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?
You are right,it would be almost impossible to convince an appeals court that the jury was stupid, and the prosecutor was politically motived, even if it were true(and I believe it is)On the other hand I have always thought that “conspiracy”,except in certain national security cases, wasn’t a crime anyway. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m of the opinion that “conspiracy”charges are often used to prosecute people on the assumption that they “thought” about doing something that might be illegal, a pretty weak and unconstitutional charge,IMHO, ?
Well, in point of fact Rangel has NOT escaped criminal prosecution. Whatever Congress does to its members is wholly separate from what (if anything) the DoJ decides to do. I am not sure if DoJ has opened a criminal investigation into the Rangel matter or not. It would seem unlikely that they haven't, but given this particular DoJ, that may be a possibility, or even a likelihood.
In most every form of corporate accounting, funds are shifted often among various accounts as part of cashflow management. As long as the financial statements are debited and credited adequately, reconciled periodically, these fund shifts are legal.
As a previous poster said, the shifting of funds were loans made among various accounts; as long as these loans are paid back timely, there is no problem. This sort of activity is seen daily as necessary in cashflow management. A good cashflow manager can keep everything in order and not get in trouble. A bad cashflow manager can invite all sorts of trouble.
A nonprofit corporate account can loan to for profit accounts and vice versa. What has to be shown is that the loan was capable of being paid back or was paid back, and that it was timely as within the accounting period. These are not red flags, they are normal markers in cashflow management. A red flag would be where a nonprofit loaned to a for profit with no terms of repayment or timeline. If such a loan is open-ended with no terms, then it is a suspicious indefinite zero-interest loan and such loans are usually determined to be illegal. This was not the case here.
The number of transactions is irrelevant. What is relevant are the terms and nature of the transactions and the reconciling within the accounting period.
The example I gave is where I am traveling on a corporate credit card and expense account. If I purchase something for my personal use, such as Motrin because I feel bad, or I go see a doctor and use the corporate card, then I am subject to using the company card for personal expenses but if I promptly declare it and pay the expense back, then everything is legit especially as I had a good and understandable reason.
The law is not be used in its smallest context else most people would be in prison, it is to be used in conjunction with evidence of intent and compensatory actions.
If I jaywalk in a City and am detained by law enforcement, I will/should be released when it is determined that I was running away from a person shooting people on the street with a gun.
In extremis situations usually trump civil statutes.
In corporate accounting, it is almost always the ‘intent’ that is paramount to bring a criminal charge that is legit. Delay’s intent was to manage cashflow and he needed to be sure to have a manager that could document the fund shifts and reconcile the accounts in a timely manner. His intent was not to break the law and subject himself to criminal prosecution.
This was a political hit, nothing more and the jury was instructed to look at the smallest context. The misapplication and insufficiency of those instructions are what will get Delay’s freedom back. I predict he will also be free pending appeal.
It's not just "thinking" about committing a crime. It's an "agreement" with someone else (conspiracy means an agreement between two or more people) to actually commit a crime. That's a crime in and of itself - the commitment to do "it".
Sometimes, just one person is charged with conspiracy. You MUST then have someone else named in the indictment with whom the accused is alleged to have conspired. That person is known as the "unindicted co-conspirator" (and many times, that is also a cooperating witness). In Delay's case, and least two others were indicted. They're trial(s) are pending, I believe.
Holder prosecuting Rangle???
Don’t hold yer breath......
There wouldn't be anything unusual about that, not in these kinds of cases. It wouldn't,however, be any indication of a likelihood of him prevailing on appeal.
But doesn’t it require them to show the act, if committed, WOULD be illegal? You cannot be convicted of conspiracy to do a legal act. Right or wrong - I’m no lawyer!
This scheme was an attempt to bypass “hard money” limitations.
They gave to a soft money organization, who the directed the money back to the candidates. This is clearly illegal.
This is not a corporate accounting situation. PACs and non-profits are highly regulated. (and they should be)
Yes, the state would shoulder the burden to demonstrate that whatever was conspired to, was actually a violation of TX law. In this instance, they are alleging Delay conspired to violate Texas Election Code § 253.003
Whether he did or not, I'm not sure. I would have to read the trial transcript, and the relevant case law to know if the state met its burden. The problem for Delay is that the jury thought that the state met its burden. That is going to be tough to overcome on appeal.
The loan swap is and was legal. It has nothing to do with how ‘highly’ things are regulated. It has nothing to do with ‘how many’ transactions. These notions of yours show you live in a world of hyperbole.
The federal law is clear, the money swaps are legal, that is why the federal case against him was dropped. Delay will have his conviction overturned because federal law supercedes state law.
Your view is a narrow view based on hyperbole and an attitude owned by you. That’s not law, that’s a vendetta.
True that. But the Texan blowhards against Delay will not have the satisfaction of seeing him in jail anytime soon if ever.
Delays lawyers should NEVER have let him be tried in Austin.
Texas is different. If I recall, Delay was convicted under s federal statute in a Texas court. Like I said, Texas is different - the only state where that can happen. I think - but am not sure - that means the Pres and Gov can pardon him. But I may be wrong. Anyone know?
Why was he tried?
Two words: Travis. County.
If you know so much, YOU start a 501c4 and raise money.
Then advertise your group as one that will accept donations from people who are maxed out to their candidates. And that you and you will put your political machine to work for their candidate in a GOTV effort in that district.
And see how fast you get shut down.
BTW, have you ever worked for a political organization, a PAC or a non-profit?
OK, I was wrong - he was convicted under Texas law, so the Pres can’t pardon him. Ooops.
I think DeLay will have even a harder time if his associates cop a plea in their upcoming trials.
They took down the top guy first. Now they have to try the underlings. My guess is that one or both will agree to a plea deal very quickly.
So you rationale of why the government should be allowed to tell you what political candidtates you may support and to what extent with your money is what?
If the judge gave unclear or misleading information to the jury about what constituted a violation of Texas Election Code § 253.003, wouldn’t that be grounds for overturning on appeal?
I have no idea of the merits of the case, but I doubt Delay conspired to do something his legal team believed illegal. If he did, then he deserves prison.
It is news to you that there are limits on how much money you can give to your favorite candidates?
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.