Faith, Beer, and Other Things That Interest Geoff

But money laundering was a crime at the time. That's why the second indictment was issued. Either way, you can't possibly deny what he did was ethical, and even DeLay doesn't deny that the actions he's accused of happened, just that they weren't illegal.

Hwang
 

Libs are so clueless. They've been salivating at the thought of getting Delay's mugshot, and what was delivered? Something that looks like a high-quality passport photo.

HAHA Dummycrats!

Here's my prediction: When all is said and done, Dummycrats will have egg all over their sallow faces and Ronnie Earle will wind up in prison for corruption. Tell us where you get your "donations" from, Ronnie!
 

Don't know the details so I will refrain from saying whether they were illegal or not. But I do have an opinion on a DA office handing down a indictment for something that wasn't a crime and then fishing around for a second grand jury indictment.
 

Did you have an opinion on Clinton's problems before you knew the details? Exactly how partisan can you get?

Oh, and Minatti, if you think that the mugshot was all the libs are salivating over, then the clueless one here is grossly apparent.

Hwang
 

I meant to say ethical, but yes, I was aware of what Clinton's acts were when I had an opinion of them. I fully expect a full acquital.
 

I find that gloriously funny. You had no more information on what Clinton did than what you do now on what DeLay did when you formed an opinion. You simply choose not to hear this because he's a conservative. You had no more evidence, no more news articles and no more facts than you do now. If DeLay were a Democrat, you'd be all over him. You're just unable to admit it to yourself.

Hwang
 

Well, let's see how the case comes out. In Clinton's case, it was a clear example of lying to a grand jury. It wasn't rocket science to figure that out. Campaign finance laws are complex (and largely ineffecitve).

But a DA who indicts someone for something that wasn't a crime and then goes to three grand juries is not a sign of the strength of his case.
 

I noticed you don't deny this. I also like how you just say Clinton was clear cut and it's not clear if DeLay did anything wrong. Why was the Clinton case clear cut? Before Clinton actually admitted to it, you had nothing more on him than you have on DeLay right now, yet you're willing to give DeLay the benefit of the doubt, only--ONLY--because he's a conservative.

DeLay has admitted that what the DA says happened did, in fact, happen. What DeLay has admitted to doing is, today, against the law. The original indictment against him, admittedly, is not clear cut. There are two indictments. It is fairly routine that after one indictment, a person gets a second incictment because the same action can actually violate multiple laws. Even if it were true that the first indictment was politically motivated (and keep in mind this DA has incicted about 3 times as many Democrats over his career than he has Republicans), it doesn't change the fact that the second indictment was a law on the books at the time. You only believe that the Clinton case was more clear cut because it was more clear cut in your head. You didn't like Clinton and felt he was corrupt, so you automatically assumed that the charges were legitimate. DeLay is a conservative, so you give him a benefit of the doubt.

Hwang