Jury convicts DeLay in money-laundering case

[taichiliberal]

My question is: will the recent Citizen's United decision by the SCOTUS have any effect on Delay's appeal?

No.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Article 15]

My question is: will the recent Citizen's United decision by the SCOTUS have any effect on Delay's appeal?

No.

Care to elaborate?

I believe that just like you cannot retroactively prosecute someone for something they did before the action was made criminal, you cannot retroactively declare yourself innocent when something is decriminalized. What matters is the law at the time of the act. Or something like that.

 

[goldcatt]

My question is: will the recent Citizen's United decision by the SCOTUS have any effect on Delay's appeal?

No.

Care to elaborate?

Citizens United was not retroactive, nor does it allow corporate cash to be given directly to candidates' campaigns.

It also doesn't address the act of laundering money to avoid what was at the time and may well still be a criminal transfer of corporate funds directly to TX Legislative candidates' campaigns. Remember, Delay wasn't convicted of taking illegal contributions, but of participating in a conspiracy to cover up the link between the source of those contributions and their eventual recipients.

 

[Intense]

Honestly, the thing about Judges, is the meaning of the Law is what they say it is. They can easily decide either way. If the New Law is fair, and to ignore it violates Delay's Civil Rights, the perceived denial of his Rights then, being rectified by the law now would take precedence.
They could decide for what ever reason that he is at fault, and nail him solely because of 7 names on a list. The problem with that reasoning is it will be announcing open season on most of Congress. Ask yourself soberly, is that what you want? At what cost do you want to nail a man who you pretty much effectively already retired. What will be, will be, lets just not confuse ourselves about there being any nobility in it.

 

[goldcatt]

Honestly, the thing about Judges, is the meaning of the Law is what they say it is. They can easily decide either way. If the New Law is fair, and to ignore it violates Delay's Civil Rights, the perceived denial of his Rights then, being rectified by the law now would take precedence.
They could decide for what ever reason that he is at fault, and nail him solely because of 7 names on a list. The problem with that reasoning is it will be announcing open season on most of Congress. Ask yourself soberly, is that what you want? At what cost do you want to nail a man who you pretty much effectively already retired. What will be, will be, lets just not confuse ourselves about there being any nobility in it.

Citizens United was clear. There is no change in the old rules on limiting or prohibiting corporate cash being given directly to candidates. The unlimited sums they can spend are in political advertising on their own behalf or in soft money.

So here the corporate money went into the PAC Delay was affiliated with. The money was funneled in a direct and traceable way through the RNC and straight into the candidates' campaigns. That was against TX law in 2001-2002, and it's not a law that would be invalidated under Citizens United.

What Delay was convicted of was his role in the backdoor channeling of the funds to the candidates in violation of TX state law.

ETA: Just FYI, the rights involved in the Citizens United case belong to the corporate entities, not to the recipients or the go-betweens such as Delay. When you think about that, it might make it easier to understand. Corporate cash = speech, but they are able to speak only on their own behalf. They still aren't allowed to finance the candidates' speech directly. Making an end run around that little problem by funneling the cash through another organization is called money laundering.

 

[goldcatt]

Put simply, he's Nixon. He didn't necessarily do the burglary, but he went down for participating in the cover up.

 

[Oddball]

And if WJ Bryan and Humphrey were alive today, they'd run the likes of Geithner, Frank, Rangel and Waters out of town on a rail.

A shame the democrats can't keep their own backyard cleaned up, while they hoot and howl about republican ethical transgressions.

Humphrey??? That was pretty funny. Scoop Jackson for sure.. He was one of the few Dems I really had respect for.

Ole Henry was from a strong union state which had military contracts. A hybrid Democrat with Boeing in his hip pocket.
I also respected him as he knew how to keep the northeast liberals at bay and could negotiate with the Republicans.

Point being that any and all of them would've flushed the current crop of crooks, rather than have themselves associated with them.

Messed up as today's republicans are, at least they can take out their own trash.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Humphrey??? That was pretty funny. Scoop Jackson for sure.. He was one of the few Dems I really had respect for.

