On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Eric Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Or John Ensign...(Rangel hasn't been convicted of anything BTW...you know >> that whole inconvenient innocent until proven guilty thing...) > > You started this thread, live with it. You say there should be laws > against politicians "like this". Well, there are laws against the > stuff Rangel has been doing (allegedly).
Seriously. And I reeeeally doubt that Rangel is "innocent". He might be able to get out of the charges and lord knows that he was offered a deal by the ethics committee but it is rather difficult to come up with a plausible scenario that arranges the known facts in a way that makes him really, truly innocent. Not legally culpable? Maybe. Innocent? Nope. I have a higher standard for elected officials than "able to not get convicted". Saying Rangel is innocent is like saying Tom Delay was innocent and you'll never hear me say that. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:327705 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
