Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

Larry wrote:

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Yardpilot"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >(Whether
> >> >Bush was busted for cocaine possession is debatable, but I tend to
> >> >accept the assertion as fact, given that the document which would
> >> >have indicated that fact has mysteriously been destroyed.)
> >>
> >> You accept it as true because the document that would prove it to be true
> >> has been destroyed?  What would you think if the document existed?!?!!
> >
> >The argument that "it must be true because there is no evidence" sounds very
> >much like a J. Edgar or J. Reno sort of spin. It is also the argument of a
> >great many conspiracy theorists.\
>
> Which makes sense, since Ken (i) is a conspiracy theorist,

  I merely follow the facts where they lead.  It is a documented fact
that organizations are prone to covering up their screw-ups -- from
the Nixon White House to the Boston Archdiocese.

> and (ii) thinks
> he was denied a law license on the basis of protected first amendment
> speech,

  Indirectly, through selective and abusive application of the law.
That happens *all* the time.  Just compare Martha Stewart and
George W. Bush, wrt insider trading.

> something for which there is simply no evidence.

....that Larry will acknowledge.