|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^lol just lol
clinton is the only one willing to stand up to russia
|
On June 22 2016 08:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 04:30 Lord Tolkien wrote:On June 22 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 22 2016 03:22 Lord Tolkien wrote:Jesus fucking Christ. The Supreme Court gutted the exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment yesterday. what. the. fuck. 5-3. I mean, Breyer generally has a blindspot to these types of 4th Amendment cases, but what the flipping f' did they overturn the Utah SC decision. Sotomayor's dissent is the only good things to come from this case. Why the crap... http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdfPage 14. I don't see anything wrong with the opinion. Hell, it is so fact-specific that I have real trouble seeing how it will have any general applicability. The decision effectively legalizes illegal searches. Normally, an illegal search means that the chain of events resulting from the search, INCLUDING the acquisition of the warrant that would be used to justify the search, is void/tainted. If he was not illegally stopped and asked for ID, then the officer would not have found the warrant that would justify the search for evidence, and could not have have justification for a more invasive search: the chain of events cannot occur without the search. That is fundamentally what the exclusionary rule is about. It does require the officer be operating under "good faith" and only having conducted it out of "negligence", but honestly, the claim of negligence can be so readily used to justify almost any stop and readily used as cover for abuses of power, which is fundamentally what the Fourth Amendment is trying to protect us from. Allowing "breaches of convenience" is a really bad idea here. It's a massive loophole they've added to something that could've been uncontroversial (Utah SC ruled unanimously to strike down the evidence), though the Fourth has been worn down quite abit. But ARGH. All of the possibilities for police to target racial minorities and poor communities that this opens up. It's times like this when I miss Scalia. He would've written a fiery dissent condemning the court for this. This is still very hyperbolic just reading the actual text of the supreme court decision. You're all up in arms that he was stopped and questioned from a police tip and suspicion? I fully came into this expecting to read that there was no warrant, some kind of illegal search happened and the ended up inside the house. Identification to arrest for a pre-existing outstanding warrant? Come on, this is quite a clear chain of events that doesn't eviscerate the 4th amendment. I doubt Scalia would've found issue. His last one on 4th amendment completely hinged on no basis for belief of guilt of a crime beforehand. Show nested quote +The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation was among the organizations breached by suspected Russian hackers in a dragnet of the U.S. political apparatus ahead of the November election, according to three people familiar with the matter.
The attacks on the foundation’s network, as well as those of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, compound concerns about her digital security even as the FBI continues to investigate her use of a personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.
Clinton Foundation officials said the organization hadn’t been notified of the breach and declined to comment further. The compromise of the foundation’s computers was first identified by government investigators as recently as last week, the people familiar with the matter said. Agents monitor servers used by hackers to communicate with their targets, giving them a back channel view of attacks, often even before the victims detect them. [...]
The thefts set the stage for what could be a Washington remake of the public shaming that shook Sony in 2014, when thousands of inflammatory internal e-mails filled with gossip about world leaders and Hollywood stars were made public. Donor information and opposition research on Trump purportedly stolen from the Democratic Party has surfaced online, and the culprit has threatened to publish thousands more documents. This might be bad news for the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. On the other hand, I think Russia would prefer a Hillary in the white house given her previous state department softness on Russian aggression.
Putin and Trump have openly praised one another while he's openly criticized Clinton.
|
Russian state hackers are hacking the DNC ... and you think Russia prefers Democrats? Under Obama, Putin's Russia has had negative GDP growth for the last two years. Putin had to walk back his praise of Trump because it was getting too blatant.
|
On June 22 2016 08:56 Danglars wrote:
This might be bad news for the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. On the other hand, I think Russia would prefer a Hillary in the white house given her previous state department softness on Russian aggression.
This is wrong on two levels, Putin would most definitely prefer a hawk in the White House because the encirclement stuff is what drives his popularity in Russia and Hillary is definitely a lot more interventionist than Trump
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
putin's short term project is the rekting of europe. hillary would prob do something about it. trump would let it go
|
On June 22 2016 10:09 oneofthem wrote:
putin's short term project is the rekting of europe. hillary would prob do something about it. trump would let it go
What exactly do you mean by the 'rekting of europe'?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Europe is very much self-rekting at this point in time. The next decade or two are going to be a wonderful self-destructive adventure for the Europe project.
|
Yeah, Putin doesn't have to do anything to sink Europe. The Europeans are doing a fine job self-combusting.
|
Putin likely would prefer Trump because he surmises that Trump would be less of an interventionist / imperialist who would cut further into his sphere of influence. Trump already said he doesn't want to take out Assad.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
manipulation of democracy.
