“I thought he was just rambling,” she told the Tribune.
Well, madam, tells us, what was he rambling? Rambling is irrelevant in and of itself. What he was rambling is the question. He doesn’t appear to be a raving lunatic. Should justice be denied simply because you failed to recognize and comprehend what he was actually saying?
“I could never live with myself if I went along with the rest of the jury.”
This statement reveals more than the woman intended or realizes.
As far as I can tell, he always rambles. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him do an interview where he didn’t have to be cut off.
So if he were to try to sell a Senate seat, he would likely ramble that day as much or more as any other, lol.