... is getting indicted...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_congress - http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_congress

Another republican fat rat caught with one hand in the cookie jar and the other waving at Jesus.

rednekk98 wrote: This is totally off topic, but didn't they kill the cookie monster and replace him with the granola monster or something? Maybe it's the apple monster now.. Edit: Great, he deleted the pic so now I look absolutly retarded. Eh whatever.

Sorry, I found a better pic but it wouldn't display. I like this one better anyhow.

You cant forget about Clinton. He got impeached for lieing under oath, and he still didnt get in trouble....

So even if Delay does get convicted what do you think are the chances of him just dropping from the sence, or going to prison are? I think they are slim.

I haven't heard anybody say that DeLay is "guilty" - simply that he is indicted.  There is obviously much political glee on the Democratic side, but I haven't heard any "guilty before trial" stuff.  Not any more than for your average criminal trial, anyway.

I did read the indictment - it contains about as much evidence as I would expect.  More, actually, since it attaches checks, and most indictments contain no evidence at all, only accusations.

And, BTW, the DA does not indict anybody - the grand jury does.  Granted that the DA controls the evidence presented to the grand jury, but there is still a test to be passed.  If this was completely made up it would never have passed the grand jury.  There is clearly some beef here.

I notice in the indictment, however, that there is very little description/allegation in terms of what exactly DeLay supposedly did, or how the conspiracy worked - it mostly focuses on the other two guys.  But I'm thinking that the DA would not have pressed ahead with this if he didn't have something juicy on DeLay - too much political cost potential.  Not to mention that the grand jury would not have indicted purely on a "must have known" argument.

But, we shall see.

Kristopher, do you purposely write like that to allow the forum to have a perceived negative image of you, or do you just not really know that much?

Linus wrote: We discussed this in Am Govt class today... what he did isn't illegal becasue there is no rule against it.

Linus, if everything you are repeating from school is accurate, you really need to change schools, because they are filling your head with nonsense.

Seriously.  Some of the things you report from school are just plain scary.  Like this one.

I won't even bother to explain why your legal analysis is wrong, Linus. 

Instead, I will elaborate on EJP's statement of the obvious.

In order for the grand jury to issue an indictment, there must be facts alleged that, at least in theory, would be criminal if true.  The facts in the indictment are the same that were alleged against the two co-conspirators before.  Those two guys are on their way to trial.  This indictment merely added DeLay to the situation.

Simply put:  if what you claim were true as a matter of law, then this indictment would never have come to be.  This legal theory has been floating around for the better part of a year - if this theory were as flawed as you posit, then this whole thing would have gone away a long time ago.

There are facts to be proven - was there an actual conspiracy?  Was there criminal intent?  Did the money move as alleged? - and the legal theory may yet come under attack, probably in the form of a constitutional challenge to campaign finance laws - but a claim that the indictment is so obviously flawed as you say, such a claim is, frankly, embarassing.

Campaign finance laws are very complex.  Who do you trust - the zillions of lawyers who specialize in this stuff, who have been looking at this case for more than a year, or your civics teacher?

I stand by my earlier statement.  If this is what you are learning in school, you need a new school, or at least some new teachers.

And Linus, if this indictment is so silly that a high school class can figure it out, why haven't the GOP lawyers had it tossed by now?  They have had more than a year...

I guess maybe the GOP should hire your civics teacher to their legal team.

The issue isn't your legal analysis (although that is interesting as well) - the issue is your analysis of reality.

All suspects in Gitmo are guilty and should be executed immediately, or held without trial indefinitely.

Tom Delay is innocent, even though he has been found guilty of ethics violations in the past.

Makes sense to me.

Linus wrote: Clark... Bill CLinton was impeached (literally akin to indicted), yet what he did wasn't illegal.

How do you figure?  Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a court of law.  Lying under oath in a court of law is illegal.

Whether of not Clinton lied is a matter of fact for a court to determine, but there is no discussion as to whether lying under oath is illegal.

