doubt and needs to be treated as innocent until he is proven guilty."

OR, "We can refuse to accept those alter boys' accounts. It doesn't mean we are defending those priests."

OR, "Those people saying Chris Christie did this are just like the accusers in the Salem witch hunts."

OR, "If you believe those priests molested those boys, you are a victim of ergot poisoning."

OR, "Those boys were never molested. Their mothers just brainwashed them."

OR, "Chris Christie is a great governor. If he was guilty of this, he would have been prosecuted already."

Somehow, none of these things is happening. I wonder why it is so different when a young woman comes out and says, "You know that story I told when I was 7? It's still true."

Or are you saying that we should treat Woody Allen like we treat other issues?

I guess I'd more agree with the first statement; I do see accusations thrown around with minimal proof more than i would like.

Bryant

That's the conclusion that I came to long ago.

being an echo chamber were everyone gets attackedbif they dont toe certain cliques approval.

we rarely argue for "justice" here ... Rather, we argue to "punish."

The is neither liberal nor progressive ... but is eminently human.

problem is as humans we take sides for whatever reason and then the fights begin.

to side with an accused rapist over a victim. I wonder why that is?

unlike you i seek the truth wherever it leads.

We do indeed argue to punish, and sometimes we do that without sufficient evidence of guilt.

But we often argue for justice. Justice for the oppressed, the wronged, the weak, the sick, the young and the old.

Yes, some have called for banksters (and others) to be jailed, or hanged. And without trial, that would be wrong.

But their sense of justice is not entirely out of whack. What they really want is the damned trial. When federal court judges express astonishment that there have been no criminal cases, when the evidence of fraud is overwhelming, when the corporations admit to their crimes and are fined while no one is punished, the moral outrage people feel demands justice, and that is what most really want.

most don't want a trial ... they want someone to go to jail, someone to pay; but not just anyone ... but a Dimon caliber executive. And, as I have argued, that is a/the problem that explains the lack of a criminal trial ... the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution of a top executive. The DoJ has said so, and so did the Federal Judge that expressed astonishment.

... mortgage fraud, it's preposterous to claim there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone.

seeing as, two of the three cited to were prosecuted, criminally?

one prosecution does not cover all crimes ... but it does suggest that the DoJ WILL prosecute when the evidence is there to do so?

That's not grasping at straws or pathetic, that's reality.

It pisses people off!
/sarc off

to make non-arguments that in "proving" their case, the prove the opposite ... But that will not stop them.

that was my point.

So, so true.

or "conviction or it didn't happen" WTF, DU?

Hateful, and totally irrational. And I saw that too frequently, and was insulted and attacked for merely saying "we don't know"