This Bundy acquittal is outrageous

Juror 4 noted the panel couldn't simply rely on the defendants' "defining actions'' to convict.

"All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation,'' he wrote.

"But we were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,'' the Marylhurst student wrote. "It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.''

Unbelievable.... yeah, they just HAPPENED to be at the remote wildlife office all at the same time.

 

And if you had balls you wouldn't be a whiny little liberal pussy

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...nch-pleads-fifth-secret-iran-ransom-payments/

IF only you cared about the important things

 

Wasn't a ransom payment, and the Executive Branch of our government doesn't have to countenance every stupid partisan whine by Congressional opposition. Got any more bullshit?

 

There is an art to selecting jurors but I once tried to tell hard head @red55 how juries tend to be lenient towards vigilante-type persons on trial.

 

Hey now I'm kind of jealous.

 

This was a federal trial was it not? Don't the Feds win something like 99 percent of the time? It's kind of amazing when you think about it.

 

Don't check me boo....I said juries AND inquiries. I think you got the gist.

 

Of course they do. Nobody trusts the government. Not even the government.