TRAVELER wrote: So Mr Earls finally got his indictment. He promised such an indictment at a Democratic fundraiser a couple months ago. Mr Earls has had an axe to grind with Mr Delay for several years now, and he finally found a grand jury that would agree with him.

There may very well be some truth to the accusations of political motivations here, but simply stating it does not make it so.  Do you (or anybody) have any data as to how many presentations to grand juries were made with regard to DeLay?  Did other grand juries fail to indict, to support the claim that Earls "finally found a grand jury that would agree with him"?  I don't know the answer, but this phrase (which I hear a lot) sounds to me very much like exactly the same political nonsense that Earls is being accused of. 

The DeLay indictment is broad and unspecific, the burden of proof required to indict is far less substantial than that required to convict.  George Bush has better odds of winning a 3rd term than Mr Earls has of getting a conviction against Tom DeLay.

I tend to agree that a conviction is unlikely, but the indictment itself did not strike me as particularly unusual for its vagueness.  The DA does not have to lay out his case in the indictment.  People I have spoken to who do this type of thing for a living found the indictment to be reasonably standard.

BTW, GOP lawyers cannot simply get an indictment tossed.

Sure they can.  A motion to quash the indictment can be filed at any time.  Such a motion is usually hard to win, but one way to win a motion to quash would be to show that facts alleged do not amount to a crime.  This is what Linus is saying - that what they are accusing DeLay of is not illegal.  My point is that if that were the case, then having the indictment quashed should be a simple matter.

Linus wrote: Clark clark clark... I said prove me wrong on the Tom DeLay 'scandle' and you haven't been able to. Now PROVE ME WRONG or quit saying I'm wrong.

Doesn't every single debate with you end in PROVE ME WRONG? Look back at the posts and it is there. Maybe not at your cognition level, but it is there all the same.

Clark Kent wrote: I won't even bother to explain why your legal analysis is wrong, Linus.  Instead, I will elaborate on EJP's statement of the obvious. In order for the grand jury to issue an indictment, there must be facts alleged that, at least in theory, would be criminal if true.  The facts in the indictment are the same that were alleged against the two co-conspirators before.  Those two guys are on their way to trial.  This indictment merely added DeLay to the situation. Simply put:  if what you claim were true as a matter of law, then this indictment would never have come to be.  This legal theory has been floating around for the better part of a year - if this theory were as flawed as you posit, then this whole thing would have gone away a long time ago. There are facts to be proven - was there an actual conspiracy?  Was there criminal intent?  Did the money move as alleged? - and the legal theory may yet come under attack, probably in the form of a constitutional challenge to campaign finance laws - but a claim that the indictment is so obviously flawed as you say, such a claim is, frankly, embarassing. Campaign finance laws are very complex.  Who do you trust - the zillions of lawyers who specialize in this stuff, who have been looking at this case for more than a year, or your civics teacher? I stand by my earlier statement.  If this is what you are learning in school, you need a new school, or at least some new teachers.

There, Linus.  Read it again.

The issuse is not whether or not what DeLay did is ultimately determined to be illegal - the issue is whether your H.S. civics teacher and class has the knowledge to make a flat determination that the indictment is obviously incorrect.  (the answer is "no")

The issue is not DeLay - the issue is your education. 

Extrapolating from your posts, I expect that your civics teacher also has simplistic solutions for poverty, terrorism, crime, and teen pregnancy as well.

The world is not that simple (and neither is this indictment), and any teacher that offers silly simplistic solutions to compex issues is doing his students a disservice.

Or, just in case all of this is still not making sense, I will repeat the central point:

Dozens of lawyers will spend thousands of hours on this matter, Linus - if it truly were as simple as what your teacher says, don't you think they would have figured that out by now?

