Posted on 11/26/2010 7:29:52 AM PST by big black dog
I'm not a lawyer, so if somebody has more understanding, steer me to where I am wrong.
- Texas has a law which forbids corporations from contributing to candidates.
- Corporations gave money to Delay.
- Delay funneled this money through the RNC to help some Texas State GOP candidates (no input from the corporations).
- Texas prosecutors could not find any way to prosecute Delay for campaign finance violations.
- They then used Texas money laundering laws to prosecute Delay even though those laws clearly state that such proceeds must come from illegal activities and it is clear that Delay obtained the money legally.
- So Delay is convicted of money laundering of legally obtained funds (Statutes require that the funds be obtained illegally) to be used for supposed illegal activities (campaign finance laws which the prosecution knew they could never convict Delay of) and Delay is guilty of a felony?
Somebody help me out here. Why was this guy ever tried?
He sinned. He was too effective against dims.
Delay will appeal any decision putting him behind bars, and should win if he can get the case out of Austin, that jury wasn’t smart enough to poor piss out of a boot. Everything that has happened to Delay has been political.
Why was he tried? Google Ronnie Earle
Your understanding matches mine. This is criminalized politics, nothing more. Delay should win on appeal.
Worse case - he drags the appeal out two years and gets pardoned by a new GOP President. Or Gov Perry pardons him first.
The bigger issue is that criminalized politics things. It’s a hallmark of Third World dictatorships, esp marxist ones. That’s what the demscum are turning us into.
A Republic, is we can keep it...
That is the problem right there.
This was a political witch hunt, pure and simple.
IMO he should not have been tried. This was done in the name of destroying a man and sending a message to other conservatives. Watch out...if they want to destroy someone they’ll just manipulate the rules/laws, whatever they must do.
I assume Delay will appeal and win; otherwise, dems will be facing the same charges and will have Delay’s conviction hanging over them.
Bump
There is a little more to it than what I had ever heard.
Donors, who were maxed out in contributions to their favorite candidates, would send blank checks to Washington DC where DeLay and his group would decide who needed money and how much.
Then they filled in the check for the appropriate amount then funneled the money back to each candidate. Yes, this practice may have been widespread. But it is also wrong.
I have worked for non-profits before and this is strictly forbidden.
You cannot give money to a 501c4 organization to have them direct their GOTV mailings only for the candidate of your choosing.
Just like you cannot give $5000 to the benevolence fund at your church and direct it to a specific person at the church.
It may have been a politically motivated prosecution, but that does not mean that the case had no merit.
- Texas prosecutors could not find any way to prosecute Delay for campaign finance violations.
- They then used Texas money laundering laws to prosecute Delay even though those laws clearly state that such proceeds must come from illegal activities and it is clear that Delay obtained the money legally.
- So Delay is convicted of money laundering of legally obtained funds (Statutes require that the funds be obtained illegally) to be used for supposed illegal activities (campaign finance laws which the prosecution knew they could never convict Delay of) and Delay is guilty of a felony?
Somebody help me out here. Why was this guy ever tried?
I think you have the basics of the case as I understand it and like you I’m not a lawyer and do have trouble at times dicephering the lingo.
The outcome now lies in the hands of the appellate system up to and including the nine member Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
In Austin, TX a person who is conservative, republican, and a white man can be indicted and convicted for having a pulse.
This is SOP for RATS when faced with an effective opponent. They were scared to death of Karl Rove, so they tried to make him a criminal. Same thing with Dick Cheney, but since he was off-limits for practical purposes, they went after Scooter Libby.
It’s just a variant of the strategy to use the courts to overturn the public will on ballot initiatives. What cannot be accomplished at the ballot box is taken to the courts, which are run by liberals more often than not.
Fair enough, but how does that make him guilty of Texas money laundering laws?
Reverse OJ Jury syndrome. Austin Jury. Jury forewoman a Greenpeace activist.
I think you have it just about right. The liberal jury paid attention to the letter of the Texas law and ignored the federal law. The funds came from two sources, corporate and PAC. In Texas, corporate funds were illegal and PAC funds were legal.
Apparently the funds were available first from corporate and the PAC funds were in receivables. As I understand it the decision was made to legally ‘swap’ the available funds for the PAC funds coming so that they could be disbursed. This was legal only if the PAC funds that came later were not forwarded to candidate campaigns.
To make it clear:
X funds in the bank from corporate
Y funds from PAC coming
Say X > Y,
Take Y funds from X and give to candidates
X-Y funds left in the account
Y funds from PAC arrive
Replace Y funds taken so now
X-Y+Y = X funds are left in the account for corporate purposes.
It was a legal swap and I believe the conviction will be overturned on appeal as the legality of the swap must negate the applicability of the Texas law.
As one can see from above, this was a political hit on Delay. The jury, although liberal, were given instructions to apply the Texas law without looking at the broader context. This is what political court cases do, they take the law out of context and nail a target within the smaller context.
I think Tom Delay will be free pending appeal and his appeal will be heard by Spring when his conviction will be set aside on the technicality that funds accounting must be considered in applying the Texas law.
While traveling if I use a corporate credit card to purchase Motrin because I am feeling bad, and I reimburse my company asap for the expense with a documented receipt, I should not be prosecuted or fired for using the company credit card for personal expenses as long as I promptly and honestly replaced the amount used for me personally, especially if I had a good reason for doing what I did.
In Tom Delay’s case, he had a good reason for doing what he did, he had receivables for PAC purposes, and he intended to replace corporate funds used for PAC purposes with those receivables. And he did replace those corporate funds used for PAC purposes. And it was legal to do so by federal law. The Texas law must consider the reconciled accounting and it is this accounting that must be examined, not the source of incidental expenses.
s/b deciphering
“Why was this guy ever tried?”
Simple - Delay is a Republican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.