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

Tom DeLay

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
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: 01 October 2005 at 9:06pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Clark... Bill CLinton was impeached (literally akin to indicted), yet what he did wasn't illegal.

How do you figure?  Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a court of law.  Lying under oath in a court of law is illegal.

Whether of not Clinton lied is a matter of fact for a court to determine, but there is no discussion as to whether lying under oath is illegal.

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 9:14pm

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

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.

There may very well be some truth to the accusations of political motivations here, but simply stating it does not make it so.  Do you (or anybody) have any data as to how many presentations to grand juries were made with regard to DeLay?  Did other grand juries fail to indict, to support the claim that Earls "finally found a grand jury that would agree with him"?  I don't know the answer, but this phrase (which I hear a lot) sounds to me very much like exactly the same political nonsense that Earls is being accused of. 

Quote 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.

I tend to agree that a conviction is unlikely, but the indictment itself did not strike me as particularly unusual for its vagueness.  The DA does not have to lay out his case in the indictment.  People I have spoken to who do this type of thing for a living found the indictment to be reasonably standard.

Quote BTW, GOP lawyers cannot simply get an indictment tossed.

Sure they can.  A motion to quash the indictment can be filed at any time.  Such a motion is usually hard to win, but one way to win a motion to quash would be to show that facts alleged do not amount to a crime.  This is what Linus is saying - that what they are accusing DeLay of is not illegal.  My point is that if that were the case, then having the indictment quashed should be a simple matter.

 

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: 02 October 2005 at 11:40am
Clark clark clark...

I said prove me wrong on the Tom DeLay 'scandle' and you haven't been able to. Now PROVE ME WRONG or quit saying I'm 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: 02 October 2005 at 12:17pm
Actually, Linus, I have shown you to be wrong.  You just don't understand it.  You are focused on the wrong thing.
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: 02 October 2005 at 12:56pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Clark clark clark...

I said prove me wrong on the Tom DeLay 'scandle' and you haven't been able to. Now PROVE ME WRONG or quit saying I'm wrong.
Nobody has ever been able to prove you wrong because you're to stubborn to listen and take in what others say

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
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: 02 October 2005 at 1:46pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Actually, Linus, I have shown you to be wrong. You just don't understand it. You are focused on the wrong thing.
Clark, last time I'll say it.

Show me the exact thing where you prove me wrong on the whole Tom DeLay case and I'll leave the forum for 2 weeks.

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: 02 October 2005 at 2:54pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Actually, Linus, I have shown you to be wrong. You just don't understand it. You are focused on the wrong thing.
Clark, last time I'll say it.

Show me the exact thing where you prove me wrong on the whole Tom DeLay case and I'll leave the forum for 2 weeks.


You're absolutely correct. Everyone here believes you're right.
__________________
__________________

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: 02 October 2005 at 5:33pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Clark clark clark...

I said prove me wrong on the Tom DeLay 'scandle' and you haven't been able to. Now PROVE ME WRONG or quit saying I'm wrong.

Doesn't every single debate with you end in PROVE ME WRONG? Look back at the posts and it is there. Maybe not at your cognition level, but it is there all the same.

"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
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 October 2005 at 5:36pm
Originally posted by goodsmitty goodsmitty wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Clark clark clark...

I said prove me wrong on the Tom DeLay 'scandle' and you haven't been able to. Now PROVE ME WRONG or quit saying I'm wrong.

Doesn't every single debate with you end in PROVE ME WRONG? Look back at the posts and it is there. Maybe not at your cognition level, but it is there all the same.



Well, an argument doesnt have much of a point if it doesnt make sense to the party you are debating with . . . .
 
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
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: 02 October 2005 at 5:40pm
See, you guys insist on the low blow 'you're always wrong' when you simply cannot prove me wrong on this point:

What liberals are accusing Tom Delay of IS illegal, but what he actually did IS NOT illegal. Check the Texan laws stating campaign fund contributions. He used a technical loophole, and that is perfectly legal. Maybe a little cheap, but still 100% legal.

And besides, the CNN (noticeL: Not FOX news, but CNN) said it was a like amount, not the exact amount.

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: 02 October 2005 at 5:49pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

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.

There, Linus.  Read it again.

The issuse is not whether or not what DeLay did is ultimately determined to be illegal - the issue is whether your H.S. civics teacher and class has the knowledge to make a flat determination that the indictment is obviously incorrect.  (the answer is "no")

The issue is not DeLay - the issue is your education. 

Extrapolating from your posts, I expect that your civics teacher also has simplistic solutions for poverty, terrorism, crime, and teen pregnancy as well.

