does.
 
2013-09-19 12:38:53 PM
A Texas judge exonerated a bush era criminal going against the findings of a jury of his peers.

Color me surprised.
 
2013-09-19 12:39:16 PM

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA:  ... DeLay conspired ...to use his Texas-based political action committee to send a check for $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under state law, corporate money cannot be given directly to political campaigns....But in a 22-page opinion, the appeals court said prosecutors "failed in its burden to prove that the funds that were delivered to the seven candidates were ever tainted."

DeLay can't send money directly to his 7 candidates. So he sends a large check to the RNC, and the RNC splits that large check up into 7 smaller checks and sends them to the 7 candidates. But there's insufficient evidence that the $190,000 check from DeLay to the RNC was in any way related to the $190,000 worth of checks from the RNC to the candidates? Sounds like Texas justice, all right.


The money was from corporations.

If it was Delay's personal money it would have been completely legal.

Only corporate bribes are forbidden by Texas law.
 
2013-09-19 12:39:27 PM
Tom Delay was never Speaker of the House.
 
2013-09-19 12:39:29 PM
Old boy nullification
 
2013-09-19 12:40:21 PM
Sign you live in a shiat state: judges have to face reelection

Another sign: the sign welcoming you into the state at the bottom says "Open for business"
 
2013-09-19 12:40:30 PM

lohphat: FTFA:

The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals said the evidence was "legally insufficient," and in a 2-1 ruling decided to "reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal."


Wow. So not only did the appellate court reverse the jury's findings of fact, they stepped in and acquitted him so he can't be tried again.

Yeah, Imma go with shenanigans.
 
2013-09-19 12:40:59 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: All in all, still a successful voodoo witch hunt libs, nice job.


Tom Delay was as corrupt as the day is long.
 
2013-09-19 12:41:06 PM
So when was he Speaker?  IIRC, never.
 
2013-09-19 12:41:19 PM

Bublier: Tom Delay was never Speaker of the House.


Majority whip, IIRC.
 
2013-09-19 12:41:48 PM
Way to buy off some judges, douchebag.
 
2013-09-19 12:41:59 PM
Laws are for everyone else.  Be elected to congress, and you're able to get away with EVERYTHING!..
 
2013-09-19 12:42:16 PM

gilgigamesh: DROxINxTHExWIND: Wait it out on "bail". Quietly dismiss it years later when the heat had died down.

/Thats some fine lawyerin'

I hope the prosecutors sack up and try him again.


Double jeopardy.

/no, not the game show
 
2013-09-19 12:42:40 PM
It's good to have friends in high places.
 
2013-09-19 12:44:00 PM

Bublier: Tom Delay was never Speaker of the House.


Yep; the Speaker is the #1 ranking member of the majority party in the House, and I think everyone knows Delay was definitely #2.
 
2013-09-19 12:44:59 PM
Rome II.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-09-19 12:45:07 PM
Decision here: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Docket.aspx?coa=coa03&FullDate=09/19/2 0 13

The essential dispute seems to be about whether the corporate donations were criminal ab initio because they were not adequately limited to a lawful use. Apparently Texas law requires at least an implicit understanding that corporate donations be restricted to lawful purposes (like overhead, but not direct support of candidates). If the donations were criminal then any handling of the money is money laundering. On the other hand, it is not money laundering to make illegal use of lawfully acquired money. The state would have to charge the underlying election law violation. That count was dismissed before trial.
 
2013-09-19 12:45:11 PM

Transubstantive: gilgigamesh: DROxINxTHExWIND: Wait it out on "bail". Quietly dismiss it years later when the heat had died down.

/Thats some fine lawyerin'

I hope the prosecutors sack up and try him again.

Double jeopardy.

/no, not the game show


It wouldn't have been if the appellate court didn't completely stand in for the jury and enter a judgment of acquittal. They could have simply reversed the conviction, but I guess that wasn't what they were paid to do.
 
2013-09-19 12:47:48 PM
www.mancavecuisine.com
The system works!
 
2013-09-19 12:48:38 PM
Nothing new here. Money buys freedom in this country... Sadly
 
2013-09-19 12:49:35 PM
Seems like he was able to get a fair trail outside of the People's Republic of Austin/Travis County.
DAs office noted for political bias . Current DA won't resign despite DWI conviction while in office.

due in part to some of the appeals court justices in Austin recusing themselves as well as DeLay's successful effort to have a judge on the panel removed because of anti-Republican comments she made.

:
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-09-19 12:50:31 PM
gilgigamesh

If the evidence is insufficient to convict the appeals court has to order an acquittal. Retrial would be double jeopardy.

You get a new trial if the evidence was sufficient to convict, but the judge made some other legal error.  Like if witness X testifies he saw the defendant shoot somebody and the judge refuses to allow witness Y to testify it looked like self-defense. There is sufficient evidence to convict for murder, but the trial was not fair so the defendant gets a do-over.
 
2013-09-19 12:51:30 PM

hasty ambush: Seems like he was able to get a fair trail outside of the People's Republic of Austin/Travis County.
DAs office noted for political bias . Current DA won't resign despite DWI conviction while in office.

due in part to some of the appeals court justices in Austin recusing themselves as well as DeLay's successful effort to have a judge on the panel removed because of anti-Republican comments she made.


So you're OK with judges overriding a jury, got it. I'll keep that in mind.
 
2013-09-19 12:51:51 PM

ZAZ: gilgigamesh

If the evidence is insufficient to convict the appeals court has to order an acquittal. Retrial would be double jeopardy.

You get a new trial if the evidence was sufficient to convict, but the judge made some other legal error.  Like if witness X testifies he saw the defendant shoot somebody and the judge refuses to allow witness Y to testify it looked like self-defense. There is sufficient evidence to convict for murder, but the trial was not fair so the defendant gets a do-over.


Ah, fair enough. Criminal law ain't my thing, so I will bow to your superior insight.
 
2013-09-19 12:52:24 PM
It's good to have friends in high places.
 
2013-09-19 12:52:39 PM
I'm sure the Texas appeals court would have taken an equally close look at the evidence presented if it was reviewing the evidence used to convict a hispanic or black man for burglary.
 
2013-09-19 12:53:10 PM

gilgigamesh: Bublier: Tom Delay was never Speaker of the House.

Majority whip, IIRC.


He was Majority Leader before leaving the House.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report