Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

I think she will be acquitted and if so, it is a damn shame.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think she will be acquitted and if so, it is a damn shame.

Based on what, the defense's case so far?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Based on what, the defense's case so far?

I think it will be more that the jury won't want to convict her on the charges the prosecution has chosen to bring against her.

I think the jury is going to say not-guilty on the charge that her comments about the insider trading scandal were made to prop up her own company's stock price. I think many people see that as fundamentally unfair to use securities law to punish someone who proclaimed their innocence. I am not saying that the jury will or will not be following the law on that . It is my belief that juries do not follow the law, because they generally don't understand it. Rather, they make decisions based on what they see as fair. Juries act more like the equitable courts of yore IMHO. They base their decisions on what they think is fair; the law be damned.

All the other charges are just Martha's word against the word of the guy who got a plea deal after changing his story to investigators (and who has admitted to using drugs). I know the drugs shouldn't matter, but they will matter to jurors unless the jurors are the type who have done drugs themselves.

What evidence was there to corroborate his word over hers? I remember hearing about some phone log that was altered at one point, maybe that is some evidence, but I don't think a jury would send a celebrity to jail on the word of an admitted drug user who changed his story and accepted a plea deal and an altered phone log. Maybe if she weren't a celebrity they would.

Of course, to contradict his word, she has to testify. She would be an idiot if she doesn't testify. I don't think juries give a hoot about the 5th Amendment and that the jury might infer guilt from that.

Maybe I haven't been paying attention enough, but I haven't seen enough evidence that would persuade a jury to send her to the pokie. I doubt that there is any evidence that hasn't already been leaked to the press.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

What evidence was there to corroborate his word over hers? I remember hearing about some phone log that was altered at one point,

Wasn't it baconovic's or stewart's phone log, not the flunky's? That's why they decided to press charges in teh first place--the brazen, and obvious, alteration of the phone log that was subsequently realtered back to its original state.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wasn't it baconovic's or stewart's phone log, not the flunky's?

I think it was Stewart's phone log.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's why they decided to press charges in teh first place--the brazen, and obvious, alteration of the phone log that was subsequently realtered back to its original state.

I am not saying that she didn't do it. I think she did. However, the phone log is all that supports the conspiracy and obstruction of justice counts except for the word of the assistant, Fanuiel (sp?). I just don't see a jury sending a celeb to the pokie for that. Maybe they will, but I think juries get stars in their eyes when celebs are the defendants and they are much more likely to give a celeb the benefit of the doubt.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Slave4Always

According to this Yale professor

There's a big problem with that analysis. A lot of people think the job market rather than GDP drives voters. The job market still sucks and the libertarian wing of the republicans likes free trade and pro-immigration policies that will keep it that way.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by Slave4Always
The job market still sucks and the libertarian wing of the republicans likes free trade and pro-immigration policies that will keep it that way.

Given that Republicanism (at least at the federal level) is now seemingly synonymous with bigger government, I wonder if it's time to end the characterization of libertarianism as a wing of Republicanism.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by bilmore

Given that Republicanism (at least at the federal level) is now seemingly synonymous with bigger government, I wonder if it's time to end the characterization of libertarianism as a wing of Republicanism.

True dat, I should have said the pro-business wing of the republican party.

[Hank Chinaski]

All US Budgets could be attacked as "lies." If one looks at it critically, then you can criticize. Example, 1999 budget was full of "dishonesty" and "lies."

http://www.limitedgovernment.org/pub...fs/brf5-11.pdf

I did a google for "1999 United States Budget bloated" and received a long list of hits. I don't mean this as a Clinton-bash, its just his admin. is the sum of "history" for the internet as a database. I'm sure one can find "lies" in the 1970 budget, or 1944- "What's the funds earmarked for 'big thing-can't say what in early June.' "


These things are too massive, and too unpredictable to be as ironclad, as say, a Sgt. Club argument. They tend to have fuzzy spots that one can attack.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Maybe I missed something the first time around, but did the Mass. SJC go about declaring teh ban on homosexual marriage unconstitutional in a rather disingenuous way? (putting aside the merits of the ulitmate result, please)

In November (or whenever), they decided that denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples violated the state's equal protection clause. From what I read of the decision, it appeared to allow civil unions. Indeed, the legislature apparently believed that civil unions potentially complied with teh decision. Then, the SJC says, no, civil unions are separate and unequal, only marriage will do. Why not say that the first time?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

1. Gay Marriage - Total red herring. Waste of everyone's time. The real issue is "should gay couples in civil unions be entitled to the same benefits married hereto folks get?" If gays would back down on use of the term marriage, they'd take the wind out of the GOP's sails on this issue.

