# Fuck Tom DeLay and Corrupt Texan "Justice" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 19, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237 "2013-09-19T16:05:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/101 "2013-09-20T22:08:19Z")
OK, time for law school (minus) 101: when is a plan by two or more persons to commit a crime not a conspiracy? Something is missing, here. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/102 "2013-09-20T22:13:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, no – far from it. If contributors were told that their contributions would go directly to candidates, in a way that left no room for other reasonable inferences to be drawn, then that would be sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew their donations would go to candidates. > > Of course, you still have the problem of the conspiracy to perform that action not being against the law in 2002. Ok. So your position is that knowing that the solicitation material suggested their donations would go to candidates is insufficient because there’s a reasonable possibility that they understood that generic solicitation to not apply to them. Yes? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/103 "2013-09-20T22:26:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If contributors were told that their contributions would go directly to candidates, in a way that left no room for other reasonable inferences to be drawn. There are no other reasonable inferences to be drawn. Get real. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/104 "2013-09-20T23:05:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OK, time for law school (minus) 101: when is a plan by two or more persons to commit a crime not a conspiracy? Something is missing, here. Whenever the definition of conspiracy contained within the state’s statute does not apply to the crime in question, whether by intent or by oversight. eta: to state it in the reverse, and more accurately in reality, nothing is a crime unless it’s defined as a crime, and then only to the extent which it is defined as a crime. So, if the crime of conspiracy doesn’t exist in a jurisdiction, then conspiracy is not a crime. Likewise, if there is a crime called conspiracy but it’s written in such a way that only conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, then only conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, and conspiracy to commit theft would not be. And, if for some reason, the conspiracy statute incorporated everything in one criminal code, but forgot to include crime sin some other code, then conspiracy to commit those acts would not a be a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/105 "2013-09-21T00:46:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Ok. So your position is that knowing that the solicitation material suggested their donations would go to candidates is insufficient because there’s a reasonable possibility that they understood that generic solicitation to not apply to them. Yes? Yes. The same generic pamphlets were used for corporate and for individual solicitations. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/106 "2013-09-21T00:48:51Z")
> [@](#): > > …eta: to state it in the reverse, and more accurately in reality, … then conspiracy to commit those acts would not a be a crime. That is too many for me, I fold. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/107 "2013-09-21T00:50:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. The same generic pamphlets were used for corporate and for individual solicitations. It’s not clear to me why you think that fact is helpful, but perhaps I’ll sleep on it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/108 "2013-09-21T00:57:04Z")
I suppose that now that corporations are people, we should expect them to become sentient and existentially aware. I grasp, therefore I am… ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/109 "2013-09-21T06:15:16Z")
If corporations are people, are we allowed to use capital punishment on them? After all, this is Texas… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/110 "2013-09-21T08:50:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It’s not clear to me why you think that fact is helpful, but perhaps I’ll sleep on it. Because it highlights the existence of an alternate explanation, one not consistent with guilt. And the prosecution’s evidence must eliminate all reasonable explanations except those consistent with guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/111 "2013-09-21T08:55:14Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > If corporations are people, are we allowed to use capital punishment on them? > > After all, this is Texas… Hilarious. Now you want capital punishment for election law actions that aren’t even a crime. That seems brutal, even for a Stalin-type leftist. What happened to your answer to this post? > [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you say it was missed? It wasn’t missed. It was a key element at trial. During deliberations, the jury TWICE asked the judge for guidance on the effect of the money not having illegal origins; both times, the defense argued the jury should be explicitly instructed that it was necessary for the money to be illegal. The prosecutor objected, and both times, the judge refused to do anything but point the jury at his original charge. > > So when you say the slam-dunk defense was missed by a fine legal mind, to what, specifically, are you referring? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/112 "2013-09-21T11:39:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because it highlights the existence of an alternate explanation, one not consistent with guilt. And the prosecution’s evidence must eliminate all reasonable explanations except those consistent with guilt. I understand the conclusion you draw from it. I don’t see why you think it supports that conclusion. What alternate explanation is it highlighting? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/113 "2013-09-21T12:40:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hilarious. Now you want capital punishment for election law actions that aren’t even a crime. That seems brutal, even for a Stalin-type leftist. > > What happened to your answer to this post? This is the Pit, not a courtroom. You aren’t in charge here. I make a play on words & now I’m a Stalinist… ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/114 "2013-09-21T12:55:42Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I understand the conclusion you draw from it. I don’t see why you think it supports that conclusion. What alternate explanation is it highlighting? That, because the pamphlets were given to individuals, the corporate folks who read them assumed they were intended specifically for individuals and that corporations would be governed by a different set of rules than those offered in the pamphlet. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/115 "2013-09-21T13:02:53Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I understand the conclusion you draw from it. I don’t see why you think it supports that conclusion. What alternate explanation is it highlighting? That the corporate contributors were aware the words about contributions going to candidates were directed at individual donors. That’s a perfectly reasonable explanation. The state’s evidence needed to eliminate it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/116 "2013-09-21T13:06:01Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > This is the Pit, not a courtroom. You aren’t in charge here. > > I make a play on words & now I’m a Stalinist… Forget the “play” on “words,” if that’s what it really was. Stalin was a leftist, you’re a leftist, so I was just making a “play” on “words” myself, come to think of it! How about the “slam-dunk defense” comment? Or is this the Pit, so you’re allowed to say whatever you please without challenge or contradiction? Because I think you have misread the concept of the Pit. If you make a stupid statement, the Pit affords me an even wider range of responses than GD would. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/117 "2013-09-21T15:51:32Z")
“Stalinist”? **Bricker** , either more coffee or less. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/118 "2013-09-21T15:54:26Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > That, because the pamphlets were given to individuals, the corporate folks who read them assumed they were intended specifically for individuals and that corporations would be governed by a different set of rules than those offered in the pamphlet. That’s \*reasonable \*in your world? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/119 "2013-09-21T15:59:58Z")
Couldn’t they, like…oh, I don’t know, pick up the phone? There, on the desk? They have people for that sort of thing, don’t they? Called “lawyers”, IIRC. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237.md?page=5)