# How Dare They Not Prosecute Tom Delay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2010, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280 "2010-08-24T12:43:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/1 "2010-08-24T12:43:59Z")
Such is the thrust of [the New York Times’](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22sun2.html?_r=1)editorial page. But something strikes me as a bit… um… one-sided. > [@](#): > > Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House majority leader, crowed that he had been “found innocent.” But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them. Yes. That’s exactly how it works, New York Times. See, pretty much ALL actions remain legal when lawmakers choose not to criminalize them. The opposite state of affairs would be actions that become illegal even though lawmakers have not criminalized them. How would that work, I wonder? A more fair-minded commentary would acknowledge the simple fact that DeLay’s actions were not illegal. But no --not the New York Times, which must ominously warn its readers that many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal _only_ because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/2 "2010-08-24T12:53:24Z")
Still, you can’t fault their logic. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/3 "2010-08-24T12:54:25Z")
I’m willing to bet the writer understands that. They are just opining that what Delay did should be illegal or (guessing) considered unethical and worthy of some sort of repercussion (formal censure perhaps). ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/4 "2010-08-24T13:00:52Z")
[No Charges Against DeLay in Abramoff Inquiry](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/politics/17delay.html) However: [Texas’ Next Step Toward Trying Tom DeLay](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011403,00.html) [Ex-House Leader DeLay heads to court on 2005 laundering charges](http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/24/1789429/ex-house-leader-delay-heads-to.html) Here’s a thread chronicling Tom’s legal travails since 2004: [Is Tom DeLay Going to Jail?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=250440&highlight=delay) It’s too bad **tomndebb** decided to lock the thread before we got any sort of resolution. Perhaps _this_ thread’ll be allowed to stay open until justice is served, come 2015 or 2020. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/5 "2010-08-24T13:03:29Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Perhaps _this_ thread’ll be allowed to stay open until justice is served, come 2015 or 2020. Is it your contention that DeLay should be jailed for conduct that lawmakers did not criminalize? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/6 "2010-08-24T13:13:21Z")
As mentioned in another thread on the same subject, it would be fine if the NYT could add this to its coverage of other politicians - “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who so far has escaped indictment on corruption charges for putting her relatives on the payroll, said Tuesday…” Because fair’s fair. 😉 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/7 "2010-08-24T13:15:29Z")
Probably not what the writer was going for, but I find that sentence hilarious. “Well _technically_ is was legal, but only because it was never made illegal!” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/8 "2010-08-24T13:23:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Squink](#): > > > > Perhaps _this_ thread’ll be allowed to stay open until justice is served, come 2015 or 2020. > > Is it your contention that DeLay should be jailed for conduct that lawmakers did not criminalize? How can you possibly read the article like that? Seems very apparent to me that the writer believes what Delay did is criminal on the face of it and is bemoaning that it is not illegal. I do not see the writer saying, “Screw whatever the law says, throw the bum in jail anyway!” ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/9 "2010-08-24T13:26:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seems very apparent to me that the writer believes what Delay did is criminal on the face of it and is bemoaning that it is not illegal. But surely, the very definition of ‘criminal’ is : That which is in contravention of the criminal law? So you cannot, by definition, be a criminal for doing something that is not illegal. Certainly you can state a belief that something someone has done should be illegal but that’s not the same as saying someone is a criminal when they are, factually, not. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/10 "2010-08-24T13:44:56Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > Seems very apparent to me that the writer believes what Delay did is criminal on the face of it and is bemoaning that it is not illegal. > > But surely, the very definition of ‘criminal’ is : That which is in contravention of the criminal law? > > So you cannot, by definition, be a criminal for doing something that is not illegal. > > Certainly you can state a belief that something someone has done should be illegal but that’s not the same as saying someone is a criminal when they are, factually, not. Good grief… Want to play these nitpicky word games? Fine. Please point out in the article where they said Delay is a criminal as a legal matter. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/11 "2010-08-24T13:46:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who so far has escaped indictment on corruption charges for putting her relatives on the payroll, said Tuesday…” Admit it - you write for _Fox and Friends_. The NYT ain’t what it used to be. At least their stories made more sense when their writers were making stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/12 "2010-08-24T13:50:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Good grief… > > Want to play these nitpicky word games? Fine. > > Please point out in the article where they said Delay is a criminal as a legal matter. It’s not a ‘nitpicky word game’, it’s fundamental. A criminal is someone who breaks the law, not someone who does something of which you, personally, disapprove. (Or anyone else, of course.) You were the one who said “Seems very apparent to me that the writer believes what Delay did is criminal on the face of it and is bemoaning that it is not illegal.” Which seems to imply that you don’t understand the link between ‘criminal’ and ‘illegal’. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/13 "2010-08-24T13:51:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > But surely, the very definition of ‘criminal’ is : That which is in contravention of the criminal law? > > > > So you cannot, by definition, be a criminal for doing something that is not illegal. > > > > Certainly you can state a belief that something someone has done should be illegal but that’s not the same as saying someone is a criminal when they are, factually, not. > > Good grief… > > Want to play these nitpicky word games? Fine. > > Please point out in the article where they said Delay is a criminal as a legal matter. Amen. Guilt, innocence, evidence, crime … these are all just words. Mere semantics. The law should be decided on the firm foundation of what we know in our hearts is right. And when I say “our,” I mean “my.” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/14 "2010-08-24T13:54:56Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > Good grief… > > > > Want to play these nitpicky word games? Fine. > > > > Please point out in the article where they said Delay is a criminal as a legal matter. > > It’s not a ‘nitpicky word game’, it’s fundamental. > > A criminal is someone who breaks the law, not someone who does something of which you, personally, disapprove. (Or anyone else, of course.) > > You were the one who said “Seems very apparent to me that the writer believes what Delay did is criminal on the face of it and is bemoaning that it is not illegal.” > > Which seems to imply that you don’t understand the link between ‘criminal’ and ‘illegal’. More nitpicky crap. In everyday conversation people will say things like, “The Cubs losing that game was criminal!” Do you think the person _really_ meant an actual crime was committed? If it makes you happier modify my sentence to say, “Seems very apparent to me that the writer believes what Delay did _should be_ criminal, as is apparent on the face of it, and is bemoaning that it is not illegal.” Happy? ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/15 "2010-08-24T14:47:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Such is the thrust of [the New York Times’](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22sun2.html?_r=1)editorial page. > > But something strikes me as a bit… um… one-sided. > > > [@](#): > > > > Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House majority leader, crowed that he had been “found innocent.” But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them. > > Yes. That’s exactly how it works, New York Times. See, pretty much ALL actions remain legal when lawmakers choose not to criminalize them. The author knows that. He’s making a rhetorical point. The editorial argues that “some of Washington’s worst big-money practices remain either legal or far too difficult to prosecute” and that “Congress must do a lot more to prove its commitment to real ethics reform” by, presumably, _choosing_ to criminalize these actions. The focus of the article is not just that “there oughta be a law” (although it’s partially that, too), but that lawmakers are being less than enthusiastic about enacting a law that would restrict what they themselves can do. And so the author is emphasizing here not that lawmakers _have not chosen_ to criminalize these practices (which of course makes them perfectly legal), but that they _have chosen **not** _ to criminalize these practices. A subtle distinction, but one that points a finger at Congress, which is the thrust of the editorial. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/16 "2010-08-24T14:49:24Z")
Idiotic phrasing in the editorial. Completely unsurprising that it’s pointed out here. Also completely obvious what the author meant to say - DeLay’s conduct should be illegal, and only aren’t because Congress is very careful not to write laws that might one day implicate them and their seedy dealings. And finally, it’s an editorial, not a news piece. We could probably have a thread every single day laughing at stupid things said in editorials at the major newspapers (from proponents of both sides). A perhaps more interesting debate - _should_ DeLay’s conduct be illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/17 "2010-08-24T15:10:02Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > A perhaps more interesting debate - _should_ DeLay’s conduct be illegal? Not retroactively. And if the conduct was already illegal, DeLay would not have done it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/18 "2010-08-24T15:12:59Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Amen. Guilt, innocence, evidence, crime … these are all just words. Mere semantics. The law should be decided on the firm foundation of what we know in our hearts is right. And when I say “our,” I mean “my.” This is it. Exactly the attitude both the NYT and more than a few posters here offer. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/19 "2010-08-24T15:17:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@furt](#): > > > > Amen. Guilt, innocence, evidence, crime … these are all just words. Mere semantics. The law should be decided on the firm foundation of what we know in our hearts is right. And when I say “our,” I mean “my.” > > This is it. Exactly the attitude both the NYT and more than a few posters here offer. What is wrong with opining on a message board, Great Debates section no less, that you think X-action should be illegal? Has anyone here said Delay should get tossed in jail regardless of what the law says? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280/20 "2010-08-24T15:20:33Z")
> [@zut](#): > > The author knows that. He’s making a rhetorical point. The editorial argues that “some of Washington’s worst big-money practices remain either legal or far too difficult to prosecute” and that “Congress must do a lot more to prove its commitment to real ethics reform” by, presumably, _choosing_ to criminalize these actions. > > The focus of the article is not just that “there oughta be a law” (although it’s partially that, too), but that lawmakers are being less than enthusiastic about enacting a law that would restrict what they themselves can do. And so the author is emphasizing here not that lawmakers _have not chosen_ to criminalize these practices (which of course makes them perfectly legal), but that they _have chosen **not** _ to criminalize these practices. A subtle distinction, but one that points a finger at Congress, which is the thrust of the editorial. Tom Delay is no longer a member of Congress. Therefore the writer could make a better and more effective rhetorical point by doing what I suggested. Pelosi is a member of Congress, and is doing what the writer claims to think should be made illegal. If the idea of the editorial is to push Congress into acting, why wait until years after Delay is out of Congress to complain? You know as well as I do that it will not be mentioned again - until it can be used against a Republican. _:shrugs:_ It’s the same thing as the filibuster, which for the NYT was an important protection of democracy when Democrats were in the minority in Congress and then instantly flipped to being a horrible violation of the principles on which this country was founded the instant the Dems took over. Regards, Shodan [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-dare-they-not-prosecute-tom-delay/551280.md?page=2)