2. Mel Gibson movie - Who cares who killed Jesus? If he wasn't killed by someone, he wouldn't have become the Messiah. My reading of the bible was that god predestinted Jesus to die, so whoever killed him was acting on behalf of God. So if you're a Christian who's pissed that Jesus died,you (a) don't understand your own religion and (b) really have a gripe with god, not the Romans and Jews. Either way, its water 2000 years under the bridge, so I'd suggest dropping the subject. its a bitstale.

3. CIA Incompetence - The question isn't "Why is the CIA incompentent?" The question is "Can we prove the CIA is falling on the sword for Bush here?" Obviously, they are. All the left has to do is prove it. Bush is "putting the rabbit in the hat" by appointing a blue ribbon panel to review "CIA lapses." The first step is to determine if Bush knew there were holes in the argument and fudged his case. If he can prove he wasn't bullshitting us, then we examine the CIA, but letting him push this off on the CIA without grilling his lying ass is negligent on the part of the Dems.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Gay Marriage - Total red herring. Waste of everyone's time. The real issue is "should gay couples in civil unions be entitled to the same benefits married hereto folks get?" If gays would back down on use of the term marriage, they'd take the wind out of the GOP's sails on this issue.

Some wind. Not all. Many people would still be pissed that such relationships are given any legal recognition other than felonious.

2. Mel Gibson movie - Who cares who killed Jesus? If he wasn't killed by someone, he wouldn't have become the Messiah. My reading of the bible was that god predestinted Jesus to die, so whoever killed him was acting on behalf of God. So if you're a Christian who's pissed that Jesus died,you (a) don't understand your own religion and (b) really have a gripe with god, not the Romans and Jews. Either way, its water 2000 years under the bridge, so I'd suggest dropping the subject. its a bitstale.

I don't even care that much. I've forgotten too much latin to watch anyway.

3. CIA Incompetence - The question isn't "Why is the CIA incompentent?" The question is "Can we prove the CIA is falling on the sword for Bush here?" Obviously, they are. All the left has to do is prove it. Bush is "putting the rabbit in the hat" by appointing a blue ribbon panel to review "CIA lapses." The first step is to determine if Bush knew there were holes in the argument and fudged his case. If he can prove he wasn't bullshitting us, then we examine the CIA, but letting him push this off on the CIA without grilling his lying ass is negligent on the part of the Dems.

it is obvious. but how do you grill his ass, much as he likes texas bbq?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Some wind. Not all. Many people would still be pissed that such relationships are given any legal recognition other than felonious.



I don't even care that much. I've forgotten too much latin to watch anyway.



it is obvious. but how do you grill his ass, much as he likes texas bbq?

I'll address each...

1. Too fucking bad. This is a big world, and lots of people live differently than others.

2. Agreed, but the issue is taking up a lot of the NYTimes, which is annoying.

3. See: Clinton deposition. Stay on focus. Every time Bush points toward someone else, say "Ok, that's nice, now, Mr. President, answer my question... What did YOU know and when did YOU know it?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
3. See: Clinton deposition. Stay on focus. Every time Bush points toward someone else, say "Ok, that's nice, now, Mr. President, answer my question... What did YOU know and when did YOU know it?"

If Bush didn't really believe there were WMD why would he have done all that he did? It was a real neck stretch. Clinton has said his intelligence said there were WMD, and the UN kept sanctions that were killing Iraquis because it believed Iraq had WMD.
Saddam had a bluff going that backfired on him. We're better off.

And by the way, to the Poster last week who said the liberals here aren't capable of hyperbole, I have to say if we can keep Sebby here you guys will be good to go. Sebastian this is a compliment.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If Bush didn't really believe there were WMD why would he have done all that he did?

Ty can probably explain the rationale, somehow relating to cojones and dads. But I've always agreed that past intelligence, including that provided to Clinton, plus Saddam's intransigence with teh weapons inspectors, gave us reason to believe WMD were there. We called his bluff, leaving both sides worse off.