NYT Channels Wesley Mouch

[roo_ster]

File this under, "I couldn't make this up if I tried."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22sun2.html?_r=1

“But many of Mr. roo_ster's actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”


Federal prosecutors spent six years going after Delay and come up with bupkis.  Six years.  If Delay were not wealthy, he would have had to plea out.  I could not afford six years' litigation.

IMO, if you can't find a crime and find a way to present it so that regular folks (AKA, "jurors") can understand it in much, much less than six years, maybe you have no business going after the target.

This comes after Federales come up with squat vs Illinois' Blago-buy-me-a-vowel. 

[Ben]

"...have chosen not to criminalize them."

Wow. I don't know what else to say, other than I agree with your point about the length of litigation. Delay's guilt or innocence aside, how many run of the mill taxpayers could hold for out six years against salaried lawyers (who's salaries are paid by said taxpayer's tax dollars)?

[HankB]

. . . IMO, if you can't find a crime and find a way to present it so that regular folks (AKA, "jurors") can understand it in much, much less than six years, maybe you have no business going after the target.

Well, in DeLay's case, the whole purpose was to "taint" him politically.

Period.

It was the Federal version of "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

As for ". . . find a crime and find a way to present it so that regular folks (AKA, "jurors") can understand it . . . " I recall that some years ago (~20?) I read about some sort of securities trial that was so complex, the jurors acquitted because they couldn't make heads nor tails out of the government's case; when they asked the judge for clarification, all he did is give them the actual text of the law, which was about as clear as Urdu.

After being criticized by the prosecutor, the jurors took the unusual step of issuing a public statement that they weren't stupid, but the more the judge and government lawyers talked, the less they made sense. And if they couldn't figure out what was allegedly done - much less if it was even illegal under the law as written - after the fact, there was no way they could in good conscience convict someone for not being able to figure out what the law said beforehand.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you guys defending delay?  and hows his texas trial gonna pan out.

[roo_ster]

you guys defending delay?  and hows his texas trial gonna pan out.

Doesn't matter if it was Delay or anybody: six years. 

But, since they didn't convict him of anything, I suspect they didn't have anything on him. 

His Texas trial will likely go one of two ways:
1. Austin prosecutor gets his way and the trial is in Austin and gets a conviction.  It then goes to appeal, maybe all the way to Texas sup court, where it is overturned by non-crazy non-Austinites.

2. Austin prosecutor does not get his way and the trial is somewhere (nearly ANYwhere) else in Texas but Austin and Delay is acquitted.

FTR, the Austin prosecutor has a tendency to indict Republicans and conservative Democrats (still some here'bouts), but nary a liberal Dem to be found in his sights.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how much of the 6 years of stalling was from delays legal team?

[HankB]

The Austin prosecutor (technically, he was the Travis County District Attorney) who brought the charges against DeLay, Ronnie Earle, left the DA's office and ran - unsuccessfully - for Lt. Governor. He set a number of records during his tenure as TCDA, including 1) prosecution for capital murder of the youngest defendent in history, an 11-year old. (After things like overturned convictions, all charges were ultimately dropped amid allegations of prosecutorial misconduct); 2) Prosecution of a CHL holder for shooting a bad guy (it took him 3 grand juries to get an indictment) which resulted in what may be a record for the shortest jury deliberation in a shooting case before a complete acquittal.

He seems to have left a mess for the new TCDA, who seems to be real quiet about the DeLay case.

[MicroBalrog]

you guys defending delay?  and hows his texas trial gonna pan out.

Even if we grant that he's not a good guy - obviously I don't think he's a good guy - there's something wrong with the mindset that states "actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them."

[taurusowner]

But, since they didn't convict him of anything, I suspect they didn't have anything on him.  

In this particular case, you may be right.  But I would be very careful about applying the above concept generally.  Lack of conviction does not always mean innocent or lack of evidence of guilt.  It really only means the legal process (not the justice process) found him not guilty.  There have always been plenty of cases where anything from a technical screw-up to an overly sympathetic jury has let criminals go.  It doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime though.

Regarding the Wesley Mouch quote, that's something I've noticed from a lot of people, not just "journalists".  There seems to be a prevailing idea in America that certain things we are "allowed" to do, and other we are not.  Just take any example of a soccer mom saying "I can't believe someone is ALLOWED to carry a gun on school property" or something of that effect.  They really do see the default state of an action as illegal, only to be made legal later on.  As if the burden of proof is on us to show an action should be allowed, as opposed to the truth that the burden is on the State to prove to us that an action should be illegal.

[RoadKingLarry]

I sometimes think that some of these idiots read Atlas Shrugged and see Galt as the bad guy. and use the rest of it a a how too manual with the idea that since there is no John Galt to foul up their plans they will be able to pull it off and create the perfect society

[Monkeyleg]

"We turn from a society where that which is not explicitly prohibited is allowed into a society where that which is not explicitly allowed is prohibited."  Jeff Cooper (I think)

[Nitrogen]

It worked.  I honestly thought he was guilty from reading press reports. 

They did a good job ruining him, all right. 

[seeker_two]

I wonder what would have happened if they'd went after Barney Frank or Sheila Jackson-Lee as vigorously....

[HankB]

I wonder what would have happened if they'd went after Barney Frank or Sheila Jackson-Lee as vigorously....

The papers would be filled with headlines about "homophobia" and "racism."

[roo_ster]

In this particular case, you may be right.  But I would be very careful about applying the above concept generally.  Lack of conviction does not always mean innocent or lack of evidence of guilt.  It really only means the legal process (not the justice process) found him not guilty.  There have always been plenty of cases where anything from a technical screw-up to an overly sympathetic jury has let criminals go.  It doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime though.

I'll grant all that.

Thing is, most folks & most jurors grant the agents of the gov't more credibility than the accused.  He might be "innocent until proven guilty," but "what is he doing here unless he was doing SOMETHING wrong?"

If they can't get a conviction with folks who are generally pro-gov't or at least pro-authority, they must have really screwed the pooch somehow.

[Perd Hapley]

I wonder what would have happened if they'd went after Barney Frank or Sheila Jackson-Lee as vigorously....

Why wonder?  Look at what's going on with Rangel or Waters.