Tom Delay Convicted of Laundering Charges

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7308000.html

AUSTIN – After almost 19 hours of deliberations, a Travis County jury today convicted former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on felony charges of political money laundering.

DeLay faces two to 20 years in prison on a conspiracy charge and five to 99 years or life on a money laundering charge. DeLay remains free on bail, with sentencing tentatively set for Dec. 20.

DeLay and his family did not react when the verdict was read. But after the court was dismissed, DeLay received a hug and a kiss from his wife. Then, his adult daughter, Dani, buried her face into DeLay's shoulder and began sobbing. DeLay's face turned red as he fought back tears.

DeLay's defense lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, who has claimed no money laundering actually occurred, decried the verdict.

"This is a terrible miscarriage of justice," DeGuerin said. "We will appeal. I'm very, very disappointed. This will never stand up on appeal."

DeLay, as he has from the beginning, said the case was all politics, but said his religious faith is getting him through.

"I'm not going to blame anyone," he said. "This is an abuse of power. It's a miscarriage of justice. And I still maintain that I am innocent. The criminalization of politics undermines our system."

More at link...

Any idea what the sentencing guidelines are?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Actually it looks like he's being tried at the state level instead of the federal level, so it's pretty much up to the judge and not the sentencing commissions formula.

Over at talkleft I read that probation is actually a possibility here and even the likely sentence. So he may not spend a day in jail.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Actually it looks like he's being tried at the state level instead of the federal level, so it's pretty much up to the judge and not the sentencing commissions formula.

Over at talkleft I read that probation is actually a possibility here and even the likely sentence. So he may not spend a day in jail.

bummer, and texas gives drug users years for possession

 

[Bfgrn]

WOW, from 'dance with the stars' to 'squeal like a pig'

 

[Bfgrn]

Those who dehumanize others deserve to be dehumanized themselves.

Paradox of tolerance

The philosopher Karl Popper perhaps said it best in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies when he explained the Paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

"The Paradox of Tolerance," Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I, Chapt. 7, n.4, at 265 (Princeton University Press 1971)

 

[apple0154]

no, oh hackish one. both committed a crime. one got away with it.

Ahh, yes. One involved in an activity usually associated with organized crime (money laundering), using the proceeds to elect Repubs to interfere in the political process of a State (redistricting), thus affecting the lives of millions of people while the other was guilty of doing what loving couples do in the privacy of their own home.

From Bill and Monica's "two people showing affection" to HCR's "caring about others" it seems Repubs have an aversion towards the kind and gentle things in life. Always angry. Always upset. Seeking out and exhibiting the divisive points between two groups/persons. Traits of a warrior race of beings.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What crime did Clinton commit? Please don't say perjury.

he never had sexual relations with that woman? ms. lewinsky?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ahh, yes. One involved in an activity usually associated with organized crime (money laundering), using the proceeds to elect Repubs to interfere in the political process of a State (redistricting), thus affecting the lives of millions of people while the other was guilty of doing what loving couples do in the privacy of their own home.

From Bill and Monica's "two people showing affection" to HCR's "caring about others" it seems Repubs have an aversion towards the kind and gentle things in life. Always angry. Always upset. Seeking out and exhibiting the divisive points between two groups/persons. Traits of a warrior race of beings.

as was noted above, it was obstruction of justice, not 'loving couples activity'.

 

[apple0154]

as was noted above, it was obstruction of justice, not 'loving couples activity'.

Considering Conservatives/Repubs prefer limited government, government that doesn't intrude in their lives, it's difficult to imagine a more intrusive action than questioning a person concerning consensual sex with another individual. Not only is the person expected to divulge information but any info involves the private life of the other individual, as well.

By virtue of asking if President Clinton has sex with Monica it results in the government demanding to know the sexual activities of Monica which surely must be an outrage to anyone who believes in privacy and less intrusive government.

As the old saying goes, "Discretion is the greater part of valor."

 

[Socrtease]

he never had sexual relations with that woman? ms. lewinsky?

Yes he did, but it was not MATERIAL to a sexual harrasment claim. As a matter of fact in MOST states they have applied a modified rape shield rule to keep people from being in the consentual sexual history of either party. For it to be perjury the lie must be material to the issues being litigated. You can lie about your age under oath, and as long as your age is not material to the case, it is not perjury. This is the problem, too many people pretend to know the law. The law of perjury is very precise, there is lots of wiggle room. Merely lying under oath is not perjury and NEVER has been.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes he did, but it was not MATERIAL to a sexual harrasment claim. As a matter of fact in MOST states they have applied a modified rape shield rule to keep people from being in the consentual sexual history of either party. For it to be perjury the lie must be material to the issues being litigated. You can lie about your age under oath, and as long as your age is not material to the case, it is not perjury. This is the problem, too many people pretend to know the law. The law of perjury is very precise, there is lots of wiggle room. Merely lying under oath is not perjury and NEVER has been.

if people are not very familiar with the perjury laws, then that fault lies squarely with the government and the MSM, since they seem to propagate the myth that lying on the stand about anything, or lying to a federal officer at anytime, is a crime.

however, I do thank you for that bit of info, for it was something I was unaware of.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Considering Conservatives/Repubs prefer limited government, government that doesn't intrude in their lives, it's difficult to imagine a more intrusive action than questioning a person concerning consensual sex with another individual. Not only is the person expected to divulge information but any info involves the private life of the other individual, as well.

By virtue of asking if President Clinton has sex with Monica it results in the government demanding to know the sexual activities of Monica which surely must be an outrage to anyone who believes in privacy and less intrusive government.

As the old saying goes, "Discretion is the greater part of valor."

do not even try to extricate the liberals/democrats of their responsibility in the same, considering they've used the private actions of other individuals in their pursuit of what they call 'justice'. It comes across as very hypocritical.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Here's a thought....will the recent SCOTUS decision on Citizens United have any effect on Delay's appeal?

As for all this blathering about Clinton....GMAFB! The man was given an article impeachment for lying about cheating on his wife....when NO complaint was lodged by the "other woman" or his wife filing for divorce....and of which had NOTHING to with the original inquiry into his wife's alleged insider trading charge....and all born of an illegal wire tap that's normally inadmissable in court. Yea, a big win for the GOP....the man left with an approval rating hire than the Shrub's entire second term! It's over, let it go!

Delay was and is one POS. His legacy is sealed.