home

Tom DeLay's Conviction Overturned

By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:47:23 AM EST
Tags: Tom DeLay (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of Former Congressman Tom DeLay for money laundering and conspiracy, finding the evidence insufficient to convict him. The reversal is an acquittal which means he cannot be retried. Nor will he have to serve his three year prison sentence.

An overview of his case from 2010 is here. Here's a Today Show video where he and his excellent trial lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, discuss the case.

Dick DeGuerin always predicted DeLay would never spend a night in jail. [More...]

According to DeGuerin in 2010:

Mr. DeGuerin said Mr. DeLay would try to convince an appeals court the money-laundering statute should never had been applied to the money swap — because the original donations were legal and also because the donations to the state candidates came out of a different account than the one in which the corporate donations were deposited. “It will never stand,” Mr. DeGuerin said.

All of our coverage of his case is accessible here.

< OIG Report: DOJ Overstates Terrorism Convictions | Thursday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tom DeLay's Conviction Overturned | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    A correct decision, showing once again (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:08:45 PM EST
    that the Constitution and all the rights of the accused apply fully to all, including the most despicable and utterly undeserving.

    lol; that's quite a Rogues Gallery in the pic (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:56:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Not Really (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    To get that level of Constitutional protection you will need a wad of cash most people could only dream of.

    For most of us who can't afford a DeGuerin level attorney, we get, more or less, whatever rights our local criminal/judicial systems feels like tossing us.

    Delay should be in prison for many things, but not this ticky-tack campaign fiance laws stuff that most people don't understand and that aren't consistent from one area to the next.

    Did anyone actually predict Delay going to jail ?

    How long before Delay is running in a national campaign ?  2018 is my prediction, right after he gets back in good with Corporate America lobbyists, and gets camera time bashing D's for Fox in 2016.

    Parent

    How long before Delay is running? (none / 0) (#8)
    by msaroff on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:43:00 PM EST
    How long before Delay is running in a national campaign ?  2018 is my prediction, right after he gets back in good with Corporate America lobbyists, and gets camera time bashing D's for Fox in 2016.

    I just had an idea so cunning that if you put a tail on it, you could call it a weasel.

    Regardless of his guilt or innocence, it is clear that Tom Delay holds the distinction of being a repulsive little F%%$.

    People hate him.

    Even Bill Clinton, could not come up with something nice about him in an interview toward the end of his presidency.

    So, how about we create a phony Teabagger group to draft Tom Delay for the Republican 2016 Presidential nomination.

    I bet that Karl Rove would have a cow.

    Parent

    Scott, if I remember correctly (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:46:09 PM EST
    the DA tried 6 different times to indict Delay in a legal system that many defense attorneys say that a DA can indict a baloney sandwich.

    Does that tell you anything about the particulars of the case??

    Parent

    Not really (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by sj on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    But instead of remembering how about providing a link?

    Parent
    Halfway there (none / 0) (#24)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:26:31 AM EST
    Jim was claiming 6 attempts to indict DeLay.  Your article indicates three:

    The grand jury was one of three that considered whether there was probable cause to indict DeLay. Two other grand juries did indict the former House majority leader.


    Parent
    It Tells Me You Watch Too Much Fox News... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:31:31 PM EST
    ...because it would be the only media source of "Many defense attorneys say that a DA can indict a baloney sandwich."

    Jim, I clearly stated:

    Delay should be in prison for many things, but not this ticky-tack campaign fiance laws stuff that most people don't understand and that aren't consistent from one area to the next.

    IOW, you agree with me, but I suspect your motives have more to do with politics than my dislike of nonsensical campaign laws like they tried to convict Delay and Edwards of.

    I think making laws for how politicians handle bribes and payoffs, is missing the mark by miles.

    "You can take the $500,000 from sources that may or may not be anonymous to help you keep or land a job, so long as you fill out 10,000 forms and keep meticulous and often confusing records.

    We will will focus on how it's spent, and turn a blind eye to the most aspect of these transactions.  Why in the hell is it legal to give ridiculously large sums of money to help people get government jobs ?  And why only the legislative and executive areas of the government if there is no quid pro quo ?"

    IMO campaign finance laws exist to mask and legitimize the real crime, legalized payoffs/bribes/kickbacks or what they sine up with the term 'donation'.  

