3 Years in the Big House for DeLay

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
Politicians have to be held accountable.



A judge has ordered U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to serve three years in prison for his role in a scheme to illegally funnel corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.

The sentence comes after a jury in November convicted DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. DeLay was once one of the most powerful men in U.S. politics, ascending to the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives.

The former Houston-area congressman had faced up to life in prison. His attorneys asked for probation.

Senior Judge Pat Priest issued his ruling after a brief sentencing hearing on Monday in which former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert testified on DeLay's behalf.

Priest declined to hear testimony from the state's only witness.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/01/10/state/n002416S85.DTL&tsp=1
 
Wow; didn't realize he was even facing jail time.

You could probably find some charge against almost anyone that serves in Congress more than a decade or so...
 
i'm surprised the judget granted delay 10,000 bail until the appeals is over....

makes me wonder how good of a chance the appeal has...he is not really a flight a risk and the crime is heinous....i'll wait until see appeal papers to give another opinion
 
Yurt said:
i'm surprised the judget granted delay 10,000 bail until the appeals is over....

makes me wonder how good of a chance the appeal has...he is not really a flight a risk and the crime is heinous....i'll wait until see appeal papers to give another opinion
Click to expand...

just a delay tactic - after all, DeLay might die before he has to serve his time
 
Rana said:
Three years, what a crock! If it had been a regular Joe, they would have gotten 10 at least.
Click to expand...

And no freedom for appeal.

If he hangs on long enough a Repub President will come along and pardon him. I guess we all know how he'll vote November/12. :lol:
 
Schadenfreude said:
just a delay tactic - after all, DeLay might die before he has to serve his time
Click to expand...

uh no, he has the right to appeal

sorry you feel the law is just a delay tactic and really, do you know the law in this area, do you know all the facts? its entirely possible the jury got it wrong....
 
cawacko said:
Politicians have to be held accountable.



A judge has ordered U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to serve three years in prison for his role in a scheme to illegally funnel corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.

The sentence comes after a jury in November convicted DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. DeLay was once one of the most powerful men in U.S. politics, ascending to the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives.

The former Houston-area congressman had faced up to life in prison. His attorneys asked for probation.

Senior Judge Pat Priest issued his ruling after a brief sentencing hearing on Monday in which former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert testified on DeLay's behalf.

Priest declined to hear testimony from the state's only witness.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/01/10/state/n002416S85.DTL&tsp=1
Click to expand...

Too bad all the political tax cheats of late got a pass i.e. Gietner; Rangle; Daschle et al
 
I was suprised Bush did not pardon him. Very glad to see justice done...


Dixie I seem to remember you saying he would be exonerated...
 
Ugh, Bush could have pardoned him at any time during the pendency of the charges, in fact Bush could have pardoned him before any charged were filed....
 
A "regular" person however would not have been likely to get granted release pending appeal. That is RARE in federal court.
 
Socrtease said:
A "regular" person however would not have been likely to get granted release pending appeal. That is RARE in federal court.
Click to expand...


My understanding is that his conviction was based on a fairly novel application of the law under which he was convicted. That being the case, I imagine the judge doesn't want to throw him in the pokey when there is no binding precedent and a more than marginal chance it gets overturned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top