There is no greater absurdity than this:
Bill O’Reilly’s motives are often questionable. None more so than why he instructs his huge audience to believe Garrow: VIDEO INCLUDED
On the plus side, Garrow’s absurdity is the only hope the Clintons have in the court of public opinion.
Exactly who should consider the Clintons innocent? Even if, and when, the Clintons are standing in the dock, their only prayer is a fair trial.
When it comes to a ‘fair trial’ the prosecutor better think the Clintons are guilty —— if not how in hell can he do his job if he presumes they are innocent? Naturally, Clinton lawyers insist their clients did no wrong.
NOTE: In France you are guilty until proven innocent; nevertheless, a fair trial remains the theory.
Perspective jurors may, or may not, believe the Clintons are guilty. In fact, nobody in the world believes “Innocent until proven guilty.” Indeed, how many Americans presumed O. J. Simpson was innocent before, or after, his trial for murder. In Simpson’s case, his trial proved that a so-called fair trial can go either way.
Bartolomeo Vanzetti (left) and Nicola Sacco in handcuffs
More words were written about the Sacco & Vanzetti trial, and its aftermath, than any other case in American history. Sacco & Vanzetti has been a Communist rallying cry since the nineteen-twenties. Sacco & Vanzetti is the Left’s all-time favorite trial. It was S & V that moved criminal trials away from guilt and into the Left’s definition of a fair trial.
Briefly, the judge in Sacco & Vanzetti ruled on eleven discretionary points of law. Every one of those rulings went against S & V —— the exact opposite of the judge in Simpson’s trial. There is no evidence that says the jury found Sacco & Vanzetti guilty because of the judge’s rulings, yet the Left harped on those rulings to declare the trial unfair. There were additional charges of unfairness leveled by liberals of that era, but it was those rulings the Left pounded home in order to convince the general public that Sacco & Vanzetti were innocent because they did not get a fair shake.
Anyone interested in the case, the trial, and the executions of S & V can easily find plenty on the subject. Here’s a brief account taken from an encyclopedia:
The most commonly held belief today is that Sacco was guilty but not Vanzetti. Frankly, I think they were both guilty. I base my opinion on the numerous books and articles that I read decades ago. My opinion never changed regardless of then-Massachusetts Governor Dukakis signing a proclamation clearing their names posthumously. Liberals, working through Dukakis, carried the ‘fair trial’ rallying cry to its unavoidable conclusion: If you don’t get a fair trial you are not guilty. Fair trials has been the Communist agenda, and liberal ideology, ever since Sacco & Vanzetti were convicted.
A jury found them guilty, yet their guilt is still being refuted after 88 years. No matter how much one learns about the case it will always come down to a personal opinion.
The thing that is not opinion is the way the Left used Sacco and Vanzetti to turn the public away from the question of guilt. From day one the controversy centered on one question: Did Sacco and Vanzetti get a fair trial? Once liberals convinced people that S & V did not get a fair trial the natural assumption is that liberals are never guilty as charged.
As I said, I read quite a bit about S & V in my youth. Even without that opinion-forming foundation, I would still believe they were both guilty because liberalism’s intelligentsia responsible for making Sacco & Vanzetti a cause célèbre were no more to be trusted back in the 1920s than is today’s crop who cheer for the Clintons.
NOTE: Bruno Hauptmann was tried and executed for kidnapping and killing Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. in 1932. He was executed in 1936. In 1954 - 55, I worked with a retired cop who had been one of the lead detectives on the Bruno Hauptmann Case. He once told me that not one detective working that case thought Hauptmann was guilty. American Socialists/Communists drummed up so much anti-German sentiment, Hauptmann’s goose was cooked without real evidence.
Should another defendant like Hauptmann come along you can bet that the intellectual effete of today won’t be writing plays, making speeches, and all the rest of that passionate, caring, choked with emotion, garbage they reserve for one of their own.
Guilt aside, the left-leaning intelligentsia is very selective in deciding when justice is being perverted. S & V were as guilty as hell back then, but they didn’t get a fair trial to hear liberals tell it. Apparently, Hauptmann did get a fair trial because I never saw a Democrat governor of New Jersey signing a proclamation clearing Hauptmann’s name posthumously.
