[1_person]

I don't really know enough about what happened to have an opinion on it, and neither do you, but the media's told you to hate him, so here we are I guess.

Moving on, what I actually said, and what I actually meant, was that those laws are incredibly vague and have been used to convict more or less everything under the sun except actual wire or mail frauds.

If a conviction involves only wire, mail, and money laundering charges then it is because the only guilt that could be proven was axiomatic.

Pardon me for pausing a moment to ponder before picking up a stone and joining you.

[enkid]

So, you admit there is such a thing as wire and mail fraud, and those laws should exist, and yet if someone is convicted of those crimes it is automatically because they couldn't convict them of another crime. And you don't know enough about this case to make a judgement and yet the only reason they convicted this person of this crime is because it is "axiomatic." You aren't convincing me these are bad laws from this argument.

[1_person]

I'm not trying to, either.

Read the laws or remain ignorant, I don't care.