    Parent

    Speaking of baloney (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    I hang around with a lot of defense attorneys, and I have never heard anyone say that any competent DA can readily get the grand jury to indict a baloney sandwich.  What we say -- quoting former NY State chief judge (and later, convicted felon) Sol Wachtler -- is that the DA can generally get any grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

    Parent
    Thank you for clearing that up, Peter; (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    I was going to say something, but I thought it would be better coming from someone who is a member of the bar...

    [But I do think baloney can be involved]

    :-)

    Parent

    It's the truth... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:37:17 PM EST
    if my grand jury service experience is any indication....I tried like hell but was only able to talk my fellow grand jurors into no true billing one measley charge the entire month...and that one no true bill led to a talking down of the grand jury from the DA, like he could not believe such a thing could ever happen.

    Parent
    Very true Peter (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 04:59:54 AM EST
    I remember saying about Angela Corey that the reason she didn't go to the grand jury was because she only had half a hand sandwich and forgot the mustard.


    Parent
    Agreed, and I can think of no one who's ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:02:54 PM EST
    ... more despicable and undeserving than former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Yes, (cough!) justice was served here, but I'd also note that at least this case served one useful purpose, which was to drive a foul political bird from public office.

    Dick Cheney excepted, this man has to be the most thoroughly repulsive character in Washington, D.C. As a matter of fact, I'll be in Saipan in three weeks, because I'm contracted with a social service organization that's presently dealing with the messy aftermath of this cur's political handiwork in the Northern Marianas. Tom DeLay did a real number on those poor people.

    (See Abramoff, Jack and Saipan prostitution / sweatshops).

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Speaking of "repulsive," isn't it (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    fitting to see Joe Lieberman's face in that picture?

    'bout made me lose my lunch.

    Parent

    Birds of a feather ... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:44:08 PM EST
    ... will feather their own nests together.

    DeLay and Lieberman are poster children for what's wrong inside the Beltway. And in my opinion, the forced labor scheme that DeLay and Abramoff hatched up for the garment industry on the island of Saipan probably set back the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for a generation, economically.

    While the tourism industry has experienced substantive growth, particularly in the Japanese market, unemployment in the CNMI remains very high, and the islands have experienced a substantial net loss of population over the last six years due to emigration of residents looking for work.

    If I had my way, I'd chain Tom DeLay to a table and have him run a sewing machine for 12-hour shifts six days a week, just so he can experience for himself the misery which he helped to inflict on those poor Chinese immigrant women, lured to Saipan under false pretenses to a harsh life of indenture servitude.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Travis County district attorney's office, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Angel on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 01:33:44 PM EST
    which prosecuted the case against DeLay, issued a statement, saying it would seek a rehearing.

    "We strongly disagree with the opinion of Judges Goodwin and Gaultney that the evidence was insufficient. We are concerned and disappointed that two judges substituted their assessment of the facts for that of 12 jurors who personally heard the testimony of over 40 witnesses over the course of several weeks and found that the evidence was sufficient and proved DeLay's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We are preparing a response to this opinion and will ask the full Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to review the ruling."

    I do not expect the Travis County DA's office will prevail.  

    Blue Counties in Texas (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:47:04 AM EST
    are wonderful places....

    Parent
    Full of bitter Democrats... (1.00 / 5) (#28)
    by kramartini on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:36:01 AM EST
    willing to abuse the criminal law to regain power...

    Parent
    OTOH, maybe it's just that ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    ... the red counties in Texas are full of angry Republicans ready to ignore the law in order to hold onto power.

    But at least you've exposed the perspective through which you've drawn your conclusions.

    Parent

    I live in Austin (none / 0) (#42)
    by kramartini on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:39:47 PM EST
    And have often heard expressed glee that Tom DeLay's political career was destroyed, regardless of his actual guilt...

    Parent
    How is it activist to correct an error of law? (none / 0) (#44)
    by kramartini on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:47:05 PM EST
    The alleged facts, even if all true, did not amount to a crime.

    Justice Goodwin was on the money in her analysis. (She did a better job of pointing out the flaw in the prosecution case than did DeLay's lawyer.)

    And, having personally attended oral arguments, Chief Justice Jones's dissent was predictable given the amount of time he spent at the hearing grasping to find something illegal. The best he could come up with is that the jury might have found that the corporate donors tried to make illegal contributions, but were thwarted when TRMPAC used the funds for legal purposes, and that this failed attempt to make an illegal contribution made the contributions the proceeds of criminal activity. Incredibly lame...

