Fuck Tom DeLay and Corrupt Texan "Justice"

[elucidator]

@Bricker

What awful news for the authors of Texas Penal Code § 34.02(a). The poor dears thought they were specifically defining the crime of money laundering.

What were they thinking, not consulting you?

The question of whether or not any actual thinking ever occurs in the sacred halls of the Texas Leg has never been entirely satisfied.

I take it, then, that you fully approve and condone Tom DeLay, a splendid example of the Republican Party that you fully endorse? In the absence of any effort to denounce, renounce, and condemn? Then this must be a proud day for you, it would be surly of me to deny you this happy moment.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

The question of whether or not any actual thinking ever occurs in the sacred halls of the Texas Leg has never been entirely satisfied.

I take it, then, that you fully approve and condone Tom DeLay, a splendid example of the Republican Party that you fully endorse? In the absence of any effort to denounce, renounce, and condemn? Then this must be a proud day for you, it would be surly of me to deny you this happy moment.

My only comment about Tom DeLay is: on evidence adduced so far, he’s not a criminal.

That doesn’t mean I want to take a vacation to Fire Island with him.

[Darth_Panda]

@elucidator

I take it, then, that you fully approve and condone Tom DeLay, a splendid example of the Republican Party that you fully endorse? In the absence of any effort to denounce, renounce, and condemn? Then this must be a proud day for you, it would be surly of me to deny you this happy moment.

The benefit of the fair application of the law is for everybody, scum bags like DeLay included.

[elucidator]

I have no interest in seeing the “Hon.” Mr DeLay convicted or imprisoned. I do have an interest in exposing the rotten heart of Texas Republican politics, as it wages a desperate rear-guard action to forestall the inevitable.

Truth be told, there isn’t anything particularly unusual about these maneuvers. merely Texas Republicans giving the people the business, as usual.

[Loach]

@Darth_Panda

The benefit of the fair application of the law is for everybody, scum bags like DeLay included.

So was anyone else convicted the same way and didn’t get their convictions overturned?

[eschereal]

@elucidator

I have no interest in seeing the “Hon.” Mr DeLay convicted or imprisoned. I do have an interest in exposing the rotten heart of Texas Republican politics, as it wages a desperate rear-guard action to forestall the inevitable.

@Bricker

That doesn’t mean I want to take a vacation to Fire Island with him.

In a thread on the subject of fucking Tom Delay, these two post fragments seem to go together (given what we have learned about Republican propensities).

[Werekoala]

But…but… REPUBLICAN - T3H EBBUHL!!

[kaylasdad99]

@elucidator

Change is coming to Texas, with tidal slowness and tidal certainty. Texas is the citadel of fanatic reactionary capitalism, where money talks and you listen. But the sappers are at work, the walls are undermined, and one day…not tomorrow, not soon, but one day…the Republicans will run out of creative ways to prevent the inevitable.

As a recovering Texan who both loves and despises his native state, I already bought my dancing shoes.

I raise my glass to you in a desire that you’re still capable of using them when that happy day arrives.

[Bridget_Burke]

From Houston’s CBS affiliate.…

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says he thanks God for his acquittal on money laundering charges, calling the prosecution, “an outrageous criminalization of politics.”

Lunching in the Capitol with other Texas Republicans Thursday, DeLay said he was on his knees praying with prominent religious conservatives on Capitol Hill when his lawyer called with the news that a Texas appeals court had overturned his conviction. DeLay told reporters that he never felt burdened by the case, even though he says it cost him millions of dollars

I didn’t know the House salary was so good–he must have scrimped & saved to have those millions of dollars on hand…

[BigT]

@Terr

If a jury convicts someone against the law, the conviction is invalid. Do you have a problem with that?

Well, yes. If it’s so clear cut that the law was not violated, a jury should not have been allowed to decide in the first place. And if it is not so clear cut, then the jury should be the one to decide if all the criteria are met. That’s what juries do. If the jury made a mistake, then it should be at most thrown back to another jury.

The grounds they give are so fucking basic that a competent judge should have figured it out. Either the judge did a horrible job, or there is some kind of cronyism going on. While I can believe the former, the OP assumes the latter. And, in the OP’s favor, Texas politics do seem to have a history of said behavior.

[Terr]

@BigT

Well, yes. If it’s so clear cut that the law was not violated, a jury should not have been allowed to decide in the first place. And if it is not so clear cut, then the jury should be the one to decide if all the criteria are met. That’s what juries do. If the jury made a mistake, then it should be at most thrown back to another jury.

