Judge found face down in a drainage ditch in 3....2...1...

Wow, that got greenlit damn fast.

Pat Priest? "Marilyn" became a judge? Darn, darn, darn!

That vile, hypocritical, un-American piece of crap needs to be in jail as long as possible as an example to all of the politicians who follow in his tracks.

/He needs to put to use the moves he learned on Dancing With the Stars.

Stepped aside or had his knees busted and he fell to one side.

zerkalo: Pat Priest? "Marilyn" became a judge? Darn, darn, darn!

DeLay is such a slimeball. For a member of the Party of Personable Responsibility, he sure doesn't want to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. After being found guilty and sentenced to 3 years in prison and 10 years probation:

Earlier in the day, Travis County prosecutor Steven Brand argued that DeLay should begin his sentence immediately.

"He needs to go to prison, your Honor, and he needs to go today," he said.

But DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, told the judge that the guilty verdict alone was punishment enough.

"Tom DeLay was convicted of a felony," he said. "That alone is consequence is enough."

He should be general population right now

Crucify that asshole and be done with him.

LittleSmitty: "Tom DeLay was convicted of a felony," he said. "That alone is consequence is enough."

Yeah, that doesn't make any farking sense.

I'm always thinking of ways to determine whether or not a person is worth arguing with.

Anyone who mounts a spirited defense of DeLay doesn't have a handle on reality.

Judges make recommendations to attorneys about plea bargains all the time. I guess he wanted to leave no chance that the defense could later question his impartiality, but let's not act like this was anything out of the ordinary in the criminal justice system.

drewkumo: LittleSmitty: "Tom DeLay was convicted of a felony," he said. "That alone is consequence is enough."

Yeah, that doesn't make any farking sense.

It does when you consider that he's rich and white.

I mean, he'll have to go to the country club with the knowledge that everyone there knows he is a convicted felon. That's more than enough punishment.

/obvious sarcasm is obvious

So...why are we talking about a convicted criminal again?

Is the judge named Priest or Prince? It seems to flip flop twice in TFA

LittleSmitty: DeLay is such a slimeball. For a member of the Party of Personable Responsibility, he sure doesn't want to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. After being found guilty and sentenced to 3 years in prison and 10 years probation:

Earlier in the day, Travis County prosecutor Steven Brand argued that DeLay should begin his sentence immediately.

"He needs to go to prison, your Honor, and he needs to go today," he said.

But DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, told the judge that the guilty verdict alone was punishment enough.

"Tom DeLay was convicted of a felony," he said. "That alone is consequence is enough."

He should be general population Speaker of the House right now

FTFY

The amount of kook in Mr. Delay's eye concerns me.

What did you expect out of Texas, a fair trial?

Well it's a good thing he didn't commit perjury in front of a Federal Grand Jury, cuz then he'd be on the book/speaking tour with Bubba instead of going to the pokey.

Someone needs to drop the hammer on this scofflaw.

At least the judge has the self-awareness to recuse himself when he's done something questionable.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I'm an unscrupulous liar, but not a very good one. I'll repeat the same lie over and over again, even though I've been called out on it many times.

Yes, we know.

DeLay should already be in a cell, rotting.

Jackson Herring: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Well it's a good thing he didn't commit perjury in front of a Federal Grand Jury, cuz then he'd be on the book/speaking tour with Bubba instead of going to the pokey.

Is

Is this a b b but clinton?

Yes, I do believe this man is still mad at Bill Clinton. The successful, moderate president from more than a decade ago really makes this man steam. That's farking amazing, if you ask me.

culebra: Jackson Herring: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Well it's a good thing he didn't commit perjury in front of a Federal Grand Jury, cuz then he'd be on the book/speaking tour with Bubba instead of going to the pokey.

Is

Is this a b b but clinton?

Yes, I do believe this man is still mad at Bill Clinton. The successful, moderate president from more than a decade ago really makes this man steam. That's farking amazing, if you ask me.

It's not a bad guess on Jackson Herring's part. It's really, really hard to figure out the motivations of people who live in an alternate reality.

/and not even a fun alternative reality like on Fringe or Sliders.

Epoch_Zero: DeLay should already be in a cell, rotting.

With Sandy Berger as his cellmate.

Let me guess: this judge needs to recuse himself because there is a hint of possible bias, but judge Thomas has done nothing wrong.

Truly, justice DeLay-ed is justice denied.

Yeah, yeah, so Bush lied us into a $2 trillion+ war...but Clinton lied about cheating on his wife! He should be in jail!

Okay, okay, so DeLay forced women to get abortions and undermined American democracy by working with folks like Abramoff, who defrauded Native American tribes with Ralph Reed...but Sandy Burger put some photocopies in his pants or something. He should be in jail!

I'm confused. Is what he did technically legal now due to 'citizens united'?

I remember being all "This is an outrage.jpg" when the story broke, but now I'm more "Was that wrong.jpg" about the whole thing.

This means Delay is innocent and liberal judge was on a witchunt.

tankjr: I'm confused. Is what he did technically legal now due to 'citizens united'?

No. The two situations are completely different in every way, and there's nothing in the CU opinion that relates to DeLay's crimes.

