The Hammer comes down: DeLay convicted

[rlg94086]

Not charges; factual occurrences.

Relax, Captain Partisan. The “charges” are what he was charged and convicted of. I have no idea of the actual occurrences, but I’m confident the charges will stand on appeal, if your assessment of the occurrences as “factual” is correct. We use courts of law in this country, not decisions by Emperors.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

 It seems as if laws are created only to have something to use to intimidate and club Republicans!

I think that TX law was enacted in 1910. Have they been clubbing since then?

You man note:

"State Representative Ismael “Kino” Flores, Democrat of Palmview, has been convicted on charges of perjury and tampering with government records — he didn’t properly report his income and assets on financial disclosure forms. Sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 13. Mr. Flores didn’t seek re-election, and his term ends in January.

Former State Representative Terri Hodge, Democrat of Dallas, pleaded guilty earlier this year to a charge of underreporting her income on tax returns. She was also snared in a federal investigation of influence peddling in Dallas city government and stood accused of writing letters on behalf of a developer of low-income housing who had, in return, paid her rent and other bills and carpeted her house. Those charges were dropped as part of Ms. Hodge’s plea agreement, and she was sentenced to a year in federal prison.

State Representative Tara Rios Ybarra, Democrat of South Padre Island, has been indicted on charges that she and several other dentists defrauded Medicaid. She has denied any wrongdoing. Her trial date hasn’t been set, but she lost the Democratic primary for re-election to the House. "

nytimes.com/2010/11/26/us/politics/26ttramsey.html?src=twrhp

Another easy example would be the proscription against political preaching in churches. Everyone knows that it takes place in black churches across the land, with nary a whimper by authorities.

One can say what one wants in church. The proscription involves tax exemption.

Yet, any church that overtly supports conservatives would come under fire immediately.

You may want to warn Archbishop Chaput.

 

[RACJ]

I think that TX law was enacted in 1910. Have they been clubbing since then?

One can say what one wants in church. The proscription involves tax exemption.

 My point, Beau, is that they use laws, even century old laws, to exclusively prosecute political enemies.  If the case was so strong, why did five grand juries reject it? YES, (!) I think that the defense was negligent in not ascertaining the political leanings of the jurors. Perhaps the judge prohibited them from doing so? The one thing that I know is that no Democrat would have been prosecuted for a silly, minor violation of laws such as this. The trouble is that so many judges today are nothing more than dependable political hacks. Witness the absurd cases allowed to stand in Alaska against Gov. Palin! 
 Of course, I know that one CAN say anything one wishes in church (as things stand today), but when a pastor supports a Democrat or Marxist from the pulpit, the tax exempt status is not in jeopardy!  :hmmm: Rob

 

[RACJ]

He funneled corporate donations through the RNC to the campaign coffers of Republican candidates.

Lord NOOOOO.....our Republic will surely not survive THIS assault! Gimme a break, Napoleon! :) Rob

 

[didymus]

He didnt. Like I said it will be thrown out on appeal. He should have been allowed to move the trial out of Austin-instead he faced a highly partisan judge and a highly partisan jury. ALL Americans should be disturbed by this verdict in that it is moving us further down the road of criminalizing political differences.

1st of all he can’t appeal claiming actual innocence because appeals courts don’t review facts.

2nd, if an Austin jury was unfair or the judge was partisan his lawyers should have filed for a change of venue or asked for a new judge. If they didn’t they’re stuck with the verdict (or Mr DeLay is).

Why is everybody upset that in innocent man is going to prison? Just because he’s a Republican?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Beau Ouiville;7307455:

I think that the defense was negligent in not ascertaining the political leanings of the jurors. Perhaps the judge prohibited them from doing so?

I think you are guaranteed a jury of one’s peers – not political leanings. If those Democrats had been biased against DeLay they should have been challenged by the defense.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Beau Ouiville;7307455:

Witness the absurd cases allowed to stand in Alaska against Gov. Palin!

Actually, they had Palin dead to rights in the ‘Troopergate’ scandal but an appeals panel comprised of a majority of her appointees overruled the finding.

 

[cyberwolf001]

1st of all he can’t appeal claiming actual innocence because appeals courts don’t review facts.

2nd, if an Austin jury was unfair or the judge was partisan his lawyers should have filed for a change of venue or asked for a new judge. If they didn’t they’re stuck with the verdict (or Mr DeLay is).

Why is everybody upset that in innocent man is going to prison? Just because he’s a Republican?

If your here long enough you will learn that it is always a case of “It’s Okay if your Republican.”

Estesbob thinks people like me find him guilty due to his party. Even though he was breaking the law. However Bob has found him innocent due to his party.

 

[pnewton]

Do you have any basis for that allegation?

You can ask anyone. Austin is about as liberal as one can get this side of Soros. A change of venue was requested. It should have been granted. It would have been the sensible move for the prosecution. The fact that they fought to deny a change is indicative of Austin politics. They would rather serve a softball appeal than give a fair trial.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

You can ask anyone. Austin is about as liberal as one can get this side of Soros. A change of venue was requested. It should have been granted. It would have been the sensible move for the prosecution. The fact that they fought to deny a change is indicative of Austin politics. They would rather serve a softball appeal than give a fair trial.

I believe the standard involves if the publicity in an area is so great that the accused cannot be afforded a fair trial in the locality. By that standard I think DeLay is out of luck.

Its like Republicans being tried in the federal court in DC – just because a jury may not reflect an arrestee’s politics does not mean that he or she gets a change of venue. One should choose carefully where one will be arrested and charged.

Has anyone alleged juror bias or the peremptory challenging of Republicans? If not, DeLay will have one tough row to hoe on appeal.

