Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
...Someone thinks enough of it to bring charges of corruption...

And that's the part where the appeals court said there was no evidence.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a federal appeals court to reverse a criminal conviction for lack of evidence?

If said Governor was a Republican, there is no doubt whatsoever that Ty would be posting 18 links to Crooked Timber about the "government for sale", Wonk would nearly pop an artery bellowing "assholes" at the top of his lungs, Shifter would suggest the whole lot of them be "tortured", and I'd sit back and laugh at the daily hypocricy of all of you.

You keep thinking I bitch about this Halliburton stuff, and every time you say it you are still wrong.

eta: If there were any evidence that the defendant in question did something wrong, then she should go away for a long time. But the fact that a donor gets a contract does not show corruption. Government contractors have First Amendment rights too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Dahlia Lithwick reads the board.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Dahlia Lithwick reads the board.

12. Jurors. Disagree.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
12. Jurors. Disagree.

So do you think Fitzpatrick was right to pursue the charges against Libby?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So do you think Fitzpatrick was right to pursue the charges against Libby?

I'm just rebutting. You're the one trying to prove something. I don't hypo.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm just rebutting. You're the one trying to prove something. I don't hypo.

It's not a hypo. He actually brought the charges.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not a hypo. He actually brought the charges.

weren't you hoping for more charges, or advocating them?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
weren't you hoping for more charges, or advocating them?

Neither. I was asking you whether he was right to bring the charges he actually brought, and won a conviction on. 'Cause lots of conservatives pissed and moaned about it all along the way, even after Libby was convicted.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Neither. I was asking you whether he was right to bring the charges he actually brought, and won a conviction on. 'Cause lots of conservatives pissed and moaned about it all along the way, even after Libby was convicted.

oh. i guess i remember you being part of the "clinton is old news shut up already" crowd, which then translates to libby is old news, no? You know, let's talk about what is going on now.

So you brought up the reversal of this jury verdict- SS and adder are too dumb to realize why the jury verdict makes this a non-story, but I always took you to be an actual lawyer. what's up?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh. i guess i remember you being part of the "clinton is old news shut up already" crowd, which then translates to libby is old news, no? You know, let's talk about what is going on now.

So you brought up the reversal of this jury verdict- SS and adder are too dumb to realize why the jury verdict makes this a non-story, but I always took you to be an actual lawyer. what's up?

Juries do all sorts of odd things, but when you have a federal appeals court reversing a conviction for a lack of evidence and ordered the defendant released by the end of the business day even before a decision is rendered, you know something was fucked up.

Well, we know it. You're in denial, or just faking it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Juries do all sorts of odd things,

so do judges in my experience. do you always agree with them? ultimately our judicial system is based upon trusting the jury system. I'll stick with that against all the myriad confused blogs ignoring the conviction that you want to throw at this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so do judges in my experience. do you always agree with them? ultimately our judicial system is based upon trusting the jury system. I'll stick with that against all the myriad confused blogs ignoring the conviction that you want to throw at this.

counting this one. 409-23. wait. ncs has been disqualified right?

409-11.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so do judges in my experience. do you always agree with them? ultimately our judicial system is based upon trusting the jury system. I'll stick with that against all the myriad confused blogs ignoring the conviction that you want to throw at this.

It's possible that I have more familiarity with federal criminal appeals and/or Frank Easterbrook than you do.

[sgtclub]

• Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...055148,00.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's possible that I have more familiarity with federal criminal appeals and/or Frank Easterbrook than you do.

I'm best friends with the best criminal appeals lawyer in mi. so I'm familiar, yet not egotistically locked into any notion.

410-11