Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 29 of 35 pages
What is broken? Looks fine to me, but sorry I guess?
I trust the court system over any DOJ.
I'm a little curious about the standing issue, which to this non-lawyer would seem to my eye as perhaps having more repercussions. Does this essentially kill off any passed ballot initiative that state legislatures don't like? Or has this layman read the decision incorrectly?
Which was a keen insight by the court, given that no one has ever, nor will anyone ever, suffer any injury by gays being allowed to marry.
The coverage is by an attorney who authored a book on The Law of Self Defense. He may have a point of view, but unless he is making up things from whole cloth, it does appear that the prosecution witnesses are not doing well under cross-examination.
Yes, his conclusion that the credibility of both prosecution witnesses today were "effectively destroyed" when they admitted to not having met either Zimmerman or Martin sounds like totally objective reporting. Shockingly, he's had that same conclusion for every single prosecution witness thus far.
That guy's blatant cheerleading makes him about as credible as the unskewed polls guy.
The coverage is by an attorney who authored a book on The Law of Self Defense. He may have a point of view, but unless he is making up things from whole cloth, it does appear that the prosecution witnesses are not doing well under cross-examination
A group of conservative House Republicans blasted the decisions on same-sex marriage issued Wednesday by the Supreme Court as legally inconsistent and detrimental to the future of the nation’s children. One lawmaker pledged to soon file a constitutional amendment to reinstate the Defense of Marriage Act.
“A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.). “My response will be later this week to file a federal marriage amendment.”
rry to harp on something like this, but the ongoing right wing assault on the media is such a recurring theme among our resident right wing crowd that it shouldn't go unanswered.
I've read some 'other' coverage on Zimmerman, and have yet to see anyone really saying 'well done' prosecution. It hasn't been a good start.
I appreciate a criminal-defense-centric perspective, in a case that has turned so many friends into Nancy Grace.
That guy's blatant cheerleading makes him about as credible as the unskewed polls guy.
Well, he gives reasons for the witnesses' credibility problems.
Maybe he's been accurate, maybe he's not been, what I've noticed is that the lawyers the media picks to report on trials/legal proceedings are usually godawful at reporting, completely unable to see/report objectively, which has always puzzled me, because most a lawyers I've run into- when they are not acting as advocates- are actually very good at seeing and relaying matters objectively- being able to give one's client a reality check is an important part of the job description.
Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury inspector general.
Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status.
“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.
The inspector general also stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention.
Rachel Jeantel was a train wreck as a witness. She did not help the state's case. She exposed the manipulations of Team Crump. She was impeached on a few significant matters (see below the fold.) And she admitted multiple lies. It was cringe-worthy but you couldn't take your eyes off it.
Most strikingly, she made Trayvon Martin out to be the profiler of Zimmerman. She said (on direct exam no less by the prosecutor) that shortly after first spotting Zimmerman, Martin described Zimmerman to her as a "Crazy-a*s Cracker" and later, described Zimmerman a few times as "this ni*ga" (as in this ni*ga following him.) The two minute clip above is of Rachel and the prosecutor repeating creepy a*s cracker over and over as the court reporter struggles to make out what she's saying, Rachel explaining that creepy as* cracker means a white person, then and expressing concern the creepy guy might be a rapist.
At her deposition, she couldn't identify Trayvon as the person crying out for help. Today, she tried to deny it, but when impeached with the transcript, admitted she told the defense, "It could be, like I said, I don't know. He has a baby voice some days, you know it's not."
Ladies and gentlemen, the conscience of an authoritarian liberal.
So, do you believe that people who speak against the drug war should also be monitored by the government for drug use? Should people who called Bush a war criminal vociferously and ostentatiously been monitored by the government on that basis?
Should the government investigate or monitor anyone or any group?
Unless and until they have evidence of criminal behavior, no.
As I said, gay marriage is essentially a non-issue now and will be completely so by the next presidential election cycle.
Did these groups not pay their taxes? Or actually threaten to not do so? That's what's needed as a bare minimum for your analogy to not be completely nonsensical.
Intentional as I know that most of you guys are not authoritarian. I already assumed that you guys found him an awkward member of your team - I've got plenty of people on my side on various issues that I'd like to launch into the sun as well.
A teenage friend of Trayvon Martin was forced to admit today in the George Zimmerman murder trial that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin's mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin moments before he was shot. In a painfully embarassing moment, Rachel Jeantel was asked to read the letter out loud in court.
"Are you able to read that at all?" defense attorney Don West asked.
Jeantel, head bowed, eyes averted whispered into the court microphone, "Some but not all. I don't read cursive. . . Jeantel, 19, was unable to read any of the letter save for her name.
I don't read cursive. . .
Former New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez is being investigated for possible involvement in a drive-by shooting that left two men dead in Boston last year, ABC News has learned.
c'mon. it's to give the appearance that the letter was ginned together by someone else and that the contents of the letter are fraudulent
The witness has already been shown to have lied under oath several times,
The one where she revealed that the only person who made racial comments that night was Trayvon? Thus making his attack of Zimmermann (*) a racial hate crime?
if you think someone's following you, you have every legal right to beat the crap out of them.
But you have to remember this is a guy that also has the legal theory that if you think someone's following you, you have every legal right to beat the crap out of them.
So, what you are saying is that you do *not* have any evidence to back up your assertions that members of Tea Party organizations are more likely to commit tax fraud than those in other groups?
Too bad. I was looking forward to the interesting data and/or study that I believed you had in order to make such a statement. Unfortunately, it just turns out that you are a liar.
"Victim" is a modern liberalish word that I'll graciously pass on using as a reference point.
"Victim" is a modern liberalish word
I sometimes wonder who the last certifiable "pre-modern liberal" might have been in the eyes of our modern "modern liberal" slayers. JFK? Friedrich Hayek? Calvin Coolidge? Adam Smith?
Lynch Mob Sam may be surprised to find out that he can't play Internet Tough Guy in real life.
Yeah, and after seeing what He did to those money lenders, I doubt if our modern conservatives would want Him in their club.
Generally speaking, if someone asserts that government can treat X party unfairly
they have at least some miniscule shred of evidence to back up their assertion about the existence of Y fact. You did not, have not, and are offended by the suggestion that you would back up an argument with facts.
So, did you lie about having the facts, just did not have the capacity to realize you did not have the facts, or do you have the facts and simply refuse to present them? Liar, idiot, or ####### - in the spirit of generosity, I'll let you pick the conclusion.
shame on the prosecution for not prepping her. there was plenty of time.
She can't read or write she allegedly dictated it to a friend.
Personally I think the only [legally] interesting thing about the letter is whether it is consistent with or contradicts other accounts she's given.
Most likely because their case is garbage.
Tell us how you really feel. It's important to let your emotions out, babydoll.
Rachel Jeantel is the poster girl for what's wrong with big-city public schools. Jeantel apparently graduated from Norland High School without being able to read or write, but at least she has high self-esteem!
It's not the fault of the schools. It's the fault of the broader community -- the same community that didn't adequately acculturate Trayvon to not act violently -- and Jeantel herself.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 8.2749 seconds, 48 querie(s) executed