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

Tom DeLay

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
AgentWhale007!` View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Quoting Language 10/3

Joined: 12 September 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 205
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentWhale007!` Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 October 2005 at 10:41pm

Originally posted by Cedric Cedric wrote:

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.


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


Paintball is lame.
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: 03 October 2005 at 12:52am
Originally posted by AgentWhale007!` AgentWhale007!` wrote:

Originally posted by Cedric Cedric wrote:

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.


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

Let's not forget how the teacher attacks him unprovoked.

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: 03 October 2005 at 12:28pm
Clark-Didn't have enough time to finish my whole thought- I'll re-edit this post tonight after football.

Edited by Linus

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: 03 October 2005 at 12:42pm

From Black's Law Dictionary:

Mens Rea:  An element of criminal responsibility; a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent.

Mens Rea IS criminal intent - it wasn't clear whether you meant it to mean something different. 

Having a lawyer look into an issue will NEVER completely undo general criminal intent, except in cases where the crime was the failure to be diligent, in which case consulting counsel not only undoes the mens rea, but undoes the crime itself.

As to me - no, I am not a campaign finance lawyer.  But I don't have to be - I am not the one making broad conclusions about campaign finance laws.  I am doing the opposite - I am saying that campaign finance is complicated, and we should listen to the experts, not your civics teacher.

As to how I know so much - I read a lot, I google a lot, and I keep an open mind and challenge my own conclusions, and I try to avoid making any statement without checking it out first.  Truth is, I DON'T know much - I just make sure to find out before posting.  Google is your friend.

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: 03 October 2005 at 6:52pm

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
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: 04 October 2005 at 11:29am
This is the case closer-

"the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that did not take effect until 2003 a year after the alleged acts."

What he did was NOT illegal when he did it, so that makes me NOT WRONG.

Now--- as for the 'new' charges... I have yet to read on them yet.

Edited by Linus

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: 04 October 2005 at 1:46pm

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.

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: 04 October 2005 at 2:19pm
Clark- You must have somehow miscontrued what I posted.

When DeLay did the action in question, it was BEFORE it was illegal, making it LEGAL.

There, calrified.


Originally posted by Me Me wrote:

the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that did not take effect until 2003 a year after the alleged acts


That wasn't from my 'civic's' teacher (Quit calling him that, it's American Government and it's really irking me for some dumb reason) it was from a Fox News report.

Edited by Linus

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: 04 October 2005 at 2:24pm

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:

Originally posted by NYT 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
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: 04 October 2005 at 2:28pm
Ok Clark, if you think my 'obvious loophole' is so very flawed, explain how, and in what way.

Check the articles, both Fox and CNN. They state the RNC sent a LIKE AMOUNT, not the same amount, which would also help to nullify this dumb accusation in some way.


EDIT-- The 4 other times when DeLay was indicted by dems, they had lack of proof and lack of mens rae/criminal intent and the cases were thrown out. This time is no different.

I can see why you won't accept my loophole- It came from a 17 year old and not a 60 year old lawyer, but still, just think about it for a minute. You say you have an open mind, then think about it.

Edited by Linus

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: 04 October 2005 at 2:37pm

Originally posted by Linus 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.

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: 04 October 2005 at 2:42pm
Clark- My loophole idea didn't come from my teacher, what part of that don't you get?

And your points are flawed- Cuban cigars are illegal no matter what.

When you give money to a money launderer, you KNOW that it will be laundered, hence mens rae and the legality of the matter.




But back to MY idea.

The RNC's job is to give money Republican candidates, thats not refutable.

The candidates are allowed to ask for the money.

Tom DeLay's organazation gave money to the RNC.

Tom DeLay is allowed to ask the RNC to give money to the candidates.

Simpler terms- If you give money to the Red Cross, you're allowed to ask for it to be put toward Hurricane Katrina (I know thats not illegal, but it proves a point)


I'm off to football.. I'll be back in 3-4 hours.

Edited by Linus

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: 04 October 2005 at 5:01pm
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.
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: 04 October 2005 at 8:13pm

Of course, DBib - that was my point, that it would be silly... 

Linus - the cigars were an analogy.  Go with it.  Or, if you prefer, we can try another analogy:  It is generally illegal for Americans to export stuff to Iran.  By your theory, I could ship my stuff to Iran all day long, so long as I stopped for a day in Turkey on the way over.

The law is not that stupid.  Dodges like this have been around since the beginning of time, and since the beginning of time laws have been flexible enough to stop it.

The proof is in the pudding - GOP lawyers have not challenged the indictment on grounds that the transaction was perfectly legal (the "Linus Theory").  I have more faith in the GOP lawyers than I do in the DA's office - if there was an easy way to get the whole thing thrown out, and whitewashing the whole transaction at the same time, they certainly would have done so.  If the Linus theory had any merit, they would have tried it by now.

I am not a campaign finance lawyer - I simply look at all available information.  It would be silly for the law to be as you describe - therefore it probably isn't.  If the law were as you describe, the indictment against the cronies would have been tossed by now - it wasn't, therefore the law probably isn't as you describe.

I did, however, take a quick look at the law, just for kicks and giggles.  The law, as cited in the indictment, generally prohibits contributions by corporations to political campaigns.  A "Contribution" is defined by law:

Originally posted by Texas Election Code Sec. 251.001(2) Texas Election Code Sec. 251.001(2) wrote:

(2)  "Contribution" means a direct or indirect transfer of money, goods, services, or any other thing of value and includes an agreement made or other obligation incurred, whether legally enforceable or not, to make a transfer....
  (emphasis added)

So if the money from the corporations constituted an indirect transfer, then that money was an illegal contribution under Texas law.

Now, DeLay will certainly challenge whether this transfer was in fact a "contribution" - and he might win that.  If the DA fails to show that these various checks amounted to an indirect transfer (i.e., these number and dates just happened to look suspicious), then DeLay and cronies are not guilty.  The Linus Theory will be tested at trial.

But it is quite clear that this is not OBVIOUSLY legal.  If the things happened as alleged in the indictment, then in fact a crime occurred.  This is why your "loophole" theory fails, and this is why the indictment has not been challenged on these grounds.

But don't take it from me, or from the law - take it from somebody who actually IS a campaign-finance lawyer:

Originally posted by David Berg David Berg wrote:

Politics in Texas is a real jungle, and money of this sort, I would suspect, gets washed all the time. [But] it would be illegal if [he] knew that corporate funds were going to be laundered and used in the state races
  (source)

 

 

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: 04 October 2005 at 8:35pm
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

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: 04 October 2005 at 8:51pm
More like, if there was an intersection with no stop sign. Then, one day a stop sign apears, you cant get in trouble for all those times you didnt stop.

Thats a better anology for you.
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: 04 October 2005 at 9:22pm

Originally posted 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.

Quote 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.

Quote 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.

Quote
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
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: 04 October 2005 at 9:24pm

Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

More like, if there was an intersection with no stop sign. Then, one day a stop sign apears, you cant get in trouble for all those times you didnt stop.

Thats a better anology for you.

Better analogy, yes - but still irrelevant.  Or, rather - only relevant to an undisputed point.

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: 04 October 2005 at 9:48pm
Originally posted 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?

Originally posted by Foxnews 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

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: 04 October 2005 at 10:09pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted 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?
Originally posted by Foxnews Foxnews wrote:

All of the charges stem from an alleged check for $190,000 in corporate money sent from the political committee (Delay and Co.) to the Republican National Committee and the Republican National State Elections Committee.
Last I checked, RNC stood for Republican National Committee


Edited by Hades

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.280 seconds.