The House Of Fredo, Part XXVIII

When something bad happens on a Republican's watch, it the current administration's fault.

When something bad happens on a Democrat's watch, it's the fault of the most recent Republican administration.

When something good happens on a Democrat's watch, it's the current administration's doing.

When something bad happens on a Democrat's watch, it's the doing of the most recent Republican administration, unless more than one can be blamed.

 

Rather than bring up Somalia, I'll just mention this passage in passing:

"It is not the only prosecution failure. In Florida two years ago, a former college professor was acquitted on eight counts of aiding Palestinian terrorists. A jury deadlocked on a ninth count and the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge to avoid retrial. Earlier this year a federal jury in Illinois acquitted two men of operating a terrorist recruiting and financing cell."

Handed a case 15 years in the making, these people couldn't close the deal, which is what has become customary in their terrorism prosecutions.

 

XXVIII percent would be a signicant uptick in Dim Son's approval.

 

And when a Republican president is the most incompetent of incompetent presidents, Republicans and their faithful point about how bad Clinton was rather than just admitting this president is one of the, if not THE, worst this nation has ever had.

 

Wait a minute, you mean the fact that juries have found the government doesn't have sufficient evidence that proves someone or a group of people is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and votes them not guilty is a either (a) new or (b) a bad thing?

Geez, I thought it was called the American justice system and to me it seems to be working just fine.

Again, your hatred of George W. Bush and zeal to show how incompetent he is is admirable, but it causes you far too often to lose your mind and make ridiculously stupid points.

 

These guys weren't declared not guilty. It was a mistrial.

 

I don't think Zag read the article.

 

Did you read the article?

 

Ah, yes. Twice in fact.

Here's the first clue that as usual you have no clue what you're talking about.

Headline:

Mistrial in Holy Land terrorism financing case

And if you made it past that, second paragraph:

U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish declared a mistrial, but not before it became clear that the government's landmark terrorism finance case -- and one of its most-costly post-9/11 prosecutions -- was in serious trouble.

Try and stay with the tour.

 

I can't believe I missed the fact that the judge's name is A. Fish.

 

Yeah, nice try, but please read the next two sentences after the one you posted and get back to me. Better yet, I'll post them for you....

"His decision came after jury verdicts were read to a packed courtroom indicating that none of the defendants had been found guilty on any of the 200 combined counts against them. Jurors had acquitted defendants on some counts and were deadlocked on charges ranging from tax violations to providing material support for terrorists."

Please quit while you are behind.

 

It was a mistrial. Fundamental legal difference.

But thanks for playing.