I'm sure you have proof that the current Attorney General was bribed, because you wouldn't just throw out shit like that without substantiation.
No, I'm quite happy to smear Stevens & Holder without substantiation; I have no doubt at all that both men regularly engaged in cheating. If I'm wrong about it in this instance, oh well - I'm quite sure both did far worse things than give or accept a bribe.
I mean, nobody can (I think?) provide solid evidence that the extension on Stevens's house was purchased using the stolen money - but some things only require you to read between the lines.
I'm sure you have proof that the current Attorney General was bribed, because you wouldn't just throw out shit like that without substantiation.
No, I'm quite happy to smear Stevens & Holder without substantiation; I have no doubt at all that both men regularly engaged in cheating. If I'm wrong about it in this instance, oh well - I'm quite sure both did far worse things than give or accept a bribe.
I mean, nobody can (I think?) provide solid evidence that the extension on Stevens's house was purchased using the stolen money - but some things only require you to read between the lines.
Oh, I see, so you're just blatantly full of shit. So what if you don't have any evidence, you're just happy to believe the worst.
Oh, I see, so you're just blatantly full of shit. So what if you don't have any evidence, you're just happy to believe the worst.
I'm just playing by the rules that Mr. Holder has established for himself.
If you'll recall, early last year, all of evidence required to annihilate reasonable doubt of the executive branch's involvement in both:
- Wiretapping people without any warrants or probable cause.
- Torturing people to death in prisons.
- Detaining PoWs with no trial and no legal representation in inhumane conditions
...was brought forward. Holder's response? 'We don't want to go on a witch hunt.'
So, in other words, evidence is utterly irrelevant. Well, I guess that's fine, then. I'll just assume the absolute worst of everything he & demonstrably corrupt senators get up to.
Besides that, the excuse for throwing out the case was not something that would've been offered to any normal citizen. Do you think you would be able to tell the judge to throw out a case involving the theft of the sort of monies Stevens was involved in stealing because the Prosecutors weren't playing nice?
Oh, I see, so you're just blatantly full of shit. So what if you don't have any evidence, you're just happy to believe the worst.
I'm just playing by the rules that Mr. Holder has established for himself.
If you'll recall, early last year, all of evidence required to annihilate reasonable doubt of the executive branch's involvement in both:
- Wiretapping people without any warrants or probable cause.
- Torturing people to death in prisons.
- Detaining PoWs with no trial and no legal representation in inhumane conditions
...was brought forward. Holder's response? 'We don't want to go on a witch hunt.'
And that proves that Stevens bribed Holder to vacate the verdict. Gotcha.
Besides that, the excuse for throwing out the case was not something that would've been offered to any normal citizen. Do you think you would be able to tell the judge to throw out a case involving the theft of the sort of monies Stevens was involved in stealing because the Prosecutors weren't playing nice?
If I were in the position to do so, yes. Holder is the Attorney General, not some guy, so he can do that. If your point is that poor people get screwed in court more than rich people do, sure, I'll grant that, but that's not because rich people regularly bribe judges.
And that proves that Stevens bribed Holder to vacate the verdict. Gotcha.
No; I'm saying that evidence isn't a relevant factor (or doesn't appear to be) to Mr. Holder. As such, I don't see the point in trying to put together strong cases or even bother to construct logically consistent arguments when discussing the intersection of justice with political bodies in the United States.
Any case that's too inconvenient to pursue is just dismissed (in fairness, this isn't a new thing; but Holder owns accountability for not breaking away from the paradigm).
EDIT: To put it another way, there's no point in bringing a lawyer or documentation before a kangaroo court.
Posts
I'm sure you have proof that the current Attorney General was bribed, because you wouldn't just throw out shit like that without substantiation.
No, I'm quite happy to smear Stevens & Holder without substantiation; I have no doubt at all that both men regularly engaged in cheating. If I'm wrong about it in this instance, oh well - I'm quite sure both did far worse things than give or accept a bribe.
I mean, nobody can (I think?) provide solid evidence that the extension on Stevens's house was purchased using the stolen money - but some things only require you to read between the lines.
Oh, I see, so you're just blatantly full of shit. So what if you don't have any evidence, you're just happy to believe the worst.
I'm just playing by the rules that Mr. Holder has established for himself.
If you'll recall, early last year, all of evidence required to annihilate reasonable doubt of the executive branch's involvement in both:
- Wiretapping people without any warrants or probable cause.
- Torturing people to death in prisons.
- Detaining PoWs with no trial and no legal representation in inhumane conditions
...was brought forward. Holder's response? 'We don't want to go on a witch hunt.'
So, in other words, evidence is utterly irrelevant. Well, I guess that's fine, then. I'll just assume the absolute worst of everything he & demonstrably corrupt senators get up to.
Besides that, the excuse for throwing out the case was not something that would've been offered to any normal citizen. Do you think you would be able to tell the judge to throw out a case involving the theft of the sort of monies Stevens was involved in stealing because the Prosecutors weren't playing nice?
If I were in the position to do so, yes. Holder is the Attorney General, not some guy, so he can do that. If your point is that poor people get screwed in court more than rich people do, sure, I'll grant that, but that's not because rich people regularly bribe judges.
No; I'm saying that evidence isn't a relevant factor (or doesn't appear to be) to Mr. Holder. As such, I don't see the point in trying to put together strong cases or even bother to construct logically consistent arguments when discussing the intersection of justice with political bodies in the United States.
Any case that's too inconvenient to pursue is just dismissed (in fairness, this isn't a new thing; but Holder owns accountability for not breaking away from the paradigm).
EDIT: To put it another way, there's no point in bringing a lawyer or documentation before a kangaroo court.