Ole Henry was from a strong union state which had military contracts. A hybrid Democrat with Boeing in his hip pocket.
I also respected him as he knew how to keep the northeast liberals at bay and could negotiate with the Republicans.

Point being that any and all of them would've flushed the current crop of crooks, rather than have themselves associated with them.

Messed up as today's republicans are, at least they can take out their own trash.

Like Larry Craig? How about John Ensign? Did the GOP take out the trash then?

 

[Gadawg73]

Humphrey??? That was pretty funny. Scoop Jackson for sure.. He was one of the few Dems I really had respect for.

Ole Henry was from a strong union state which had military contracts. A hybrid Democrat with Boeing in his hip pocket.
I also respected him as he knew how to keep the northeast liberals at bay and could negotiate with the Republicans.

Point being that any and all of them would've flushed the current crop of crooks, rather than have themselves associated with them.

Messed up as today's republicans are, at least they can take out their own trash.

Good point, House GOP dumped his ass.

 

[Intense]

Honestly, the thing about Judges, is the meaning of the Law is what they say it is. They can easily decide either way. If the New Law is fair, and to ignore it violates Delay's Civil Rights, the perceived denial of his Rights then, being rectified by the law now would take precedence.
They could decide for what ever reason that he is at fault, and nail him solely because of 7 names on a list. The problem with that reasoning is it will be announcing open season on most of Congress. Ask yourself soberly, is that what you want? At what cost do you want to nail a man who you pretty much effectively already retired. What will be, will be, lets just not confuse ourselves about there being any nobility in it.

Citizens United was clear. There is no change in the old rules on limiting or prohibiting corporate cash being given directly to candidates. The unlimited sums they can spend are in political advertising on their own behalf or in soft money.

So here the corporate money went into the PAC Delay was affiliated with. The money was funneled in a direct and traceable way through the RNC and straight into the candidates' campaigns. That was against TX law in 2001-2002, and it's not a law that would be invalidated under Citizens United.

What Delay was convicted of was his role in the backdoor channeling of the funds to the candidates in violation of TX state law.

ETA: Just FYI, the rights involved in the Citizens United case belong to the corporate entities, not to the recipients or the go-betweens such as Delay. When you think about that, it might make it easier to understand. Corporate cash = speech, but they are able to speak only on their own behalf. They still aren't allowed to finance the candidates' speech directly. Making an end run around that little problem by funneling the cash through another organization is called money laundering.

It is a good argument GC, I'm not denying that, it may not be conclusive though, there may be more to the argument. We will have to see how he addresses that in the Appeal.

 

[goldcatt]

Honestly, the thing about Judges, is the meaning of the Law is what they say it is. They can easily decide either way. If the New Law is fair, and to ignore it violates Delay's Civil Rights, the perceived denial of his Rights then, being rectified by the law now would take precedence.
They could decide for what ever reason that he is at fault, and nail him solely because of 7 names on a list. The problem with that reasoning is it will be announcing open season on most of Congress. Ask yourself soberly, is that what you want? At what cost do you want to nail a man who you pretty much effectively already retired. What will be, will be, lets just not confuse ourselves about there being any nobility in it.

Citizens United was clear. There is no change in the old rules on limiting or prohibiting corporate cash being given directly to candidates. The unlimited sums they can spend are in political advertising on their own behalf or in soft money.

So here the corporate money went into the PAC Delay was affiliated with. The money was funneled in a direct and traceable way through the RNC and straight into the candidates' campaigns. That was against TX law in 2001-2002, and it's not a law that would be invalidated under Citizens United.

What Delay was convicted of was his role in the backdoor channeling of the funds to the candidates in violation of TX state law.

ETA: Just FYI, the rights involved in the Citizens United case belong to the corporate entities, not to the recipients or the go-betweens such as Delay. When you think about that, it might make it easier to understand. Corporate cash = speech, but they are able to speak only on their own behalf. They still aren't allowed to finance the candidates' speech directly. Making an end run around that little problem by funneling the cash through another organization is called money laundering.

