Libtard Finally Admits to Raping A Child...Then Declares The Matter Is OVER...Because He Says So.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by easyt65, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. Bob Blaylock
    Online

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Thanks Received:
    965
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +4,617
  2. gtopa1
    Offline

    gtopa1 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,943
    Thanks Received:
    2,542
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Ratings:
    +11,177
    If Hastert is guilty then he should have served at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

    Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert released from prison to halfway house

    Oh crikey; the asshole DID!!!

    Greg
     
  3. JoeB131
    Online

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    89,450
    Thanks Received:
    7,568
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +18,350
    I could care less about Polanski's politics one way or the other. (Is he even a political person, or is it just assumed he is a 'liberal' because he works in Hollywood?)

    So let's review. You have this incident, where the prosecutor almost immediately realizes he's dealing with grifters who engaged in a blackmail scheme that went bad. So you negotiate a plea deal where wrongdoing is admitted to because you aren't really sure you'd win in court.

    Then when the psychiatric people you relied on to maybe recommend a harsher punishment than the 90 days you agreed to decided, "Meh, it's a waste to even lock this guy up for 42 days. We have real crooks to lock up!", you go to a judge ex parte and make some unsubstantiated claims to try to get a harsher sentence.

    You know, I know this will come to a shock to you wingnuts, but the Constitution actually has more than two amendments. We have a fifth Amendment that protects a citizen from self-incrimination. We have a sixth Amendment that protects his right to a fair trial.

    FORTY YEARS LATER, you are trying to still win this minor case.
     
  4. JoeB131
    Online

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    89,450
    Thanks Received:
    7,568
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +18,350
    Because that isn't a fifth or sixth amendment issue. That's a contract issue between a customer (the student) and a service provider (a college).

    I know this is going to confuse you horribly, but I would have no problem if Paramount refused to hire Polanski based on this case. This is between Polanski and Paramount. Also, his movies kind of suck, so I'm not sure why any studio hires him. But I can see where a movie studio would say, "Given your past conduct, we don't want the liability of you hitting on your actresses and causing us a sexual harassment lawsuit."

    I have a huge problem with the state running roughshod over civil rights to prosecute something that isn't a big deal.
     
  5. gtopa1
    Offline

    gtopa1 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,943
    Thanks Received:
    2,542
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Ratings:
    +11,177
    A thirteen year old is NOT capable of making adult decisions. Polanski is a fiend. Hastert did jail time as he should have.Polanski did SOME time but enough for rape? Not at all.

    Greg
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. gtopa1
    Offline

    gtopa1 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,943
    Thanks Received:
    2,542
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Ratings:
    +11,177
    He's been on the RUN for all those years. I don't give a damn about the time lapse; he needs to face COURT from which he absconded. If the Court agrees with you then I'm fine with that. If not.....

    Greg
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. gtopa1
    Offline

    gtopa1 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,943
    Thanks Received:
    2,542
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Ratings:
    +11,177
    So should Hastert have served more time than the Prosecutor asked for?

    Greg
     
  8. JoeB131
    Online

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    89,450
    Thanks Received:
    7,568
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +18,350
    Except that was the time the state agreed to. Probably because they were more worried he would have gotten off if this went to trial in 1977, when attitudes about sex were more "fluid" and Polanski was still a sympathetic figure because of the whole Manson Family thing.

    Actually, I thought that Hastert getting extra time for what he wasn't on trial for (molestation) was an end run around his civil rights. He was on trial for bank fraud. In short, he was on trial for spending HIS OWN MONEY.

    You see right winger scream all day about the "Constitution", but it looks like none of you ever bothered to read it past the part where its says, "I can have me some guns!"
     
  9. hadit
    Offline

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    12,414
    Thanks Received:
    1,565
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +6,763
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. hadit
    Offline

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    12,414
    Thanks Received:
    1,565
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +6,763
    That's because the case isn't closed. He fled to avoid prosecution. If he really wants it over, he should return, go through the process and either serve his punishment or be released, and let justice close the books. If he has good lawyers and the case is really as weak as you claim, he should have no problems, right?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page