( On appeal)...Tom Delay found NOT GUILTY by TEXAS Court !

Sidebar
N

NewHampshire Black Bears

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
10,154
687
www.usaviation.com
Citing "Insufficient Evidence", a Texas Appeals court, by a 2-1 vote found DEE-LAY Not Guilty !

Which brings me to the following comments.

EOLESEN,

1. After THIS Texas ABORTION, Spare-Me with your GOP Bull Shiit about Hillary being guilty about Benghazi ! !

2.
DON'T come 'babbling' on here with your Pious B S with 'cracks ' about Massachusetts or (Chicago) Illinois politics/JUSTICE, after THIS Texas 'HACK JOB '... AKA...Tom Delay case.
You can BET YOUR ASSS that a TON of Texas Palms got GREASED !!!

Chaulk up one for the REPLUGS today. It IS what it IS ,...But.....there'll be OTHER battles I'm sure in the future to be waged.
 
I have to read the decision. I am curious how the court came to determine that there was insufficient evidence yet the jury came to the conclusion there was.

My understanding of appeals courts is that their job is to determine if the rule of law was violated and not whether or not the correct decision was made. On the surface, this seems to invalidate the need for a jury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Ms Tree said:
I have to read the decision. I am curious how the court came to determine that there was insufficient evidence yet the jury came to the conclusion there was.

My understanding of appeals courts is that their job is to determine if the rule of law was violated and not whether or not the correct decision was made. On the surface, this seems to invalidate the need for a jury.
Click to expand...
Keep your day job. You're the last person I would consult with regarding legal issues!

The Appeals court apparently believed that the prosecution simply couldn't make a case for wrongdoing. It also appears that the court had little regard for the state’s case:

Given the testimony of the corporate representatives and the undisputed facts that the corporations could lawfully make donations to TRMPAC and TRMPAC could lawfully transfer the corporate funds out of state, the State failed to prove the “applicable culpable mental states” for the donating corporations to support a finding of criminal intent by the corporations. To support its position that the majority of corporate contributions violated the Election Code by not expressly designating a lawful use of their donations to TRMPAC, the State focuses on the following clause from the opinion in Ex parte Ellis: “there is no such thing as a legal undesignated corporate political contribution.” We believe that the State takes this clause out of context. In that case, the court was addressing constitutional challenges to the Election Code. The clause cited by the State was made during the court’s examination of section 253.100, the section of the Election Code addressing the establishment of a general-purpose committee by a corporation and in response to a possible suggestion made by this Court. …

The State’s primary argument at trial was that the Election Code violation that generated criminal proceeds was the “agreement” between DeLay and others to the combined transfers of funds, i.e., the money swap of soft money for hard money. The State argued in its final argument: “[T]he moment that the decision was made to send the soft dollar check up to Washington D.C. with the intent that it ultimately go to candidates for elective office is the moment that this money became proceeds of criminal activity.” Relying on the use of the word “indirect” 13 in the Election and Penal Code statutes at issue, the State argues that the “agreement” to the combined transactions itself was an illegal contribution and thus the corporate funds sitting in TRMPAC’s bank account at the moment of the agreement became the proceeds of criminal activity. However, the State fails to explain how the funds already in the bank account resulted from the subsequent money-swap agreement. Further, to support this argument, the State disregards the distinction between soft and hard money accounts as irrelevant, arguing: “The fact that the funds were not commingled is simply irrelevant in light of the explicit one-for-one exchange which was negotiated in this case.” But in the context of the campaign finance regulations, maintaining separate, segregated bank accounts for soft and hard money is recognized and accepted as legitimate.

We also question the validity of the State’s “agreement” theory. It was not a crime to conspire to violate the Election Code in 2002. And, even if it was, the evidence does not support a finding that there was an “agreement” to illegally transfer corporate money to Texas candidates. There was no evidence that TRMPAC or RNSEC treated the corporate funds as anything but what they were, corporate funds with limited uses under campaign finance law. Rather, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence showed an agreement to two legal monetary transfers: that TRMPAC transfer corporate money to RNSEC for use in other states and not in Texas in exchange for RNSEC transferring funds to Texas candidates out of a hard money account. Rather than supporting an agreement to violate the Election Code, the evidence shows that the defendants were attempting to comply with the Election Code limitations on corporate contributions.

http://images.bimedi...eal-doc-12D.pdf
 
Ms Tree said:
I have to read the decision. I am curious how the court came to determine that there was insufficient evidence yet the jury came to the conclusion there was.

