July 27th was the day Trump invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails...

[nikto]

8. Just 4 myself, I try to think like a juror making judgment based on actual presented evidence

And I will never forget this travesty:

“I have here in my hands a list of names.”





If you apply the standards of serving on a jury trial, of evaluating actual evidence,
and deciding if that evidence is convincing beyond a *reasonable doubt*, we are not near that yet in this case.

I know people hate Trump and want to see him go down, any way possible.

Me too, I assure you.


But please use the jury trial standard as a guide.

Try to be "Juror #8" in "12 Angry Men" and really, REALLY look at the evidence presented,
even though most others seem already convinced.

No solid, unequivocal evidence has been presented yet, even though some hearts may yearn for it.
We are still at the "Aluminum tubes and yellowcake Uranium from Niger" stage.
Do you remember all that info and innuendo paraded as evidence?
It all turned out to be BS.

But because the masses followed their passions and stopped asking questions,
Cheney/Bush&Co got their war. All that info flying around about Judith Miller and her
Aluminum tubes and yellowcake Uranium from Niger. And it evoked such passions in the public!

All that fuss. All that worry and fear.
It worked.

And it turned out to be BS (years later, ofcourse, when it was too late).
It was not evidence---It was rumor, it was innuendo, it was bunk.
We know that now.

I have always thought that it was the Conservatives and rightwingers whose emotions
always overruled their intellects, and who could be more easily led by emotion.
We see that again and again, om many issues, and the GOPers just seem crazy in so many areas.

I always thought those more on the left/Liberal/Progressive side were more rational, and better able
to put their emotions aside and look at the facts.

This situation deserves at least as much consideration, if not more.

That a hack occurred is unequivocal, and it is extremely serious, no doubt about that.

But the culprit has not been solidly identified.

Would you convict someone in a hury-trial based on what others claim and hint at,
albeit loudly and insistently?
Or would you want to see ALL the evidence?

That is why I hold myself to the standard of evaluating solid, unequivocal evidence,
beyond a reasonable doubt, or being NOT beyond it, as we do in American jury-trials.

It's still a hung jury.

JMO.

Hate me if you want.

But this post is based on my deepest values, learned from my Brooklyin-born, Union-family, FDR-New Deal Democrat mother
who raised me (she died in the 70s).

She explained the McCarthyism, the civil rights movement, and the other powerful political/social realities
I saw around me as a child in the 50s and 60s.

That wisdom works for me, today.
I don't claim it for anyone else.


Ekla cholo Re



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekla_Chalo_Re