...? You don't read very well, do you?<-lol Re-read what you've written, then re-read what I have cited. you're better off doing that than assuming my arguments, and making this some sort of personal vendetta based on imaginary versions of me you have conjured.
Here, I'll help you---the "best course of action" is a matter of opinion. So is saying "nothing improper was done".
You really don't have anything then? I was counting on a good show as you tried to explain the legal weight that your (or a law professor's, for that matter) opinion carried, and how it could change anything in this case. Popcorn denied.
Might I remind you that since you are the one making accusations of impropriety here the burden is on you to demonstrate that something improper (more importantly, illegal) did in fact occur? So far we've got opinions. You need a bit more than that. So again, demonstrate that the prosecutor violated either a law or a procedural rule, or STFU. Absent such a demonstration, all we have is opinions. Irrelevant opinions.
Oh yeah, I see how that works. Somehow, your "opinion" is as worthless as somebody who is grounded in the constitutional traditions of America and who has taken then time to be informed, because, well, when you can't discuss and debate , the better thing to do is to claim that your opinion based on nothing is worth more than somebody who has trained decades as a lawyer. Given that this is something that has been brought up now---you can be sure that legal scholars in the field who are discussing it now will seek reforms---and those reforms will hold legal weight. Because their opinions are those of practitioners of the law. Yours are? Can you grasp the difference?
Because you so insist: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...shadow_trial_violates_the_public_s_right.html Just for you Treeman. Just for you. Now work on reading and squaring your arguments so they make sense.
oh yeah, contextualizing and guiding. "We are a nation of laws! Until the laws that force us to be open and transparent serve as an oppositional force to our political goals." hmm. get your popcorn.
Yes! You get it! All of our opinions are worthless! Mine, yours, the law professor's - they're all opinions and carry no legal weight. You can put as much stock as you want in them, but until you can demonstrate[/b] that a law or rule was violated, you are just talking out of your a$$. I suppose we will have to wait for those reforms for a few decades before your opinions - or anyone else's - carry any weight at all.
Care to read how a closed criminal pre-trial procedure that functions like a trial is unconstitutional in the present? Does the Supreme Court carry legal weight with you?
LOL. LOLOLOL. So this grand jury "functioned like a trial", eh? Both sides got to present witnesses and evidence, both sides got to question the others' witnesses... It worked just like a trial, huh? Well then, SURELY it was unconstitutional. So again - I am going to keep asking this - show me where a law or procedural rule was violated. Anything short of that is simply your attempting to color this in a way that casts doubt on and somehow invalidates the conclusion. Try as you might, little engine that could, you ain't got shiite.
The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this case and never will. And this proceeding did not function as a trial, unless you think that cross examination is not allowed in a trial. Dumb argument is dumb.
How about you demonstrate your reading skills, and show me where a law was violated---the Constitution of the United States? I've made it really easy for you.
Look, I know that a world in which your opinions mean anything more than a pile of camel dung, a world in which your opinions - and not the actual law itself - are the libtard's wet dream. But that is not the world in which we live. You cannot get around the fact that insufficient evidence existed to obtain an indictment, much less a conviction. That is the bottom line. Had probable cause actually existed, the case would have moved forward, but it didn't. The available evidence didn't support it. You cannot get around that fact, so you try to muddy the waters and change the subject. But try as you might, you will never be able to overcome that fact. Reality will always win in the end.
If you read a bit more, you would know that I have already stated that my opinion is astoundingly irrelevant. As is yours, and as is the law professor's.
LOL I am not the one who thinks a law was violated. The burden is on you to demonstrate this, not me. You are the prosecutor here. Make your case. <gets the popcorn out again>
You're the one who hung yourself out to dry by committing to a position that legal proceedings taken were the best course of action possible, and that there could be nothing improper or illegal about them---an absurd position, to be perfectly frank. I hope your view has been sufficiently remedied with this regard. Of course, I'm not even going to ask you to see how closed criminal proceedings breed mistrust into a legal system seen as crooked. Read the article and it connects the dots for you. In future, spend more time reading rather than venting personal rage.
To sum up: your defense to your flawed argument is that all opinions are worthless. Well, bonus points for creativity, and a heartfelt suggestion that you should consider leaving this forum if you think what you say is worthless.
LOL, "hung myself out to dry"? You're the doofus who hing himself out to dry by making the accusation that something "improper" occurred, yet failing to acknowledge that "improper" is a matter of opinion and carries no legal weight. You can't use "improper" and "illegal" in the same sentence really and try to imply that they carry the same weight. One is a matter of opinion, the other is a matter of law. One is more or less synonymous in this case with "unusual", the other is not. LOL again... Uh... "personal rage"? I'm not the one having a meltdown here. I think justice was more or less served, albeit in a less than ideal fashion (ideal would have been not seeking an indictment in the first place, as there was never a case here). You are the one who has his panties in a wad about the outcome. As usual, liberals will always project. As night and day...
