Former House Majority leader Tom Delay gets conviction overturned!!!

[Mustang]

Money Laundering is really hard to prove. But it's no surprise really that Delay got it overturned in Texas. He called in a few favors.

Doesn't make him any less of a crook.

This reminds me of when Ollie North's conviction was overturned on a technicality. He said he was exonerated.

Only a sleazy ignominious libturd would claim the 5th Amendment is a "technicality."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The ACLU helped get Ollie North off on a technicality. Read about it below:

North was tried in 1988. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts, and, on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity; aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry; and ordering the destruction of documents via his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years' probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service. Oliver North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in Southeast Washington, DC.[17]


However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),[18] North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.[19]


Because North had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, the law prohibited a prosecutor from using that testimony as part of a criminal case against him. To prepare for the expected defense challenge that North's testimony had been used, the prosecution team had—before North's congressional testimony had been given—listed and isolated all of its evidence.[citation needed] Further, the individual members of the prosecution team had isolated themselves from news reports and discussion of North's testimony. While the defense could show no specific instance in which North's congressional testimony was used in his trial, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue. Consequently, North's convictions were reversed. After further hearings on the immunity issue, Judge Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991.

Oliver North - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

This reminds me of when Ollie North's conviction was overturned on a technicality. He said he was exonerated.

Only a sleazy ignominious libturd would claim the 5th Amendment is a "technicality."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The ACLU helped get Ollie North off on a technicality. Read about it below:

I'm hardly surprised that you don't understand the reason Ollie North's conviction was overturned. The law that "prevents a prosecutor from using immunized testimony as part of a criminal case against him" is called "the Fifth Amendment." Read it. Perhaps you'll learn something.

BTW, it takes a special kind of stupid to believe that the prosecution team "isolated themselves" from knowledge of North's testimony. Walsh certainly didn't, and he was the head of the prosecution team.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat defending DeLay: now that is amazing! DeLay was Mr. Crony Capitalism who though libertarians were small-minded folks of odd predilections.

What did Delay ever do that indicates he's "Mr. Crony Capitalism?"

BTW, good to see you defending a fellow Republican in your usual manner.

it is sarcasm, right?

I would not imagine anybody in the right mind believes fakey's lies

Yes, that is sarcasm. Fakey is practically a Stalinist, so it's no surprise to see him chiming in against a Republican.

 

[aaronleland]

Money Laundering is really hard to prove. But it's no surprise really that Delay got it overturned in Texas. He called in a few favors.

Doesn't make him any less of a crook.

This reminds me of when Ollie North's conviction was overturned on a technicality. He said he was exonerated.

Only a sleazy ignominious libturd would claim the 5th Amendment is a "technicality."

Oliver North admitted his guilt. He got off on a technicality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mr. DeLay was one of the great statists in our party, one of the most corrupt in our party, the creator of K Street lobby forces, and a man who despised the working class.

And we find the far right reactionaries defending his ass.

This is why we are clearing the GOP of its diseased far right wing.

 

[Mustang]

Only a sleazy ignominious libturd would claim the 5th Amendment is a "technicality."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The ACLU helped get Ollie North off on a technicality. Read about it below:

I'm hardly surprised that you don't understand the reason Ollie North's conviction was overturned. The law that "prevents a prosecutor from using immunized testimony as part of a criminal case against him" is called "the Fifth Amendment." Read it. Perhaps you'll learn something.

BTW, it takes a special kind of stupid to believe that the prosecution team "isolated themselves" from knowledge of North's testimony. Walsh certainly didn't, and he was the head of the prosecution team.

Did you not read the enlarged highlighted part? I'll reprint it below:

While the defense could show no specific instance in which North's congressional testimony was used in his trial, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue. Consequently, North's convictions were reversed.

The only problem was that the "trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue." But no examples were offered where North's congressional testimony was used. The court just failed to address the issue even though North's testimony was not used. That's why it's a technicality.

 

[tinydancer]

Mr. DeLay was one of the great statists in our party, one of the most corrupt in our party, the creator of K Street lobby forces, and a man who despised the working class.

And we find the far right reactionaries defending his ass.

This is why we are clearing the GOP of its diseased far right wing.

The only reason the R's won the House in 2010 and 2012 were the conservative candidates and conservative voters.



Middle of the road doesn't work. Remember someone called Romney?

