Posted on 05/03/2016 9:16:33 PM PDT by Strac6
Yea... I would never characterize trump as a pure capitalist.
If you really want to drive your enemies nuts, turn lemons into limoncello.
And the offer them a drink.
Much more satisfying.
FIORINO=LOSER.
No. Cruz did not even have the decency to acknowledge and congratulate his opponent. Even in defeat he was extremely unlikable.
Good riddance to the Canadian.
Decency? Or even pretend decency, he just couldn’t muster it. Not capable.
Remember, Ted never played sports. Not in his vocab to acknowledge or congratulate the winner. He’s not learned how to be a gracious winner or a gracious loser.
Unhinged over his father and his ‘real life story’ beginning to unravel. So many unanswered questions with this guy, ya got to stop and wonder why, again.
IMO, Cruz had no plans of exiting until the exposure of his father’s past went viral. In addition to that damage, the shaky Canadian timeline was ripe for exploration.
“His problem was a surplus of siding with illegal aliens, communist flag carrying thugs, and Muslim activists when they attacked Trump’s Chicago rally.”
You hit the nail on the head. I was a Cruz supporter up until this point. He made a strategic error when he sided with the leftist protestors. Meanwhile, Trump stuck to his guns, which people respect.
Lane proved to the satisfaction of the jury that the anti-Castro Cubans run by Hunt at the CIA were indeed intimately involved in the JFK assassination."
Actually, Lane proved no such thing. The case hinged on whether or not the Def had Actual Malice in publishing the article. As a "public person," Hunt had to prove that Def published the article; #1, knowing it was incorrect, and #2, with the INTENT of damaging Hunt.
In fact, jury returned a million dollar verdict for Hunt, reversed on appeal, because Hunt could not meet the legal standards of PROVING Def BOTH knew story was false and did publish it with the INTENT of hurting Hunt.
Sounds strange, but you effectively can lie about a Public Person, and as long as your intent was, for example, to make money, you are suit proof.
Def never for one moment proved any Cuban-Kennedy assassination connection. In fact jury returned a verdict that said such connection was not proved.
I hope Mrs. Bill is the one to be defeated.
The Democrats can replace their candidate two days before the election if they so choose. The Republicans WILL NOT CHALLENGE anything nefarious that the Democrats might do.
Here is the real Constitutional Crisis.
What happens if a nominee is elected as POTUS, but dies before inauguration?
What happens if both presidential and VP candidate were to die in an accident, before inauguration?
Talk about uncharted waters....
“He’ll probably pretend he was never against Trump.”
LOL!
guess we’ll find out today.
The verdict did NOT hinge on absence of malice.
Lane took the case only on the condition of arguing it on the merits.
Which he did.
The jury found for Liberty Lobby on the validity of the allegation. The jury forewoman said so to the press after the verdict. She specifically said absence of malice was not the basis of their verdict.
I do agree that such a jury finding does not estalish the truth one way or the other. But it counts for something.
There were two trials. Liberty Lobby lost the first one, where they were not represented by Lane. The first trial was overturned and retried, where they were represented by Lane.
I’m talking about the second trial.
It counts for book profits for Lane. I never had a matter with him, but years ago talked to people who did. I believe the most favorable. description I ever heard of him was “opportunistic scum.”
And why would he not argue AOM first and foremost? That’s the much easier course? Lay up and take the chip shot. Do you have a formal cite for the statements from the 2d jury forewoman or Lane’s arguments?
?
Nothing wrong with profits!
The jury forewoman was Leslie Armstrong.
From pages 321-322 of “Plausible Denial”:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The reporters gathered around Leslie Armstrong. What had caused her to vote for the defendant [Liberty Lobby], she was asked time and again. Patiently she explained that at the outset she was, as were all of the jurors, absolutely objective...
And why had she found against Hunt, she was asked by impatient reporters shouting questions...
The evidence was clear, she said. The CIA had killed President Kennedy. Hunt had been part of it, and the evidence, so painstakingly presented, should now be examined by relevant institutions...
One reporter for a local Miami television station [asked] “What about lack of actual malice? Wasn’t that the basis for your decision?” She replied that if the jurors had not believed the truth of the actual allegation... they would have then considered the question of malice. As for her, she said, it never came to that. The evidence was very impressive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, I want to emphasize that a jury verdict does not necessarily determine the truth (e.g. OJ!), but the jurors heard a lot of evidence and in this case, I think the jurors made a reasonable decision based on what they saw and heard.
As for me, I haven’t studied the JFk assassination enough to have a firm opinion.
Do you possibly know the case style?
Was it a Florida District Court case, Hunt v. Liberty Lobby?
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami, Florida, case number 80-1121-Civ-JWK. E. Howard Hunt, plaintiff, versus Liberty Lobby, defendant. Verdict as of February 6, 1985.
Thanks. I’ll pull the electronic case file when I have some time to review. I’m surprised Lane did not argue AOM as his first line of defense, and if he didn’t, why.
That was the 12 inch putt
Be well.
The reason Lane didn’t argue AOM was because his only interest in the case was to get some of the prinicpals in the CIA and gov’t under oath in deposition and thereby dig out info on the assassination.
Lane really didn’t give a flip about Liberty Lobby.
He told Liberty Lobby, the only way I’ll represent you, is if you let me go at the merits.
And Lane wanted the trial which Oswald never got.
This was the closest he could get.
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.