What Is DeLay Guilty Of?

[goldcatt]

Meh....depending on the sentence: Frankly, I think he'll get probation and go on with life. The tempest in a teapot is 5 year old news, and the SP has since made rulings allowing corporations to donate as individuals to candidates that make the Texas Law mute.

I think the minimum would be appropriate, serving approximately half. From what I understand of his role, probation is too light but anything more than the minimum would also be unfair.

And no, go back and read Citizens' United. Whether the TX laws have changed in the meantime I don't know, but the SCOTUS ruling doesn't touch corporate donations given to candidates. It has no bearing here. Even if the TX Legislature decided to change the law, they can't go back and make it retroactive to cover this. So it wouldn't help Delay.

The appeal should be interesting.

Yes, I agree the SP's decision about Coroprations being able to donate as individuals won't (obviously has not) have any bearing on the verdict; However, it should have some bearing on the sentence.

Wanna bet Delay gets probation and doesn't appeal?

Whoever's wrong must use an avi of the other's choice for a week?

It shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence either, for three reasons:

1. The transaction in question is still illegal under Citizens United.

2. Citizens United doesn't address activities involving a cover up, and

3. Even if C.U. were applicable at all, it is not retroactive nor does it have anything to do with Delay's speech rights, only the donors'.

Doesn't appeal? I'll take that bet for the avie. I'll start shopping for yours now.

Probation? I don't think it's warranted but I don't know enough about the judge on this case and his sentencing history. Side bet for rep?

 

[Samson]

I think the minimum would be appropriate, serving approximately half. From what I understand of his role, probation is too light but anything more than the minimum would also be unfair.

And no, go back and read Citizens' United. Whether the TX laws have changed in the meantime I don't know, but the SCOTUS ruling doesn't touch corporate donations given to candidates. It has no bearing here. Even if the TX Legislature decided to change the law, they can't go back and make it retroactive to cover this. So it wouldn't help Delay.

The appeal should be interesting.

Yes, I agree the SP's decision about Coroprations being able to donate as individuals won't (obviously has not) have any bearing on the verdict; However, it should have some bearing on the sentence.

Wanna bet Delay gets probation and doesn't appeal?

Whoever's wrong must use an avi of the other's choice for a week?

It shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence either, for three reasons:

1. The transaction in question is still illegal under Citizens United.

2. Citizens United doesn't address activities involving a cover up, and

3. Even if C.U. were applicable at all, it is not retroactive nor does it have anything to do with Delay's speech rights, only the donors'.

Doesn't appeal? I'll take that bet for the avie. I'll start shopping for yours now.

Probation? I don't think it's warranted but I don't know enough about the judge on this case and his sentencing history. Side bet for rep?

OK you're ON BAY BEE!!!

Hope you don't mind Octopii.

 

[Madeline]

All public corruption trials are "political", RGS. From what goldcatt has written, a bit of legal tidying-up would have kept DeLay outta hot water, and that may make convicting him seem unfair. So what if he did not dot the i's, etc.? On the other hand, there should be strict adherence to our election laws by candidates, especially experienced ones. There are enough loopholes; they dun need to flaunt the law.

What part of a 3 year witch hunt did you miss? The prosecutor just kept impaneling different Grand Juries and they kept not agreeing with him. It took him 2 or 3 years to finally find a Grand Jury that would indite him. And then promptly the Judge threw out all most ALL the charges.

I feel ya, RGS, but we have had a federal corruption probe going on here for years. The local talent claims it has never seen any evidence of wrong doing, and the witnesses were not about to testify if the FBI could not make its case....nobody wants to be first up to bat.

Your argument cuts both ways. If DeLay had minded his peas and ques, he would be home free.

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, I agree the SP's decision about Coroprations being able to donate as individuals won't (obviously has not) have any bearing on the verdict; However, it should have some bearing on the sentence.

Wanna bet Delay gets probation and doesn't appeal?

Whoever's wrong must use an avi of the other's choice for a week?

It shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence either, for three reasons:

1. The transaction in question is still illegal under Citizens United.

2. Citizens United doesn't address activities involving a cover up, and

3. Even if C.U. were applicable at all, it is not retroactive nor does it have anything to do with Delay's speech rights, only the donors'.

Doesn't appeal? I'll take that bet for the avie. I'll start shopping for yours now.

Probation? I don't think it's warranted but I don't know enough about the judge on this case and his sentencing history. Side bet for rep?

OK you're ON BAY BEE!!!

Hope you don't mind Octopii.

Somehow I think that's a moot point.

Okay, here's the Rule:

26.2. Criminal Cases

(a) By the Defendant. The Notice of Appeal must be filed:

(1) within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order, or

(2) within 90 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/TRAP/TRAP-090108.pdf (PDF alert - quoted deadline for filing is on Page 39)

You got a deal!

EDIT: Changed to criminal deadlines.

 

[Samson]

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from
paying costs must pay — at the time an item is presented for
filing — whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court
order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order
that is just.

Tom better find another gig with Dancing with the Stars.

 

[goldcatt]

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from
paying costs must pay — at the time an item is presented for
filing — whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court
order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order
that is just.

Tom better find another gig with Dancing with the Stars.

I doubt they'll find him indigent.

Oh, never fear. He'll have a defense fund I'm sure. The filing fees themselves usually aren't prohibitive. I wonder what appellate firm he retained? The good ones don't come cheap.