Tom Delay is still Innocent

[JohnRich 4]

News:

DeLay Wins Round in Texas Court

Texas (AP) - The state's highest criminal court on Wednesday refused to reinstate a dropped conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 5-4 against reinstating a count of conspiracy to violate the state's election code.

Two charges—money laundering and conspiring to launder money—remain against the former congressman. He resigned last year amid allegations that he violated campaign finance laws...

Source: Breitbart.com

Tom Delay, despite the angry accusations of many democrats, has still yet to be found guilty of any crime.

North Carolina district attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for unethical practices in the Duke rape case. I wonder when the same will happen to Ronny Earl?

[livendive 8]

I don't recall ever accusing him of being anything other than a fucktard.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

North Carolina district attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for unethical practices in the Duke rape case. I wonder when the same will happen to Ronny Earl?

I was wondering the same thing. Charging someone for breaking a law, before is was a law, is absurd.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Jose Padilla, despite the angry accusations of many Republicans, has still yet to be found guilty of any crime.

Funny old world, isn't it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

North Carolina district attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for unethical practices in the Duke rape case. I wonder when the same will happen to Ronny Earl?

I was wondering the same thing. Charging someone for breaking a law, before is was a law, is absurd.

Some laws can be retroactive I believe.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

A state district judge threw out that charge in December 2005 after defense lawyers argued that the law DeLay was accused of violating didn't take effect until 2003. A regional appeals court upheld the judge's decision.

[joedirt 0]

Quote

Some laws can be retroactive I believe.

Seriously?

[mnealtx 0]

Yup.... ex post facto applies primarily to criminal offenses, not civil ones. There have, of course, been exceptions.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[joedirt 0]

What's with the legal sytsem and all the damn latin? Can you explain that any better while I get my alias's in order? Can I be tried for a crime that wasn't a crime when I did it?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What's with the legal sytsem and all the damn latin? Can you explain that any better while I get my alias's in order? Can I be tried for a crime that wasn't a crime when I did it?

It means (roughly) "after the fact" and yes, you can, depending on the law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

What's with the legal sytsem and all the damn latin? Can you explain that any better while I get my alias's in order? Can I be tried for a crime that wasn't a crime when I did it?

It means (roughly) "after the fact" and yes, you can, depending on the law.

I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What's with the legal sytsem and all the damn latin? Can you explain that any better while I get my alias's in order? Can I be tried for a crime that wasn't a crime when I did it?

It means (roughly) "after the fact" and yes, you can, depending on the law.

I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

I didn't say it was an exact quote...

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act allows the AG to apply the law retroactively... offenders sentenced before the act went into effect are forced to comply with the act or face punishment - a clear case of an ex post facto law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Tom Delay, despite the angry accusations of many democrats, has still yet to be found guilty of any crime.

So in a court of law he is "presumed" innocent. But in the court of public opinion, we are free to think and choose what we want.

Quote

North Carolina district attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for unethical practices in the Duke rape case.

From a criminal standpoint, he's also "innocent." He has not been alleged to have committed a criminal offense. He was just unethical. Apples and oranges.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What's with the legal sytsem and all the damn latin? Can you explain that any better while I get my alias's in order? Can I be tried for a crime that wasn't a crime when I did it?

It means (roughly) "after the fact" and yes, you can, depending on the law.

I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

The Constitution prohibits it: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.". But in some cases, the government is doing it anyway. For example, the prohibition against gun ownership for domestic violence offenses. The law was passed about 10 years ago, but they made it retroactive. So, even if you slapped a former wife 20 years ago when you were young and dumb, they still came and got your guns now that you are older and wiser. And they do this even though that wasn't even law at the time you did it, and wasn't even part of the consideration in your court proceedings. Nice, eh?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So in a court of law he is "presumed" innocent. But in the court of public opinion, we are free to think and choose what we want.

Yes. Isn't it interesting that 40% of the people who voted in the poll consider him guilty, despite the fact that no court has convicted him of anything?

That's a lot of people that don't seem to believe in the presumption of innocence, and don't have the patience to actually withhold judgement until the facts are heard in court.

I even gave everyone an easy "out" with that third choice, but 40% are jumping to blame anyway. That's a sizable lynch mob...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What's with the legal sytsem and all the damn latin? Can you explain that any better while I get my alias's in order? Can I be tried for a crime that wasn't a crime when I did it?

