Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When the feds are involved in the investigation I guess the white house does have something to say about or at least the person who was appointed by the white house.Its about doing the same thing. I guess it all depends on who is in the white house at the time.This ain't about Democrats.
Right Wing Architects of the GOP Control of Congress a few years back.
Abramoff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess not.
the whitehouse has nothing to do with violating a state law and prosecuted in a state court.
Austin news, sports, weather, Longhorns, business | Statesman.com
By Mike Ward and Laylan Copelin | Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 01:27 PM
Update: 5 p.m.:
Tom DeLay, the former U.S. House majority leader whose name became synonymous with the Republicans controversial rise to power in the Texas House, was found guilty today of laundering money in connection with the 2002 elections.
Jurors sent a note on yellow legal paper that a verdict had been reached to the judge at 4:46 p.m. They had deliberated since Monday afternoon.
DeLay was charged with money laundering and conspiracy to commit money. He faces a possible sentence of 5-99 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine on the money laundering charge, and 2-20 years in prison and a possible $10,000 fine on the conspiracy charge.
Prosecutors earlier said they believe the DeLay case is the first such criminal charge ever filed over Texas century-old prohibition on corporate contributions in state political races.
Delay, a Republican who was nicknamed The Hammer because of his heavy-handed style, was accused of conspiring to funnel $190,000 of corporate money through the Republican National Committee, which sent $190,000 in campaign donations to seven GOP candidates for the Texas House.
State law prohibits corporations from giving donations to candidates directly or indirectly.
Didn't the SCOTUS recently rule that corporations can contribute same as individuals. Is there something I'm missing here?Lemme guess.....RETROACTIVE is too-big a word, for you, right??
Convicted on circumstantial evidence, in a Kangaroo Court. The Appeal should be interesting. Too bad for him his name isn't Charles Rangel.
seriously Dude, you are in need of a rest. Delay was as big a crook as they come.
"The criminalization of politics undermines our very system...."
He's finally going to prison. Up to life inprisonment.
He's finally going to prison. Up to life inprisonment.
do you think thats what he deserves?
Austin news, sports, weather, Longhorns, business | Statesman.com
By Mike Ward and Laylan Copelin | Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 01:27 PM
Update: 5 p.m.:
Tom DeLay, the former U.S. House majority leader whose name became synonymous with the Republicans controversial rise to power in the Texas House, was found guilty today of laundering money in connection with the 2002 elections.
Jurors sent a note on yellow legal paper that a verdict had been reached to the judge at 4:46 p.m. They had deliberated since Monday afternoon.
DeLay was charged with money laundering and conspiracy to commit money. He faces a possible sentence of 5-99 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine on the money laundering charge, and 2-20 years in prison and a possible $10,000 fine on the conspiracy charge.
Prosecutors earlier said they believe the DeLay case is the first such criminal charge ever filed over Texas century-old prohibition on corporate contributions in state political races.
Delay, a Republican who was nicknamed The Hammer because of his heavy-handed style, was accused of conspiring to funnel $190,000 of corporate money through the Republican National Committee, which sent $190,000 in campaign donations to seven GOP candidates for the Texas House.
State law prohibits corporations from giving donations to candidates directly or indirectly.
Convicted on circumstantial evidence, in a Kangaroo Court. The Appeal should be interesting. Too bad for him his name isn't Charles Rangel.
He's finally going to prison. Up to life inprisonment.
do you think thats what he deserves?
I do. He's had his fingers in corruption for awhile with no consequence.
do you think thats what he deserves?
I do. He's had his fingers in corruption for awhile with no consequence.
so he deserves life imprisonment for playing with campaign money? seriously?
do you think thats what he deserves?
I do. He's had his fingers in corruption for awhile with no consequence.
so he deserves life imprisonment for playing with campaign money? seriously?
he will be likely to get maybe 5 yrs out in 2 and spend his incarceration in a country club prison with a golf course.He's finally going to prison. Up to life inprisonment.
When the feds are involved in the investigation I guess the white house does have something to say about or at least the person who was appointed by the white house.Its about doing the same thing. I guess it all depends on who is in the white house at the time.
I guess not.
the whitehouse has nothing to do with violating a state law and prosecuted in a state court.
I do. He's had his fingers in corruption for awhile with no consequence.
so he deserves life imprisonment for playing with campaign money? seriously?
money laundering has specific predicate acts and specific penalties.
why would you think he doesn't deserve to go to jail for money laundering.
and, fwiw, there is discretion in sentencing. his chances of getting life are virtually nil.
He's finally going to prison. Up to life inprisonment.
do you think thats what he deserves?
What??? I can't divert money from my election fund to other causes....hmmmm, my summer home, uhhh enron stock fund, hmmmmmmmmmmm.............
so he deserves life imprisonment for playing with campaign money? seriously?
money laundering has specific predicate acts and specific penalties.
why would you think he doesn't deserve to go to jail for money laundering.
and, fwiw, there is discretion in sentencing. his chances of getting life are virtually nil.
I never said he doesn't deserve to go to jail.
I was asking sarah what her thoughts were based on her posts.