My understanding of appeals courts is that their job is to determine if the rule of law was violated and not whether or not the correct decision was made. On the surface, this seems to invalidate the need for a jury.
Click to expand...
If the rule of law was violated (and in this case it was) and you were on trial, wouldn't you want your conviction overturned? Why on earth would you think this process would invalidate the need for a jury?
 
southwind said:
Surprise! Surprise! Another, irrelavent topic, started by you know who !
Click to expand...


Dude,....This is a serious discussion between INTELLIGENT People (though with differing opinions), so DEFINITELY ..NOOO need to concern yourself. Besides, your BLOWING valuable time that could be put to (your) Good use, such as 'TROLLING'...along highway..rest areas !
 
Wow, a claim that there's intelligent discussion, immediately followed by sexual innuendo and homophobic behavior from Bears.

Shocking.

What's missing from this is that the State Travis County elected to try him out of his district. This was nothing more than a witch hunt for the 2004 redistricting of Texas. But hey, that's not what's written in the HuffNPuff, so I don't expect you to realize that. You just think anyone accused of a crime is actually guilty, right?

Democratic Travis County District Attorney (Austin) had to jury-shop just to get an indictment, and the trial jury was from liberal leanin' Obama supportin' Austin.

Had he been tried in Houston, his home district, he'd probably have been acquitted at trial.

Expect to see similarities drawn between this and Citizens United. When the SCOTUS tossed out Citizens United, the case against Delay got even weaker. Fortunately the appellate court agreed.

Whine on, Bears, whine on.
 
eolesen said:
Wow, a claim that there's intelligent discussion, immediately followed by sexual innuendo and homophobic behavior from Bears.

Shocking.

What's missing from this is that the State elected to try him out of his district. This was nothing more than a witch hunt for the 2004 redistricting of Texas.

Democratic Travis County District Attorney (Austin) had to jury-shop just to get an indictment, and the trial jury was from liberal leanin' Obama supportin' Austin.

Had he been tried in Houston, his home district, he'd probably have been acquitted at trial.

Expect to see similarities drawn between this and Citizens United. When the SCOTUS tossed out Citizens United, the case against Delay got even weaker. Fortunately the appellate court agreed.

Whine on, Bears, whine on.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention the part about waiting for the appeals court to be sufficiently stacked with republican appointees. Not like that would have anything to do with it I'm sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Knotbuyinit said:
Keep your day job. You're the last person I would consult with regarding legal issues!
Click to expand...

Wow a sanctimonious right winger with an opinion. Go figure. I would not consult you about wiping the chit off the sole of my shoe. What's your point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Ms Tree said:
You forgot to mention the part about waiting for the appeals court to be sufficiently stacked with republican appointees. Not like that would have anything to do with it I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has absolutely nothing to do with appointees.

You obviously are an informed voter. Judges are elected in Texas, not appointed.

The Chief Justice is a Democrat. He wrote the dissent. The two Republicans on the panel wrote the majority.


The original charges were filed in 2005, and it took five years to get to trial. Three years to an appeal is pretty short in comparison.
 
You better let McCoy, Hensen, Speedlin, Barnard, Francis, Lang-Miers, Hoyle, Myers, Gabriel, Antcliff, Massengale, Rose, Brown, Kalenak and Huddle know. And yes they do get elected as well. Point being appointments do happen.

I am sure they will be very enthralled by your vast knowledge of the TX court system.

Two republicans voted to overturn the case against a republican. Wow. And politics was not involved? Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
All the judges in this case were elected, so your point remains moot.

Yes, appointments do happen, but it is the exception, not the norm. It occurs only when there's a vacancy created by death, resignation, removal or creation of a new district.

You can continue to claim it was decided on party lines all you wish.
 
eolesen said:
All the judges in this case were elected, so your point remains moot.

Yes, appointments do happen, but it is the exception, not the norm. It occurs only when there's a vacancy created by death, resignation, removal or creation of a new district.

You can continue to claim it was decided on party lines all you wish.
Click to expand...

E what do you think? I'm thinking if this case is reversed with a Dem defendant and Dem majority judges this thread never gets started. Trees position might be a little different too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top Bottom