[ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
johnkclark at gmail.com
Wed May 11 02:04:32 UTC 2016
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:42 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> You answered my question John. You are OK with the president having the
> ultimate security clearance.
> Who in the world wouldn't be OK with that? In a finite population
somebody has to be at the end of the security granting chain.
> By that reasoning Nixon was justified in gathering intelligence on
> possible rivals.
> Don't be silly. No security clearance no matter
high authorizes you to commit crimes, it just authorizes you to hear
secrets. And burglary is a crime but getting a blowjob is not, or at least
it shouldn't be.
>> …The Senate a *ACQUIT* *TED* Bill Clinton of perjury…
> I see. Does that mean he didn’t lie?
> It means the Senate didn't give a shit
because he never should have been asked the question. It means the Senate
was acting like a jury
the constitution says it should
and it means the Senate was OK with the idea of Jury Nullification. I'm OK
with Jury Nullification too, I though all Libertarians were.
had some experience with it
I was called for jury duty and
still in the big jury pool room before being assigned
a specific case with hundreds of
all of us one by one regular boilerplate questions like "will your personal
opinion of the justice of a law have any effect on your verdict?" and
everybody said "no" until they got to me, I said "well
, I believe in Jury Nullification because..."
wow, in a flash the Judge said "
you Mr. Clark you are dismissed" and 30 second later I was on the sidewalk
outside the courthouse on my way home.
Judges don't want juries to know anything about Jury Nullification, they
just hate it when they do. I had almost contaminated hundreds of jurors
with libertarian ideas
but thanks to the judge's fast reflexes the situation was saved.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat