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

[Bob Blaylock]

I have a really big problem when the state runs roughshod over the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Which isn't what happened here.

But apparently, you have no problem at all with the state compelling colleges to run roughshod over the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

 

[gtopa1]

He's a sick bastard who could pose a threat to other young girls if the opportunity presents itself.

B...b...but he is a gifted artist and a beloved Hollywood film producer... Doesn't that count for something?

No more than Dennis Hastert being a gifted coach and beloved GOP icon counts for something when it comes to rape.

Of course the difference is that you would never start a thread condemning a Republican for child rape.

There is a real story here- a real story of a man who got away with child rape.

You want to make it about politics- because you don't give a damn about children being raped. But the tragedy is that this asshole- like so many other men- regardless of their politics- regardless of their professed sexual identities- are molesting children.

And virtually the only time we see any threads about these crimes here at USMB is when someone wants to blame Liberals/Conservatives/Gays/Lesbians/Muslims/the Catholic Church for another asshole child molesting man.

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

 

[JoeB131]

That is disgusting. The 13yo was raped you idiot. How she has coped with it is a separate issue. But hey: a liberal did it so it's all OK!!?? Not bloody likely!!!

I say "Get over it" when the scum is serving time!! (ffs the incident was even recorded in "The Godfather")

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.

 

[JoeB131]

Which isn't what happened here.

But apparently, you have no problem at all with the state compelling colleges to run roughshod over the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

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.

 

[gtopa1]

Why are you blaming a 13 year old girl for her rape?

What kind of asshole are you?

the kind of asshole who doesn't like grifters..

Bubba's accusers didn't evaporate like Trump's did.

Um, no, it took Ken Starr a 70 Million dollar investigation to prove those bitches were all liars.

So if a 13 year old girl has had sex before- she can't be raped?

Really- what kind of asshole refers to a 13 year old girl being raped and sodomized as a 'new and exciting experience for her'?

Apparently your kind of asshole.

I can be an asshole when it comes to dealing with stupid and evil people, yes.

Here's the thing, it was "statutory" rape, which is a bullshit charge that frankly diminishes the victims of real rape. It certainly shouldn't cover a 13 year old grifter who damned well knew what she was doing.

But even if this woman weren't saying "enough" today and was still whining about it instead of being ashamed of being part of the whole thing, I am a lot more bothered by the State running over the fifth and sixth amendment rights of a person because they want to nail a celebrity for a crime.

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

 

[gtopa1]

That is disgusting. The 13yo was raped you idiot. How she has coped with it is a separate issue. But hey: a liberal did it so it's all OK!!?? Not bloody likely!!!

I say "Get over it" when the scum is serving time!! (ffs the incident was even recorded in "The Godfather")

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.

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

 

[gtopa1]

Which isn't what happened here.

But apparently, you have no problem at all with the state compelling colleges to run roughshod over the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

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.

Prosecutors sought a sentence of up to six months for the ailing ex-speaker, but a federal judge in Chicago more than doubled that, giving him a 15-month term and condemning as "unforgivable" his sexual liaisons with boys in rural Yorkville, Illinois.

No criminal charges directly relating to the sexual abuse were ever filed because the statute of limitations on such acts ran out some time ago. However, at least two men claiming abuse have filed civil suits against Hastert, including one who is demanding that the former speaker finish paying nearly $3.5 million he promised in connection with a pledge to keep quiet about the activity.

So should Hastert have served more time than the Prosecutor asked for?

Greg

 

[JoeB131]

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.

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.

So should Hastert have served more time than the Prosecutor asked for?

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!"

 

[hadit]

Why are you blaming a 13 year old girl for her rape?

What kind of asshole are you?

the kind of asshole who doesn't like grifters..

Bubba's accusers didn't evaporate like Trump's did.

Um, no, it took Ken Starr a 70 Million dollar investigation to prove those bitches were all liars.[\quote]

Imagination reigns supreme. The face of Clinton apologists hates women. We do note the delicious irony of the fact that Hillary's treatment of those victims was partially responsible for her loss. Somehow, that's fitting.

So if a 13 year old girl has had sex before- she can't be raped?

Really- what kind of asshole refers to a 13 year old girl being raped and sodomized as a 'new and exciting experience for her'?

Apparently your kind of asshole.

