Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Confusion Reigns Supreme in the Jury Room

So the jurors who are now engaged in determining if Tom DeLay is guilty of money laundering and conspiracy seem to be confused. This is obvious to me in the nature of their questions sent out to Judge Pat Priest.

Question: “Can it constitute money laundering if the money wasn't procured by illegal means originally?”

That’s two negatives in the sentence so I will translate:

“Can it constitute money laundering if the money was procured by legal means originally?”


Does someone think that money laundering takes place only with illegally acquired money? Did someone completely miss the point? Is someone simply confused?

Dick DeGuerin hit the nail on the head in his evaluation of the question:
“It shows the confusion. ... There was no crime, It's a very good sign”
I’ll say. Confusion reigns supreme in the jury room.

They’re so confused that they even asked the judge the same question again worded in another way.

It seems that while we have 12 jurors deciding DeLay’s fate, they seem to have half a brain to share between them.

Well at least Tom DeLay is truly getting a trial judged by his peers.

No comments: