Tom Delay convicted of money laundering

[CosmicCowboy]

What would be the basis of appeal, CC?

Chump, as I understand the case all the evidence was cir stantial. I realize you can build a credible case from a chain of cir stantial evidence, but they didn't have a single eye witness testimony to actual knowledge of collusion.

I'm just saying, when they break the case down to the opposing legal briefs and the actual evidence presented without all the drama/histrionics of the jury trial that an appeals court composed of experienced judges may see the case quite differently.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think it would be incredibly naive to think NO partisanship was involved, but clearly there was enough cir stantial evidence to sway the republican/conservatives that were on the panel.

It would also be fairly naive to think that the judges who sit on Texas appellate courts, all of whom are elected in partisan elections, are going to be wholly apolitical in reviewing a verdict.

With that said, unless there's a considerable legal error in the way the trial was conducted, it is almost impossible to overturn the way that a jury resolves the facts of a case. The controlling standards of appellate review preclude the appellate court from subs uting its views for the jury's. So, unless the evidence is just completely not there or unless there was some fundamental legal error in the way the trial judge handled the proceedings, the chances of reversal in Texas state appellate courts, in any criminal matter, are relatively low.

[CosmicCowboy]

it would also be fairly naive to think that the judges who sit on texas appellate courts, all of whom are elected in partisan elections, are going to be wholly apolitical in reviewing a verdict.

With that said, unless there's a considerable legal error in the way the trial was conducted, it is almost impossible to overturn the way that a jury resolves the facts of a case. The controlling standards of appellate review preclude the appellate court from subs uting its views for the jury's. So, unless the evidence is just completely not there or unless there was some fundamental legal error in the way the trial judge handled the proceedings, the chances of reversal in texas state appellate courts, in any criminal matter, are relatively low.

ok...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Tom wanted a jury of his peers: rich, conservative, corrupt politicians

[Oh, Gee!!]

And I would be shocked if he gets prison time. The judge is not the normal presiding judge so he won't be worried about pleasing the Austin voters

[ElNono]

So fricking what. He went around uncons utional campaign finance reform laws.

So fricking what? He broke the law, got caught and found guilty.
You should be proud that justice was done.

[ChumpDumper]

Wild Cobra believes in law and order.

Except for Republicans.

And Wild Cobra is not a Republican.

According to Wild Cobra.

[xrayzebra]

SA210 I see you lurking. How you been....

[Wild Cobra]

So fricking what? He broke the law, got caught and found guilty.
You should be proud that justice was done.

Am I wrong that the law he broke is uncons utional? That is the argument I am making.

[ChumpDumper]

Am I wrong that the law he broke is uncons utional? That is the argument I am making.

Yes, you are wrong. Laws concerning money laundering are cons utional.

[RandomGuy]

The person who was railroaded was Scooter Libby.

Exactly.

We all know that Cheney did it. Scooter was just the scapegoat.

[ElNono]

Am I wrong that the law he broke is uncons utional? That is the argument I am making.

Money laundering is uncons utional?

[Oh, Gee!!]

it depends why you do it according to WC

[Wild Cobra]

Exactly.

We all know that Cheney did it. Scooter was just the scapegoat.

LOL...

Can we agree to disagree?

Facts have it that Armitage was the leak. He didn't get prosecuted, so that make proof of the railroading in my opinion.

[Wild Cobra]

Money laundering is uncons utional?

No, it's a law to keep people from shielding illegal practices. In this case, the campaign fiance laws (that will be stuck down at some point) are uncons utional. I will make the argument that this is proper use of mitigating cir stances.

[ElNono]

No, it's a law to keep people from shielding illegal practices. In this case, the campaign fiance laws (that will be stuck down at some point) are uncons utional. I will make the argument that this is proper use of mitigating cir stances.

I see. You think it's uncons utional.

BFD. It's the law of the land and we're all subject to it. I might not agree with the Patriot Act, and it's cons utionality in part or as a whole, but that doesn't mean I can go around breaking it inconsequentially.

So the law is not uncons utional (at least until proven otherwise) and Delay is guilty of breaking the law. There really are no mitigating cir stances.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

Can we agree to disagree?

Facts have it that Armitage was the leak. He didn't get prosecuted, so that make proof of the railroading in my opinion.

You don't understand what were the charges in Libby's case, so there is no need for you to comment on it.

[coyotes_geek]

Good riddance. Delay is a POS and I'm glad that I had a chance to live in his district and vote against the er.