it's obviously partly european's fault but putin is helping it along. including bombing civilians in syria and funding far left and right parties.
|
Putin's job is to stabilize the Oil market as it is wrecking his country's economy while at the same time trying to figure out how to diversify his economy. Everytime a Solar system goes up or a wind farm is completed it fucks his oil production even more and while NASA completes a reusable rocket test it forces him to spend more money to try and modernize while competing with China which is increasing it's economic sphere of influence in his own backyard.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it should be his job to develop the russian economy for the people of russia but lol
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The Russian economy was due for a recession right about now anyways, as a result of its structural weaknesses that led to oil dependence in the first place. Low oil prices are pretty bad for imports and for raising capital. The weak ruble does give a lot of support to local production, which has led to improvements in domestic tourism and agriculture, among other industries. There has, however, been a capital shortage, as expected, from loss of oil revenues, which does damage government services like healthcare and pensions.
The sanctions didn't help, but things were going to turn out something like this anyways. The pre-Ukraine Russian economy was struggling as well. Personally I think it would be better in the long run to phase out oil production in favor of something that doesn't deplete natural resources. The Russian economy does lack capital, but not like it did a decade and a half ago.
The FP concerns of Russia have more to do with alliances and how strongly the US is going to manipulate them, than with the economy. Sooner or later the EU is going to break rank, whoever the president is.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
try not have a mafia style state ruled by big kleptocrats and develop SMEs, invest in ur people. it's hilarious how the russian nationalists fail to blame their own government for the obvious problems
and lol lack of capital. check out the london/nyc real estate market to see where ur capital is
|
Two wildfires are burning out of control on the outskirts of Los Angeles, forcing hundreds of families to flee and the police to deploy to deter potential looting.
A searing heatwave and rugged terrain hindered efforts to tackle the blazes which grew overnight and raged on Tuesday in Duarte and Azusa, towns in the Angeles national forest east of LA.
The proximity of the so-called Reservoir and Fish fires, separated by a canyon, prompted authorities to term them the San Gabriel Complex fire. Combined they cover 5,400 acres.
“They haven’t merged as of yet but they are being handled as one fire,” said Maria Holguin, a spokesperson for the US Forest Service. “They are 0% contained.”
Some 610 firefighters backed by air tankers and helicopters who have battled the flames since Monday will probably be reinforced, said Holguin. “I think we’ll be getting more personnel today.”
Helicopters sucked water from a reservoir to dump over flames while air tankers dropped retardant. Hundreds of residents left amid mandatory evacuations for areas close to flames and smoke.
About 80 deputies have deployed to help the evacuations and to protect against potential looting, said David Halm, an LA County sheriff’s department commander. Several roads have been closed. The American Red Cross set up an evacuation center at the Duarte community center
Columns of smoke swirling over the mountains were visible from downtown LA.
The south coast air quality management district said the warning level on its air quality index was red. “Most important recommendation for anyone who can see or smell smoke is avoid outdoor activity and the stay indoors, use air conditioning system on recirculation mode, if available,” said Tina Cox, a spokeswoman.
Monday’s triple-digit temperatures will cool by up to 10 degrees but the heatwave was set to continue, making conditions difficult for firefighters, the National Weather Service warned.
Source
|
On June 08 2016 08:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:05 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That's not how it works, only the ones who say and do racist things are. He got called a racist for saying we should halt immigration from muslims. They just want to make everything about race when it has nothing to do with race it has to do with facts and national security. I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism. You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump. I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not. Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'. Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination. You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said. You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does. Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess If he has clearly states motivations for believing the trial is being conducted unfairly that do not rely on race why have his laywers not tried to have the judge replaced? Why did he take the argument to national tv by using his position as Presidential candidate instead? Is he going to make such statements about judges involved in his (former) business lawsuits when he is President? You keep asking this question, the reason is because standards in the legal system are different than someone's opinion, right? OJ Simpson is not legally a murderer, but a lot of people, when asked, think he killed two people. People attack him all the time for the cases about Trump U. What'd be an unobjectionable way for him to deal with that subject?
The OJ SImpson trial lasted 10 months and the jury returned a unanimous verdict in 4 hours. this trial was declared a "close verdict" by media pundits because calling it close made for more ratings points on cable news shows.
it was not close. 4 hours? wtf. there was virtually zero deliberation after 10 months.
There was zero probability of the jury convicting OJ in 1995.. none.
no eye witnesses, no murder weapon, no smoking gun. the prosecutions biggest witness committed perjury 41 times and then began "taking the 5th".
OJ's side won in a complete landslide because their is zero reliable evidence he did it. zero.