ETA: I still believe Mitt Romney is a fine man but he made no effort to win over the conservative vote; he played to independents and moderates; consequently he lost.

 

[eagle7_31]

There was evidence and the trial court thought it was sufficient. For most of us, if you appeal a case on grounds of insufficient evidence, the appellate court will laugh at you.

Ronnie Earl had to go through 7 grand juries before he finally found one that would indict Delay. That alone should have got the case dismissed.

Earl is the sleaziest of scumbags.

No, Texas is the sleaziest of all states and the gold standard for cronyism. I lived there for 12 years and hated it. The reddest necks and the lowest lying snakes anywhere.

They don't come any sleazier than Chicago, for both parties.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

On an appeal on a technicality? Hardly a judgement of innocence...and sure to be appealed higher by the prosecutors, that is if justice exists anymore


Former House Majority leader Tom Delay gets conviction overturned...on appeal...

 

[Mustang]

On an appeal on a technicality? Hardly a judgement of innocence...and sure to be appealed higher by the prosecutors, that is if justice exists anymore


Former House Majority leader Tom Delay gets conviction overturned...on appeal...

From what I can get out of the ruling, the Texas law prohibiting corporations from funding political campaigns can be simply bypassed by corporations giving the money to a third party. That party can then take those funds, right to the penny, and forward it into the campaign. Then, everything's just fine because the court seems to be saying that it's not money-laundering since the definition of "money-laundering" requires the money to be "the proceeds of criminal activity”.

So, corporations A-Z cannot fund political campaigns. BUT they can give money to individuals who can, in turn, fund the political campaigns. But that's not only NOT money-laundering, it's NOT corporations financing campaigns? What???

Now, isn't it really ONE or the OTHER? If it's NOT money-laundering, isn't it really corporations financing political campaigns?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mr. DeLay was one of the great statists in our party, one of the most corrupt in our party, the creator of K Street lobby forces, and a man who despised the working class.

And we find the far right reactionaries defending his ass.

This is why we are clearing the GOP of its diseased far right wing.

The only reason the R's won the House in 2010 and 2012 were the conservative candidates and conservative voters.



Middle of the road doesn't work. Remember someone called Romney?

ETA: I still believe Mitt Romney is a fine man but he made no effort to win over the conservative vote; he played to independents and moderates; consequently he lost.

Backwards thinking. Romney and McCain were the best of a poor lot of candidates. The Senate stayed Dem because of the candidates run by the far right. 2006, 2008, and 2012 showed all of us that Americans don't want the TeaP in office: they hold about 10% of congressional seats, and that will be halved next year.

The fact remains that every GOP president since Eisenhower required the center and independents to be elected.

No far right reactionary candidate will ever become president. History and the changing demographics have made that quite clear.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

On an appeal on a technicality? Hardly a judgement of innocence...and sure to be appealed higher by the prosecutors, that is if justice exists anymore


Former House Majority leader Tom Delay gets conviction overturned...on appeal...

From what I can get out of the ruling, the Texas law prohibiting corporations from funding political campaigns can be simply bypassed by corporations giving the money to a third party. That party can then take those funds, right to the penny, and forward it into the campaign. Then, because the court seems to be saying that the definition of "money-laundering" requires the money to be "the proceeds of criminal activity”.

So, corporations A-Z cannot fund political campaigns. BUT they can give money to individuals who can, in turn, fund the political campaigns. But that's not only NOT money-laundering, it's NOT corporations financing campaigns? What???

Now, isn't it really ONE or the OTHER? If it's NOT money-laundering, isn't it really corporations financing political campaigns?

Let us see if the government appeals...

 

[blackhawk]

In Texas.

Why is that not a shock?

Sorry we don't let political ideology determine guilt or innocence we let the evidence do that pity not everyone can do that.

 

[birddog]

I met and talked to Tom several years ago. I liked him then, and I like him now. He was shafted by lying dimocrats!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

On an appeal on a technicality? Hardly a judgement of innocence...and sure to be appealed higher by the prosecutors, that is if justice exists anymore


Former House Majority leader Tom Delay gets conviction overturned...on appeal...

From what I can get out of the ruling, the Texas law prohibiting corporations from funding political campaigns can be simply bypassed by corporations giving the money to a third party. That party can then take those funds, right to the penny, and forward it into the campaign. Then, because the court seems to be saying that the definition of "money-laundering" requires the money to be "the proceeds of criminal activity”.

