Replies

No, that was a crime, not a mistake, as I said before. However, in addition to the illegality, taking the checks was simply stupid. It made it MUCH easier to catch him.

The moment he took the money - the bribe - he was a criminal. The fact that he's wasn't "caught" at that second doesn't effect what happened or what he is. Do you believe a person who eats when no one is watching is keeping to their diet? Or that an alcoholic who drinks alone isn't really drinking? Your way of thinking is so illogical ... really, you think like a democrat.

You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying, either for real or on purpose (in the latter case, you're a Dimmycrap. That is what they do: they deliberately misunderstand you so they can respond to what tehy want you to have said.)

The moment he took the money - the bribe - he was a criminal.

Right. We agree, and they should throw the book at him, as I have posted previously. But that was a crime -- a deliberate act -- not a "mistake." You don't "mistakenly" take bribes. If he made a mistake, it was in stupid execution, not in the deliberate criminal act.

The criminality was deliberate. But being sloppy enough to take checks was a stupid mistake. An error. Sloppiness. It made an easy record, making it much easier to find out what was going on.

Simple as that.