I notice that Fox News has now joined the bandwagon of those who do not want me watching their videos because I won't allow their ads...C'est la vie I suppose...:shrug:...Ben
Printable View
I notice that Fox News has now joined the bandwagon of those who do not want me watching their videos because I won't allow their ads...C'est la vie I suppose...:shrug:...Ben
Here is another link.
The verdict was important enough to piss off the orange guy :flip::rofl::bwaha:
I have to question the verdict when one of the jurors [ who has a daughter on the same team as Sussmans ] states that lying to the FBI is not that big a deal .Perhaps they should ask a Rep. ie. Flynn , if it is a big deal or not.
crooked judge , tainted jury = not guilty . A great example of our two tiered system .
All righty then---you boys seem to be taking up the MO of your orange hero :getdown:
...with a bit of billy clinton thrown in----deny, deny, deny :flip::flip:
Anybody who even remotely thought that a jury from DC was going to convict this guy is naive. Unfortunately the prosecutor had no choice but to bring it there
At some point, we have to trust people with whom we might have political differences. Juries can be biased, no doubt. I saw that when I was growing up in Georgia in the 1960s. Getting a Klan member convicted was impossible.
But it just seems to me that there is an assumption that whenever a verdict is not as we want, then the fix was in. Someone played on the same softball team as Sussman's daughter? C'mon. Not everything that turns out a way other than desired is somehow rigged. Eventually, we have to trust each other. Yeah, sometimes the fix is in, but assuming that it must be rigged any time the verdict is not what we want is really a statement about us, not the justice system.
I recall the OJ verdict. I felt there was no way he could have been acquitted. But I wasn't in the jury room and eventually, I decided that perhaps the simplest solution was the likeliest - the prosecutors simply failed to make their case. I didn't have to be upset about jury nullification, I didn't need to feel bitter about maybe black jurors refusing to convict a black man, I didn't have to come up with convoluted conspiracy theories about the fix being in or jurors that had some vague connection that is skewing the outcome. Believe me, it sure felt a lot better when I decided that this wasn't another case for grievance and victimhood and was just simply the fact that the prosecution had not made the case so convincingly that a group of people were able to say beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ did it. Doesn't mean he wasn't as guilty as hell but that the prosecution just didn't do a good enough job with their ONE bite at the apple to convict him.
I LIKE that aspect of our system. It SHOULD be hard to convict people. The prosecution SHOULD have to make a convincing case and I WASN'T in on the jury deliberations so I trusted that my fellow citizens did their best to get it right.
It's a better way to live, frankly, than looking for ways to feel aggrieved and victimized. Occam's razor made me a lot less unhappy that day. I like feeling good about people, though. Even when I disagree with them.
I completely respect the verdict of the jury. But it is well known that juries tend to represent the politics of their location. It goes both ways.
I would feel mighty pretentious if I were to question the decision of a jury that I was not on and had no access to all the testimony that they heard. :shrug:
Analyzing what juries do and do not do and why they do it is not pretentious at all in fact it's quite a science.
An interesting discussion, my friends. Having said that, we seem to have drifted away from a discussion focused on/about Hilary Clinton.
Yet, Kevin said, "Eventually, we have to trust each other." I like that and totally agree with him.
Hunter
Why is she even a reason for discussion?
In case anybody saw it I deleted my last post because I think I misunderstood what the poster was saying.