Posted on 11/24/2010 3:18:25 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
For five years, the case against Tom DeLay for money laundering through his Texans for a Republican Majority PAC has been seemingly trapped in the Texas courts facing pre-trial appeals. On November 1, it finally made it to trial and today the verdict is in: guilty on both money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The slightly-less-than-humble DeLay lost his majority leadership in Congress after the indictment came down, but he has maintained his claims that this case was politically motivated throughout the entire process right up to defense attorney Dick DeGuerin's closing arguments.
The jury clearly didn't buy his argument and now DeLay is potentially facing life in prison on money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering charges. DeLay is accused of channeling $190,000 in corporate money through his Texans for a Republican Majority PAC in 2002 to aid GOP candidates.
This is an extremely odd attitude from someone who's tag line identifies them as libertarian.
I can't think of any libertarian who considers the current campaign finance laws -- restrictive and unconstitutional as they are -- as defining valid crimes. Much less a DA who didn't even follow through on the initial charges, but "creatively" (i.e. arbitrarily) misused money laundering laws against otherwise legal political donations.
Heck, some libertarians aren't even comfortable with those laws being used against drug dealers and organized crime (their intended targets).
Do you really think someone doing normal politics has "committed a" (justly charged) "crime"?! If so, why was a "novel" legal theory needed to charge and convict it?
Isn't it an essential aspect of just law that all crimes are clearly defined in code, such that one can know in advance what actions constitute a crime?
As a libertarian, a conservative, a constitutionalist, or simply an American, how can you possibly view the politically motivated use of a law in a way never remotely intended in its construction, or passage, or previous application, as having ANYTHING to do with justice? In fact it is blatant tyranny. And one of the more common, and corrosive, tactics of tyrants.
The Republicans need 21 votes in the state Senate to make such a change; they have 19, and two or three are RINOs.
BTTT!
The article says it was "his" PAC. They give it to me, they give it to my PAC, they give it to my mom....a distinction without a difference.
You’re exactly right. I followed this way back when it first started. Basically.....the “Hammer” was too effective and the Dems found a way to silence him.
See the main article on Tom DeLay and Complaints, Investigation & Indictments for details.
Thanx for the link. Will check it out.
thanks! a link would be awesome!
“So what you are saying is that I am wrong, and that the jury was not made up of 12 partisan Democrats?”
Yes.
As libertarian, I hate hypocrites especially Government officials.
These people, telling us to follow law and pay taxes, and yet they are the first ones who break them.
I didn’t say that Delay created that law that indicted and convicted him.
My point is this: LAW MUST BE APPLIED TO EVERYONE, EQUALLY. IF NOT, THE HELL WITH THE LAW!
He did it ... then let him suffer it.
NOW MOVE ON: Do the same to the shitty Boxer, Rangel, etc.
Why I switched from D to R? Simple. Democrats always love to CREATE A NEW LAW THAT EITHER EXEMPTS THEM OR IS BROKEN FIRST BY THEM.
At least for now, I still find many Republicans to be trustworthy of creating law. I still have high hopes with many honorable Republicans who are truly conservatives and “freedom” lovers.
LIBERTARIAN FIRST POLICY: PUNISH THE HYPOCRITES!
Well, what was the reason the money had to be "laundered"? Was it drug money? No.
Okay. But no such donations were made. IFIRC, The checks were made and delivered to the Republican national committee. The RNC supported Texas candidates with funding. That is what they do.
??????DeLay is accused of channeling $190,000 in corporate money through his Texans for a Republican Majority PAC in 2002 to aid GOP candidates.?????????
Isn’t that was PACs are supposed to do?!
It’s ok, though. I’m done trying to figure out American politics. Now I can’t figure out Israeli politics, either.
He is no crook
He was convicted by a partisan prosecutor and a 12 person partisan Democrat jury, very clear to me.
This will not stand, it will be over turned and the people that have believed the worst here, will have egg on their face.
Tom Delay is a Christian man also! He never personally profited from any of this, he may have gone up to the very limit of the law, but that`s it, just as a good tax specialist finds every loop hole for their client..
This will be over turned by the Supreme Court, probably 5-4, may take a while. Hopefully a lower appeals Court will over turn first.
You are clearly NOT a libertarian, if you think that is a first principle -- or any principle -- of the ideology. You've mistaken populism (and a rather knee-jerk version thereof) for libertarianism; a self-misidentification so incoherent that I'm almost too stunned to respond. But only almost.
