Jury convicts DeLay in money-laundering case

[daveman]

we told you he was dirty and you didnt believe it I bet.

I guessing you based your suspicions on "He's a Republican!!"...and chose to convict him for that.

As a gauge of your "objectivity" lol, tell me -- is Rangel innocent?

 

[Truthmatters]

No asshole , the same evidence he was conviccted with and you and your fellow idiots denied for political reasons.

 

[Intense]

No asshole , the same evidence he was conviccted with and you and your fellow idiots denied for political reasons.

In fairness Truth Dave hasn't been defending Delay. I have been though. We will see how it works out on appeal.

 

[Truthmatters]

Delay is dirty as hell.

He should go to prison.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have known and disliked Tom DeLay for many years. I believe the charges are true and sufficient as to his criminality. That is his character, in my opinion. However, I am not sure how the appeals court is going to rule. Sometimes bad guys (like Ollie North who was guilty as all get out) are going to walk because of the law's requirements. The overturn of Ollie's conviction was correct, because immunity as he was given was violated in the trial, his testimony was used against him. Every time the appellate courts rule properly is protection for all of us. I hope the correct ruling in TL's case is to deny the appeal.

 

[daveman]

No asshole , the same evidence he was conviccted with and you and your fellow idiots denied for political reasons.

You need to show me where I did that.

Good luck, moron.

 

[Intense]

I have known and disliked Tom DeLay for many years. I believe the charges are true and sufficient as to his criminality. That is his character, in my opinion. However, I am not sure how the appeals court is going to rule. Sometimes bad guys (like Ollie North who was guilty as all get out) are going to walk because of the law's requirements. The overturn of Ollie's conviction was correct, because immunity as he was given was violated in the trial, his testimony was used against him. Every time the appellate courts rule properly is protection for all of us. I hope the correct ruling in TL's case is to deny the appeal.

Jake, I can't claim to know as much about Delay as you, living in Texas. We will see as the arguments are more brought to light. Concerning Ollie North, I see him as the Scape Goat.

 

[goldcatt]

I'd love to get my paws on a trial transcript. Not enough to send away and pay for one. But it would tell the tale. I haven't found a copy made public yet, and the press in these cases oversimplifies everything to the point of being wrong 9/10 times.

As it is....I've taken my first bet on the appeal. Any more takers, let me know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think DeLay is dirty. If he is, I hope the appellate court handles it well. If not, he should walk.

Ollie North was the operations man for Admiral Poindexter; Ollie was the planner. They both conspired to violate the law, and they succeeded. However, the second the feds gave the man immunity for his testimony, the DAs should have let it go. They did not, millions of dollars were wastefully spent, and the man walked on appeal. I don't if he was a fall guy, but I doubt he was a dupe.

 

[goldcatt]

From what I know of DeLay he's not exactly the fall guy type. But the charge he was convicted of is complicated and the evidence would have to be fairly exacting. The jury heard it and convicted. To make any real assessment of what might happen on appeal anyone worth their salt would have to see the entire trial transcript and know all the facts and rulings. I haven't.

So I'll just say what I've said all along....the defense attorneys are telegraphing the appeal issues in the press and have been since the moment the verdict was handed down. Let the appellate court handle it, that's their job. We'll see what's in the notice of intent when it's filed and go from there. It has to be filed within 30 days of sentencing, unless DeLay asks for a new trial in which case it's pushed off to 90 days. But I'll bet the petition is already being written, in fact is probably done at least in draft form.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Intense]

I think DeLay is dirty. If he is, I hope the appellate court handles it well. If not, he should walk.

Ollie North was the operations man for Admiral Poindexter; Ollie was the planner. They both conspired to violate the law, and they succeeded. However, the second the feds gave the man immunity for his testimony, the DAs should have let it go. They did not, millions of dollars were wastefully spent, and the man walked on appeal. I don't if he was a fall guy, but I doubt he was a dupe.

