Oh please. More jurist mindset nonsense. We all instinctively know what happened here based on the facts we already have. The old Man is lucky he died before he too could’ve been rightfully strung up.
Buncha excuse makers.
“We all instinctively know what happened here based on the facts we already have”
“Instinctively???”
Right.
Post the facts. Let’s see how well you “instinctively” know things.
So your instincts are your guide. That's frightening --
A sentence just as likely to be uttered by the Brady Campaign in the aftermath of a school shooting. Having said that, IMO here's the crucial portion of today's release:
Sollers writes. "They ascribe motives to people they never met or interviewed and interpret ambiguous documents with a clarity and decisiveness that is impossible to justify."
We're talking about a report that served as the sole foundation for punitive action against a university and devaluation of an estate. Would you tend to agree that these types of actions can / should be taken on what we "instinctively know", or should the bar be set a bit higher than that?