You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Robert Blake-NOT Guilty!
- Thread starter Sir William
- Start date
novus collectus
Moderator
+1
progunner1957
Moderator
"Justice" depends on who you know and who you bl*w
Thanks, Trespass and Novus - the point of my rampage, as someone else noted, is that prosecutors - not all of them, mind you - are often out to make a name for themselves by throwing a high profile person in the can.
Next time you are at Border's or Barnes & Noble, pick up a copy of Constitutional Chaos by Andrew P. Napolitano. He addresses this very issue. On pg. 17, he states: "Martha Stewart, private citizen turned lifestyle celebrity, was targeted by federal government officials trying to make a name for themselves."
On pg.18: "There was not a single thing illegal about Stewart's stock trade." And most telling of all, "Because the government wanted to attack a high-profile female target, it successfully convinced a jury that Stewart was guilty of 'lying to investigators,' 'obstruction of justice,' and 'conspiracy.'"
Who is this Napolitano guy and what makes him so smart? He is a judge; he sat on the bench for eight years in the state of New Jersey. He became sickened and disillusioned by what he saw, and decided to speak out. You can bet his career went straight into the crapper when his book hit the stores.
And finally, my last question:
Bill Clinton was guilty of lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and conspiracy but walked. WHY?? Why one standard of justice for Clinton and another for Stewart???
Thanks, Trespass and Novus - the point of my rampage, as someone else noted, is that prosecutors - not all of them, mind you - are often out to make a name for themselves by throwing a high profile person in the can.
Next time you are at Border's or Barnes & Noble, pick up a copy of Constitutional Chaos by Andrew P. Napolitano. He addresses this very issue. On pg. 17, he states: "Martha Stewart, private citizen turned lifestyle celebrity, was targeted by federal government officials trying to make a name for themselves."
On pg.18: "There was not a single thing illegal about Stewart's stock trade." And most telling of all, "Because the government wanted to attack a high-profile female target, it successfully convinced a jury that Stewart was guilty of 'lying to investigators,' 'obstruction of justice,' and 'conspiracy.'"
Who is this Napolitano guy and what makes him so smart? He is a judge; he sat on the bench for eight years in the state of New Jersey. He became sickened and disillusioned by what he saw, and decided to speak out. You can bet his career went straight into the crapper when his book hit the stores.
And finally, my last question:
Bill Clinton was guilty of lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and conspiracy but walked. WHY?? Why one standard of justice for Clinton and another for Stewart???
Unique 5.7
New member
Good points, Progunner.
You remind me of something McCoy said on "Law and Order." It was something like this:
"The people are not guaranteed a fair trial, the defendant is."
The way it should be, imo.
You remind me of something McCoy said on "Law and Order." It was something like this:
"The people are not guaranteed a fair trial, the defendant is."
The way it should be, imo.
Master Blaster
New member
The main purpose of the legal system as it exists today is to enrich lawyers. To take money from all of our pockets and put it in theirs. If you are ever involved in litigation as a private citizen you will be broke by the time its done. The lawyers will pick you clean like vultures pick clean a carcass in the desert.
If you have no money you will lose your case and go to jail. If you have money you lose even if you win.
If you have no money you will lose your case and go to jail. If you have money you lose even if you win.