Mitt Romney Bet Offer To Rick Perry May Have Almost Been A Felony Offense

[retromike22]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/mitt-romney-bet-rick-perry_n_1143868.html

Did Rick Perry save Mitt Romney from committing a felony Saturday night in Iowa?

During Saturday night's debate, Romney offered to bet Perry $10,000 that he had misquoted Romney's book in claiming that he had earlier supported a mandated approach to health care. Perry looked at him like he was crazy and declined the bet.

But "gaming and betting" are clearly banned in Iowa, other than in the context of racetracks and bingo. According to section 725.7.b. of the Iowa criminal code, a person shall not "make any bet" --- anyone who does is guilty of a class "C" felony if the bet exceeds $5,000.

One of the penalties for wagering is forfeiture of the amount bet. So does Mitt Romney owe Iowa $10,000?

Section 725.8 specifies: "Property, whether real or personal, offered as a stake, or any moneys, property, or other thing of value staked, paid, bet, wagered, laid, or deposited in connection with or as a part of any game of chance, lottery, gambling scheme or device, gift enterprise, or other trade scheme unlawful under the laws of this state shall be forfeited to the state and said personal property may be seized and disposed of under chapter 809."

But the fact that Perry refused to take Romney's bet may have saved the former Massachusetts governor. Legal analysts often say that when the law specifies an exception, that by definition implies a rule. For instance, if the law says that no booze can be sold on Sundays, the legal presumption is that alcohol can be sold every other day.

In the criminal code under "gambling by underage persons," the law specifies that a kid "shall not make or attempt to make a gambling wager." The "or-attempt-to-make" language doesn't appear in the law related to adults. So Mitt Romney might not owe Rick Perry $10,000, but he owes him his gratitude for helping him avoid breaking the law.

Then again, all Iowa lawmakers proved by broadening the definition in the section on minors is that they know how to broaden it, not that they didn't intend to criminalize attempted gambling. So is Romney guilty? The jury's out.

Mike Sacks contributed to this report.

[Penelope]

Normally I'd complain but we need some threads to counteract Politico's Gingrich nonsense.

[MaxQue]

Too bad.

If that really happened, Iowa Houses would have had an insentive to repeal a silly law.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This was actually my first and real concern, but the purpose was never suppose to be a litteral bet and Perry was never suppose to accept the bet. The purpose of the bet was to gauge Perry's certain of his own answer, and the amount of $10,000 was meant to add some relevance because 100 or less would be to trivial and seeing what $10,000 did, imagine what $1 million dollars would have done.

I don't think it was that calculated, if it was he would have phrased it far better.


"Bet a million" or "bet your life" is far more common in then $10,000, when using this tactic to point out someone's innaccuracy.

Jake Tapper even admitted to using it with Chris Van Hollen last year. Van Hollen stated the Democrats would hold the house and in response, Tapper asked him if he was willing to bet $10,000 on that prediction". I wonder where that interview was conducted and what the law states regarding gambling there. It was probably DC or New York.

[Lief 🗽]

Mitt Romney needs to be punished for this!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/mitt-romney-bet-rick-perry_n_1143868.html
Section 725.8 specifies: "Property, whether real or personal, offered as a stake, or any moneys, property, or other thing of value staked, paid, bet, wagered, laid, or deposited in connection with or as a part of any game of chance, lottery, gambling scheme or device, gift enterprise, or other trade scheme unlawful under the laws of this state shall be forfeited to the state and said personal property may be seized and disposed of under chapter 809."

Despite the wording Mitt used, his bet is not a gambling wager since whether Mitt would have owed Rick $10,000 would not have determined by chance or a future event susceptible to manipulation, and thus is not covered by this law.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It was a stupid joke. Are people actually taking this seriously?

[© tweed]

I thought it only constitutes a crime if there is a house taking a rake or a vig?  such is why poker games amongst friends would be legal?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

smh

[Politico]

It was a stupid joke. Are people actually taking this seriously?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I thought it only constitutes a crime if there is a house taking a rake or a vig?  such is why poker games amongst friends would be legal?

Not in South Carolina.  The official ruling here is that poker is a game of chance rather than skill.  It's also the reasoning used by the Feds to ban online poker.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Mitt Romney needs to be punished for this!

Comparing Mitt to Marie Antoinette (pictured here in two pieces) is insulting! (for Marie Antoinette).