« The Head of al Azhar Issues a Condemnation of ISIL's Execution of Lt. al Kasaesbeh | Main | Syrian casualties are evenly divided. »

04 February 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Charles I

You sound so surprised yet just a while ago you had great faith in a particular grand jury system.

Justice has been continuously manipulated by power since long before Hammurabi and long after the Magna Carta. Worse yet, hordes of eager acolytes appear every generation to do the latter's bidding. Twas ever thus and ever will be.


Charles I

This was a petit jury of his supposed peers. I do, believe in grand juries as a brake on the power of the state. pl


jurors had heard from a succession of CIA witnesses as well as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Aaaw, this beotch should have been the one on trial.

"no-one could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile" Condi Rice


Charles I

And I still believe in the rule of law but I'll be buggered if we can get it to work properly all the times, so many people, so many agendas, so much ignorance and apathy. I'm pretty sure my arm-chair anti-Zionism is about to be criminalized here, even as I have faith in our Courts' eventual declarations voiding parts of the legislation introduced this week.

Adam L Silverman


Secretary Rice's remarks are all the more worrying given that the ar,d Islamic Group had tried something similar during Christmas 1994. It has always seemed to me that this was the template for 9-11. More details here:

Adam L Silverman

Sorry Cee - verdammt autocorrect!



I know. When her lips are moving she's lying!

The Moar You Know

"In spite of there having been a lot of people of color in the prospective jury pool, the final jury was altogether white and most were women."

If this is the case, his lawyers utterly blew it. In criminal trials, jury selection is the number one determinate factor in verdicts.


Just as likely she accepts without question what she has been told.


rjj et al

My impression from watching her testify was that she had no real comprehension of the subject and had been given CIA talking points read to Jill Abramson and Risen in the hope of preventing the Times from printing his article. That worked for the time being but three years later he put the story with further embellishments that Sterling could not know in "state of War." My guess is that CIA misled her into thinking the op was successful and ongoing. pl


Seems as if misleadability is not a bug but a feature.



She CAN'T be that stupid!



Regarding the jury pool...if any of the AA potential jurors voiced any bias towards acquittal they were excluded.
Once I told them during voir dire that I couldn't render a verdict to send a young AA man to jail for drug sale charges until Oliver North went first.

Document 9: NSC, Diaries, North Notebook Entries on Manuel Noriega, August 24 & September 22, 1986

In one of the most controversial efforts to enlist third country support for the Contra war, Oliver North arranged to meet Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in a London hotel in September 1986. In return for ending U.S. pressure on Panama for Noriega's drug smuggling operations and helping to "clean up" his image,

I was bounced.

I had to tell the truth but I sometimes wish I would have kept my mouth shut because the handsome young man looked so scared.

Allen Thomson

To all, in reply to turcopier

> My impression from watching her testify was that she had no real comprehension of the subject and had been given CIA talking points... [snip] My guess is that CIA misled her into thinking the op was successful and ongoing.

I've seen this sort of thing often, particularly in the CIA where my bureaucratic experience was, but I'm sure it goes on in most organizations.

Supportive tales and legends take on a life of their own, become parts of the culture to the point that, though they might be objectively incorrect, nobody questions them and they're passed on with no thought of misdirection. So whether Connie was deliberately misled or just provided misinformation by people who themselves believed it, it having become part of the accepted narrative, is, IMO, a tough question.

Charles Dekle

There is something cobra like about that woman. She scares the bejesus out of me.


More general comment, Pat, I appreciate you link to Merlin.

In my times in London, I met an American cartoonist. He worked for a rather prominent advertisement firm at the time. And although, I no doubt. I was rather well paid in my times at London for translating rather ridiculous minor translations of German advertisement by that firm. I think I wasn't helpful at the time to this "spiritual friend", I hope he is well.

I obviously never understood the firms context, nevertheles I felt to me he was highly exploited by superiors. One of them arrived from the US, leaning back drinking his Whiskey while John did the job. Giving me the impression he was paid for drinking Whiskey.

There was one event though, where he ventured into pure arts or animated cartoons, which I was part of. He animated the music of a friend back in the US. That was interesting. And no, the tools weren't available that that point in tine to make things more easy.

I had no influence on his main character, the wise man, the man with the long beard, a successor of Merlin without name. But I instinctively grasped why he would do that. After all that was my favorite character in my own Punch and Judy shows. The rest is lost in history. And folk myth.

Isn't google search up to matters yet?

Tinyurl no doubt leads us into the larger Merlin context of wise men over times that often are lost in the books on history.


No doubt

different clue


Condoleeza Rice worked for Chevron for a while. Whatever she did for them, they considere her smart enough and competent enough at it that they named a supertanker after her. It is locatable alphabetically on this list.
(For some reason . . . embarassment maybe? . . . they recently renamed that same tanker the Altair Voyager).

So she isn't stupid or ignorant or hard-of-thinking. Whatever she says is carefully crafted to advance some agenda or other.

different clue


Ahh . . . if only you had avoided saying that and had gotten yourself onto that jury. Then you could have said it during Jury Deliberations.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad