Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Tom DeLay

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2005 at 10:29am

I haven't heard anybody say that DeLay is "guilty" - simply that he is indicted.  There is obviously much political glee on the Democratic side, but I haven't heard any "guilty before trial" stuff.  Not any more than for your average criminal trial, anyway.

I did read the indictment - it contains about as much evidence as I would expect.  More, actually, since it attaches checks, and most indictments contain no evidence at all, only accusations.

And, BTW, the DA does not indict anybody - the grand jury does.  Granted that the DA controls the evidence presented to the grand jury, but there is still a test to be passed.  If this was completely made up it would never have passed the grand jury.  There is clearly some beef here.

I notice in the indictment, however, that there is very little description/allegation in terms of what exactly DeLay supposedly did, or how the conspiracy worked - it mostly focuses on the other two guys.  But I'm thinking that the DA would not have pressed ahead with this if he didn't have something juicy on DeLay - too much political cost potential.  Not to mention that the grand jury would not have indicted purely on a "must have known" argument.

But, we shall see.

 

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2005 at 12:15pm
We discussed this in Am Govt class today...

what he did isn't illegal becasue there is no rule against it.

Big woop, he used a loop-hole to get cash for his party.. you can't tell me the dem's havn't done the same in one way or another.

Back to Top
Dazed View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Romped around naked in thorn bushes

Joined: 13 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3876
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dazed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2005 at 3:24pm
Originally posted by Kristofer Kristofer wrote:

Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

You cant forget about Clinton. He got impeached for lieing under oath, and he still didnt get in trouble....


So even if Delay does get convicted what do you think are the chances of him just dropping from the sence, or going to prison are? I think they are slim.



Yeah but its liberals. you cant trust them. Like Old Soldier said. they are already saying he is guilty before a trial. What ever happened to Innocent until Proven guilty? Trial by the media and trial by the congress. Not the courts? Thats messed up. Also. Did you expect Clinton to get in trouble? The liberals love him of course he wouldnt. If that was Bush that did that he would have been thrown out of office and if jail time could have occured that would have happened too.


Yeah, because we all know that only liberals form opinions before the courts weigh in. Just like we all know that the US media is unbiased, right?

Tell me something while you're railing againt the "liberals". Do you believe OJ is innocent? did you wait until the court let him off and say "yeah, I'll believe their decision." What about Michael Jackson? You can't tell me that you reserved opinions until judgement by a court in these cases, or clintons, or terry chiavos.

And by blasting the "liberals" for doing the same, you walk that line of hypocracy that makes our government, and our social structure in general, a joke.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2005 at 3:41pm

Kristopher, do you purposely write like that to allow the forum to have a perceived negative image of you, or do you just not really know that much?

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2005 at 9:35pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

We discussed this in Am Govt class today...

what he did isn't illegal becasue there is no rule against it.

Linus, if everything you are repeating from school is accurate, you really need to change schools, because they are filling your head with nonsense.

Seriously.  Some of the things you report from school are just plain scary.  Like this one.

Back to Top
cdacda13 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Yes, spelled secual.

Joined: 12 September 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cdacda13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2005 at 9:40pm
Originally posted by bluemunky42 bluemunky42 wrote:

Sucks for him.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2005 at 6:10pm
Ok Clark, let me make it more clear for you before you go bashing my school.. which is actually one of the top ones int he state and country.


He's being charged with 'laundering funds' correct?

Texas law says Corporations cannot DIRECTLY give money to political parties. So, the corps end up sending it to the RNC and GOP. Now correct me if I'm wrong(unlikely since I checked) but the RNC's job, among other things, is to hand out money for different republican canidates, correct?

In all essence, the RNC can send back the exact amount of money back to Texan politicans that they receieve from Texas corporations and it's 100% legal.


He's being indicted for 'conspiriacy to launder funds' as said by CNN this morning.

Last I checked, it's only conspiracy if he tries to plan a way to get the money DIRECTLY from the Corporations to the politicians WITHOUT going through the proper channels.


And again, last I checked he DID go through the proper channels.


This case will be investigated because of DeLay's previous history, but it will be promptly taken out.




There, happy that I elaborated?

Edited by Linus

Back to Top
Ejp414 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ejp414 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2005 at 6:37pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Ok Clark, let me make it more clear for you before you go bashing my school.. which is actually one of the top ones int he state and country.


He's being charged with 'laundering funds' correct?

Texas law says Corporations cannot DIRECTLY give money to political parties. So, the corps end up sending it to the RNC and GOP. Now correct me if I'm wrong(unlikely since I checked) but the RNC's job, among other things, is to hand out money for different republican canidates, correct?

In all essence, the RNC can send back the exact amount of money back to Texan politicans that they receieve from Texas corporations and it's 100% legal.


He's being indicted for 'conspiriacy to launder funds' as said by CNN this morning.

Last I checked, it's only conspiracy if he tries to plan a way to get the money DIRECTLY from the Corporations to the politicians WITHOUT going through the proper channels.


And again, last I checked he DID go through the proper channels.


This case will be investigated because of DeLay's previous history, but it will be promptly taken out.




There, happy that I elaborated?


Oh, so that's why he was indicted.
__________________
__________________

Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2005 at 6:51pm
Hm. He is being indicited for conspiracy to launder funds? Hmm. I predict this case will go no where.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 4:17am

I won't even bother to explain why your legal analysis is wrong, Linus. 

