53 Esquire

Members
  • Content count

    2,593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About 53 Esquire

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/19/1968

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Gender
    Male
  • Springsteen fan since?
    1985
  • Does Mary's dress wave or sway?
    Sways
  • Interests
    Springsteen - my wife - my dogs
  • Sex?
    Sometimes

Recent Profile Visitors

9,388 profile views
  1. The best chance Ossoff and the Dems had to win this seat was back when at the primary. Once again too little, too late. The GOP is currently in side the Dems OODA loop. For the DEms to win they need to - - 1. Ditch all the old leadership, Pelosi, Shumer, anyone connected with the Clintons - 2. Help people register to vote. Those people that are living in places where the GOP has intentially made it difficult to register have people drive them and help them register. 3. Do the same thing on voting day.
  2. Good thing we trust those juries.
  3. If you watch the video at that was released today you can see it eS straight up murder.
  4. There has been a huge divergence between criminal and civil trials in the last 15 years. There was of course always a difference between them based on the standard of proof required, beyond a reasonable doubt and the preponderance of the evidence standard. Because people's liberty is at stake of course you want juries to take it seriously, but CSI and teh the news reporting on physical evidence has made juries want more of that even when there is not much availible. Look at people complain evidence being only "circumstantial" when that is in fact the nature of most evidence. Look at this thread where people are saying they cannot possibly tell the veracity of people and reducing it to he said/she said as if everyone's version should be taken at face value. Add on top of that this is a sexual assault case, and an old one at that, there was at least one juror who simply could not follow the instructions. Heck even teh "humble, yet accurate" @Pastor Jeff admitted that Cosby had no credibility, but somehow comes says their must be reasonable doubt, without being able to resort to some sort of wild ass guessing. I have simply tried to prosecute too many sexual assault cases to believe otherwise.
  5. Wait, what? I am confused. First you say "I don't think Cosby has any credibility at this point." Then though you say her contacting him may have been a "let's scratch each other backs." What is the evidence of that? And because Cosby didn't actually confess to giving this person drugs to make her compliant, even though he admitted previously to acquiring drugs to make women compliant and that was admitted at this trial there is some gap in your mind? You admit that you infer she was slipped the drug, but maybe, just maybe she could have taken it voluntarily during a consensual sexual act even though all of her direct testimony contradicts that and Cosby has admitted to doing things that lend credence to her story broadly speaking. Where is the reasonable doubt? Maybe a Velociraptor slipped her a Mickey on the way to Jurassic Park too. I mean it could have happened right? See you comment about a child means you get my point - you can judge your child's veracity and it does not take knowing them intimately. There is plenty of information to judge these people's veracity, you just don't want to accept it.
  6. I am going to dispute the notion that our country has a "cherished ideal that sexual-assault victims should be believed and vindicated." Most perpetrators of sexual assault are people the victim and many of their common friends and family knew/know. The first instinct is always to blame the woman in that case.
  7. Clearly there was at least one dumbass on the jury - tell us where the reasonable doubt comes from. With Cosby admitting to procuring qualudes to seduce women into sex, with that evidence admitted, with his lawyers telling him not to answering anything else, because they were probably surprised by the admission, where does Cosby's veracity now come from? Why should be believed?
  8. I concur that a conviction was never going to happen because or celebrity, race, and sex. But Cosby admitted acquiring drugs to make women compliant to give him sex, after that admission why should any other denials be believed? The mistake so many laypeople make is thinking "reasonable doubt" = "shadow of a doubt" or "no doubt." That's not the legal standard. They also act like it is impossible to judge the veracity of witnesses as they testify on the stand. Acting as if one person's word is always as good as another person's word. I suppose those people when they find a mess and their child denies making it just shrug their shoulders and say well the child denied it. What gives Cosby at this point any credibility? What about the victim's story raised doubt?
  9. Bullshit. Another fucking non-lawyer coming along telling us their legal opinion about a standard of proof and weighing evidence is both "humble" and "accurate." Again bullshit. Cases are not won based on a bunch of pretty colors flying around on a screen leading a crack team to the incontrovertible physical evidence. And you don't need corroborating testimony from someone else. People are perfectly capable of weighing the conflicting testimony of two people and coming to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt when one considers, their reputation for probity, whether their testimony makes sense, and what motivation they might have to lie. Your opinion is neither "humble" nor "accurate."
  10. Driving around our country I did have the chance to listen to the testimony. Certainly agree with @Power13 that anyone who was expecting some smoking gun revelation that was going to change everything were destined to be disappointed. I found his straightforward testimony refreshing in a age of equivocation and ass covering. That he was also not going to hold back became very obvious at the beginning when he noted that after meeting DJT he knew he had to start documenting his conversations with the President because DJT's character or lack there of, was so transparent. I have seen where people have defended DJT's use of the word "hope" as somehow merely that and not directive. I don't know - maybe in the Trump Organization when DJT or his minions told a subordinate they "hoped" something would happen that was all it was - an expression of a wish; maybe the same was true in Tillerson's ExxonMobil or any of the other companies the President's cabinent has come out of work that way - they just run around saying "I hope sales increase" or "I hope you get that report to me today" and it is of no consequence - but in Government I can tell you when your boss says "I hope X happens" - that is directive. I was also first puzzled about why people were saying Comey was a leaker, and then it dawned on me it was the release of memo's after he was fired. Of course that is the reason he wrote those memo's - to defend himself were he to be attacked. It was completely appropriate for him to be able to defends himself. It was bad enough the President sought to influence the investigation; it was worse that he fired the FBI Director for failing do his bidding; but the attacking him after he was fired was both pointless and will prove to be self-injurious to the President. Comey had no choice but to defend himself. I feel bad for the Mr. Comey; he made some misjudgments with the HRC investigation, because frankly I think he never imagined himself to be insuch a highly politicized environment. Although not he focuse of the hearing yesterday Loretta Lynch looked pretty bad by the time the testimony was complete. Comey has certainly been treading where few people have had to go before and I think he handled about as well as anyone who has integrity could. Comey has had career in federal law enforcement for almost 30 years with a few forays into the private sector given changing administrations. He has worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations - his reputation is impeccable - attacking him as a character issue is a losing propostion.
  11. The other issue we have not discussed here is the latest round of the shit show to emerge from the Middle Eastern portion of his trip. Let's summarize a few things - 1. The Arms deal with Saudi? A whole lot of nothin' at this point. It may of course well turn into something - the Saudi's by tons of weapons from us - but these deals take place over years. No letters of intent, a legal requirement when the US sells weapons, have been signed yet. And event though the Saudi's do not use Foregin Military Finacing - items sold through the Foreign Military Sales program are still subject to Cognressional notification and a whole bunch of other rules. None of that has happened yet. 2. The Qatar shit show - five nations suddenly broke diplomatic relations with Qatar, SA, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen. Qatar is a hugely important ally - our Al Udeid air base has 11k Americans working on it - CENTCOM Forward is HQ and Trump is tweeting about how great this is and that it is an outcome that is great for combatting terror. It's fucking insane. You want to know how I know he does not give a shit about our service members? I mean besides his character assaiatnion of the Khan family. Trump is clueless.
  12. Heck Gorka would be tweeting the time and location of the landings to his buddies in Berlin.
  13. Let Me Google That For You A snippet - but from 1991 - 1993 it is estimated that 16% of the people that sold drugs were black while 49% of the people arrested for dealing were black. Let me ask you - do you seriously think there has not been a history of inequitable treatment of black v other communities when it comes to punishing drug crime?
  14. You think if he was impeached he would come back and shoot the House up?