• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Tom DeLay likely to get off of criminal charges

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,429
5,505
126
link

if the legislature decided that funds, for that particular statute was defined as cash, silver certificates, treasury notes, fed notes, and foreign bank notes and drafts, well, none of those are regular personal checks.

the current statute, effective sept. 2005, includes

(D) currency or its equivalent, including an
electronic fund, personal check, bank check, traveler's check,
money order, bearer negotiable instrument, bearer investment
security, bearer security, or certificate of stock in a form that
allows title to pass on delivery.
my book still has the old version of the statute (pocket part contains the update).

the statute reads:
(2) "Funds" includes:
(A) coin or paper money of the United States or
any other country that is designated as legal tender and that
circulates and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of
exchange in the country of issue;
(B) United States silver certificates, United
States Treasury notes, and Federal Reserve System notes;
(C) an official foreign bank note that is
customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in a foreign
country and a foreign bank draft.
so the question turns on whether the word 'includes' means 'includes and is limited to' or 'includes but is not limited to.' i would say in normal usage and even in my contract drafting class it is the latter, rather than the former. but i guess in austin it's now the former.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,429
5,505
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Only in Texas does cash not include checks until the mid 2000 decade.
where in the world is 'cash' checks? you don't go to a check cashing place to get another check, do you? no one says 'we accept cash, ____, and credit cards,' when they accept checks as well.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
In the end, I think Delay is politically dead. The current GOP leadership under their current minority leader has grudges against Delay, the likely majority house democrats love to demonize him, and both will gang up against him to make sure he never runs for elective office again. He may or may not escape jail, he may have a future as a lobbyist, but he is also radioactive, get caught cozening up to Delay and you die.

And worse yet, a democratic justice department could well come up with new charges that will send Delay to jail for life.

Pay back is a bitch.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Delay left office already lemon and I doubt he wants to go back.

He left office after he was forced from his leadership position and decided that being just another member of the house was not what he wanted to do.

BTW some of us have been saying for a long time that this would turn out this way. This whole case was a political hit job by a Democrat trying to remove Delay from the picture.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
if he goes back to his work before politics he can still hang with cockroaches
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,327
783
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
In the end, I think Delay is politically dead. The current GOP leadership under their current minority leader has grudges against Delay, the likely majority house democrats love to demonize him, and both will gang up against him to make sure he never runs for elective office again. He may or may not escape jail, he may have a future as a lobbyist, but he is also radioactive, get caught cozening up to Delay and you die.

And worse yet, a democratic justice department could well come up with new charges that will send Delay to jail for life.

Pay back is a bitch.
He allegedly broke STATE campaign finance laws not FEDERAL.

Delay has been dead politically since he was indicted. Even he was aquitted fully(not just on technicalities), Delay would still be dead politically. He has very few friends left in the House of Reps.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW some of us have been saying for a long time that this would turn out this way. This whole case was a political hit job by a Democrat trying to remove Delay from the picture.
As PJ turns release on a technicality into total exoneration.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,636
23,757
136
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW some of us have been saying for a long time that this would turn out this way. This whole case was a political hit job by a Democrat trying to remove Delay from the picture.
As PJ turns release on a technicality into total exoneration.
Wow that's rich Pro-Jo. Did you even read the article? For you to claim that he was innocent all along is a pretty pathetic stretch even by your standards.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW some of us have been saying for a long time that this would turn out this way. This whole case was a political hit job by a Democrat trying to remove Delay from the picture.
As PJ turns release on a technicality into total exoneration.
That is not a technicality.

A technicality would be them having to let him off because of prosecutor misconduct.

He will most likely get off because the law they are trying to prosecute him on did not apply when he did the supposed crime.

Like it or not Delay and company knew the law and knew what they were doing when they came up with a creative way to get around the law. To allow the government to prosecute for a crime he did not commit would be a travesty of justice.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW some of us have been saying for a long time that this would turn out this way. This whole case was a political hit job by a Democrat trying to remove Delay from the picture.
As PJ turns release on a technicality into total exoneration.
Wow that's rich Pro-Jo. Did you even read the article? For you to claim that he was innocent all along is a pretty pathetic stretch even by your standards.
Really now??

From a October 12 2006 thread about Harry Ried
Delay did not personally profit from what he did in the campaign funding "scandal" and from what I have read the things he did were legal. There was a law and he found a loop hole and drove a truck full of money through it. However, no one personally profited from it and no kids were left starving or anything like that.
I would post a link, but it won't let me.

Do advance search for "tom delay' in the P&N forum and with 'profjohn' as author and you can find it for yourself.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Don't think it matters much. Doubt he has much of a chance to get back into politics even without a conviction.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW some of us have been saying for a long time that this would turn out this way. This whole case was a political hit job by a Democrat trying to remove Delay from the picture.
As PJ turns release on a technicality into total exoneration.
Wow that's rich Pro-Jo. Did you even read the article? For you to claim that he was innocent all along is a pretty pathetic stretch even by your standards.
Really now??

From a October 12 2006 thread about Harry Ried
Delay did not personally profit from what he did in the campaign funding "scandal" and from what I have read the things he did were legal. There was a law and he found a loop hole and drove a truck full of money through it. However, no one personally profited from it and no kids were left starving or anything like that.
I would post a link, but it won't let me.

Do advance search for "tom delay' in the P&N forum and with 'profjohn' as author and you can find it for yourself.
The fact that you held that belief all along doesn't really make it more true.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
The fact that you held that belief all along doesn't really make it more true.
Correct, but if it does turn out to be true it means I have been right all along :p
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is not a technicality.
A technicality would be them having to let him off because of prosecutor misconduct.
He will most likely get off because the law they are trying to prosecute him on did not apply when he did the supposed crime.
Like it or not Delay and company knew the law and knew what they were doing when they came up with a creative way to get around the law. To allow the government to prosecute for a crime he did not commit would be a travesty of justice.
Apparently the difference between "exoneration" and "getting off on a technicality" is one of political orientation. Like the great Republican/Faux News hero, Ollie North.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: ElFenix
-snip-
so the question turns on whether the word 'includes' means 'includes and is limited to' or 'includes but is not limited to.' i would say in normal usage and even in my contract drafting class it is the latter, rather than the former. but i guess in austin it's now the former.
If this area was tax law, they'd have a hard time claiming it was the latter. They failed to include any subsection (D) as a catch-all.

I'm not familiar with the law itself, but in general it's a bit absurd to think of a bank check in terms of criminal money laundering. One of the purposes of money laundering is to hide the money trail, you'd have to be an idiot to use a bank check. In fact, strikes me a great defense against criminal money laundering is USING a check. How can anyone claim you tried to hide it?

I'm guessing this *money laundering* statute is unique and pertains only to campaign contribution laws?

Fern
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,429
5,505
126
Originally posted by: Fern
If this area was tax law, they'd have a hard time claiming it was the latter. They failed to include any subsection (D) as a catch-all.

I'm not familiar with the law itself, but in general it's a bit absurd to think of a bank check in terms of criminal money laundering. One of the purposes of money laundering is to hide the money trail, you'd have to be an idiot to use a bank check. In fact, strikes me a great defense against criminal money laundering is USING a check. How can anyone claim you tried to hide it?

I'm guessing this *money laundering* statute is unique and pertains only to campaign contribution laws?

Fern
no, it's chapter 34 of the texas penal code.. it applies to all criminal activity.

actually, iirc, criminal law statutes are to be considered strictly and narrowly (not a criminal law practitioner, mostly). so, yeah, that they failed to include (D) before 2005 would lead to the austin court's decision.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY