Here's the thing - don't expect me to be enthused about someone who cozys up to a mass murderer.

[MADem]

391. "Intellectual and mental contortions?" You should know.

You engage in the very behavior you attempt to ascribe to me.

He would be convicted? If what? If pigs fly? It hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen. So much for your "airtight" case--it's so airtight it hasn't been brought.

It's the PROVING that a crime has been committed that makes one a criminal--a suspect, no matter how much we may "suspect" them, is not a convict. A criminal is not a criminal because "ronnie624" or anyone else says so. That's not how it works. There's a little something called rule of law that has to kick in first, and the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of that rule of law.

I find it really disturbing that anyone who isn't an authoritarian or worse would advocate skipping the whole pesky "trial" bit and going straight to conviction and sentencing via Torch and Pitchfork method. That's hardly progressive, and it puts the pitchfork crew in the same category as the individual being excoriated.

NO ONE is above the law--not even those who are passing judgment.

As for a post that is a "massive logical failure" I think you need to have a hard look at your own little opus, there. The one getting emotional, wanting to skip the legal processes that are the foundation of our nation, and go directly to Frog March mode, isn't me--it's you. People who "really don't need lawyers" are also called DICTATORS, FWIW.

"Let the wheel of justice spin, bring the guilty bastard in" is not a good look. I'd advise you to eschew it. Kissinger may not be a nice guy in the slightest, but he's not a criminal until a judge and jury so declare him.

That's how it works, deal with it.