Sometimes under Executive Order there are things above the Law, as we see it.

 

[Intense]

I'd love to get my paws on a trial transcript. Not enough to send away and pay for one. But it would tell the tale. I haven't found a copy made public yet, and the press in these cases oversimplifies everything to the point of being wrong 9/10 times.

As it is....I've taken my first bet on the appeal. Any more takers, let me know.

What's the bet? Dare I ask?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think DeLay is dirty. If he is, I hope the appellate court handles it well. If not, he should walk.

Ollie North was the operations man for Admiral Poindexter; Ollie was the planner. They both conspired to violate the law, and they succeeded. However, the second the feds gave the man immunity for his testimony, the DAs should have let it go. They did not, millions of dollars were wastefully spent, and the man walked on appeal. I don't if he was a fall guy, but I doubt he was a dupe.

Sometimes under Executive Order there are things above the Law, as we see it.

In times of war, yes, I agree. The courts will have to decide what those exceptions may be.

 

[goldcatt]

I'd love to get my paws on a trial transcript. Not enough to send away and pay for one. But it would tell the tale. I haven't found a copy made public yet, and the press in these cases oversimplifies everything to the point of being wrong 9/10 times.

As it is....I've taken my first bet on the appeal. Any more takers, let me know.

What's the bet? Dare I ask?

Standard av bet. A chance to exercise my creatively sadistic streak.

 

[Intense]

I'd love to get my paws on a trial transcript. Not enough to send away and pay for one. But it would tell the tale. I haven't found a copy made public yet, and the press in these cases oversimplifies everything to the point of being wrong 9/10 times.

As it is....I've taken my first bet on the appeal. Any more takers, let me know.

What's the bet? Dare I ask?

Standard av bet. A chance to exercise my creatively sadistic streak.

Hmmm.... Said the Spider to the Fly.....

 

[Lumpy 1]

Ah.. aren't corporations allowed to give money to individual candidates now..

 

[goldcatt]

Ah.. aren't corporations allowed to give money to individual candidates now..

Nope. Correction: In many states they are, but in limited amounts. In Texas, the answer is Nope. It's their state law.

Under Citizens United they can spend all they want themselves and with the same protections as any individual, but they have to disclose that they are the ones behind the spending and can't hand it over to a candidate.

That's caused some confusion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

(PDF Alert)

 

[Intense]

Ah.. aren't corporations allowed to give money to individual candidates now..

Nope. Correction: In many states they are, but in limited amounts. In Texas, the answer is Nope. It's their state law.

Under Citizens United they can spend all they want themselves and with the same protections as any individual, but they have to disclose that they are the ones behind the spending and can't hand it over to a candidate.

That's caused some confusion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

(PDF Alert)

It does sound fair.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Ah.. aren't corporations allowed to give money to individual candidates now..

Nope. Correction: In many states they are, but in limited amounts. In Texas, the answer is Nope. It's their state law.

Under Citizens United they can spend all they want themselves and with the same protections as any individual, but they have to disclose that they are the ones behind the spending and can't hand it over to a candidate.

That's caused some confusion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

(PDF Alert)

Thanks.. You're looking quite attractive on that Soap Box by the way...

 

[goldcatt]

Ah.. aren't corporations allowed to give money to individual candidates now..

Nope. Correction: In many states they are, but in limited amounts. In Texas, the answer is Nope. It's their state law.

Under Citizens United they can spend all they want themselves and with the same protections as any individual, but they have to disclose that they are the ones behind the spending and can't hand it over to a candidate.

That's caused some confusion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

(PDF Alert)

It does sound fair.

I'm against it in principle, because I believe political speech rights should be reserved for natural individuals and not legally created fictitious ones, be they corporations OR unions - both of which were addressed in the decision.

But fair warning about getting me on that soapbox. I had a couple hundred incredulous posts or so in the Citizens United threads at the time the decision came out.