Skip to main content

View Diary: Bad news for DeLay (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have to agree. (none)
    Even if, as an earlier poster suggests, Earl believed Delay's actions broke an existing law and that the latter law only clarified the first one; and the judge disagreed with that... even if all this is true, I would not call it a "technicality."  A disagreement in the interpretation of a law maybe, but a technicality?
    •  political frame vs legal frame (none)
      i can agree with your legal opinion, altho it may be worth searching for a precedent that would allow for grandfathered crimes.

      but IMHO i think that's what it is (if not legally).  it may not be a legally binding one but Delay knew that corporations & unions could not fund Texas candidates.  That's why he conspired the whole damn thing in the first place.  If he didn't know, he wouldn't have sent the money up & down & all around just to get it back here to Texas.

      but that's not the point i'm making.  the point is the frame:

      saying that he got off on a technicality will sound better than saying the law didn't exist.

      it's an issue of political (& moral?) frame.  not legal opinion.  

      & if anyone wonders if that's misleading, let me say that no, i don't think so.  i firmly believe in the spirit of the law as much as the words.

      Delay knew this was illegal.  He as a public servant should've known better.

      it may only be a political frame but it's the truth & we need to pass that around before the "Delay didn't conspire" frame takes hold.

      my 2 cents.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site