    Parent

    I heard your OPINION before (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:27:39 PM EST
    Wasn't impressed the first time ...

    ... but at least now we're clear on the lens through which you choose to view the world.

    Parent

    To regain power :) (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    Filthy activist courts :)

    I'm not bitter so much as its hard for me to care.

    Parent

    Really? Do you live in Travis County? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:15:35 AM EST


    Parent
    I love living in Austin and (none / 0) (#43)
    by kramartini on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    I often hear first-hand people who are delighted that Tom DeLay was railroaded on bogus charges.

    They hate him for ending the careers of so many Democrats by means of his mid-decade redistricting ploy and want to see him destroyed by any means necessary.


    Parent

    I've lived here for over 35 years, am active in (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:00:16 PM EST
    the community, and I've yet to hear anyone say they were "delighted that Tom DeLay was railroaded on bogus charges."

    In fact, most people I know and have discussed this case with (and that includes many, many Republicans) believe he was charged for legitimate reasons.  

    Whether or not he is guilty of this particular crime is up to the courts, as we're seeing now.  However, the end result does not change the fact that he is a despicable and evil person and represents the worst of what is wrong with politics today. I put him in the same group as Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.  

    Parent

    The Bug Man (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:38:01 PM EST
    Cockroach killer.....

    Parent
    But the people you refer to (none / 0) (#55)
    by kramartini on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    likely didn't put much effort into determining whether or not he was properly charged or convicted. They hated him and he seemed slimy and that was enough.

    I guess I should revise my comment to say that people were delighted to see DeLay convicted and were happy to remain blissfully ignorant of whether or not the charges made any sense. Even though he was not guilty as charged, his political career is over, and lots of people are happy about that, regardless of the underhanded methods used to destroy him.

    One look at the jury charge, and then at the relevant statute, shows that there was clear error in that it induced a jury to convict based on facts that do not constitute a crime.

    Of course, I do have an advantage, being an attorney who from time to time defends criminal cases in Travis County, and am accustomed to determining whether the prosecutor has a real case or is just blowing smoke, hoping for a conviction of a "bad person" even though the evidence does not exist for a particular case. (And there is a lot of the latter, even in Blue counties...) So maybe I am being too harsh on the laymen...

    Parent

    Oh, get off your high horse. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    You have no idea of the thought processes that others went through to come to a conclusion of his guilt.  I can assure you than neither I nor my friends and acquaintances who discussed this topic were "blissfully ignorant of whether or not the charges made any sense."  I think you have an extremely high opinion of yourself and an extremely low opinion of "laymen." Good grief.  

    Parent
    Then what were the facts that you (none / 0) (#61)
    by kramartini on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    and your friends concluded added up to "money laundering" as that is defined by Texas statute?

    Do you even have a coherent argument?

    Parent

    I wouldn't be so sure (none / 0) (#57)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    that Delay's political career is over. He may not run for elected office again, but that won't likely keep him from running a campaign, running a PAC, becoming a consultant, or becoming a pundit for FOX.

    The exterminator's political career has yet to be exterminated.

    Parent

    I think you are right (none / 0) (#59)
    by kramartini on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    about his future.

    He will no doubt be cashing in on his martyr statutes--plus he has big bills to pay.

    But he will never hold elected office again...

    Parent

    The fact that you're an attorney ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    ... really doesn't hold much sway around here ... lots of us are attorneys.

    The relevant part of your background is your political bias through which you form your opinion.  Everything else is merely rationalization.

    Parent

    Then, as an attorney, (none / 0) (#60)
    by kramartini on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 12:48:46 PM EST
    you should have taken the time to compare the jury charge with the statute and realized that the State had no valid case.

    It is not political bias to note that the Democrats are very mad at DeLay about the mid-decade redistricting.

    This is observation, not opinion, not bias.

    (Does it make me a partisan Democrat to observe that so-called "birthers", who seem to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, are so wild-eyed with hatred to recognize that, even if he were born in Kenya, his mother was still an American citizen, and so the point is moot?)

    Democrats in Texas, and Travis County especially, are in a collectively foul mood, and those of us who are not Democrats would be wise to keep our heads down...

    Parent

    I did (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    ... and, like the trial judge and the (only non-Republican) dissenting Justice, I reached a different conclusion than you.