It is a good argument GC, I'm not denying that, it may not be conclusive though, there may be more to the argument. We will have to see how he addresses that in the Appeal.

I'm betting there will be two main issues on appeal, at least if the statements from his defense attorneys to the press are any guide. First will be the failure to move the trial. He'll be claiming the process was rigged for partisan politics. I wonder if his appellate lawyers will throw his trial attorneys under the bus on that one, that's a fairly standard move but always fun to watch. Especially in high profile cases.

Second, he'll be attacking the jury instructions particularly on two specific elements of the statute. Without a transcript it's impossible to know whether there are any evidentiary rulings that were material and preserved for appeal.

There's nothing he can do about the findings of fact by the jury, the appeals court has no grounds to question those. He has to find a ruling of law that was in error in order to force a new trial.

Should be fun to watch.

 

[Oddball]

Ole Henry was from a strong union state which had military contracts. A hybrid Democrat with Boeing in his hip pocket.
I also respected him as he knew how to keep the northeast liberals at bay and could negotiate with the Republicans.

Point being that any and all of them would've flushed the current crop of crooks, rather than have themselves associated with them.

Messed up as today's republicans are, at least they can take out their own trash.

Like Larry Craig? How about John Ensign? Did the GOP take out the trash then?

You're seriously equating sexual peccadilloes with blatant tax cheatery, bribery and influence peddling......SERIOUSLY?

BTW, how long were either of those clowns in charge of writing the laws that they were wantonly disregarding?


Sheesh.

 

[Intense]

GoldCatt: Should be fun to watch.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

At least he didn't have an affair with any interns or hide info on their murders. As long as he's sexually pure, I can deal with him laundering a little bit of money.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ole Henry was from a strong union state which had military contracts. A hybrid Democrat with Boeing in his hip pocket.
I also respected him as he knew how to keep the northeast liberals at bay and could negotiate with the Republicans.

Point being that any and all of them would've flushed the current crop of crooks, rather than have themselves associated with them.

Messed up as today's republicans are, at least they can take out their own trash.

Like Larry Craig? How about John Ensign? Did the GOP take out the trash then?

I do not care for either of them. However, what criminal charges other than the Craig BS case are there on either?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ole Henry was from a strong union state which had military contracts. A hybrid Democrat with Boeing in his hip pocket.
I also respected him as he knew how to keep the northeast liberals at bay and could negotiate with the Republicans.

Point being that any and all of them would've flushed the current crop of crooks, rather than have themselves associated with them.

Messed up as today's republicans are, at least they can take out their own trash.

Like Larry Craig? How about John Ensign? Did the GOP take out the trash then?

Vitter!

 

[washamericom]

At least he didn't have an affair with any interns or hide info on their murders. As long as he's sexually pure, I can deal with him laundering a little bit of money.

i think people at the sublime level should be above reproach, clinton soiled himself and the office, i have a problem with it.

 

[Intense]

DeLay was found guilty of orchestrating a money swap during the 2002 Texas state house elections that helped Republicans take the state house and then re-draw district maps in the state, putting more Republicans in the U.S. House and consolidating DeLay's power.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme..._probably_not_going_to_get_life_in_prison.php

Anyone remember how obscene those Maps looked before they were redrawn???

 

[The T]

And Democrats wanted stronger ethics laws so they could ignore them.

So Ms. Pelosi gives up two tokens in her effort to Drain The Swamp.

It's a start, but not nearly enough.

Far from it.

 

[sangha]

If you can scale it back far enough, then you don't need to abolish it.

And yet...you still fail in your claim.

But you didn't answer the question. Why does the right fight on the side of dirty air and dirty water? How "dirty" is "not too dirty"? The right doesn't even study science. They leave it to the left to protect them. As far as they are concerned, if they can see through the water, they can drink it.

I have no obligation to defend against the nonsense your irrational hatred of conservatives tells you is true.

Like I always say, wingnuts don't have the courage to defend themselves. When challenged, they run away screaming like little girls, and they blame others for their cowardice in order to save face