Tom DeLay

Linus wrote: Clark... Bill CLinton was impeached (literally akin to indicted), yet what he did wasn't illegal.

How do you figure?  Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a court of law.  Lying under oath in a court of law is illegal.

Whether of not Clinton lied is a matter of fact for a court to determine, but there is no discussion as to whether lying under oath is illegal.

Clark clark clark...

I said prove me wrong on the Tom DeLay 'scandle' and you haven't been able to. Now PROVE ME WRONG or quit saying I'm wrong.

Linus wrote: Clark clark clark... I said prove me wrong on the Tom DeLay 'scandle' and you haven't been able to. Now PROVE ME WRONG or quit saying I'm wrong.

Nobody has ever been able to prove you wrong because you're to stubborn to listen and take in what others say

Linus wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Actually, Linus, I have shown you to be wrong. You just don't understand it. You are focused on the wrong thing. Clark, last time I'll say it. Show me the exact thing where you prove me wrong on the whole Tom DeLay case and I'll leave the forum for 2 weeks.

You're absolutely correct. Everyone here believes you're right.

goodsmitty wrote: Linus wrote: Clark clark clark... I said prove me wrong on the Tom DeLay 'scandle' and you haven't been able to. Now PROVE ME WRONG or quit saying I'm wrong. Doesn't every single debate with you end in PROVE ME WRONG? Look back at the posts and it is there. Maybe not at your cognition level, but it is there all the same.

Well, an argument doesnt have much of a point if it doesnt make sense to the party you are debating with . . . .
 

Clark Kent wrote: I won't even bother to explain why your legal analysis is wrong, Linus.  Instead, I will elaborate on EJP's statement of the obvious. In order for the grand jury to issue an indictment, there must be facts alleged that, at least in theory, would be criminal if true.  The facts in the indictment are the same that were alleged against the two co-conspirators before.  Those two guys are on their way to trial.  This indictment merely added DeLay to the situation. Simply put:  if what you claim were true as a matter of law, then this indictment would never have come to be.  This legal theory has been floating around for the better part of a year - if this theory were as flawed as you posit, then this whole thing would have gone away a long time ago. There are facts to be proven - was there an actual conspiracy?  Was there criminal intent?  Did the money move as alleged? - and the legal theory may yet come under attack, probably in the form of a constitutional challenge to campaign finance laws - but a claim that the indictment is so obviously flawed as you say, such a claim is, frankly, embarassing. Campaign finance laws are very complex.  Who do you trust - the zillions of lawyers who specialize in this stuff, who have been looking at this case for more than a year, or your civics teacher? I stand by my earlier statement.  If this is what you are learning in school, you need a new school, or at least some new teachers.

There, Linus.  Read it again.

The issuse is not whether or not what DeLay did is ultimately determined to be illegal - the issue is whether your H.S. civics teacher and class has the knowledge to make a flat determination that the indictment is obviously incorrect.  (the answer is "no")

The issue is not DeLay - the issue is your education. 

Extrapolating from your posts, I expect that your civics teacher also has simplistic solutions for poverty, terrorism, crime, and teen pregnancy as well.

The world is not that simple (and neither is this indictment), and any teacher that offers silly simplistic solutions to compex issues is doing his students a disservice.

Or, just in case all of this is still not making sense, I will repeat the central point:

Dozens of lawyers will spend thousands of hours on this matter, Linus - if it truly were as simple as what your teacher says, don't you think they would have figured that out by now?

 

My reaction-

Linus, stop being wrong.

Clark... you want to talk about legality of things?


For it to be a crime, like the liberals are saying, there HAS to be criminal intent. Thing is, Tom DeLay had lawyers check into the legality of what he did before he did it, which automatically negates criminal intent.

Same thing happened in 93, 95, and 97, the other times when democrats got him indicted. And those same three times, the three cases were thrown out because there was no criminal intent.

Go ahead, deny that.


EDIT: Oh, and as for my 'civics' teacher, he actually IS a democrat and he DOES want DeLay taken out of power. BUT he knows this won't do it.

Trust me, him and I have our daily bouts when politics come up.

And Cedric, just because you have 3 stars next to your name doesn't mean you deserved them.

Edited by Linus

Linus wrote: For it to be a crime, like the liberals are saying, there HAS to be criminal intent. Thing is, Tom DeLay had lawyers check into the legality of what he did before he did it, which automatically negates criminal intent. Go ahead, deny that.

Ok, I'll deny that.  That is simply false.

Generally speaking, yes there has to be criminal intent.  But there is general criminal intent and specific criminal intent.  General criminal intent, which is the standard for most crimes (including this one), simply means that you did what you did on purpose.  You do NOT need to have intended to break the law (that would be specific criminal intent) - you simply acted on purpose, and your action happened to be illegal.

Moreover, the idea that legal advice "automatically negates criminal intent" is idiotic.  Think about that for a second.  Seriously.  Think I could find some lawyer who would advise me, for a couple of bucks, that killing some guy isn't really illegal? 

That's simply wrong, not to mention just plain dumb. 

Now - in some crimes, does a legal opinion help you?  Sure - executive criminal liability (at least before Sarbanes-Oxley), for instance, can be largely avoided with proper legal advice, because the duty on the executive was mostly to be diligent, and seeking legal advice is pretty diligent.  Even in other circumstances (including DeLay's case), legal advice might be a mitigating factor.

But generally speaking, legal advice does not simply obviate general criminal intent.

EDIT: Oh, and as for my 'civics' teacher, he actually IS a democrat and he DOES want DeLay taken out of power. BUT he knows this won't do it.

And how does he know that?  Is he an attorney practicing in the highly complex area of campaign finance?  I'm guessing he isn't an attorney at all, just some chump with a college degree who wasn't even smart enough to teach H.S. science.

Which brings me back to our central point:  WHY ON EARTH would you just take this guy's word for something like this?  HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THIS CATEGORICAL STATEMENT.