    It is not political bias to note that the Democrats are very mad at DeLay about the mid-decade redistricting.

    This is observation, not opinion, not bias.

    Of course many of them are mad at DeLay - and they should be.  Of course that's not where you draw the lines on your comments.  You go much further than that to proclaim that:


    Blue counties in Texas are Full of bitter Democrats willing to abuse the criminal law to regain power...

    ... as well as your defense of the utterly baseless claim that:

    What's odd is that nobody is complaining about the clearly partisan action of the judge that was a Democrat, voting for party ahead of the law.

    See if you can tell the difference.

    BTW - You also suggested that the Democratic justice voted against DeLay for political reasons, simply because he is from a Democratic county.  Yet you said nothing about the two Justices voting in favor of DeLay, both of whom are Republicans from Republican counties.

    Funny how that works.

    Parent

    You make a fair point about the (none / 0) (#63)
    by kramartini on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    "regain power" bit. Strike and insert "punish a hated political enemy."

    As far as elections go, I was referring to the primaries, not the general elections. And the affinity of Republican voters in the Austin area for Tom DeLay is much, much less that the bitter hatred that Democrats here feel for him. (See former Justice Henson, another very well-respected attorney, who, during her 2006 campaign, gleefully rejoiced at the prospect of judging DeLay.) As far as the general election, Justice Goodwin may have committed political suicide with her opinion.

    But Chief Justice Jones is apparently not running for re-election, so I may have been off-base in my assessment of his motives.

    However, I am still struggling to explain the content of his dissent. I attended the oral arguments last October, and watched as he dominated the first part of the hearing searching for any way to hang DeLay. And what he came up with was embarrassingly full of holes. An opinion just too weak for someone of his stature.

    As for the trial judge, when he ruled that "soft" money and "hard" money were "fungible" he showed a complete ignorance of what the case was about. Everyone one in politics knows that "hard" and "soft" money cannot be co-mingled---had DeLay or anyone close to him done so, he would have earned his conviction...

    Parent

    I agree with kramartini (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 01:51:50 AM EST
    from a legal standpoint, the case  against DeLay was legally defective (And I base that on my review at the time I covered the case of the pleadings, statutes and case law.) I also think the charge was politically motivated. I may not care for Tom DeLay, but that is besides the point when examining a legal case.
     

    Parent
    I love Austin (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    There are many reasons to like Austin including its Progressive Politics....

    You have the Hill Country.   And the Driskill.   And Bevo.  And the live music scene.  Barbara Jordan airport, or terminal in the airport.  What more could you want!  

    Or that other Blue Island in Texas, El Paso.   If you like the desert, or Mexico, or the Old West, a striking place.  Home to Cormac McCarthy for a number of years. He said it was the furthest West you could go and still be in the South.  Great middle class city with the lowest homicide rate this side of Honolulu.  And now that it has its own T.V. show, The Bridge, it is getting a little publicity.

    Parent

    I love living in Austin too... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kramartini on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:37:20 PM EST
    just find the politics tiresome and silly...

    Parent
    Yes, I do. And I love it here. (none / 0) (#40)
    by kramartini on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:35:44 PM EST
    And I often hear first-hand people who are delighted that Tom DeLay was railroaded on bogus charges.

    They hate him for ending the careers of so many Democrats by means of his mid-decade redistricting ploy and want to see him destroyed by any means necessary.

    Parent

    That's four comments saying the same thing (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    Care to go for five?

    Parent
    Sorry. (none / 0) (#47)
    by kramartini on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:55:29 PM EST
    I have been having trouble getting the system to post my reply under the proper comment...

    Parent
    Tom Delay used to say, "I am the law" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by thereyougo on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    And it was believed that he had 'little man' syndrome. Such hubris angered people. He was sooo disliked. He is the kind that repel good people from serving in public office.

    He enjoyed it when people's knees to shook at the mention of his name and I'm sure there were plenty.

    DeGuerin said Delay would prevail because of the panel of 3 judges 2 were Republicans, and guess who they were? The dissenter was a Democrat. Despite the legal opinions expressed here, it came down to dirty politics. Texas politics you know?

    What I don't understand is how the rest managed to admit to the charges, confessed, paid their fines, and Delay being the head of the snake slithered away. However, I think the damage is done and now everyone knows Delay is damaged goods and his shelf life has expired. He'll be seen as another crook, thank Karl Rove and the Teabaggers for finishing what he started. GOP politics has changed, and thats the good news about all this.

