Tom DeLay

Cedric wrote: mbro wrote: 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.

I bet the teacher says one thing and Linus flips out and has to get the teacher to prove him wrong.

Clark-Didn't have enough time to finish my whole thought- I'll re-edit this post tonight after football.

Edited by Linus

Looks like they're piling it on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_co/delay_indict ment_1;_ylt=AsMx_D.OWjHbRke0e9j9O0yGbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW 9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

EDIT - Other articles have more detail.  Apparently DeLay's attorneys filed a motion to quash the conspiracy indictment on grounds that the conspiracy law was not in effect at the time of the alleged violation.  The DA came back with this new indictment for laundering.

 

Edited by Clark Kent

Actually, Linus, not only do the new facts not make you not wrong - they make you MORE wrong.

Your point was that the indictment was obviously incorrect because of what you called a "loophole" - that donation were not made directly from the corporation.  (That "loophole" is rather silly, legally speaking, but that isn't really the issue)

The motion by DeLay's lawyers apparently made no mention of this "loophole" in the donation rules - instead they focused on the conspiracy side of it.  Had this alleged loophole been as obvious as you say, they would have alleged so - in fact, they would have done so a year ago, when the same charges were brought against DeLay's flunkies. 

So the new facts do NOT support your point.

They DO, however, support my point:  That campaign finance rules are complex, and your teacher ought not be making absolute claims about things he knows little about.  Did your teacher mention the part where the conspiracy laws were only recently made applicable to campaign finance violations?  No?  Could that be because campaign finance laws are complicated, and he just didn't know?

Bottom line:  H.S. civics teachers ought not be making absolute statements on about complex things about which they know very little.

The new facts stand only to support my case.

Now, legitimately, the new facts also support a position that these allegations are politically motivated, but my suspicion is that they actually support a position that assistant DAs typically are not the best lawyers in the world.  This is obviously having a negative political effect on Earle, and I don't think he would have made such a mistake on purpose.

Read slower, Linus.

DeLay's lawyers are claiming that the campaign finance rules only became subject to the CONSPIRACY laws in 2003 - they are NOT claiming that the underlying campaign finance violation was not illegal.  It is only the conspiracy part that is being challenged.  (Of course, the conspiracy charge might still stand - there are other conspiracy laws that long predate this one)

You, on the other hand, said nothing about the conspiracy.  Your theory was that the whole thing was ok, because funds stopped at the PAC instead of passing directly into campaign funds.

So far, the lawyers have challenged the indictment, as I expected, but have somehow failed to challenge on the basis of your "obvious loophole".

EDIT - I read some more articles, and can see how some people might believe that the whole campaign finance law only came about in 2003, which is not the case.  The NYT says it better:

NYT wrote: Mr. DeLay's lawyers argued in their court papers on Monday that the conspiracy statute cited in the original statute did not apply to election law violations that occurred in 2002; they said the law was not amended until the following year to allow electoral code violations to be prosecuted as a conspiracy.

Edited by Clark Kent

Linus wrote: Ok Clark, if you think my 'obvious loophole' is so very flawed, explain how, and in what way.

I don't have to - my point is simply that your civics teacher ought to stop talking.

But, since you insist:  Applying your theory to money laundering, nobody would ever be convicted.  The law is not so idiotic as to let people get away with financial crimes just because they used a straw man, or left some dollars behind.

Is it your contention that if I send a million dollars to money launderer, and get only 900,000 back, that no laundering could have taken place, because it was not the exact amount?

Is it your contention that I am not guilty of insider trading, just because I had my brother buy the stock instead of me?

Is it your contention that it is not illegal to import cigars from Cuba, so long as I stop in Mexico on the way back?

By your theory, Linus, half of the economic laws in the world would be useless and toothless.  The courts are not that stupid.

Well Clark. Thats normaly how it works. The money changer or launderer takes a fee or a commision.

Here in DC the biggest money launderers are art auctions and laundramats and limo services.

Clark- DeLay cannot be held accountable for where the RNC sends contributions. If he ask for them to send money to the candidates, so be it, but as long as the corportaions don't say to send it to Texan candidates, its not illegal. As long as he doesn't say "You know those companies that sent money to you? Yea.. send it to these guys..." it's not illegal.


And here's an anology for ya-

If murder wasn't illegal (ok.. dumb anology but hang with me) then you could kill someone. EVen if it became illegal the very next day, you still can't get in trouble for it.

The dems are trying ot get DeLay in trouble for something that was 100% legal when he did it, as stated by GOP lawyers. And since you beleive them...   




You and I will get no where with eachother- we are both set in our ways.

We'll find out who's right in a year or 2...

Edited by Linus

Linus wrote: Clark- DeLay cannot be held accountable for where the RNC sends contributions. If he ask for them to send money to the candidates, so be it, but as long as the corportaions don't say to send it to Texan candidates, its not illegal. As long as he doesn't say "You know those companies that sent money to you? Yea.. send it to these guys..." it's not illegal.

You are focusing on the wrong things.

First, it wasn't the RNC - it was a PAC.  And yes, DeLay CAN be held responsible for where the PAC sends money, if he conspired to cause a legal circumvention - that's the whole point of this.  Using a PAC to get illegal corporate money into a political campaign is illegal.  Period.  You are welcome to ignore the law in favor of your own imagination, but that doesn't make it so.

If murder wasn't illegal (ok.. dumb anology but hang with me) then you could kill someone. EVen if it became illegal the very next day, you still can't get in trouble for it.

True - but again, two things:  First, corporate contributions to political campaigns have been illegal for many years.  The only part that changed in 2003 was the expansion of the conspiracy law - the contributions themselves were always illegal (if they were ever illegal).  The question would be whether DeLay's part was illegal.  Second, just because this particular conspiracy law didn't apply until 2003 doesn't make the conspiracy "legal".  There are other sources of conspiracy law.  The money laundering statute, for instance, may apply.  There is also general criminal conspiracy.  Generally speaking, it is illegal to conspire to commit ANY crime.

Clearly Earle screwed up bigtime with the conspiracy law.  No doubt.  But that in no way makes the underlying money transfers any more or less legal, nor does it automatically get DeLay off the hook.

The dems are trying ot get DeLay in trouble for something that was 100% legal when he did it, as stated by GOP lawyers. And since you beleive them...

You are putting words in my mouth, and in the mouths of the GOP lawyers...

Nobody has argued yet (except Linus) that the underlying money transfers were not illegal.  The only current question is whether DeLay's actions were also prohibited.

And the GOP lawyers did NOT argue that what DeLay did was "100% legal" - they simply stated that THIS PARTICULAR CONSPIRACY LAW did not apply at that time.  They will have a harder time getting rid of the laundering indictment on that theory.

We'll find out who's right in a year or 2...

No need to wait - you are already wrong.

Even if DeLay is acquitted (which I think he will be), you are still wrong.  Because you have been saying all along that the underlying money transfer is obviously perfectly legal (your "loophole") - and that is simply false.  There is no loophole.

Edited by Clark Kent

Clark Kent wrote: You are focusing on the wrong things. First, it wasn't the RNC - it was a PAC.

Really? The PAC?

Foxnews wrote: All of the charges stem from an alleged check for $190,000 in corporate money sent from the political committee to the Republican National Committee and the Republican National State Elections Committee.

Last I checked, RNC stood for Republican National Committee

Edited by Linus