The world is not that simple (and neither is this indictment), and any teacher that offers silly simplistic solutions to compex issues is doing his students a disservice.

Or, just in case all of this is still not making sense, I will repeat the central point:

Dozens of lawyers will spend thousands of hours on this matter, Linus - if it truly were as simple as what your teacher says, don't you think they would have figured that out by now?

 

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: 02 October 2005 at 6:15pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:


Dozens of lawyers will spend thousands of hours on this matter, Linus - if it truly were as simple as what your teacher says, don't you think they would have figured that out by now?


No because he goes to the best highschool in the country

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 October 2005 at 6:25pm
My reaction-
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: 02 October 2005 at 7:29pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

See, you guys insist on the low blow 'you're always wrong' when you simply cannot prove me wrong on this point:

What liberals are accusing Tom Delay of IS illegal, but what he actually did IS NOT illegal. Check the Texan laws stating campaign fund contributions. He used a technical loophole, and that is perfectly legal. Maybe a little cheap, but still 100% legal.

And besides, the CNN (noticeL: Not FOX news, but CNN) said it was a like amount, not the exact amount.

If they get your civics teacher on their team they sure could save a lot of taxpayer money. Too bad for them.

"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
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: 02 October 2005 at 7:57pm
Linus, stop being wrong.

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: 02 October 2005 at 8:04pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Extrapolating from your posts, I expect that your civics teacher also has simplistic solutions for poverty, terrorism, crime, and teen pregnancy as well.


I was reading it today's paper that unmarried teenage pregnancy has plummeted to all-time lows. "The decline to the lowest teen birth rates since national tallies begin in the 1940s, is a remarkable personal health reform, sharper in US. declines in smoking or increases in seatbelt use."

Yeah it was off topic but I was happy to read about it.

Oh and to any voting Californian, NO on 73.

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: 02 October 2005 at 9:25pm
Clark... you want to talk about legality of things?


For it to be a crime, like the liberals are saying, there HAS to be criminal intent. Thing is, Tom DeLay had lawyers check into the legality of what he did before he did it, which automatically negates criminal intent.

Same thing happened in 93, 95, and 97, the other times when democrats got him indicted. And those same three times, the three cases were thrown out because there was no criminal intent.

Go ahead, deny that.


EDIT: Oh, and as for my 'civics' teacher, he actually IS a democrat and he DOES want DeLay taken out of power. BUT he knows this won't do it.

Trust me, him and I have our daily bouts when politics come up.

And Cedric, just because you have 3 stars next to your name doesn't mean you deserved them.

Edited by Linus

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: 02 October 2005 at 10:02pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:


Trust me, him and I have our daily bouts when politics come up.
I'm sure you're just as horrible to debate with in class as you are online.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
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: 02 October 2005 at 10:14pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

For it to be a crime, like the liberals are saying, there HAS to be criminal intent. Thing is, Tom DeLay had lawyers check into the legality of what he did before he did it, which automatically negates criminal intent.


Go ahead, deny that.

Ok, I'll deny that.  That is simply false.

Generally speaking, yes there has to be criminal intent.  But there is general criminal intent and specific criminal intent.  General criminal intent, which is the standard for most crimes (including this one), simply means that you did what you did on purpose.  You do NOT need to have intended to break the law (that would be specific criminal intent) - you simply acted on purpose, and your action happened to be illegal.

Moreover, the idea that legal advice "automatically negates criminal intent" is idiotic.  Think about that for a second.  Seriously.  Think I could find some lawyer who would advise me, for a couple of bucks, that killing some guy isn't really illegal? 

That's simply wrong, not to mention just plain dumb. 

Now - in some crimes, does a legal opinion help you?  Sure - executive criminal liability (at least before Sarbanes-Oxley), for instance, can be largely avoided with proper legal advice, because the duty on the executive was mostly to be diligent, and seeking legal advice is pretty diligent.  Even in other circumstances (including DeLay's case), legal advice might be a mitigating factor.

But generally speaking, legal advice does not simply obviate general criminal intent.


Quote EDIT: Oh, and as for my 'civics' teacher, he actually IS a democrat and he DOES want DeLay taken out of power. BUT he knows this won't do it.

And how does he know that?  Is he an attorney practicing in the highly complex area of campaign finance?  I'm guessing he isn't an attorney at all, just some chump with a college degree who wasn't even smart enough to teach H.S. science.

Which brings me back to our central point:  WHY ON EARTH would you just take this guy's word for something like this?  HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THIS CATEGORICAL STATEMENT. 

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: 02 October 2005 at 10:37pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:


Trust me, him and I have our daily bouts when politics come up.
I'm sure you're just as horrible to debate with in class as you are online.



Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.