Posted on 10/28/2016 4:56:06 AM PDT by Nextrush
I said the same thing!
WOW!
It’s less than that. It’s an indictment in the works. Not issued yet. This judge is a Statist Tool.
I watched the trial ... it was jury nullification.
The indictment is not yet issued. Even though the Hairy Reed Land Grab happened quite a while back.
>There was NO jury nullification in the Simpson case; the prosecutors did a terrible job and the defense was superb. I watched the trial and I would not have convicted him either.
There was some jury nullification with the black jurors in the case, one of who gave the black power salute. Black jurors in general have a long history of letting black defendants go for racial solidarity reasons.
However, you are correct about the prosecution and Marsha Clark in particular. She failed to provide a believable narrative specifically to hide the fact that Nicole Simpson attacked OJ with a kitchen knife. Which is how OJ got the cut on his fingers. OJ then took the knife away and used that knife to kill her and Goldman.
Exactly, I was very surprised that there was NO mention on Drudge.
Oregon+Feds = rights trampled.
Simple as that. F Oregon State. F the Feds. ESAD.
And every lawyer worth his or her salt knows that you don’t yell at the judge. That was just dumb. Probably didn’t justify the overreaction, but didn’t help his case.
The time for pitchforks and torches is quickly approaching.
This is a damn shame. When I drove for Trailways I was twice boarded by Federal Marshals looking for fugatives. In both cases they were very professional and courteous and apologetic about disrupting my scedule.
Um, what part of “Federal indictment” did he not understand? Lodge a protest if you wish, but come on.
It helps if you read the entire sentence, the operative word here is PENDING, Which means there is currently NO INDICTMENT.
there was a U.S. Marshal’s hold on him from a pending federal indictment in Nevada.
It is not clear there was an indictment.
The story says “pending” which implies it had not happened yet.
I love the descriptive “suddenly six or seven marshalls slowly moved.” Suddenly they moved slowly. The turtle suddenly moved slowly after the rabbit. The snail suddenly moved slowly across the sidewalk.
They were attacking him for doing nothing physical to block them from taking Ammon Bundy away, they were attacking him for speaking to the judge in the courtroom to challenge their right to take Ammon Bundy away.
“Suddenly a group of about six to seven U.S. Marshals, who had been either standing or seated around the perimeter of the courtroom, slowly moved in and surrounded Mumford at his defense table. The judge directed them to move back but moments later, the marshals grabbed onto him.”
The Marshals refused to obey the judges order. Why aren’t they charged with contempt of Court?
The judge ‘has her own issues’ I would say based on my reading of news stories and watching videos of people who were witnesses in the courtroom during the trial.
She asked Mumford to lower his voice, she asked the marshals to stay back.
Then the marshals did their thing anyway and she took their lead and let them run her courtroom by ordering everyone to ‘get out now’.
My understanding is that this issue is part of the 2016 RNC platform.
Talk and words are cheap when action is needed.
That’s what I expect from a POTUS named Trump, but I have no such expectations for the rest of the GOP elected officials.
So, if the “resisting” is proven to be against an unlawful order, is he exonerated of the charge?
Who knows what happens between now and Jan. 6 when they have Mumford in court?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.