Talk:Tom DeLay campaign finance trial

the scope of this page
Is this page intended to discuss all corruption investigations related to Tom DeLay, including, for example, the Jack Abramoff scandal? Or is it to be centered on DeLay's indictment. If the latter, and possibly even if the former, it should probably be renamed. NatusRoma | Talk 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Error in 'Criminal' infobox
The infobox on this page lists DeLay's "convictions" as money laundering and conspiracy to violate election law (a charge which has been dismissed). This should be changed to "charges" rather than "convictions" and the latter should probably be removed, or at least listed as a dismissed charge. I understand that the format of this infobox will not allow this, so perhaps this infobox should be removed altogether (at least until the trial is complete). As much as I hate to say anything in DeLay's defense, he hasn't been convicted yet.76.184.126.174 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tone of Page generally presumes guilt of DeLay
Consider this information

- Democrats tried to derail redistricting by fleeing the state, and DeLay opposed it. Earle, a Democrat who predominately prosecuted Republicans, goes after him.

- Earle, originally indicted DeLay for alleged acts that predated passage of the law that they supposedly violated. Indictment dismissed with prejudice.

- Then, Earle presented evidence of alleged 'money laundering' to a 2nd grand jury which, despite intimidation by Earle, rejected him again, refusing to issue an indictment.

- However, Earle went to a third grand jury, 3 days later, and finally obtained an indictment on the money laundering charge.

- The charge is extremely questionable because of a complete absence of evidence. The indictment alleges that there was a MEMO instructing the two other defendants to substitute specific soft money contributions for hard money contributions. That alleged memo is the key.

- However, defense counsel requested a copy of the document referenced in the indictment (remember, the only evidence supporting the allegations), and the prosecution was forced to admit that, while they think it exists, they’ve never seen it and don’t know anyone who has. Most people would call this indictment a joke and Earle’s shenanigans are every bit as egregious as what was alleged of DeLay.

- Aug 22, 2008, Austin’s 3rd Court of Appeals held that the state’s money-laundering statute in effect in 2002, meant to address drug-money-laundering, did not cover checks, only cash.

- The alleged money-laundering of DeLay and associates involved only checks. There is nothing illegal that the prosecution can show a jury. There simply will be no conviction.

24.153.223.151 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Conviction overturn, acquittal issued
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/conviction-ex-us-house-leader-delays-tossed http://images.bimedia.net/documents/tom-delay-appeal-doc-12D.pdf

Can someone plug this in correctly?

69.250.189.138 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Darkside007