OT: Clinton to be Convocation Speaker

[Beeeej]

As usual, Chief, I'm not even entirely sure what language you're speaking.

But if I read you correctly, you're basically asking why the government prosecuted someone against whom it had evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed a crime, and why they didn't prosecute someone against whom - after spending a ton of money investigating - they didn't have enough evidence even to demonstrate that a crime had been committed at all.

For the answer, allow me to draw you a diagram...

Beeeej

[Beeeej]

[Q]Ken Wrote:
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
P.S. "Res Ipsa LoquitUr" doesn't mean what you think it means.[/Q]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law it's Res Ipsa LoquitOr.

The general meaning is "the thing (or fact) speaks for itself".[/Q]

That's funny, I was pretty sure Black's Law Dictionary was considered the final authority.  Now I know why.

To apply Res Ipsa Loquitur, your assertion would have to be that, because Osama bin Laden survived Clinton's presidency, Clinton must have made no attempt to capture or eliminate him.  Applying that logic, Bush must also have made no such attempt.

Seriously, what was your grade in Torts?

[Q]The precise meaning is "When you become a liberal you soon realize that facts are stubborn and inconvenient things".[/Q]

Oh, yeah.  I'm definitely the one ignoring the facts.  I notice you didn't actually address the substance of my post.

Beeeej

P.S. Clarkson sucks!