I knew laughing wasn't a crime...

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

A D.C. judge has tossed out a jury’s conviction of a protester who laughed during Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Senate confirmation hearing, finding on Friday that the government had improperly argued during the trial that her laughter was enough to merit a guilty verdict.

Weird. I remember all the rsfc legal big branes claiming her laughing wasn't the issue at all... it was all about her behavior while being arrested / removed.

Cheers.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 14:06:02 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>A D.C. judge has tossed out a jury=E2=80=99s conviction of a protester who =
>laughed during Attorney General Jeff Sessions=E2=80=99 Senate confirmation =
>hearing, finding on Friday that the government had improperly argued during=

> the trial that her laughter was enough to merit a guilty verdict.
>

>Weird. I remember all the rsfc legal big branes claiming her laughing wasn=
>'t the issue at all... it was all about her behavior while being arrested /=
> removed.
>
>Cheers.

Either her laughter disturbed the right of others or it did not. I
don't know which.

If she interrupted I recommend feeding the baby - you know, a bust in
the mouth.

Hugh

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Michael Press]

In article <ec0d5b19-7408-41e7...@googlegroups.com>,

There is no accounting for what a judge will do.
That is because they are not accountable.
The judge is only right because there is no appeal.
I am right and he is wrong.

Still the idiot had her warning.
She shows up in court again and
it might not go so well for her.

--
Michael Press

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Wasn't about what the judge did, press. What the prosecution said in their closing argument is enough to prove you wrong. Go back and read it. Carefully.

Cheers.

[Michael Press]

In article <66f5fff9-bbf8-40a4...@googlegroups.com>,

dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> Wasn't about what the judge did, press. What the prosecution said in their closing argument is enough to prove you wrong. Go back and read it. Carefully.
>
> Cheers.

Read what? If the laugh was disruptive then that is sufficient.
The judge says it was not disruptive. He was not in the chamber
and neither were we.

There is no accounting for what a judge will do.
That is because they are not accountable.
The judge is only right because there is no appeal.
I am right and he is wrong.

--
Michael Press

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

You aren't reading it carefully. Already gave you the punchline.

Cheers.

[Michael Press]

In article <fc1149a6-2fe4-4724...@googlegroups.com>,

dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> You aren't reading it carefully. Already gave you the punchline.

Read what?

--
Michael Press

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Already led you to the water, hoss. What you do now is up to you.

Cheers.

[Michael Press]

In article <12bad67d-d75f-422d...@googlegroups.com>,

dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> Already led you to the water, hoss. What you do now is up to you.
>
> Cheers.