The first principle of libertarianism is the maximization of individual liberty. Libertarians believe that individuals (and voluntary associations of individuals) ought to have complete freedom of choice so long as their actions do not impinge on the liberties of other individuals. Thus libertarians are all about REFUSING to characterize any valid exercise of liberty as "hypocrisy".
And thus libertarians are also all about distinguishing between just law and unjust law based on whether the principle of liberty is therein protected and furthered, or restricted and usurped. Yet here you are actively defending law which restricts liberty; in this case the use of voluntarily donated private funds in furthering the political advocacy of the donors.
My point is this: LAW MUST BE APPLIED TO EVERYONE, EQUALLY. IF NOT, THE HELL WITH THE LAW!
But you do not choose, "the hell with the law," and instead insist that the law be applied simply because the law managed to make it into the code. IOW you actively refuse to make the distinction between just and unjust, valid and invalid law, which is central to libertarianism. Instead you hold that the law is the law is the law, and must be applied. This is authoritarism; the polar opposite of the ideology you claim for yourself.
In addition you ignore the point I made previously. That not only is the law unjust in the first place but, even were we to grant it valid, it was applied unjustly.
It is central to EVERY philosophy of liberalism (i.e. libertarianism, conservatism and non-radical, center-left liberalism all included) that laws must be predictable. Law must be written and applied such that all citizens can know in advance what actions will be in violation of law. That principle was outrageously violated in this instance. There was no way in hell that any reasonable individual could have predicted in advance that the channeling of these political donations would be considered "money laundering". Even the prosecutors weren't able to predict that, instead changing the charges when the original indictment failed!
If the law can be arbitrarily reconstrued in such fashion to ensnare a targeted individual, then it can potentially envelop in criminality ANY exercise of liberty. When that happens the law, which is supposed to be the guarantor of liberty, instead becomes the servant of tyranny.
I think we agree. My point was that he didn't do anything morally wrong, since some here seem to think breaking any law is wrong. Some laws are not binding in conscience, like speeding laws or TSA screening laws. The corporate donation rules are one of those because any prohibition on corporate donations is purely arbitrary, since donations by other limited liability entities are fully permissible.
In addition, as you state, the donations were permissible anyway under law because they went through the RNC, so no law was even broken at all.
Yes, it is totally inexpicable what crime was committed. Why would the money be "laundered"? In any case, the RNC had to be part of the alledged conspiracy since the money went through them. I'd like to see the transcript of the trial to see what evidence there was.
I was pretty sure we agreed, but I was trying to point out that the charges he was convicted of were hanging in the air unsupported by anything. What was the crime that required money laundering?
Not to pick-nits, appellate courts don’t “clear” people. Appellate courts her appeals from litigants (defendants, in this case) that argue the trial judge erred in his application of law. They don’t find fact, therefor they can’t “clear” anyone. If the judge made no mistake(s), the verdict will unlikely be overturned. Even if it was, Delay would then put him at the mercy of another prosecution.
Succinctly put, this is bad.
___________________________________
If the Appeals Court found that there were any irregularities committed by the Judge in the Delay case, or the Jury, or the Prosecutors or even the Defense Attorneys — or if there were facts in evidence that were NOT presented or were purposefully kept from the jury (Prosecutorial misconduct), then the Appeals Court has fairly broad authority to “set aside” or “vacate” the verdict of the trial court, which in many cases may allow the Prosecutors to retry. and in some cases may bar them from retrying the case.
I think these guys would retry if they got the chance. They have to destroy Delay now — and Travis Cty. is the place to do it in Texas. I understand Democrat corruption is deep and wide there. Delay was railroaded. If this is overturned (it probably should be), expect them to fight to destroy him. If it’s not, and Delay were sentenced to prison, either Gov. Perry (if applicable) or the NEXT Republican PResident should pardon him immediately upon taking office.
You're speaking about the rare exception. Very rare. Almost always, a vacated verdict leads to retrial. And, as I said, appellate courts don't "clear" anyone. They (generally) only find infirmities in the trial record. In any event, a vacated verdict isn't an acquittal.
Many people, including I believe the person to whom I was originally responding, think that an appeal is a trial de novo. It isn't.
"If it’s not, and Delay were sentenced to prison, either Gov. Perry (if applicable) or the NEXT Republican President should pardon him immediately upon taking office."
Another common misconception. President's cannot pardon people who were convicted in state court. The President's pardon power extends only to offenses cognizable under federal law, as a law professor might say.
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.