So, corporations A-Z cannot fund political campaigns. BUT they can give money to individuals who can, in turn, fund the political campaigns. But that's not only NOT money-laundering, it's NOT corporations financing campaigns? What???

Now, isn't it really ONE or the OTHER? If it's NOT money-laundering, isn't it really corporations financing political campaigns?

Let us see if the government appeals...

A judgment of acquittal was entered.

The case is finished.

 

[Mustang]

On an appeal on a technicality? Hardly a judgement of innocence...and sure to be appealed higher by the prosecutors, that is if justice exists anymore


Former House Majority leader Tom Delay gets conviction overturned...on appeal...

From what I can get out of the ruling, the Texas law prohibiting corporations from funding political campaigns can be simply bypassed by corporations giving the money to a third party. That party can then take those funds, right to the penny, and forward it into the campaign. Then, because the court seems to be saying that the definition of "money-laundering" requires the money to be "the proceeds of criminal activity”.

So, corporations A-Z cannot fund political campaigns. BUT they can give money to individuals who can, in turn, fund the political campaigns. But that's not only NOT money-laundering, it's NOT corporations financing campaigns? What???

Now, isn't it really ONE or the OTHER? If it's NOT money-laundering, isn't it really corporations financing political campaigns?

Let us see if the government appeals...

If it's not money-laundering, why are corporations using a third party to transfer funds to candidates?

 

[FJO]

Unbelievable!! What has this country come to?? It's not the America I once knew. For the first time in my life, I'm ashamed to be an American.

Congressman delay was convicted on trumped up non-existed and falsified charges, as this reversal of conviction clearly shows.

You must have have been just as ashamed of being American when O.J. Simpson walked free, unless you are a flaming hypocrite.

 

[Foxfyre]

From what I can get out of the ruling, the Texas law prohibiting corporations from funding political campaigns can be simply bypassed by corporations giving the money to a third party. That party can then take those funds, right to the penny, and forward it into the campaign. Then, because the court seems to be saying that the definition of "money-laundering" requires the money to be "the proceeds of criminal activity”.

So, corporations A-Z cannot fund political campaigns. BUT they can give money to individuals who can, in turn, fund the political campaigns. But that's not only NOT money-laundering, it's NOT corporations financing campaigns? What???

Now, isn't it really ONE or the OTHER? If it's NOT money-laundering, isn't it really corporations financing political campaigns?

Let us see if the government appeals...

If it's not money-laundering, why are corporations using a third party to transfer funds to candidates?

Because that's the only way they can give more than the cap on contributions. It has been done for decades now. The Corporation gives the maximum allowed by law and then gives the maximum allowed for each of its employees. How else can a corporation hope to buy a politician? But it isn't just corporations. Unions do it too as well as political action committees and other arms of political parties.

No amount of campaign finance reform will stop payola and buying of government favors until we make it illegal for government to give any favors in any form.

Unfortunately the folks who want big government to be big daddy are not even willing to look at that solution as a remote possibility.

But if we did, trials like Tom Delays would become a thing of the past as no crime at all would even be suggested, much less committed.

 

[Borillar]

Mr. DeLay was one of the great statists in our party, one of the most corrupt in our party, the creator of K Street lobby forces, and a man who despised the working class.

And we find the far right reactionaries defending his ass.

This is why we are clearing the GOP of its diseased far right wing.

He will probably be in the Republican clown car of candidates for the 2016 elections.

 

[Mustang]

Let us see if the government appeals...

If it's not money-laundering, why are corporations using a third party to transfer funds to candidates?

Because that's the only way they can give more than the cap on contributions. It has been done for decades now. The Corporation gives the maximum allowed by law and then gives the maximum allowed for each of its employees. How else can a corporation hope to buy a politician? But it isn't just corporations. Unions do it too as well as political action committees and other arms of political parties.

No amount of campaign finance reform will stop payola and buying of government favors until we make it illegal for government to give any favors in any form.

Unfortunately the folks who want big government to be big daddy are not even willing to look at that solution as a remote possibility.

But if we did, trials like Tom Delays would become a thing of the past as no crime at all would even be suggested, much less committed.

So, corporations are trying to hide the true source of the campaign contributions, but that's not considered money-laundering?