Reply With Quote
..and he was really convicted, not railroaded like Rangel....
..and he was really convicted, not railroaded like Rangel....
Rangle wasn't railroaded. He in fact was in violations of ethics.
Now this Delay case could be interesting. If I read that right, he was prosecuted in essence for not abiding by campaign law, which is uncons utional anyway. Now I'll bet this makes it to the supreme court, and his conviction gets overturned.
The person who was railroaded was Scooter Libby.
He was convicted of money laundering-you know? Its what drug dealers do with their money.
The conviction was for money laundering. He has already asked a judge to determine his sentence. I figure he knows the judge.
No. He actually perjured himself. He was just sure he was going to be pardoned, but Bush threw his ass under the bus and let his Felony conviction stand by only commuting his sentence, and literally saving his ass.
It must be nice to have one's views of the law and the judicial system wholly unmoored from any of the impediments that reality can so often impose.
Reality and WC don't really mix. They're like oil and water.
Hey, scooter libby will be exonarated!! And nixon too
Yes, I know. Valarie was known by three references. He knew her and didn't know he did, later put it together.
Yes, those laws were applied. I don't know the full details, but I'll bet it's like using the RICO laws against abortion protesters.
So fricking what. He went around uncons utional campaign finance reform laws. I just smell the possibility of raising this to the next level, and yes. I could be wrong. I'm less bent up about this than jaywalkers.
Let's Thank Ronnie Earle for Tom DeLay's Conviction
"To defeat DeGuerin, DeLay's lead defense attorney, is almost akin to Sisyphus finally getting that damned rock to remain atop the mountain. DeGuerin is, after all, the guy who recently got singer-songwriter Billy Joe Shaver off the hook for pulling a gun in a barroom dispute and asking the man just past the end of the barrel, "Where do you want it?" and then firing.
Yep, DeGuerin is that good. And Texas sure loves its crafty defense lawyers who win seemingly open and shut cases as much as its outlaw country troubadours like Shaver (so much as to wink at the transgressions of the latter). They are Lone Star State folk heroes. And similar admiration for wily politicians who can bend and break election laws with brass and canniness -- even begrudging from the opposition -- is yet another proud Texas tradition."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-pa...tml?view=print
Goof post, B-D. Earle really took it on the chin for having the audacity to actually prosecute Delay in the first place. This is, I believe, a vindication for him, and B-D, I think even you will admit that this is America at is most unbiased.
I'm sure Delay will appeal.
The corrupted, d, (aka elected) SCOTX will rule in Delay's favor.
Le Plus Ca Change ...
This one goes to the Court of Criminal Appeals, not SCOTX.
Interesting. My gut feeling was this will be overturned on appeal or at worst he will get probation and a hefty fine. The jury was stacked with liberals (six Democrats, one Republican, three independent liberals and two independent conservatives, The forewoman was a self-described Greenpeace advocate and a former anthropology student) but clearly since the jury didn't hang there was enough cir stantial evidence that the decision wasn't made under pure partisan lines.
If you could appeal based on the political views of the jurors, no jury verdict would ever be secure.
The thing about an appeals court is that they can only look at evidence presented at the original trial. No new evidence can be seen.
At the same time, you have judges looking at the evidence and the legal briefs from the attorneys (theoretically from a neutral, legal perspective) rather than a civilian jury that can decide based on more emotional/political reasons.
I'm not saying the decision was political. I'm just saying that an appeals court may see the case differently.
It doesn't matter what the appeals court thinks of the case. They are going to give the benefit of the doubt to the jury .
Um, you're definitely saying its political, CC. There's no other reason to bring up their political views.
C'mon Manny. Read the original post.
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.but clearly since the jury didn't hang there was enough cir stantial evidence that the decision wasn't made under pure partisan lines.
Ironically, even if he did "launder" corporate donations through the RNC (which took Corporate donations from his PAC and then donated privately donated money to the Texas candidates) the Supreme Court just ruled this year that Corporations can legally donate directly to the Texas candidates.
TX criminal appeals court judges are elected, too. Plenty of chance for campaign contributors to corrupt the judges.
What would be the basis of appeal, CC?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
