The Glade 4.0

See, in the end, the things that bind us outnumber the things upon which we disagree.

Delay isn't guilty because I said so. Delay is corrupt. Unless folks here think he's another one of those exceptions to the rules about politicians?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Evidence of the corruption?

You will notice, unless I missed it, then I apologize, not much beating up on Waters and Rangel just yet. Most of us are waiting to see the trial and evidence. Much like that wacky Al Gore sexual harassment charge.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Sure. His extensive links to Jack Abramoff. His pay-to-play system for lobbyists. His extensive contacts and defense of businesses in the North Marianas islands that were happily participating in what amounts to "white" slavery.

Now, if the government botched their case, so be it. That doesn't exonerate him in my mind, especially since he's *still* facing charges in Texas.


Edit - and just to prove that the DOJ is apparently total fail, they could only get Blago convicted on Perjury. *headdesk*

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No one said any such thing. Richard Nixon was pretty clearly guilty despite never being charged in a court of law, as was Kennedy. Clinton, depends what charge you're talking about. He was clearly guilty of adultery, which, although not a crime, would have meant he would have lost a contested divorce.

I don't know if Delay is guilty or not. However, since they couldn't come up with enough evidence to charge him, I'm leaning towards "not". You just asserting "he's corrupt" doesn't mean anything; even if I were inclined to believe you there isn't any such thing as a charge of "corruption" without any more specific requirements. The law doesn't allow vague charges that can be whatever someone wants them to be.

I'm not under some obligation to think Delay is guilty just because I think Kennedy is. The two circumstances are totally unrelated and totally different.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In other words, all the things no one could prove. Where's the evidence?



"Facing charges" doesn't mean a whole lot when they could find nothing to charge him with at the Federal level. What's he charged with in Texas? Running a red light?




So... maybe the cahrges against Blago are also largely nonsense? There seems to be an epidemic of charging politicians with bullshit going around.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... ned-court/

Blago "guilty" in one count and seriosly mistrialed for the other 23.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

It's a good thing we have you around to tell us if all the information has crossed their desk, and we can accept the ruling as valid, then!

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I feel bad for the people on that jury. One decision out of 24? There must have been so many /facepalms in that room over the 14 days of deliberation.

It sounds like there would have been a lot more convictions if not for 1 juror.

Arathain:

Eh, I'm not sure where the outrage in the Blago case needs to be directed, but I'm leaning toward to the DoJ.

_________________

I see no need for outrage.

I don't think they should be allowed to retry unless they can prove the hold-out juror was somehow compromised.

_________________

I agree, but mostly so Blago gets off the tv. Here in StL it seems to be a daily occurrence, and I'd just like to see it go away.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You're talking about restructuring one of the key principles of our justice system. I'm going to say I disagree. Hung jury = mistrial.

Arathain:

Double Jeopardy means he shouldn't be retried if they were incapable of securing a verdict either way the first time. The language in the Constitution doesn't contain an exception for Hung Juries.

_________________

That's because a in a hung jury, the person has not been held accountable for the offense the first time. They haven't been held accountable under that standard until a verdict is reached by some means, whether agreement or trial.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again, there's no "Hung Jury" escape valve in the Constitution. A bad outcome from a "judiciary" perspective still doesn't equate to valid grounds for a second trial.

_________________

Yes it does. There doesn't need to be a specific exception written in. He hasn't been put in jeopardy twice; his still in jeopardy for the first time. The process has simply been moved back to an earlier point and restarted.

There's nothing that says it can't be done that way; in fact there's little about trial procedure at all. Not only that we've got 223 years of precedent that way, and there's no real reason to start interpreting it differently.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Double Jeopardy doesn't apply until the trial is concluded.

Arathain:

The first trial was concluded by the fact they achieved a verdict in one charge.

_________________

They can still charge him with different crimes.

Like his hair.... that's GOTTA be a crime! If not that, what comes out of his mouth is a crime against humanity.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

So you're saying Double Jeopardy means that if you're convicted of a crime, you can't be tried for another crime?

All you are functionally doing is advocating for separate and distinct proceedings for every count and charge placed on someone. F that.

Arathain:

No, I'm just arguing that by virtue of grouping all the charges into a single trial, that retrying because of a mis-trial doesn't really seem kosher to me. If the jury got hung, then it's an issue of not passing reasonable doubt. I know how things work, I just honestly don't think there's an exclusion that exists or should exist to allow a second trial in this case.

_________________

On thinking about this, mistrials cannot automatically invoke double jeopardy. If they could, the defense could simply engage in conduct that caused a mistrial and get off scot-free every time.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Ok, then you can't lump charges together anymore. So now we have to sit through 24 individual Blego trials. Awesome.

See the practical problem with what you are suggesting?

I don't think there's a practical problem in that case. I do, however, find practical problems with how law is practiced legislatively and judicially in the the United States. I imagine, were we required to hold a separate for each charge, our prosecution system would find itself prioritizing crimes, evidence gathering, and arguments. Instead, we end up in a situation where they disperse their resources going for as many charges as possible: it's a lawn dart approach. Likewise, since I am a big proponent of equality in judicial action, I think this might actually lead to a more equitable and just system.

_________________