BMulligan: tankjr: I'm confused. Is what he did technically legal now due to 'citizens united'?

No. The two situations are completely different in every way, and there's nothing in the CU opinion that relates to DeLay's crimes.

It's legal for corporations to give directly to campaigns. What Delay did was funnel corporate money to campaigns indirectly. I wouldn't say that they're completely different in every way insomuch as they're nearly identical.

tankjr: It's legal for corporations to give directly to campaigns. What Delay did was funnel corporate money to campaigns indirectly. I wouldn't say that they're completely different in every way insomuch as they're nearly identical.

That's because you're an idiot who knows nothing about campaign finance law, the Citizens United opinion, or how the latter affected the former.

BMulligan: tankjr: It's legal for corporations to give directly to campaigns. What Delay did was funnel corporate money to campaigns indirectly. I wouldn't say that they're completely different in every way insomuch as they're nearly identical.

That's because you're an idiot who knows nothing about campaign finance law, the Citizens United opinion, or how the latter affected the former.

I predict the two of you will peacefully debate this with no name calling, finally deciding one of you is correct.

BMulligan: tankjr: It's legal for corporations to give directly to campaigns. What Delay did was funnel corporate money to campaigns indirectly. I wouldn't say that they're completely different in every way insomuch as they're nearly identical.

That's because you're an idiot who knows nothing about campaign finance law, the Citizens United opinion, or how the latter affected the former.

Ok, that'll teach me for asking questions. Would you care to actually answer my original query or are you content to berate me anonymously over the interwebs?

Don't answer that. Go fark yourself, smart guy.

tankjr: BMulligan: tankjr: I'm confused. Is what he did technically legal now due to 'citizens united'?

No. The two situations are completely different in every way, and there's nothing in the CU opinion that relates to DeLay's crimes.

It's legal for corporations to give directly to campaigns. What Delay did was funnel corporate money to campaigns indirectly. I wouldn't say that they're completely different in every way insomuch as they're nearly identical.

I don't know how much Citizens United would have legalized, but I will say this: DeLay's crime was money laundering, i.e., the cover-up.

Say there's a criminal statute on the books -- to use a completely neutral and non-incendiary example, let's say sodomy. You bugger the hell out of some guy at a rest stop in 2002, are caught with your pants down and eventually lie under oath about what you were doing there. In 2003, SCOTUS issues Lawrence v. Texas and all of America's little Sodomites become free and happy. Did you still commit perjury? I'd say yes. Now, this might be a bad analogy, because I suspect the prosecutors would decide it's not in the interests of justice to pursue such a case; by contrast, DeLay's cover-up was allegedly a conspiracy to defraud the regulators, involving millions of dollars. That's still a bad act no matter how you look at it. And now he'll have to go to prison, where I think sodomy is still technically against the rules, even if consensual.

tankjr: Would you care to actually answer my original query or are you content to berate me anonymously over the interwebs?

I answered your original "query." You, however, didn't like the answer. Do us all a favor - don't ask questions when you believe you already know the answer, most especially when the answer you've seized upon is clearly based on a complete lack of training, experience, study, or even rudimentary research. You mis-stated the holding of the Citizens United case, you mis-stated the facts of the DeLay case, and even if your characterizations had been accurate -- that is, one of these situations had revolved around direct corporate contributions and the other around indirect corporate contributions -- you would have to be sub-Neandertal to conclude that these would be "nearly identical."

Just throw that SOB in jail and be done with it.

He can wear his dancin' shoes on Ballroom Night in C Block.

downpaymentblues: BMulligan: tankjr: It's legal for corporations to give directly to campaigns. What Delay did was funnel corporate money to campaigns indirectly. I wouldn't say that they're completely different in every way insomuch as they're nearly identical.

That's because you're an idiot who knows nothing about campaign finance law, the Citizens United opinion, or how the latter affected the former.

I predict the two of you will peacefully debate this with no name calling, finally deciding one of you is correct.

Maybe not. But BMulligan will still be correct, and this tank fellow will still be incorrect.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Stepped aside or had his knees busted and he fell to one side.

yeah they got to him. he is clearing the way for a good old boy to come in and make everything okay for Tom and the crew. Republican Justice.

drewkumo: LittleSmitty: "Tom DeLay was convicted of a felony," he said. "That alone is consequence is enough."

Yeah, that doesn't make any farking sense.

Sure it does--he's in a separate class than us underlings--as is evident by his permission to dress snappy and give a big smile for his mugshot.

BMulligan: tankjr: Would you care to actually answer my original query or are you content to berate me anonymously over the interwebs?

I answered your original "query." You, however, didn't like the answer. Do us all a favor - don't ask questions when you believe you already know the answer, most especially when the answer you've seized upon is clearly based on a complete lack of training, experience, study, or even rudimentary research. You mis-stated the holding of the Citizens United case, you mis-stated the facts of the DeLay case, and even if your characterizations had been accurate -- that is, one of these situations had revolved around direct corporate contributions and the other around indirect corporate contributions -- you would have to be sub-Neandertal to conclude that these would be "nearly identical."