Parenthetically, Anna Hauptman did not have the political clout Sacco & Vanzetti had going for them:
Is there such a thing as a trial being excessively fair? The result of the O. J. trial suggests that very possibility. O. J. should have thanked Sacco & Vanzetti when he walked. His murder trial, our courts, are about fair trials —— not the crime itself, and certainly not the victims.
And how much influence does the Sacco & Vanzetti controversy have with today’s judges in deciding what is and what isn’t fair? Answer: Not enough if you believe liberals and the ACLU.
American Communists used Sacco & Vanzetti very effectively in order to acquire political power back in the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s. So why is S & V important after all of those years?
Since Sacco & Vanzetti, how many convicted criminals have been released years after they were convicted because they did not get a ‘fair trial’? Knowing that a conviction is imminent, criminals without the resources to hire the best lawyers look for the dumbest lawyers available they can find. Nowadays, nobody claims there was a fair trial when the defendant’s lawyer was a drunk or flagrantly incompetent. Winning on appeal is almost as good as beating the rap.
Innocent until proven guilty. Sir William Garrow (1760 - 1840)
Bill O’Reilly’s motives are often questionable. None more so than why he instructs his huge audience to believe Garrow: VIDEO INCLUDED
Fox News giant Bill O’Reilly said on his “O’Reilly Factor” the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty and America ought to hold back judgment on her cash-for-favor scandal.
XXXXX
“The appearance of impropriety is staggering and the defense is paltry to say the least,” he said. “[But] I want to make it very clear that the Clintons are to be given the presumption of innocence.”
XXXXX
“The appearance of impropriety is staggering and the defense is paltry to say the least,” he said. “[But] I want to make it very clear that the Clintons are to be given the presumption of innocence.”
Fox News star defends Hillary: Give her a chance
Posted By Cheryl Chumley On 04/24/2015 @ 6:11 am
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/fox-news-hosts-defends-hillary-give-her-a-chance/
Posted By Cheryl Chumley On 04/24/2015 @ 6:11 am
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/fox-news-hosts-defends-hillary-give-her-a-chance/
On the plus side, Garrow’s absurdity is the only hope the Clintons have in the court of public opinion.
Exactly who should consider the Clintons innocent? Even if, and when, the Clintons are standing in the dock, their only prayer is a fair trial.
When it comes to a ‘fair trial’ the prosecutor better think the Clintons are guilty —— if not how in hell can he do his job if he presumes they are innocent? Naturally, Clinton lawyers insist their clients did no wrong.
NOTE: In France you are guilty until proven innocent; nevertheless, a fair trial remains the theory.
Perspective jurors may, or may not, believe the Clintons are guilty. In fact, nobody in the world believes “Innocent until proven guilty.” Indeed, how many Americans presumed O. J. Simpson was innocent before, or after, his trial for murder. In Simpson’s case, his trial proved that a so-called fair trial can go either way.
Bartolomeo Vanzetti (left) and Nicola Sacco in handcuffs
More words were written about the Sacco & Vanzetti trial, and its aftermath, than any other case in American history. Sacco & Vanzetti has been a Communist rallying cry since the nineteen-twenties. Sacco & Vanzetti is the Left’s all-time favorite trial. It was S & V that moved criminal trials away from guilt and into the Left’s definition of a fair trial.
Briefly, the judge in Sacco & Vanzetti ruled on eleven discretionary points of law. Every one of those rulings went against S & V —— the exact opposite of the judge in Simpson’s trial. There is no evidence that says the jury found Sacco & Vanzetti guilty because of the judge’s rulings, yet the Left harped on those rulings to declare the trial unfair. There were additional charges of unfairness leveled by liberals of that era, but it was those rulings the Left pounded home in order to convince the general public that Sacco & Vanzetti were innocent because they did not get a fair shake.
Anyone interested in the case, the trial, and the executions of S & V can easily find plenty on the subject. Here’s a brief account taken from an encyclopedia:
Sacco-Vanzetti Case, controversial murder case in Massachusetts that lasted from 1920 to 1927. In 1920 Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were charged with stealing more than $15,000 and murdering two men at a Massachusetts shoe factory. At the trial in 1921, the case against them was based largely on what many regarded as inadequate evidence. Witnesses gave contradictory testimony, and the judge and jurors were accused of bias. The verdict of guilty caused a worldwide outcry, as many claimed that the men had been condemned because they were immigrants and outspoken anarchists.