I can be an asshole when it comes to dealing with stupid and evil people, yes.

Here's the thing, it was "statutory" rape, which is a bullshit charge that frankly diminishes the victims of real rape. It certainly shouldn't cover a 13 year old grifter who damned well knew what she was doing. [\quote]

Actually, it should. There's a reason we treat minors differently from adults, no matter what misogynistic haters say.

But even if this woman weren't saying "enough" today and was still whining about it instead of being ashamed of being part of the whole thing, I am a lot more bothered by the State running over the fifth and sixth amendment rights of a person because they want to nail a celebrity for a crime.

Would you also then also agree that Rush Limbaugh was right to make maximum use of the projections afforded him by the legal system when the State was trying to "nail a celebrity for a crime"? This guy raped a child. That doesn't go away just because he's a darling of the artsy crowd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

That is disgusting. The 13yo was raped you idiot. How she has coped with it is a separate issue. But hey: a liberal did it so it's all OK!!?? Not bloody likely!!!

I say "Get over it" when the scum is serving time!! (ffs the incident was even recorded in "The Godfather")

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.

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

 

[hadit]

That is disgusting. The 13yo was raped you idiot. How she has coped with it is a separate issue. But hey: a liberal did it so it's all OK!!?? Not bloody likely!!!

I say "Get over it" when the scum is serving time!! (ffs the incident was even recorded in "The Godfather")

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.

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

Seriously, let justice close the books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Polanski should come back, appear at his sentencing hearing and accept what the judge says. The woman can make a victim impact statement for leniency if she wants.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

But could he get a fair trial after 40 years of people insisting he was guilty?

Seriously, Javert, how far do we chase Jean leJean over that loaf of bread?

 

[JoeB131]

Polanski should come back, appear at his sentencing hearing and accept what the judge says. The woman can make a victim impact statement for leniency if she wants.

Right. He should totally trust a system that already violated his rights.

You know, there's a reason why all those other countries won't turn him over.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

But could he get a fair trial after 40 years of people insisting he was guilty?

Seriously, Javert, how far do we chase Jean leJean over that loaf of bread?

He is guilty. He was tried and found guilty. If he wants a new trial he needs to ask a court to vacate the verdict and give him a new trial.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Polanski should come back, appear at his sentencing hearing and accept what the judge says. The woman can make a victim impact statement for leniency if she wants.

Right. He should totally trust a system that already violated his rights.

You know, there's a reason why all those other countries won't turn him over.

No one violated his rights.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But could he get a fair trial after 40 years of people insisting he was guilty?

Seriously, Javert, how far do we chase Jean leJean over that loaf of bread?

Drugging and raping a child is no “loaf of bread”. And Roman Polanski is no Jean Valjean.

 

[Syriusly]

They are generally very tolerant of perverts and criminals in general. Not so much tolerant of those of us who aren't fond of perverts and criminals.

They did have one who made it all the way to 'President'.

We aren't to blame for Donald Trump being elected president.

Bubba's accusers didn't evaporate like Trump's did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet the Trumpster's attacked Trump's sexual assault victims the same way the assholes are attacking Polansky's victim.

Birds of a feather.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do assholes like you and Joe insist on defending these rapist assholes?

Why the hell do you blame the victim of his child rape- rather than his victims?

The same goes for both you and Tipsy- both of these men- Hastert and Polansky confessed to sexual crimes against under age minors- children.

Why don't either of you give a damn about what they did to the kids?

And because, frankly, I'm a lot more bothered by what the State did in this case than I am about what Polanski did.t.

Yeah- its pretty obvious that you aren't bothered by Polansky drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl.

You just are pissed off that Polansky didn't get away with the little slap on the wrist that had been negotiated.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do assholes like you and Joe insist on defending these rapist assholes?

Why the hell do you blame the victim of his child rape- rather than his victims?

The same goes for both you and Tipsy- both of these men- Hastert and Polansky confessed to sexual crimes against under age minors- children.

Why don't either of you give a damn about what they did to the kids?

Now, if we were talking about a murder or a real rape instead of a bullshit "statutory rape".

Yeah- to assholes like you- inviting a 13 year old girl over to a person's house, giving her drugs, and sticking a dick in her vagina and ass- is just 'bullshit statutory rape'.

Why aren't you defending Dennis Hastert also? And Jerry Sandusky?