There are two kinds of questions/matters decided at a trial. One is a “question of fact”. That is decided by the jury. The other is “question of law”. That is decided by the judge. The jury does not get to decide “questions of law”. It’s not their purview. So, no, the jury didn’t make the mistake. They decided matters of fact, and I don’t think their decision was disputed in the appeal. Thus there is no reason to “throw it back to another jury”.

But the question of law was wrongly decided by the judge. It’s his decision that is overturned by the appeals court. And once the appeals court decides, it is kinda pointless to “throw it back” to another judge on the same level, since the decision has already been made in the matter by a higher court than the judge.

The grounds they give are so fucking basic that a competent judge should have figured it out.

Sometimes questions of law are not that simple and judges make mistakes. In fact, I would think most successful appeals are based on pointing out judge’s mistakes.

[adaher]

The lesson I got from this when it first became an issue was that the real outrage is often what’s legal. Tom Delay said that it was “criminalizing politics”, politics being using all available means to get around duly passed laws. Something which politicians do every day, even and especially with laws they pass to govern themselves! The oath they take means nothing to them.

[Trinopus]

@BigT

Well, yes. If it’s so clear cut that the law was not violated, a jury should not have been allowed to decide in the first place. . . .

This! Hasn’t anyone in Texas heard of pre-trial motions?

I lean toward the OP’s explanation: somebody got the fix in.

[Shodan]

@BigT

If the jury made a mistake, then it should be at most thrown back to another jury.

Have you ever heard of the concept of “double jeopardy”? Hint: it is not just on game shows.

Regards,
Shodan

[Northern_Piper]

@Bricker

No, because that inference is not the only reasonable one to be made. All the testimony from the corporate contributors showed that they intended for their donations to be used lawfully. Once in the TRMPAC, the contributions could be sent out of state or used for any legal purpose. To prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence must eliminate all reasonable scenarios except that of guilt. Even if the jury thought that such an interpretation might be correct, or probably was correct, they had no evidence that would have allowed them to eliminate other reasonable inferences. And, obviously, criminal statutes must be read strictly against the state, and leniently against the accused.

I’m having a bit of trouble following this, Bricker, because it seems to turn on credibility. Yes, in the abstract, there may have been other reasonable inferences to be drawn. But what if the jury, composed of 12 good and true [del]Elucidators[/del] Texans unanimously concluded: “As a matter of credibility, we think those corporate donors were all lying. They were in the scheme with DeLay. They meant to circumvent the law” If so, then it becomes possible for the jury to conclude that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme: a finding of adverse credibility, which is solely the purview of the jury, is sufficient to eliminate the other inferences, no?

(That of course still leaves the question of whether such a scheme to circumvent the elections code could be a conspiracy for the purposes of the penal code, which I agree is a question of law.)

[kayT]

@BigT

<snip>And, in the OP’s favor, Texas politics do seem to have a history of said behavior.

Yeah, because Texas is the only state in the Union where politics are corrupt.

I do live in Texas now but trust me I am not a Texan nor am I defending Texas. But I did grow up in Illinois and lived in Georgia and California so my experiences of corrupt politics are wide and varied. Texans are not even the best at it (see Illinois). So it seems a bit naive to keep on pounding away on the “lousy Texas” theme here. Anyone who can nominate a state without cronyism is free to chime in.

[Bridget_Burke]

In 2008, the very rich Robert Durst was triedfor the murder of a neighbor. He admitted there was an altercation & the other guy’s gun went off–killing him. Since Durst had already dealt with the Galveston police for fighting with the old guy, he didn’t call 911. He dismembered the body, put the parts in garbage bags & threw them into Galveston Bay. Alas, the tide brought identifiable bits back…

Law & Order based an episode on this case–without the funky Galveston setting. But the show made the reason for the killing the deceased’s discovery that the killer was actually a man; Durst occasionally dressed like a woman but was hardly a nice, normal transvestite or transsexual. In the show, a slick lawyer got the killer off but he was caught because he’d killed his wife, years before. Durst’s wife had indeed threatened to divorce him & then disappeared; there are many suspicions but he’s still a free man. (Did I say he is* really* rich?)

Dick DeGuerin led the legal team that got Durst off; he also lead DeLay’s team in the original trial. How odd that such a slam dunk defense was missed by a fine legal mind…

Some legal details here. There will be an appeal but I’m not holding my breath. From The Houston Chronicle:

Two co-defendants in the case pleaded guilty and paid fines. John Colyandro, who ran Texans for a Republican Majority, pleaded guilty in 2012 to a misdemeanor charge of accepting illegal political contributions and received deferred adjudication, which means there will be no final conviction if he completes probation. He also was fined $8,000.