Linus wrote: See, you guys insist on the low blow 'you're always wrong' when you simply cannot prove me wrong on this point: What liberals are accusing Tom Delay of IS illegal, but what he actually did IS NOT illegal. Check the Texan laws stating campaign fund contributions. He used a technical loophole, and that is perfectly legal. Maybe a little cheap, but still 100% legal. And besides, the CNN (noticeL: Not FOX news, but CNN) said it was a like amount, not the exact amount.

If they get your civics teacher on their team they sure could save a lot of taxpayer money. Too bad for them.

Linus wrote: For it to be a crime, like the liberals are saying, there HAS to be criminal intent. Thing is, Tom DeLay had lawyers check into the legality of what he did before he did it, which automatically negates criminal intent. Go ahead, deny that.

Ok, I'll deny that.  That is simply false.

Generally speaking, yes there has to be criminal intent.  But there is general criminal intent and specific criminal intent.  General criminal intent, which is the standard for most crimes (including this one), simply means that you did what you did on purpose.  You do NOT need to have intended to break the law (that would be specific criminal intent) - you simply acted on purpose, and your action happened to be illegal.

Moreover, the idea that legal advice "automatically negates criminal intent" is idiotic.  Think about that for a second.  Seriously.  Think I could find some lawyer who would advise me, for a couple of bucks, that killing some guy isn't really illegal? 

That's simply wrong, not to mention just plain dumb. 

Now - in some crimes, does a legal opinion help you?  Sure - executive criminal liability (at least before Sarbanes-Oxley), for instance, can be largely avoided with proper legal advice, because the duty on the executive was mostly to be diligent, and seeking legal advice is pretty diligent.  Even in other circumstances (including DeLay's case), legal advice might be a mitigating factor.

But generally speaking, legal advice does not simply obviate general criminal intent.

EDIT: Oh, and as for my 'civics' teacher, he actually IS a democrat and he DOES want DeLay taken out of power. BUT he knows this won't do it.

And how does he know that?  Is he an attorney practicing in the highly complex area of campaign finance?  I'm guessing he isn't an attorney at all, just some chump with a college degree who wasn't even smart enough to teach H.S. science.

Which brings me back to our central point:  WHY ON EARTH would you just take this guy's word for something like this?  HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THIS CATEGORICAL STATEMENT. 

Cedric wrote: mbro wrote: Linus wrote: Trust me, him and I have our daily bouts when politics come up. I'm sure you're just as horrible to debate with in class as you are online.

I bet the teacher says one thing and Linus flips out and has to get the teacher to prove him wrong.

Paintball is lame.

From Black's Law Dictionary:

Mens Rea:  An element of criminal responsibility; a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent.

Mens Rea IS criminal intent - it wasn't clear whether you meant it to mean something different. 

Having a lawyer look into an issue will NEVER completely undo general criminal intent, except in cases where the crime was the failure to be diligent, in which case consulting counsel not only undoes the mens rea, but undoes the crime itself.

As to me - no, I am not a campaign finance lawyer.  But I don't have to be - I am not the one making broad conclusions about campaign finance laws.  I am doing the opposite - I am saying that campaign finance is complicated, and we should listen to the experts, not your civics teacher.

As to how I know so much - I read a lot, I google a lot, and I keep an open mind and challenge my own conclusions, and I try to avoid making any statement without checking it out first.  Truth is, I DON'T know much - I just make sure to find out before posting.  Google is your friend.

Looks like they're piling it on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_co/delay_indict ment_1;_ylt=AsMx_D.OWjHbRke0e9j9O0yGbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW 9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_co/delay_indict ment_1;_ylt=AsMx_D.OWjHbRke0e9j9O0yGbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW 9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

EDIT - Other articles have more detail.  Apparently DeLay's attorneys filed a motion to quash the conspiracy indictment on grounds that the conspiracy law was not in effect at the time of the alleged violation.  The DA came back with this new indictment for laundering.

Actually, Linus, not only do the new facts not make you not wrong - they make you MORE wrong.