    Sounds (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:56:05 PM EST
    like Delay followed the letter of the law and broke none. Its not like he set up campaign donations so foreign donors wouldn't be detected or properly rejected.

    Parent
    The Travis County DA made offers they couldn't (none / 0) (#22)
    by kramartini on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:42:14 PM EST
    refuse.

    All of the others got off with slaps on the wrist, so that took the deals.

    It is not unusual for people who didn't break the law to take a sweetheart deal and falsely admit guilt than risk a trial. They get closure and the DA gets a "win".


    Parent

    What Tom Delay ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    ... actually said was "I am the [federal] government!" It has been quoted with and without the "federal".

    Sadly, the idea was recently verbalized by Governer Cuomo of New York. That would be Andrew Cuomo, not Mario.

    Parent

    DeLay is guilty of bad dancing (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Payaso on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 05:38:02 AM EST
    I still have nightmares about his DWTS performance.

    Coffee on my keyboard! LOL (none / 0) (#54)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 07:43:03 AM EST


    Parent
    Thusfar you haven't made any (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kramartini on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 09:05:29 PM EST
    substantive comments about the case.

    Have you done any analysis of the case that would indicate that it should have come out differently?

    Would you care to share?

    I deleted the last comment by Yman (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 01:56:05 AM EST
    for calling you "Jim" and for bringing up your "history of comments here." Yman, stop the insults, and don't bring up anyone's past comments on other topics - you know that's not allowed. Either debate the matter civily or give it a rest.

    Parent
    What was "uncivil"? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 07:57:03 PM EST
    Kramartini expressed his opinion about this case citing his expertise as a lawyer in the county and the fact that he personally attended the oral argument, as though his opinion is more valid than the "laymen" that he was being "too harsh on".  He also  defended the claim that the Justice Jones was a partisan "voting for party ahead of the law", and claiming Jones did so because he was worried about being reelected.  He is accusing Justice Jones of clearly unethical (and possibly illegal) conduct, despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing to support this claim apart from the fact that he didn't reach the conclusion that Kramartini did, and Justice Jones is a Democrat from a Democratic area.  That is why I pointed out that Kramartini is a conservative, and that the exact same "logic" could just as easily be applied to the two Republican justices who are from Republican areas.  I did not reference or quote specific comments - merely pointed out that his comment history made his conservative, ideological bias very clear.  I also called him "Jim" because that is his name, although I certainly have no problem using his screen name if actual names are not allowed.

    As far as you sharing his opinion, I would expect no less given your consistent perspective as a defense attorney.  The problem I have is Kramartini's accusation against Justice Jones - accusing him of (at the very least) unethical behavior simply because he disagrees with his rationale and conclusions.

    Parent

    Dick didn't do the appeal... (none / 0) (#2)
    by bmaz on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    ...Brian Wice did. But Dick is one heck of a lawyer. And a great guy too.

    Dick made the arguments in the trial court (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 05:03:18 AM EST
    and preserved them for the appeal. He designed the road map. I'm friends with him and tried a 5 week drug trial in Houston federal court with him in the 90's, and I think the world of him. He is a great lawyer and a great person.  

    Parent
    Correct Decision (none / 0) (#9)
    by kramartini on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    Which I predicted on this site back in December 2010/January 2011 after reviewing the jury charge. (I was much abused at the time and accused of being a shill for the DeLay camp, with which I have no association.)

    The jury charge did not properly recite the law and was confusing to the jury.

    Thus, the only question was whether the case would be remanded for a new trial or there would be an acquittal for insufficient evidence. The Austin appeals court chose acquittal.

    What's odd (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:40:36 PM EST
    is that nobody is complaining about the clearly partisan action of the judge that was a Democrat, voting for party ahead of the law.

    Nobody's complaining about ... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:29:39 AM EST
    ... the Big Bad Wolf or the troll under the bridge, either.  Your conclusion that the judge made this decision for clearly partisan reasons is no less of a fairy tale.

    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    Phony scandals, where will it end?

    Parent
    You mean like Whitewater? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 06:37:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, you're complaining. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:47:24 PM EST
    You want to defend the odious likes of Tom DeLay, that's your business.

