Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Government lawyers ought not bring only cases they are certain they can win.

Agreed. But the AG (or one of is subordinates) have to prioritize, and retrial after mistrial based on sketchy evidence for fudging to Congress on the monumentally important non-question of using PED's in baseball is an abdication of duty and narcissistic, personal, hypersensitive hubris. "He lied to me!" Get over it and bring more ridiculous pot prosecutions.'' See also Bonds.

LessinBerlin

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

You think Rush agreed with Kagan's dissent in Williams v Illinois yesterday?

Less in Berlin

Supporting the right of Rush to question the guy who gave him the breathalyzer?

Hell, ya, though of course he has never read anything that long.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Agreed. But the AG (or one of is subordinates) have to prioritize, and retrial after mistrial based on sketchy evidence for fudging to Congress on the monumentally important non-question of using PED's in baseball is an abdication of duty and narcissistic, personal, hypersensitive hubris. "He lied to me!" Get over it and bring more ridiculous pot prosecutions.'' See also Bonds.

LessinBerlin

It is true that there are other former Red Sox pitchers who may be more deserving of the AG's attention.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Government lawyers ought not bring only cases they are certain they can win.

I'm not so sure about that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Bob Ryan agrees with Less.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Bob Ryan agrees with Less.

As near as I can tell, Bob Ryan is a total moron.

Clemens shouldn't have been prosecuted because if he was convicted he might have gone to jail, and jail is expensive and for people who commit real crimes not just lying under oath to Congress? Um. Should we count the faulty assumptions there?

Clemens almost certainly juiced. He almost certainly intentionally lied to Congress about it.

If you want to say, so what, he doesn't really matter and it would have been a good use of prosecutorial discretion not to bring the case, I would agree.

But I have a very hard time with the argument that any use of the prosecutor's prerogative not to bring as case was required, or the failure to use it evidence of misconduct. You disagree with the prosecutor about the relative importance of the case, but that doesn't make him wrong.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Bob Ryan agrees with Less.

I suppose your average Boston Globe sports columnist is at least as thoughtful on legal issues as, say, Justice Scalia (What! You want me to read the statute!?!).

But let's not set the bar that low for Less. He can do better.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

As near as I can tell, Bob Ryan is a total moron.

Clemens shouldn't have been prosecuted because if he was convicted he might have gone to jail, and jail is expensive and for people who commit real crimes not just lying under oath to Congress? Um. Should we count the faulty assumptions there?

Clemens almost certainly juiced. He almost certainly intentionally lied to Congress about it.

If you want to say, so what, he doesn't really matter and it would have been a good use of prosecutorial discretion not to bring the case, I would agree.

But I have a very hard time with the argument that any use of the prosecutor's prerogative not to bring as case was required, or the failure to use it evidence of misconduct. You disagree with the prosecutor about the relative importance of the case, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Dude. He's a sports columnist.

But note the distinction between lying to congress that we shouldn't care about and lying to congress that we should care about. That argument is why Bill Belichick remains a hero in New England. Ah, come on, we may have broken some rules, but they weren't, like, RULES. Every kid knows breaking lower case "r" rules is ok, like cheating on SATs just a little.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

But I have a very hard time with the argument that any use of the prosecutor's prerogative not:-) e to bring as case was required, or the failure to use it evidence of misconduct. You disagree with the prosecutor about the relative importance of the case, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Try rebring after mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Bonds and Clemens' cases are due to anal-retentive asshole attorneys with Napoleon, small-dick complexes upset that the jock again refused their now legally cloaked revengeful inquisitions. It took the time for two free meals for a jury to reject this case. They have more sense in their collective head than entire office of TTT graduates with a hard-on for lying on anon-consequential issue. Yet they probably think that Clinton should not have been impeached or disbarred.

LessinBerlin

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Try rebring after mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Bonds and Clemens' cases are due to anal-retentive asshole attorneys with Napoleon, small-dick complexes upset that the jock again refused their now legally cloaked revengeful inquisitions. It took the time for two free meals for a jury to reject this case. They have more sense in their collective head than entire office of TTT graduates with a hard-on for lying on anon-consequential issue. Yet they probably think that Clinton should not have been impeached or disbarred.

LessinBerlin

So you think Clemens didn't lie to Congress then?

Obviously, the outcome suggests the prosecutors didn't put on an effective case. But he still probably did it.

Also, is there such a thing as a government lawyer who isn't an "anal-retentive asshole attorneys with Napoleon, small-dick complexes upset that the jock again refused their now legally cloaked revengeful inquisitions?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

So you think Clemens didn't lie to Congress then?

Obviously, the outcome suggests the prosecutors didn't put on an effective case. But he still probably did it.

so you think Clinton should have been impeached? got it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so you think Clinton should have been impeached? got it.

I do not think the same considerations bind a federal prosecutor and members of the house.

But an impeachment and acquittal, aside from being a giant waste of resources, was probably an okay outcome. At the time, I would have preferred a simple censure resolution, but that's basically what happened anyway.

The outrage of the treatment of Clinton was the 7 years of baseless investigation before that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

The outrage of the treatment of Clinton was the 7 years of baseless investigation before that.

so you think Ty should be removed as Moderator for his behavior during W?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so you think Ty should be removed as Moderator for his behavior during W?

That is a clown question, bro.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

So you think Clemens didn't lie to Congress then?

Obviously, the outcome suggests the prosecutors didn't put on an effective case. But he still probably did it.

Also, is there such a thing as a government lawyer who isn't an "anal-retentive asshole attorneys with Napoleon, small-dick complexes upset that the jock again refused their now legally cloaked revengeful inquisitions?"

I think Rusty Hardin is a very good lawyer, who was paid very well.