• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DeLay conviction overturned

and did the court appointed lawyer right out of a fourth rate law school for DeLay have the opportunity to make his case before those same 12 Texas citizens? :doh:roll:
Hard to reasonably argue about the truth when you have a prosecutor who had no intention to properly follow the law, and a judge who, when specifically asked, would not tell the jury what the truth about the law is, or with an ideologue who predicates his positions on whether the other side is a liberal or Democrat and not a conservative or Republican.

Hold your hands over your ears, over your eyes [ and I know, its impossible for a liberal to hold his/her mouth ], believe what you want to believe. All rational people know you are simply wrong...but you can keep denying it as it is not illegal to hold an opinion that is either hypocritical, frivolously absurd... or both.
 
Hard to reasonably argue about the truth when you have a prosecutor who had no intention to properly follow the law, and a judge who, when specifically asked, would not tell the jury what the truth about the law is, or with an ideologue who predicates his positions on whether the other side is a liberal or Democrat and not a conservative or Republican.

Hold your hands over your ears, over your eyes [ and I know, its impossible for a liberal to hold his/her mouth ], believe what you want to believe. All rational people know you are simply wrong...but you can keep denying it as it is not illegal to hold an opinion that is either hypocritical, frivolously absurd... or both.

I really have no idea what you are talking about with these claims and allegations. Could you please provide verifiable evidence of these claims?
 
I really have no idea what you are talking about with these claims and allegations. Could you please provide verifiable evidence of these claims?

Check with what the appeals judges said again. They verified it.
 
Check with what the appeals judges said again. They verified it.

You are merely repeating partisan opinion and not providing evidence of provable fact. And even then you are only alluding to what you think it says rather than presenting any actual evidence to be examined.
 
a jury of 12 Texas citizens heard the case and pronounced him guilty. That pretty much says it all.

And 12 jurors found OJ Simpson innocent. That pretty much says it all, and why there are courts of appeal.
 
You are merely repeating partisan opinion and not providing evidence of provable fact. And even then you are only alluding to what you think it says rather than presenting any actual evidence to be examined.

The fact is that the conviction was overturned. That you can't deal with it is another issue.
 
And 12 jurors found OJ Simpson innocent. That pretty much says it all, and why there are courts of appeal.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It is inane to even bring it up as it has nothing to do with this case.
 
The fact is that the conviction was overturned. That you can't deal with it is another issue.

I do not deny that two Republican judges acted in a hyper-partisan fashion to reward a fellow Republican for service to the party in overturning his conviction. I have no trouble accepting that.
 
One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It is inane to even bring it up as it has nothing to do with this case.

It had everything to do with your comment about juries but you seem to have missed the point.
 
I do not deny that two Republican judges acted in a hyper-partisan fashion to reward a fellow Republican for service to the party in overturning his conviction. I have no trouble accepting that.

Yes, everyone is hyper-partisan but you. The politically based conviction was overturned and you should try to get over it.
 
It had everything to do with your comment about juries but you seem to have missed the point.

It has nothing to do with the DeLay jury. The Simpson trial was lost the day that LA Prosecuter Gil Garcetti agreed on his own authority to move the trial from Santa Monica where it should have been held to downtown LA. that permitted the injection of all the racial crap that led to the Simpson acquital. There was no such fiasco in the DeLay trial.
 
Yes, everyone is hyper-partisan but you. The politically based conviction was overturned and you should try to get over it.

There is nothing to get over. Perhaps you do not understand the political nature of the very crimes DeLay was charged with in the first place?
 
It has nothing to do with the DeLay jury. The Simpson trial was lost the day that LA Prosecuter Gil Garcetti agreed on his own authority to move the trial from Santa Monica where it should have been held to downtown LA. that permitted the injection of all the racial crap that led to the Simpson acquital. There was no such fiasco in the DeLay trial.

Correct.

But there was other types of fiasco. As the appeals judges pointed out.
 
It has nothing to do with the DeLay jury. The Simpson trial was lost the day that LA Prosecuter Gil Garcetti agreed on his own authority to move the trial from Santa Monica where it should have been held to downtown LA. that permitted the injection of all the racial crap that led to the Simpson acquital. There was no such fiasco in the DeLay trial.

The point that went right over your head is that juries make mistakes. They are not infallible.
 
Not with DNA, but with a calender. The events happened in 2002, money was transferred via check to the RNC.
The law that made check transfers illegal was not in place till 2004.
Delay may have violated the spirit of the law in place in 2002, but not the letter of the law.

He was an effective Republican politician. That was all the proof some need. I wonder why the left wing press didn't make as big a story over this compared to his indictment and improper conviction

same thing with Ted Stevens
 
There is nothing to get over. Perhaps you do not understand the political nature of the very crimes DeLay was charged with in the first place?

so your point is that the prosecution was political as well
 
Correct.

But there was other types of fiasco. As the appeals judges pointed out.

Like what?

You cannot use a partisan republican opinion used to reward a partisan republican warrior who engaged in doing battle for the republican party and rewarding other republicans through redistricting as any sort of objective evidence.
 
The point that went right over your head is that juries make mistakes. They are not infallible.

Perhaps you were under the impression we were discussing the musing of gods?
 
Please read again. It was the CRIMES WHICH WERE POLITICAL IN NATURE.

The prosecution was political in nature as is the boo hooing of those who are mad that DeLay beat the bogus rap. I believe I said the indictment was BS when it happened

Looks like I was right-yet again
 
The prosecution was political in nature as is the boo hooing of those who are mad that DeLay beat the bogus rap. I believe I said the indictment was BS when it happened

Looks like I was right-yet again

The only thing you were right about was the use of the word POLITICAL..... the crimes DeLay committed were POLITICAL pure and simple.

He was acting as a POLITICAL operative.

He aided the Republican Party - a POLITICAL organization.

He attempted to give serious advantage in redistricting to a POLITICAL party for POLITICAL reasons.

Yes, DeLay was POLITICAL from start to finish when his POLITICAL allies on the appeals court saved his sorry ass by rewarding him for his POLITICAL service.
 
The only thing you were right about was the use of the word POLITICAL..... the crimes DeLay committed were POLITICAL pure and simple.

He was acting as a POLITICAL operative.

He aided the Republican Party - a POLITICAL organization.

He attempted to give serious advantage in redistricting to a POLITICAL party for POLITICAL reasons.

Yes, DeLay was POLITICAL from start to finish when his POLITICAL allies on the appeals court saved his sorry ass by rewarding him for his POLITICAL service.

As a matter of fact, Delay committed no crimes. If you think he did, I suggest looking at what the appeals court decided. That would change the mind of anyone who was mistaken and thought he committed a crime, except for people with a political agenda. Those types sit around and keep trying to invent crimes just as the DA did to start this fiasco.
 
Back
Top Bottom