Marcia Clark is now doing the talk show circuit. she is running around giggling and reminiscing about "old times". fuck Marcia.. you got steam rolled. Basically, you lost in the Super Bowl 55-0 and you are running around giggling about it?
Does Elway run through 20 talk shows so he can laugh about the 49'ers destroying his team 55-0 in the Super Bowl?
|
I don't think this whole "party unity" thing is going too well for either side.
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/NomikiKonst/status/745302700494036992
|
|
|
On June 22 2016 14:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:58 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:05 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
He got called a racist for saying we should halt immigration from muslims. They just want to make everything about race when it has nothing to do with race it has to do with facts and national security.
I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism. You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump. I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not. Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'. Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination. You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said. You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does. Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess If he has clearly states motivations for believing the trial is being conducted unfairly that do not rely on race why have his laywers not tried to have the judge replaced? Why did he take the argument to national tv by using his position as Presidential candidate instead? Is he going to make such statements about judges involved in his (former) business lawsuits when he is President? You keep asking this question, the reason is because standards in the legal system are different than someone's opinion, right? OJ Simpson is not legally a murderer, but a lot of people, when asked, think he killed two people. People attack him all the time for the cases about Trump U. What'd be an unobjectionable way for him to deal with that subject? The OJ SImpson trial lasted 10 months and the jury returned a unanimous verdict in 4 hours. this trial was declared a "close verdict" by media pundits because calling it close made for more ratings points on cable news shows. it was not close. 4 hours? wtf. there was virtually zero deliberation after 10 months. There was zero probability of the jury convicting OJ in 1995.. none. no eye witnesses, no murder weapon, no smoking gun. the prosecutions biggest witness committed perjury 41 times and then began "taking the 5th". OJ's side won in a complete landslide because their is zero reliable evidence he did it. zero. Marcia Clark is now doing the talk show circuit. she is running around giggling and reminiscing about "old times". fuck Marcia.. you got steam rolled. Basically, you lost in the Super Bowl 55-0 and you are running around giggling about it? Does Elway run through 20 talk shows so he can laugh about the 49'ers destroying his team 55-0 in the Super Bowl?
Are you by any chance a lawyer or something elsein the law bussines?
|
On June 22 2016 15:34 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 14:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 08 2016 08:58 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:On June 08 2016 08:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:05 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump. I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not. Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'. Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination. You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said. You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does. Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better. I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact. I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people. Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors. Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No. The MSM would have you believe it is though. It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly. It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen. Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess If he has clearly states motivations for believing the trial is being conducted unfairly that do not rely on race why have his laywers not tried to have the judge replaced? Why did he take the argument to national tv by using his position as Presidential candidate instead? Is he going to make such statements about judges involved in his (former) business lawsuits when he is President? You keep asking this question, the reason is because standards in the legal system are different than someone's opinion, right? OJ Simpson is not legally a murderer, but a lot of people, when asked, think he killed two people. People attack him all the time for the cases about Trump U. What'd be an unobjectionable way for him to deal with that subject? The OJ SImpson trial lasted 10 months and the jury returned a unanimous verdict in 4 hours. this trial was declared a "close verdict" by media pundits because calling it close made for more ratings points on cable news shows. it was not close. 4 hours? wtf. there was virtually zero deliberation after 10 months. There was zero probability of the jury convicting OJ in 1995.. none. no eye witnesses, no murder weapon, no smoking gun. the prosecutions biggest witness committed perjury 41 times and then began "taking the 5th". OJ's side won in a complete landslide because their is zero reliable evidence he did it. zero. Marcia Clark is now doing the talk show circuit. she is running around giggling and reminiscing about "old times". fuck Marcia.. you got steam rolled. Basically, you lost in the Super Bowl 55-0 and you are running around giggling about it? Does Elway run through 20 talk shows so he can laugh about the 49'ers destroying his team 55-0 in the Super Bowl? Are you by any chance a lawyer or something elsein the law bussines?
no, i watched the actual trial from start to finish when i worked the overnight shift at a gas station in a small town one summer. a friends grand-dad had the entire fucking trial on 100 VHS tapes.
most people just watch little edited snippets of the trial. i watched the whole damn thing unedited.
1 example is that Bailey gets one of the expert criminologists to admit he took a vial of OJ's blood from the crime lab to the crime scene. The witness eventually acknowledged that he never before in his career had done this. To get a sense of how bad it looked you really needed to see the entire 20 minute cross examination. Not some 10 second edited snippet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.redditmedia.com/mpDX0NSeEE0QP3cHs7QTd5JeMEtbxxbVuv1PY6sBjzo.jpg?w=928&s=f1f9451144237bdeeab1b1db425dc7c0)
