martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,048
- 34,365
- 2,300
No, juries are there to decide if the law was broken or not. They are instructed on the law by judge. Nullification is a righty thing, but it's also an asshole thing so it figures you like it.
I think it's both a right and left thing. For instance, one example could be the OJ Trial, where African Americans voted to acquit Simpson because they were sick and tired of a police force that treated them like shit for decades.
You see, when you aren't a pervert like Ken Starr, grown up prosecutors would have realized 'Hey, most people would lie about getting a beej when asked, even in court!" and wouldn't have persued the matter.
But Ken Starr just pissed away 70 million dollars of the taxpayers money not proving the Clintons did anything wrong.
I wouldn't lie about it under oath.
Special prosecutor, special master, same shit different day.
Well, no, they are kind of different things. The problem with Independent Counsels and Special Prosecutors is they all end up getting nowhere near what they were investigating to start with and end up going after petty things. NOt Just Ken Starr, who was the worst example, but Fitzgerald prosecuting Scooter Libby for not remembering a conversation the same way Tim Russert did, or Lawrence Walsh prosecuting Cap Weinberger for thinking meeting notes aren't a diary.
OJ was acquitted because the prosecutors sucked ass. They played the defense team's game, and lost.
Your excuse for perjury is noted, asshole.
He lied under oath, he did something wrong. Plus he wasted is political capital on a "Long Island 6", which is probably the worst crime.