While he would not have survived an election for a third term, he was termed out after two terms. FWIW his lieutenant governor went down like a lead-filled PA traffic cone.
2 Likes
Seems like yesterday but it was seven years ago. Hope Kelly and Baroni can find some peace knowing they did nothing wrong. But Crisco sure did.
2 Likes
No. They said the Feds couldn’t use the particular statute they were convicted under the way they did. And it was a stretch.
It’s a 9-0.
7 Likes
overreached
It seems like the same few people are telling us we have no power.
Advantage: lawlessness and corruption
2 Likes
I am not shedding any tears. Prison would be good. Too bad Roberts had to come to the rescue of his fellow Republican criminals again.
2 Likes
C’mon. He twisted RBG’s arm? Give me a break.
5 Likes
It’s called LAZY. The headline IS the entire article. This is the definition of clickbait. MADE YOU LOOK!
1 Like
So when Nixon sicced the IRS on opponents, is that now legal?
Presently, none, at least not at the federal level. It’s open season for "…deception, corruption, [and] abuse of power.”
Not at all.
Justice Elena Kagan said the kinds of decisions Kelly and Baroni made — and their less-than-candid explanations for them — could not be prosecuted as fraud under federal law.
“If U. S. Attorneys could prosecute as property fraud every lie a state or local official tells in making such a decision, the result would be … ‘a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction,'” Kagan wrote. “In effect, the Federal Government could use the criminal law to enforce (its view of) integrity in broad swaths of state and local policymaking. The property fraud statutes do not countenance that outcome.”
Kagan sought to make clear that the court was not blessing the conduct of the former officials, only declaring that it was beyond the reach of federal corruption laws.
5 Likes
The former.
Not good, I agree.
On the other hand, in yesterday’s TPM article on a federal judge’s decision to uncancel the Democratic primary in New York, there was a link to the judge’s decision – and yet (1) not every disapproving commenter seemed to have read it; and (2) when reading it was suggested, there was much huffing and puffing about the suggestion.
1 Like
Still impeachable.
But in the Senate …
Listen, and understand. That discobot is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
4 Likes
Exactly right.
The decision was unanimous; and the opinion was written by Justice Kagan.
1 Like
So that’s a yes
Sure, but nothing to do with the “Bridgegate” ruling.
I guess that means when a Democrat is in charge, they can disrupt services throughout all cities whose mayors are Republicans, and say “it’s your fault for voting for Republicans, this is your punishment”, and there’ll be nothing to charge them with since it would be purely punitive and not at all seeking money or any other ‘material’. Fucking retarded.
1 Like
What this ruling says is that you can’t charge them with X (the way they were charged in this case). It does not say that they should not have been charged with Y or Z.
1 Like
WTF? How could this not be a crime? I wish the story had some info on the reasoning of the sane wing of the court.
So it seems like with the Bob McDonnel case of 2016, Drumpf escaping conviction in the Senate, today’s news of Michael Flynn skating, and now this, impunity for the ruling class is now officially the law of the land.