It means (roughly) "after the fact" and yes, you can, depending on the law.

I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

The Constitution prohibits it. But in some cases, the government is doing it anyway. For example, the prohibition against gun ownership for domestic violence offenses. The law was passed about 10 years ago, but they made it retroactive, so that even if you slapped a former wife 20 years ago, they still came and got your guns. Even though that wasn't law at the time you did it. Nice, eh?

Yup...didn't say it was right...just that there ARE instances where it happens.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

I don't have the patience to withhold judgment until a court verdict. As I stated, the Court of public opinion can fry someone without a problem. It's what public opinion is. There has been no adjudication that Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury. He was, however, found liable and sanctioned a hefty sum for lying under oath.

I do NOT have a problem with public opinion, because public opinion cannot confine a guy in jail for life. The reason for the "beyond a reaosnable doubt" is that people better be damned sure before a government takes freedom.

The court of law and court of public opinion should be separated and viewed distinct.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

So in a court of law he is "presumed" innocent. But in the court of public opinion, we are free to think and choose what we want.

Yes. Isn't it interesting that 40% of the people who voted in the poll consider him guilty, despite the fact that no court has convicted him of anything?

That's a lot of people that don't seem to believe in the presumption of innocence, and don't have the patience to actually withhold judgement until the facts are heard in court.

I even gave everyone an easy "out" with that third choice, but 40% are jumping to blame anyway. That's a sizable lynch mob...

OTOH Scooter Libby HAS been found guilty of a crime by a court, and there are people crying for his release.

Funny old world, isn't it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Scooter Libby HAS been found guilty of a crime by a court, and there are people crying for his release.

Scooter Libby and Mumia Abu-Jamal have something in common - convictions for crimes and people calling for their freedom.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnRich 4]

Update:

GOP's DeLay relieved and defiant after Justice ends six-year investigation

"Former House GOP Leader Tom DeLay was both relieved and defiant Monday after federal investigators ended a five-year probe into his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff..."

Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/114525-gops-delay-relieved-and-defiant-after-justice-ends-six-year-investigation

It only took five years to figure out that he hadn't really done anything wrong, and to drop the case. Not to worry though, their false charges of corruption achieved their goal of bringing down a head of the GOP. So it's all good!

[billvon 3,114]

>It only took five years to figure out that he hadn't really done anything
>wrong, and to drop the case.

Hmm. Sorta like Clinton's impeachment, then.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>It only took five years to figure out that he hadn't really done anything
>wrong, and to drop the case.

Hmm. Sorta like Clinton's impeachment, then.

you mean other than the 90,000 fine Clinton paid, or the 5 year suspension of his law license, or the 850,000 he paid to Paula Jones?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

>It only took five years to figure out that he hadn't really done anything
>wrong, and to drop the case.

Hmm. Sorta like Clinton's impeachment, then.

you mean other than the 90,000 fine Clinton paid, or the 5 year suspension of his law license, or the 850,000 he paid to Paula Jones?

Oh - you mean he wasn't innocent?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>It only took five years to figure out that he hadn't really done anything
>wrong, and to drop the case.

Hmm. Sorta like Clinton's impeachment, then.

you mean other than the 90,000 fine Clinton paid, or the 5 year suspension of his law license, or the 850,000 he paid to Paula Jones?

Oh - you mean he wasn't innocent?

In the true sense of the process Clinton was impeached, right? It was the limp dick Senate that did not follow through on thier part, which was to throw a sitting President (who is now a proven criminal) out of office.

The argument being that the voice and will of the people should not be overturned. Like what is going on in CA

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,114]

>you mean other than the 90,000 fine Clinton paid, or the 5 year
>suspension of his law license, or the 850,000 he paid to Paula Jones?

Yes. If this judgment means that Tom Delay did nothing wrong, then the failure of Clinton's impeachment means he did nothing wrong as well.

Of course, if you want to get into the fines, we can also bring up Delay's being reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for misuse of government resources, bis being reprimanded by the same committee over his involvement in the K Street Project, and his million-plus settlement out of court for charges of breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.

Don't want to get into them? OK then. Both are innocent.