 

[pnewton]

I believe the standard involves if the publicity in an area is so great that the accused cannot be afforded a fair trial in the locality. By that standard I think DeLay is out of luck.

Its like Republicans being tried in the federal court in DC – just because a jury may not reflect an arrestee’s politics does not mean that he or she gets a change of venue. One should choose carefully where one will be arrested and charged.

No, it is not the same as being tried in federal court in DC. This charge was brought specifically by the Travis County District Attorney (Ronnie Earle) for a crime committed in Travis County. It was not the State AG that brought this case to trial. There was a significant, long-term and very* public* dispute between Tom Delay and the District Attorney Earle of Travis County. Earle also brought a suit against Kay Bailey Hutchinson in which she was aquitted. He filed charges on Rep. Mike Martin which failed to get an indictment. He is a County DA that is dead set against corruption in Republicans, whether it exists or not. No coincidentaly, he also ran for statewide office (Lt. Governor) and was defeated.

Yes, this is politics in Austin. It is well publicized. The people there are fed a steady diet in the papers of the evils of Republican politicians. If this is not cause for a change in venue, then none exists. This is also why I will not set foot in this city, but thoroughly enjoyed watching the Longhorns go down in flames this week.

GIG’ EM.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Yes, this is politics in Austin. It is well publicized. The people there are fed a steady diet in the papers of the evils of Republican politicians. If this is not cause for a change in venue, then none exists.

Well, deal with the issue: Was pre-trial publicity so pervasive in Austin that DeLay was denied a fair trial? Had everyone made up their minds? Was it difficult to empanel a disinterested jury?

You keep getting off that standard. If the criteria were not met, DeLay’s appeal on change of venue grounds will fail.

 

[pnewton]

Well, deal with the issue: Was pre-trial publicity so pervasive in Austin that DeLay was denied a fair trial? Had everyone made up their minds? Was it difficult to empanel a disinterested jury?

You keep getting off that standard. If the criteria were not met, DeLay’s appeal on change of venue grounds will fail.

I do not agree with your standard

The first question might be defendable. The second criteria does not need to be met. It is not necessary to suggest that every juror’s mind is made up, only that **one **had been unduly influenced. The third question? Well, that is the point, isn’t it.

The one point I was trying to made before we started down this trail was that this particular grounds for appeal was easily avoidable. It is common for a change in venue to be granted even if there is a question of bias simply to avoid an easy appeal point. I find it significant that the DA fought this point in order to keep the trial in Austin. Most DA’s I know try to avoid appeals, no invite them.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

He is a County DA that is dead set against corruption in Republicans, whether it exists or not.

That is simply not true. Of the indictments he’s sought against politicians since 1976 only 4 have been against Republicans and 12 have been against Democrats. He tries to fight corruption wherever he sees it; whether Republican or Democrat.
.

If this is not cause for a change in venue, then none exists.

As I pointed out, If Delay and his lawyer were so concerned about the political makeup of the jury then should have voiced those concerns during jury selection and made peremptory challenges.

 

[pnewton]

As I pointed out, If Delay and his lawyer were so concerned about the political makeup of the jury then should have voiced those concerns during jury selection and made peremptory challenges.

They did request a change in venue. Challenges to a juror are always limited in number. This limitation is precisely why judges allow changes of venue. I am sorry to disappoint you, but refusal for a change in venue **is **grounds for an appeal. It could have easily been avoided. Now, it will be up to an appeals judge.

 

[RACJ]

RACJ;7308305:

Actually, they had Palin dead to rights in the ‘Troopergate’ scandal but an appeals panel comprised of a majority of her appointees overruled the finding.

You know, Beau, you and other libs never answer serious questions such as why this insufferable hack with a title (Earle) tried SIX times before they could find a jury gullible enough to indict Delay.
Yes, I do believe that the fact that judges do not allow enough challenges (for stupidity, partisanship and cluelessness, for example) accounts for many miscarraiges of justice in America. As for “Troopergate”, I don’t care what Gov. Palin or her husband had to do to prevent his sister’s abuser from being hired. Do you? Rob

 

[Tsuwano]

Is the death penalty on the table? Obviously, funneling Rebublican campaign contributions through Republican PACs to support Republican candidates should be punishable by death. A good, old fashioned hanging is in order.

In Texas the death penalty is always on the table.

 

[pnewton]

In Texas the death penalty is always on the table.

I would be happy to explain the error of this off-topic jab on the appropriate thread. Texas death penalty law, while not exactly Catholic teaching, is actually pretty darn close.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I would be happy to explain the error of this off-topic jab on the appropriate thread. Texas death penalty law, while not exactly Catholic teaching, is actually pretty darn close.

It is an error to equate Texas’ death penalty law with anything Catholic. I suspect that most of the Texas Legislature consider the Catholic Catechism as nothing more than a handy doorstop and give little heed to Catholic teaching, if at all…

Was there not a case recently that pointed to the possible innocence of a man who was executed in Texas?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

You know, Beau, you and other libs never answer serious questions such as why this insufferable hack with a title (Earle) tried SIX times before they could find a jury gullible enough to indict Delay.

I have no idea why he had problems with the grand jury.

Yes, I do believe that the fact that judges do not allow enough challenges (for stupidity, partisanship and cluelessness, for example) accounts for many miscarraiges of justice in America.

If that were so, we’d never get a jury empaneled nor would trial start. The question is if there is juror bias.

As for “Troopergate”, I don’t care what Gov. Palin or her husband had to do to prevent his sister’s abuser from being hired. Do you?

I think that as a public official one should not use one’s elected position to try to affect private family problems through official action. The Palins seem to disagree. You may recall (and compare!) the fact that Bill Clinton would not let the AR state troopers give him advance warning of his brother Roger’s drug arrest.