Jim Ellis, a DeLay staff member, pleaded guilty to a felony charge of making an illegal campaign contribution. He received four years’ probation and a $10,000 fine.

Their efforts helped produce a Republican majority in the Texas House, paving the way for a controversial mid-decade redistricting that helped win more congressional seats for the Republican Party from Texas.

Former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, who lost his office due to the redistricting plan, reacted with disappointment. “When people don’t follow the rules, there needs to be some kind of recourse. There are any number of instances in which DeLay didn’t follow the rules with regard to the politics of our country,” said Lampson, who ended up winning the seat left open by DeLay’s resignation in 2006. He was defeated two years later.

“He brought significant change in the politics of our state and our country that has brought us to greater polarization and a crisis period with our Congress,” said Lampson.

In jail or not, he’s still a scumbag…

[Northern_Piper]

@For You

By the way, I like the part where they say that conspiring to violate election code was not a crime in '02. They say he committed no crime, and conspiring to commit that non-crime was not a crime. Sounds like piling on the excuses to me.

That is the way an appellate court normally works. It’s called considering all alternative arguments, not piling on.

As I understand it, Mr DeLay in his appeal raised two arguments: that he didn’t breach the elections code by the way the money was moved around, and in any event, even if he did, it wasn’t the crime of conspiracy because breaches of the election code could not be a conspiracy for the purposes of the penal code.

Since Mr DeLay raised those two arguments, the Court had to deal with both of them. They concluded that he was right on both points: that the transactions didn’t breach the elections code, and in any event, even if he had, that offence wasn’t covered under the criminal law of conspiracy, so he could not be guilty of conspiracy.

Now, I suppose they might have said that in light of their finding on the transactions, they didn’t need to consider the conspiracy argument. That might be an approach of judicial restraint, not deciding legal issues that may not need to be decided.

But, for an intermediate appeals court, in a major case that is likely to go higher, it can be prudent to deal with all issues raised by the appellant, so that the final appeals court has the benefit of the intermediate court’s conclusions on the issue.

As well, it is the function of the appellate courts to clarify the law in cases of ambiguity. They may have felt it was appropriate to deal with the conspiracy issue to clarify exactly what the law on that point was.

[Northern_Piper]

[QUOTE=BigT]

Well, yes. If it’s so clear cut that the law was not violated, a jury should not have been allowed to decide in the first place. And if it is not so clear cut, then the jury should be the one to decide if all the criteria are met. That’s what juries do. If the jury made a mistake, then it should be at most thrown back to another jury.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not the jury who made a mistake, but the trial judge, in giving instructions to the jury on the law. It’s the role of the appellate courts to correct legal errors made by the judge. In this case, the appellate court has concluded that as a matter of law, Mr DeLay had not committed an offence. Even if it wasn’t double jeopardy, sending it back for a re-trial would be pointless, because the new trial judge would have to instruct the new jury in accordance with the appellate court’s rulings on the law, resulting in an acquittal for Mr DeLay.

That’s why the appellate court entered an acquittal.

[Bricker]

@Northern_Piper

I’m having a bit of trouble following this, Bricker, because it seems to turn on credibility. Yes, in the abstract, there may have been other reasonable inferences to be drawn. But what if the jury, composed of 12 good and true [del]Elucidators[/del] Texans unanimously concluded: “As a matter of credibility, we think those corporate donors were all lying. They were in the scheme with DeLay. They meant to circumvent the law” If so, then it becomes possible for the jury to conclude that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme: a finding of adverse credibility, which is solely the purview of the jury, is sufficient to eliminate the other inferences, no?

No.

Disbelief of testimony is not proof of facts of an opposite nature or tendency. See, e.g., U.S. v. Fountain, 993 F.2d 1136 (1993). (“We have concluded that, while Fountain’s evidence may be disbelieved, it contained nothing which, through disbelief, could be converted to positive proof…”) See also Footnote 127, Olin Guy Wellborn, Demeanor 76 Cornell L.Rev. 1075, for “hundreds of cases” confirming the general rule that disbelief of testimony is not affirmative evidence of defendant’s guilt. “A good sample of cases may be found in West’s American Digest System, mainly under Evidence Key Number 588.”

The jury must be able to point to facts on the record which they believed and which serve as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They cannot rest a finding of guilt on mere disbelief of witnesses.