Instead, I will elaborate on EJP's statement of the obvious.

In order for the grand jury to issue an indictment, there must be facts alleged that, at least in theory, would be criminal if true.  The facts in the indictment are the same that were alleged against the two co-conspirators before.  Those two guys are on their way to trial.  This indictment merely added DeLay to the situation.

Simply put:  if what you claim were true as a matter of law, then this indictment would never have come to be.  This legal theory has been floating around for the better part of a year - if this theory were as flawed as you posit, then this whole thing would have gone away a long time ago.

There are facts to be proven - was there an actual conspiracy?  Was there criminal intent?  Did the money move as alleged? - and the legal theory may yet come under attack, probably in the form of a constitutional challenge to campaign finance laws - but a claim that the indictment is so obviously flawed as you say, such a claim is, frankly, embarassing.

Campaign finance laws are very complex.  Who do you trust - the zillions of lawyers who specialize in this stuff, who have been looking at this case for more than a year, or your civics teacher?

I stand by my earlier statement.  If this is what you are learning in school, you need a new school, or at least some new teachers.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 10:14am
Clark, I know what the law states even If I didn't make it seem like it in my post.

Like I said, his lawyer is going to say that it's perfectly legit for the RNC to put the same amount of funds that they get from Texan corporations back into Texan politican campaign funds, just as long as it goes through the RNC first and it isn't desiginated for Texan politicans. The RNC can split the money they recieve however they want. You can't deny that.

And if DeLay DID ask the RNC to do it, it still isn't 'conspiracy to launder money', simply by the fact that he followed proper procedures, even if liberals climb the highest peaks and proclaim he did not.


Tom DeLay has a target on his back, so any half brained liberal will find thew slightest thing that might be construed as wrong and throw it at him.



Now, I will keep stating this point until you find the actual passage inside compaign funding that says youa ren't allowed to ask for the same amount of money that is receieved. It's only illegal if he went directly to the corporations and got the money from them without the money first going to the RNC or GOP.


Now seriosuly, quit saying I'm wrong and PROVE i'm wrong.



Originally posted by CNN.com CNN.com wrote:

The Austin, Texas, grand jury charged that the conspirators carried out the scheme by having the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee send corporate money to the Republican National Committee in Washington.

The RNC then sent back a like amount -- $190,000 -- to distribute to Texas candidates.


A LIKE AMOUNT

Edited by Linus

Back to Top
Cedric View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Unit

Joined: 24 November 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4240
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cedric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 10:53am
Linus, you're wrong.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 12:25pm

And Linus, if this indictment is so silly that a high school class can figure it out, why haven't the GOP lawyers had it tossed by now?  They have had more than a year...

I guess maybe the GOP should hire your civics teacher to their legal team.

The issue isn't your legal analysis (although that is interesting as well) - the issue is your analysis of reality.

Back to Top
goodsmitty View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Childish Insults 3/3

Joined: 13 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote goodsmitty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 12:58pm

All suspects in Gitmo are guilty and should be executed immediately, or held without trial indefinitely.

Tom Delay is innocent, even though he has been found guilty of ethics violations in the past.

Makes sense to me.



Edited by goodsmitty
"Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status."
-Zesty

Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 1:01pm
Your forgetting the tell all clue in these kinds of cases. Tom is white, therefore not guilty reguardless of any of the charges against him.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 1:48pm
My personal prediction:  The two cronies go down, but DeLay gets off for failure to prove conspiracy.
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 2:31pm
Originally posted by Cedric Cedric wrote:


Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Who is that chick anyway?

I'd like to know that too.
Adriana Lima, Victoria Secret model. I've touched myself to thoughts of her. She's no Latia Casta though, former Victoria Secret model. None compare to her.

Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Another wonderfull piece of work from those on the left.
Ummm Clinton impeachment? Do you even have the ability to look at things from another persons perspective ever? Zomg, evil left.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
Frank Zappa View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 September 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frank Zappa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 5:04pm
Originally posted by Hades Hades wrote:

Your forgetting the tell all clue in these kinds of cases. Tom is white, therefore not guilty reguardless of any of the charges against him.

Well OJ got off, so its only even.
It's all a conspiracy.

Edgar Cayce>you
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 5:12pm
Clark... Bill CLinton was impeached (literally akin to indicted), yet what he did wasn't illegal.

And to go back to my main point, I don't deny that the indicitment is legit, but like i've said before, he won't go down for it, it's not illegal what he did.


Now quit saying you doubt any part of my post without giving proof as to why I am in doubt.

Edited by Linus

Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2005 at 5:13pm
So Mr Earls finally got his indictment. He promised such an indictment at a Democratic fundraiser a couple months ago. Mr Earls has had an axe to grind with Mr Delay for several years now, and he finally found a grand jury that would agree with him.

This is eerily similar to the Hutchinson debacle of several years ago. Mr Earls managed to get what was it, 6 indictments? But no convictions.

The DeLay indictment is broad and unspecific, the burden of proof required to indict is far less substantial than that required to convict.  George Bush has better odds of winning a 3rd term than Mr Earls has of getting a conviction against Tom DeLay.

BTW, GOP lawyers cannot simply get an indictment tossed. Mr Earls will take his sweet time getting his case assembled for trial. He doesn't expect to win, his only goal is to create a stink between now and the mid term elections.




Edited by TRAVELER
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.