Appeals for a new trial were frequently made and denied. In 1925 a man convicted of another murder confessed to having been a member of the gang that committed the crimes. Nevertheless, Sacco and Vanzetti were condemned to death and executed in 1927. In 1977 Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis signed a proclamation that cleared their names.
Appeals for a new trial were frequently made and denied. In 1925 a man convicted of another murder confessed to having been a member of the gang that committed the crimes. Nevertheless, Sacco and Vanzetti were condemned to death and executed in 1927. In 1977 Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis signed a proclamation that cleared their names.
The most commonly held belief today is that Sacco was guilty but not Vanzetti. Frankly, I think they were both guilty. I base my opinion on the numerous books and articles that I read decades ago. My opinion never changed regardless of then-Massachusetts Governor Dukakis signing a proclamation clearing their names posthumously. Liberals, working through Dukakis, carried the ‘fair trial’ rallying cry to its unavoidable conclusion: If you don’t get a fair trial you are not guilty. Fair trials has been the Communist agenda, and liberal ideology, ever since Sacco & Vanzetti were convicted.
A jury found them guilty, yet their guilt is still being refuted after 88 years. No matter how much one learns about the case it will always come down to a personal opinion.
The thing that is not opinion is the way the Left used Sacco and Vanzetti to turn the public away from the question of guilt. From day one the controversy centered on one question: Did Sacco and Vanzetti get a fair trial? Once liberals convinced people that S & V did not get a fair trial the natural assumption is that liberals are never guilty as charged.
As I said, I read quite a bit about S & V in my youth. Even without that opinion-forming foundation, I would still believe they were both guilty because liberalism’s intelligentsia responsible for making Sacco & Vanzetti a cause célèbre were no more to be trusted back in the 1920s than is today’s crop who cheer for the Clintons.
NOTE: Bruno Hauptmann was tried and executed for kidnapping and killing Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. in 1932. He was executed in 1936. In 1954 - 55, I worked with a retired cop who had been one of the lead detectives on the Bruno Hauptmann Case. He once told me that not one detective working that case thought Hauptmann was guilty. American Socialists/Communists drummed up so much anti-German sentiment, Hauptmann’s goose was cooked without real evidence.
Should another defendant like Hauptmann come along you can bet that the intellectual effete of today won’t be writing plays, making speeches, and all the rest of that passionate, caring, choked with emotion, garbage they reserve for one of their own.
Guilt aside, the left-leaning intelligentsia is very selective in deciding when justice is being perverted. S & V were as guilty as hell back then, but they didn’t get a fair trial to hear liberals tell it. Apparently, Hauptmann did get a fair trial because I never saw a Democrat governor of New Jersey signing a proclamation clearing Hauptmann’s name posthumously.
Parenthetically, Anna Hauptman did not have the political clout Sacco & Vanzetti had going for them:
Defiant Widow Seeks to Reopen Lindbergh Case
By WAYNE KING,
Published: October 5, 1991
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/05/nyregion/defiant-widow-seeks-to-reopen-lindbergh-case.html
By WAYNE KING,
Published: October 5, 1991
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/05/nyregion/defiant-widow-seeks-to-reopen-lindbergh-case.html
Is there such a thing as a trial being excessively fair? The result of the O. J. trial suggests that very possibility. O. J. should have thanked Sacco & Vanzetti when he walked. His murder trial, our courts, are about fair trials —— not the crime itself, and certainly not the victims.
And how much influence does the Sacco & Vanzetti controversy have with today’s judges in deciding what is and what isn’t fair? Answer: Not enough if you believe liberals and the ACLU.
American Communists used Sacco & Vanzetti very effectively in order to acquire political power back in the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s. So why is S & V important after all of those years?
Since Sacco & Vanzetti, how many convicted criminals have been released years after they were convicted because they did not get a ‘fair trial’? Knowing that a conviction is imminent, criminals without the resources to hire the best lawyers look for the dumbest lawyers available they can find. Nowadays, nobody claims there was a fair trial when the defendant’s lawyer was a drunk or flagrantly incompetent. Winning on appeal is almost as good as beating the rap.
