To: BerniesFriend
In every lawsuit, there are two methods of proof: direct and circumstantial. Of the two methods of proof, circumstantial evidence is the strongest. No need exists for direct evidence in this case. Is this the Twilight Zone or what?
2 posted on
01/25/2007 8:08:15 PM PST by
randita
To: randita
Yea pretty much. His case seems to be that "they must have gotten a hard on", and, unable to control themselves, must have raped her to satisfy themselves (being animals that they are, an' all). I swear...
7 posted on
01/25/2007 8:10:16 PM PST by
farlander
(Strategery - sure beats liberalism!)
To: randita
"In every lawsuit, there are two methods of proof:"
This is not a lawsuit; it's a criminal case. This guy doesn't know the first thing about law.
11 posted on
01/25/2007 8:13:16 PM PST by
popdonnelly
(Our first obligation is to keep the power of the Presidency out of the hands of the Clintons.)
To: randita
I'd comment, but where do you begin?
Okay, the black accuser should not be abandoned, she should be tried and sentenced.
32 posted on
01/25/2007 8:37:24 PM PST by
freedomfiter2
(“No, I have not supported that," Guiliani when asked about a ban on partial birth abortion)
To: randita
If this guy is a lawyer he needs to be disbarred.
51 posted on
01/25/2007 9:38:04 PM PST by
lastchance
(Hug your babies.)
To: randita
That sort of attitude scares me. It means if anyone feels anything against you, they can accuse you of a blatantly horrible thing and no concrete evidence is needed. I hope no one gets accused of witchcraft.
55 posted on
01/25/2007 10:04:55 PM PST by
Niuhuru
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson