Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:57:44 GMT, "Yardpilot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> 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, and (ii)
thinks
> >> he was denied a law license on the basis of protected first amendment
> >> speech, something for which there is simply no evidence.
> >
> >Evidently. I'm underwhelmed by his arguments.
>
> That can only mean you are part of the conspiracy!
>
>
> - Jon Beaver

if you believe that you really are a choad face.