Your point was that the indictment was obviously incorrect because of what you called a "loophole" - that donation were not made directly from the corporation.  (That "loophole" is rather silly, legally speaking, but that isn't really the issue)

The motion by DeLay's lawyers apparently made no mention of this "loophole" in the donation rules - instead they focused on the conspiracy side of it.  Had this alleged loophole been as obvious as you say, they would have alleged so - in fact, they would have done so a year ago, when the same charges were brought against DeLay's flunkies. 

So the new facts do NOT support your point.

They DO, however, support my point:  That campaign finance rules are complex, and your teacher ought not be making absolute claims about things he knows little about.  Did your teacher mention the part where the conspiracy laws were only recently made applicable to campaign finance violations?  No?  Could that be because campaign finance laws are complicated, and he just didn't know?

Bottom line:  H.S. civics teachers ought not be making absolute statements on about complex things about which they know very little.

The new facts stand only to support my case.

Now, legitimately, the new facts also support a position that these allegations are politically motivated, but my suspicion is that they actually support a position that assistant DAs typically are not the best lawyers in the world.  This is obviously having a negative political effect on Earle, and I don't think he would have made such a mistake on purpose.

Read slower, Linus.

DeLay's lawyers are claiming that the campaign finance rules only became subject to the CONSPIRACY laws in 2003 - they are NOT claiming that the underlying campaign finance violation was not illegal.  It is only the conspiracy part that is being challenged.  (Of course, the conspiracy charge might still stand - there are other conspiracy laws that long predate this one)

You, on the other hand, said nothing about the conspiracy.  Your theory was that the whole thing was ok, because funds stopped at the PAC instead of passing directly into campaign funds.

So far, the lawyers have challenged the indictment, as I expected, but have somehow failed to challenge on the basis of your "obvious loophole".

EDIT - I read some more articles, and can see how some people might believe that the whole campaign finance law only came about in 2003, which is not the case.  The NYT says it better:

NYT wrote: Mr. DeLay's lawyers argued in their court papers on Monday that the conspiracy statute cited in the original statute did not apply to election law violations that occurred in 2002; they said the law was not amended until the following year to allow electoral code violations to be prosecuted as a conspiracy.

Linus wrote: Ok Clark, if you think my 'obvious loophole' is so very flawed, explain how, and in what way.

I don't have to - my point is simply that your civics teacher ought to stop talking.

But, since you insist:  Applying your theory to money laundering, nobody would ever be convicted.  The law is not so idiotic as to let people get away with financial crimes just because they used a straw man, or left some dollars behind.

Is it your contention that if I send a million dollars to money launderer, and get only 900,000 back, that no laundering could have taken place, because it was not the exact amount?

Is it your contention that I am not guilty of insider trading, just because I had my brother buy the stock instead of me?

Is it your contention that it is not illegal to import cigars from Cuba, so long as I stop in Mexico on the way back?

By your theory, Linus, half of the economic laws in the world would be useless and toothless.  The courts are not that stupid.

Of course, DBib - that was my point, that it would be silly... 

Linus - the cigars were an analogy.  Go with it.  Or, if you prefer, we can try another analogy:  It is generally illegal for Americans to export stuff to Iran.  By your theory, I could ship my stuff to Iran all day long, so long as I stopped for a day in Turkey on the way over.

The law is not that stupid.  Dodges like this have been around since the beginning of time, and since the beginning of time laws have been flexible enough to stop it.

The proof is in the pudding - GOP lawyers have not challenged the indictment on grounds that the transaction was perfectly legal (the "Linus Theory").  I have more faith in the GOP lawyers than I do in the DA's office - if there was an easy way to get the whole thing thrown out, and whitewashing the whole transaction at the same time, they certainly would have done so.  If the Linus theory had any merit, they would have tried it by now.

I am not a campaign finance lawyer - I simply look at all available information.  It would be silly for the law to be as you describe - therefore it probably isn't.  If the law were as you describe, the indictment against the cronies would have been tossed by now - it wasn't, therefore the law probably isn't as you describe.

