Who’s stating that? He’s being treated as many other convicted felons are. It’s correct that it’s unfair, it’s not unusual.
Rich felons who have the money to flee while their case is on appeal pretty much show up at prison when they’re supposed to.
Did you read the law? Any hint of him doing something illegal and he’s off to the slammer. You just said he’d go and live in Borneo for the rest of his life to avoid going to jail, but you think he’d stay here and do something as stupid as trying to bribe an official? The things you mention are not illegally “influencing politics”. They are illegal, period.
Note that the law is written so that the default position is release on bond pending appeal (if you meet the conditions, which he does). I don’t see how he’s getting any special treatment by having the law applied to him as it was written.
It seems Allen Stanford is a dual citizen of both the US and Antigua. I would think that courts would be more likely to confine wealthy dual citizens pending their trial.
I am far from a supporter of Tom DeLay, but I think you’ve gone off half-cocked in this thread.
His is also a federal crime, not a state crime. Different rules.
Delay’s actual sentence was only three years, and he has a decent chance of winning his appeal. Obviously its impossible to predict what people will do, but it seems pretty unlikely that he’d choose to leave his family, money and political contacts behind for a life on the lamb rather then spend a few years in prison, which he might still successfully avoid in any case.
Plus, even if he ran to a country without an extradition treaty, that doesn’t mean he can’t be extradited. And I can imagine Hillary would happily lean on whatever country he fled to to have the former GOP Majority leader hauled back in chains before the next election.
I understand that. What gets at me is if, like I said before, he was some poor schlub without two nickels to rub together, he’d be considered a flight risk, regardless of how much close family he’d be leaving behind.
How do you know that? Being famous makes you less of a flight risk. Being rich, not so much. It might well make you even more of one, depending on the nature of your wealth. Being poor might make you more of a flight risk, but I don’t see that it automatically makes you one.
So it wasn’t a vast right wing conspiracy after all??? A passionate anti-establishment rant gone to crap due the facts. Seems unfair, really. :mad:
Perhaps, but all it really means when you “win” an appeal is that the court admits it hadn’t functioned properly.
I believe it was a passionate anti-GOP rant.