Reply #35: There you go again. You're determined, because you don't like this subject, to

[MADem]

grasp at straws to find reasons to shut this discussion down, even stooping to poorly executed snark. You're wrong about the "taxpayer dollars" too.

I'm betting if it were George Bush funneling money through a PAC for the poor, or a campaign bank account, to a girlfriend, you'd be on the ramparts demanding his head.

Instead, you pooh-pooh, tut-tut, toss stupid and really, pretty childish, insults, and use the little man....like that makes your argument compelling.

Sorry, it doesn't. It makes your argument rather pathetic and your POV immature.

The statute is a short one: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." ....To prove wire fraud under the statute, the government must show that the defendants planned to deprive citizens of honest services, it must show intent, and it must show that defendants used or caused someone else to use the mail or a wire communication – such as a telephone – to carry out the plan, according to a book of standard jury instructions published by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.


If DNA demonstrates that the child is his, the difficulty of proving "intent" goes out the window, too.