If your argument is correct, we can now strike the terms “Betrayal of Public Trust” and “Ethics” off the US English Language.
He committed a crime. He must suffer.
And let that be reminder to everyone.
Indeed, one of the works of the New Congress is to IDENTIFY WHO SHOULD “NEXT” FOLLOW THE FATE OF MR. DELAY.
Yeah, you're right. Let's forget about August 11, 1999, when Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago.
And March 2000, when Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction. And And And.....sheesh
This is an extremely odd attitude from someone who's tag line identifies them as libertarian.
I can't think of any libertarian who considers the current campaign finance laws -- restrictive and unconstitutional as they are -- as defining valid crimes. Much less a DA who didn't even follow through on the initial charges, but "creatively" (i.e. arbitrarily) misused money laundering laws against otherwise legal political donations.
Heck, some libertarians aren't even comfortable with those laws being used against drug dealers and organized crime (their intended targets).
Do you really think someone doing normal politics has "committed a" (justly charged) "crime"?! If so, why was a "novel" legal theory needed to charge and convict it?
Isn't it an essential aspect of just law that all crimes are clearly defined in code, such that one can know in advance what actions constitute a crime?
As a libertarian, a conservative, a constitutionalist, or simply an American, how can you possibly view the politically motivated use of a law in a way never remotely intended in its construction, or passage, or previous application, as having ANYTHING to do with justice? In fact it is blatant tyranny. And one of the more common, and corrosive, tactics of tyrants.