Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TopCat who wrote (84972)	5/31/2010 9:17:35 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224718

LOL Kenneth thinks he is clever. You are right. The court looks at intent, not wording. It isn't like litigation of a contract at all. It is simply what was "attempted". If Kenneth was correct and of course he isn't it would be impossible to convict the drug dealer who agrees to deliver "five bushels of peaches"...etc etc ;^) You hit the nail on the head TC!

To: TopCat who wrote (84972)	5/31/2010 9:25:18 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224718

Top Cat, you are wrong because intent, by itself, does not constitute a crime. In this case, there would have to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a firm offer of employment in exchange for withdrawal from the election. Furthermore, there would have to be proof that the White House authorized such a firm offer.