I did, however, take a quick look at the law, just for kicks and giggles.  The law, as cited in the indictment, generally prohibits contributions by corporations to political campaigns.  A "Contribution" is defined by law:

Texas Election Code Sec. 251.001(2) wrote: (2)  "Contribution" means a direct or indirect transfer of money, goods, services, or any other thing of value and includes an agreement made or other obligation incurred, whether legally enforceable or not, to make a transfer....

So if the money from the corporations constituted an indirect transfer, then that money was an illegal contribution under Texas law.

Now, DeLay will certainly challenge whether this transfer was in fact a "contribution" - and he might win that.  If the DA fails to show that these various checks amounted to an indirect transfer (i.e., these number and dates just happened to look suspicious), then DeLay and cronies are not guilty.  The Linus Theory will be tested at trial.

But it is quite clear that this is not OBVIOUSLY legal.  If the things happened as alleged in the indictment, then in fact a crime occurred.  This is why your "loophole" theory fails, and this is why the indictment has not been challenged on these grounds.

But don't take it from me, or from the law - take it from somebody who actually IS a campaign-finance lawyer:

David Berg wrote: Politics in Texas is a real jungle, and money of this sort, I would suspect, gets washed all the time. [But] it would be illegal if [he] knew that corporate funds were going to be laundered and used in the state races

Linus wrote: Clark- DeLay cannot be held accountable for where the RNC sends contributions. If he ask for them to send money to the candidates, so be it, but as long as the corportaions don't say to send it to Texan candidates, its not illegal. As long as he doesn't say "You know those companies that sent money to you? Yea.. send it to these guys..." it's not illegal.

You are focusing on the wrong things.

First, it wasn't the RNC - it was a PAC.  And yes, DeLay CAN be held responsible for where the PAC sends money, if he conspired to cause a legal circumvention - that's the whole point of this.  Using a PAC to get illegal corporate money into a political campaign is illegal.  Period.  You are welcome to ignore the law in favor of your own imagination, but that doesn't make it so.

If murder wasn't illegal (ok.. dumb anology but hang with me) then you could kill someone. EVen if it became illegal the very next day, you still can't get in trouble for it.

True - but again, two things:  First, corporate contributions to political campaigns have been illegal for many years.  The only part that changed in 2003 was the expansion of the conspiracy law - the contributions themselves were always illegal (if they were ever illegal).  The question would be whether DeLay's part was illegal.  Second, just because this particular conspiracy law didn't apply until 2003 doesn't make the conspiracy "legal".  There are other sources of conspiracy law.  The money laundering statute, for instance, may apply.  There is also general criminal conspiracy.  Generally speaking, it is illegal to conspire to commit ANY crime.

Clearly Earle screwed up bigtime with the conspiracy law.  No doubt.  But that in no way makes the underlying money transfers any more or less legal, nor does it automatically get DeLay off the hook.

The dems are trying ot get DeLay in trouble for something that was 100% legal when he did it, as stated by GOP lawyers. And since you beleive them...

You are putting words in my mouth, and in the mouths of the GOP lawyers...

Nobody has argued yet (except Linus) that the underlying money transfers were not illegal.  The only current question is whether DeLay's actions were also prohibited.

And the GOP lawyers did NOT argue that what DeLay did was "100% legal" - they simply stated that THIS PARTICULAR CONSPIRACY LAW did not apply at that time.  They will have a harder time getting rid of the laundering indictment on that theory.

We'll find out who's right in a year or 2...

No need to wait - you are already wrong.

Even if DeLay is acquitted (which I think he will be), you are still wrong.  Because you have been saying all along that the underlying money transfer is obviously perfectly legal (your "loophole") - and that is simply false.  There is no loophole.

DBibeau855 wrote: More like, if there was an intersection with no stop sign. Then, one day a stop sign apears, you cant get in trouble for all those times you didnt stop. Thats a better anology for you.

Better analogy, yes - but still irrelevant.  Or, rather - only relevant to an undisputed point.

lol Hades...

:)