Tom Delay gets 3 years. It's hammer time.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
manimal

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
slap on the wrist for what he did really. another fine precedent where the guilty get away with white collar crime and the jean-valjean gets life for a loaf of bread...
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
That seems alright. 99 years talked about and wishing for in other thread was ridiculous, unjust, and totally partisan.
 
manimal

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Zebo said:
That seems alright. 99 years talked about and wishing for in other thread was ridiculous, unjust, and totally partisan.
Click to expand...

While 99 years is excessive the very fact that he was elected to office and thus should be held to a higher standard than say a mob accountant who would get much more time according to the law..

Abramoff got more time..
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Maybe other politicians will take notice.

Here's a man, elected to very high office, and he's abjucated a criminal.

Maybe voters will notice.

-John
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Not really real crimes by the elite bankers goes unpunished in fact they get bonesed out 1% of GDP courtesy of tax payer. William black who threw all those guys in prison in S&L crisis said he could throw 10x as many in prison today if they let him at it. This and Maddoff is nothing more than scrapes to keep you a believer.
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Tom Delay, one of the highest ranking politicians, being thrown in Jail, is not just to appease the people, expecially, as far as I know, there was no big gang trying to fry Tom Delay.

He was one of our leaders, and now has been abjucated a criminal.

-John
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Like Martha Stewart?

You forget the animosity of the Government.

-John
 
Last edited:
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
dmcowen674 said:
He won't see a day of jail time.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled since that Corporations can funnel as much money as they want. Delay was just ahead of his time.
Click to expand...
This didn't have anything to do with corporations funneling money per se. It's a technicality, like how Congressmen have to keep a separate office to make fund-raising calls. Leadership of the political entity cannot be the leadership of the non-political entity; they aren't even supposed to coordinate with each other. Delay essentially did what both parties have been doing and continue to do. His hubris was that in his lust for power, he refused to play by the letter of the law. Rather than moving money from one entity to another entity, with leadership moving between both entities but never the same leadership at the same time, he insisted on controlling both entities. It's much like a banker that decides to give himself a loan, but not according to the laws for such things. IMO three years sounds about right. It's not a huge deal, but it's a willful and blatant violation of the law by a powerful man who no doubt had excellent legal talent telling him he could not do that. And if he wins on appeal, it won't be because a SCOTUS interpretation, but because of some technical error in the trial itself. A politician still cannot run an organization and donate to himself money he could not legally directly receive; that would still be money laundering.

Or to put it a different way: There's a big difference between knowing that powerful politicians arrange donations to themselves and their political groups from subordinate but still independent associates, and a powerful politician having actual control of both entities. The first remains legal, the second remains illegal.
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
werepossum said:
This didn't have anything to do with corporations funneling money per se. It's a technicality, like how Congressmen have to keep a separate office to make fund-raising calls. Leadership of the political entity cannot be the leadership of the non-political entity; they aren't even supposed to coordinate with each other. Delay essentially did what both parties have been doing and continue to do. His hubris was that in his lust for power, he refused to play by the letter of the law. Rather than moving money from one entity to another entity, with leadership moving between both entities but never the same leadership at the same time, he insisted on controlling both entities. It's much like a banker that decides to give himself a loan, but not according to the laws for such things. IMO three years sounds about right. It's not a huge deal, but it's a willful and blatant violation of the law by a powerful man who no doubt had excellent legal talent telling him he could not do that. And if he wins on appeal, it won't be because a SCOTUS interpretation, but because of some technical error in the trial itself. A politician still cannot run an organization and donate to himself money he could not legally directly receive; that would still be money laundering.

Or to put it a different way: There's a big difference between knowing that powerful politicians arrange donations to themselves and their political groups from subordinate but still independent associates, and a powerful politician having actual control of both entities. The first remains legal, the second remains illegal.
Click to expand...
Excellent explanation.
 
CallMeJoe

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
werepossum said:
This didn't have anything to do with corporations funneling money per se...
Click to expand...
I believe in this case it was entirely about corporate money. Mr. DeLay was charged with violations of Texas state campaign laws, using his PAC to launder corporate contributions for Republican candidates. I doubt his appeal will succeed in state courts, but if he gets a hearing in federal court I would not speculate on the result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom