Post by SnitPost by ClogwogPost by Big Crotch on a Small FishTom DeLay was found guilty of money laundering. Found guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
But he claims he is not guilty.
Curious what others' think. Tom DeLay: Guilty or Not Guilty.
My view: he has been found guilty, but he may or may not be
actually guilty. One can be actually guilty but not found so... or
not be actually guilty but still be found guilty.
Of course, this is about if did he or did he not break the law (a
legal context) and not if you think his actions were right or
wrong.
No one can really knowledgeably say unless they were on the jury,
heard/saw all the evidence/testimony, or at least gave the trial
transcript thorough read. Anything else is just an opinion, and we
all know what they say about opinions.
Fair enough: even though he was *found* guilty, we do not really
know if he is *actually* guilty.
We do know that he is "actually" legally guilty.
- Actually legally guilty
- Legally actually guilty
- Actually guilty legally
- Legally guilty actually
Nobody else answer for Snit. We all know he will run from this simple
question.
"Small Crotch on a Big Fish" is begging for Snit's attention a lot!
"Small Crotch on a Big Fish" is Steve Carroll... and yes, he does beg for my
attention a lot.
In this case he is not dealing well with the fact that someone can be
*actually* not guilty but still *found* guilty. He and I debated this for,
I kid you not, *years* and he never was able to understand it.
Translation: Snit was unable to comprehend my position and he sloshed
back and forth between contexts and rode the fence with his position..
A perfect example...(and grabbed by me now from the last time you
brought this up):
"He [Bush] has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that
makes him a war criminal." -Snit
Then you did a 180... again:
"Right: I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." -
Snit
And your now famous (and quite idiotic) quote:
"Ok... Morally he is a war criminal. Legally, it has not been
decided." - Snit
And we also have your goofy admission made when the drugs wore off:
"Yes, I *may* have made a comment to Steve that could reasonably have
been read as my saying Bush was legally guilty of something." - Snit
What does all this mean? That Snit is trolling... again.
Post by Snit In this case
I do not have enough info to know of DeLay is *actually* guilty
But a court of law does believe the "info" they have was sufficient
to determine he DeLay "actually" guilty... that's why they found him
legally guilty. See how it works YET? Hint: As I said, ALL guilt
assessments of a 3rd party are based on "opinion" that revolve around
looking at ALL the available evidence (or, at least, they SHOULD be
looking at the evidence).
Post by Snitor not, but
in the past case, we had plenty of info to know the other politician was (at
least based on the info we had).
Is that your "professional opinion", Snit? Or is it an "opinion" at
all? Are you merely considering it "fact" that you feel everyone
should believe is fact? Perhaps you'll explain why Obama isn't doing
what he said with respect to looking at the moves made by the previous
administration and determining if there is cause to re-open this
issue. Of course, for Obama to do so he would have to admit that he is
doing some of the same things from SOMEONE's perspective. You can bet
your ass that the Pakistanis sure believe Obama is a war criminal.
Post by Snit Steve freaked out because it was "merely"
an opinion...
Nope... I pointed out that ALL it was is an opinion... you are the one
who freaked out about that observation.
Post by Snitand when I acknowledged there was a logical possibility of
error he claimed this meant it was proof I was wrong. He is insane.
Said the feeble troll who is quoted above riding the fence.
Post by SnitOn the other hand, for politicians he does not like, even if they are found
*not guilty* in a court, Steve insists they can be *actually* guilty...
based on his view of the evidence.
You really need to have the plea bargain (int his case, Clinton's)
concept explained to you again?
Post by SnitYeah, consistency and logic have never been his strong points.
Said the fence riding troll who not only doesn't understand how a plea
bargain works but can't grasp the fact that his "opinion" is just
that... an opinion.