    Parent
    One need not like DeLay (none / 0) (#16)
    by kramartini on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:04:37 PM EST
    to note that a Democrat in Travis County would be in serious political trouble were he to rule in favor of DeLay.

    Thus Jones's weak dissent, arguing that even though all corporate funds were in fact properly segregated and were ultimately used for legal purposes. a jury could find that that the corporations INTENDED the funds to be used unlawfully. (Presumably, then, the corporations would be entitled to a refund due to TRMPAC's failure to spend the funds illegally...)

    Parent

    Judge Jones isn't running for reelection in 2014 (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Angel on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:41:22 PM EST
    so the insinuation that his personal politics were the basis for his dissent is ridiculous.  

    Parent
    So he wasn't motivated by re-election, (none / 0) (#21)
    by kramartini on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:35:37 PM EST
    but if his personal views didn't motivate his dissent, it is hard to see what was--hiss argument is just really, really lame for such a distinguished jurist.

    There is just no way that the facts alleged by the State add up to money laundering.

    I watched the oral arguments in person, and watched Jones struggle to find any rationale to justify affirming.

    The best he could come up with was that, even though all corporate donations were in fact used for lawful purposes, a jury might have found that the corporate donors INTENDED for them to be used illegally (but had their intent somehow thwarted.)

    A strange end to a sad case.

    Parent

    The judge (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:04:58 PM EST
    simply used the same rationale cops use against, primarily A.A's, every day of the year. You know, "well, maybe he didn't commit "this" crime, but what about all the crimes we know he committed but just couldn't find the evidence to convict?"

    Parent
    I think you are right... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kramartini on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:50:48 PM EST
    which is sad for such a widely respected judge...

    Parent
    What was the political affiliation (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:43:16 AM EST
    of the other judges on the panel?

    Parent
    Jones's position was unsurprising (none / 0) (#15)
    by kramartini on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:59:37 PM EST
    I attended the oral arguments for this case, and was not surprised by Chief Justice Jones's dissenting position. He was looking for any way possible to avoid acquitting DeLay. After all, he has to face Travis County Democratic Party primary voters...

    His argument is that, even though all corporate contributions to TRMPAC were placed in a segregated account to be used only for purposes for which it is lawful to expend corporate donations, a jury could credibly find that the corporations INTENDED that the money be used for illegal purposes, notwithstanding the fact that the funds were in fact were ultimately used for lawful purposes,  and the appeals court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury.)  

    It is also not surprising that the other two ruled as they did, as they made a more effective argument for DeLay than his lawyer did. (His lawyer focused on the technical issue of checks vs cash whereas Justices Goodwin and Gaultney focused on the substance of the evidence showing that DeLay followed the law to the letter.)

    Parent

    Delay Took a Victory Lap in the House (none / 0) (#36)
    by thereyougo on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    What a show boater.

    I mean, really this guy screams for attention.

    Look at me, look at me! I won, I won.  Who cares?

    Inside the Beltway he's be kryptonite.  The GOP is circling the drain one Ted Cruz at a time.

    Half the GOP seems to have been (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 02:44:14 PM EST
    semi-permanently demoralized by the fact that the moon didn't turn blood red and the sun become as dark as a sack cloth on 1/1/00..  

    Parent
    The outrage should be that there (none / 0) (#68)
    by Visteo1 on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    is not a strong ongoing effort at campaign finance reform.  

    Is it not possible to pass legislation that will pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court to limit corporate and individual influence in elections?

    Apparently not with this Supreme Court (none / 0) (#69)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    When Scalia finally melts inside his robe from being doused with water, perhaps. Until then, the Citizens United decision seems to have made this court's intentions very clear.

    Parent
    "Congress shall make no law (none / 0) (#73)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:29:05 AM EST
    respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    When I read the 1st amendment, I see no guarantee of anonymity.  This is not a right guaranteed to foreigners or foreign corporations.  I see plenty of opportunity, without a new amendment, to bring transparency to anonomous non-profits operating out of post office boxes with no accountability for their "free speech".

    The people of Michigan were not fooled by a billionaire's ad campaign to hold on to his monopoly during the 2012 election.  Bringing into the light whose voices are speaking should be easy legislation.  People can decide what weight to give to someone's "free speech" when we know who that someone is.

    Am I wrong?

    Parent

    Tom DeLay's Conviction Overturned | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment