Tom Delay Finally COMPLETLY Cleared By Texas's Highest Court.

Of course that was long before Al Gore invented the Internet. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Which means you wouldn't know shit about it.

But you are wrong, as usual, about ....

...... "the GOP was nonexistent at Texas during that time.."

I'm not exactly sure what your babbling about "at Texas" is ......

... may be "at the University of Texas" .... or .... whatever.


If for some reason you meant "in Texas" .... you are wrong.

First, Eisenhower took Texas by 53+% in 1952 and 55+% in 1960.

That was BEFORE Kennedy or LBJ ran, as well as Connally for Governor.

In addition, John Tower was elected to the U.S. Senate during that period.

Your ignorance is only surpassed by WTFs. Nothing to brag about.

Of source in those days you were still trying to learn how to stand up and pee! So, I'm sure you had a lot on what little mind you had then, or now.

BTW: Do you also believe a "check" is "money"?

Which means you wouldn't know shit about it.

But you are wrong, as usual, about ....

...... "the GOP was nonexistent at Texas during that time.."

I'm not exactly sure what your babbling about "at Texas" is ......

... may be "at the University of Texas" .... or .... whatever.


If for some reason you meant "in Texas" .... you are wrong.

First, Eisenhower took Texas by 53+% in 1952 and 55+% in the 1960.

That was BEFORE Kennedy or LBJ ran, as well as Connally for Governor.

In addition, John Tower was elected to the U.S. Senate during that period.

Your ignorance is only surpassed by WTFs. Nothing to brag about.

Of source in those days you were still trying to learn how to stand up and pee! So, I'm sure you had a lot on what little mind you had then, or now.

BTW: Do you also believe a "check" is "money"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

More insults.

Fact is, the era your describe was before LBJ/Connally. Additionally, we're talking about state politics, not national.

After the moderate war hero was elected, Texas voted for Kennedy AND LBJ. the Legislature was controlled by Democrats until the early 1990/, when conservative Democrats jumped ship to get away from the carpet munchers and brown people.

Tower, a failed candidate for Senate was elected in a special (OPEN) election AFTER LBJ was elected Governor. He won because of name ID and his support from Democrtic ex-Gov. Allan Shivers.

You continue to fling insults, but you're wrong.

Please try and keep your facts straights

BTW -- you brought up LBJ and Connally. You should try and get your shit together.

You chose a predominately Black Country to denigrate. By doing so, you are lumping all people of color with the corrupt. Only a racist would make such an accusation. You can drop the hypocrisy now. We know what you are. Racist.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Lol. Not me bro. To be fair i did include Texans with Nigerians it was all fact based.

A check is not money. It is a promise to pay. It's value lies only in the faith you have in its maker. Kind of like Federal Reserve Notes. Nothing backing it, except you think it's worth something.

A check is not money. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Correct. 100%. But the TRUTH is the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not decide the case on whether or not "a check is money" ..... I just finished reading the Court's opinion in its entirety and copied several "bullet" points upon which the Court based its opinion, which was an evaluation of the underlying offense of "money laundering" for which Delay was convicted.

I did not see any phrase that concluded or paragraph evaluating the definition of "check" as being money or not being money.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fil...e-of-texas.pdf

Here are the quotes on the deciding points in the opinion:

"Ultimately, we agree with the court of appeals that the appellant’s convictions cannot stand because there is no possible view of the evidence that can establish that any transaction alleged to comprise money laundering involved the proceeds of a felony violation of the Texas Election Code, under either theory of criminal proceeds.

There is nothing in the record to show that the appellant knew that he was conducting, supervising, or facilitating a transaction that involved the proceeds of criminal activity. The State has failed to establish the requisite culpable mental state to prove the offenses of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

However, as we read Section 34.02(a)(2) of the Penal Code, it is an element of the offense of money laundering that the actor was aware of the fact that the money he is purported to have laundered was the proceeds of felony criminal activity. The federal money laundering statute similarly requires knowledge that the funds constitute ill-gotten gains. See 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1) (“Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity . . . .”); United States v. Morelli, 169 F.3d 798, 804 (3d Cir. 1999) (one of the elements of money laundering under this provision is “knowledge that the transaction involves the proceeds of some unlawful activity”).

Because the State has failed to prove that the corporate contributors harbored the requisite mens rea to establish an offense under the Election Code, we agree with the court of appeals that it has not established that the money conveyed by TRMPAC to RNSEC constituted the proceeds of criminal activity for purposes of money laundering or conspiracy to commit money laundering."

Fortunately, for ALL OF US, regardless of political affiliation or point of view, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (regardless of political affiliation) requires a defendant to be proven to have possessed the requisite criminal intent on the elements of an offense to sustain the defendant's conviction.

Otherwise anyone communicating with a provider or walking into the door of any location in which illegal activity has occurred would support a conviction REGARDLESS of whether the "anyone" actually intended to engage in the activity which was considered illegal in the past.

Irrespective of party affiliation that is why I prefer to have judges who are "strict constructionists" who require prosecutors to follow the specific requirements of "the law" and insist on sufficient proof to establish each and every element of an offense to support a conviction.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the state’s third Court of Appeals, who threw out the conviction in 2013 stating that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence because bank checks were not to be considered money.

http://tpr.org/post/former-house-maj...iminal-charges

Do any of you kool-aide drinking Tea'billies not consider a check, money? Or do you even know wtf a check is? Do you still trade chicken for goods and services? Originally Posted by WTF

The above is a LIE.

Here is the direct quote from the conclusion of the opinion:

"Because the State has failed to prove that the corporate contributors harbored the requisite mens rea to establish an offense under the Election Code, we agree with the court of appeals that it has not established that the money conveyed by TRMPAC to RNSEC constituted the proceeds of criminal activity for purposes of money laundering or conspiracy to commit money laundering."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fil...e-of-texas.pdf

The above is a LIE. Originally Posted by LexusLover

LexiLyingIdiot feels lying is his exclusive turf and he is doing his best to run off any and all competition.

You have to admire LLIdiot's competitive spirit.

... doing his best to run off competition.... Originally Posted by bigtex

"competition

"1. The activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others." Oxford Dictionary.

You certainly win the hot air competition on the Board. Particularly in the "Stinky, Hot Air" category. At least "bullshit" has some "substance"!

As an aside, running off the likes of WTF, and you for that matter, simply deprives others of making a decent living having to address your ignorance of "the law," with the presumption you can pay the freight.

with the presumption you can pay the freight. Originally Posted by LexusLover

As a matter of fact, I do "pay the freight!"

I still pay into Social Security (and have every month since 1969) so moochers like you can sit back and enjoy living off the 'gubment.'

Meanwhile you and your fellow hypocritical Idiots complain about others getting a free ride from the same 'gubment' that y'all regularly accept your checks from.

CARRY ON, Private Moocher!

The above is a LIE.

f[/url] Originally Posted by LexusLover

That came from the OP link. Take that up with Jackie S.

Next Tom DeLay circumvented the law no matter how you want to defend him. If more politicians went to jail for breaking the law there would be less corrupt politicians. Just like in more bankers had went to jail after defrauding folks there would be no need to bail to big to fail banks out. DeLay sent money to Washington to circumvent Texas law that corporate money cannot be given directly to political campaigns

A jury in Austin had determined that DeLay conspired with two associates, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, to use his Texas-based political action committee to send a check for $190,000 in corporate money to an arm of the Washington-based Republican national committee. The RNC then sent the same amount to seven Texas House candidates. Under state law, corporate money cannot be given directly to political campaigns.http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...erturned-court

If you choose to defend/overlook that type of behavior , you are part of the problem ....but anyone with half a brain knows that you are part of the problem. Crying about other politicians , yet defending yours...


.

As a matter of fact, I do "pay the freight!"

I still pay into Social Security .... Originally Posted by bigtex

Me too. Mine is called "self-employment taxes."

LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT CAUGHT LYING AGAIN.

You do realize you are a joke, don't you? An ignorant one at that.

All hot air. You and your lap dog, WTF.

WHO ALSO JUST GOT CAUGHT LYING, AGAIN!

[SIZE="3"]That came from the OP link. Originally Posted by WTF

That came from your pea-brain. And YOU kept up the bullshit post after post!

:Originally Posted by WTF

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the state’s third Court of Appeals, who threw out the conviction in 2013 stating that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence because bank checks were not to be considered money.

http://tpr.org/post/former-house-maj...iminal-charges

Do any of you kool-aide drinking Tea'billies not consider a check, money? Or do you even know wtf a check is? Do you still trade chicken for goods and services?

The above is a LIE.

Here is the direct quote from the conclusion of the opinion:

"Because the State has failed to prove that the corporate contributors harbored the requisite mens rea to establish an offense under the Election Code, we agree with the court of appeals that it has not established that the money conveyed by TRMPAC to RNSEC constituted the proceeds of criminal activity for purposes of money laundering or conspiracy to commit money laundering."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fil...e-of-texas.pdf



You own it!

What's amazing is that the CCA does NOT try cases. They render opinions based on the findings of lower courts. So, LLIdiot, if they upheld the rulling of the lower court, then they fucking agreed with it. Period.

W.hat part of that don't you understand, LLIDiot?

I like the second paragraph of the quoted opinion is post #50.
I believe that can be read as affirming that ignorance of the law IS an excuse.

You own it! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I will own it all day long....and already have.

Next Tom DeLay circumvented the law no matter how you want to defend him. If more politicians went to jail for breaking the law there would be less corrupt politicians. Just like in more bankers had went to jail after defrauding folks there would be no need to bail to big to fail banks out. DeLay sent money to Washington to circumvent Texas law that corporate money cannot be given directly to political campaigns [/SIZE]


.