Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the >president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to >congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations rCo and summon the president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations rCo and summon the
president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to
congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or
don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of
guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better
to avoid the whole deal.
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the
president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to
congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or
don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of
guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better
to avoid the whole deal.
So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone >know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is
a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the >potentially guilty.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to
an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no
adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify.
On 3/2/2026 5:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What charges?
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the
president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to
congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
The question is, what did they know, and when did they know it?
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:13:41 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 5:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What charges?
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations rCo and summon the >>> president to testify."
The question is, what did they know, and when did they know it?
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to
congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
Stupid question.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:17:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone
wrote:
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations rCo and summon the >>>> president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a >>>> lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to
congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or
don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of
guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better
to avoid the whole deal.
know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is
a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the
potentially guilty.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to
an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no
adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify.
Except that we the paranoid public view it as an admission of guilt.
People certainly saw it that way when jimmy used it. That might have
been what got him a pair of cement shoes. He should have admitted
faulty memory and deep ignorance.
On 3/2/2026 8:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:17:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone >>> know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is >>> a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the
wrote:
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the >>>>> president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely >>>>> fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a >>>>> lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to >>>>> congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated. >>>>> Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or
don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of
guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better
to avoid the whole deal.
potentially guilty.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to
an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no
adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify.
Except that we the paranoid public view it as an admission of guilt.
Only if you're biased or prejudiced, or both.
--People certainly saw it that way when jimmy used it. That might have
been what got him a pair of cement shoes. He should have admitted
faulty memory and deep ignorance.
The question is, what did Jimmy know, and when did he know it?
Bill Clinton provided extensive testimony, famously stating "I don't
recall" multiple times in depositions, but never invoked the Fifth.
Bill is still running loose. What does he know and when did he know it?
On 3/2/2026 8:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:13:41 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 5:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What charges?
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the >>>> president to testify."
The question is, what did they know, and when did they know it?
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a >>>> lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to
congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
Stupid question.
Other stupid questions:
What did your Queen know, and when did she know it?
Apparently, she financed Andy's payout to Virginia in the legal settlement.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:13:57 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 8:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:17:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Only if you're biased or prejudiced, or both.
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone >>>> know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is >>>> a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the
wrote:
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations rCo and summon the >>>>>> president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely >>>>>> fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a >>>>>> lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to >>>>>> congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated. >>>>>> Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or
don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of
guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better >>>>> to avoid the whole deal.
potentially guilty.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to >>>> an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no
adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify.
Except that we the paranoid public view it as an admission of guilt.
We knew that the same way we knew that oj was guilty in spite of the
verdict.
The question is, what did Jimmy know, and when did he know it?
People certainly saw it that way when jimmy used it. That might have
been what got him a pair of cement shoes. He should have admitted
faulty memory and deep ignorance.
Bill Clinton provided extensive testimony, famously stating "I don't
recall" multiple times in depositions, but never invoked the Fifth.
Bill is still running loose. What does he know and when did he know it?
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:08:05 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 8:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:13:41 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Other stupid questions:
On 3/2/2026 5:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What charges?
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations rCo and summon the >>>>> president to testify."
The question is, what did they know, and when did they know it?
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely >>>>> fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a >>>>> lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to >>>>> congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated. >>>>> Even better is avoid testifying.
Stupid question.
What did your Queen know, and when did she know it?
I don't have any queens.
Apparently, she financed Andy's payout to Virginia in the legal settlement. >>Andy's mother hoped for the best for and cared about her son. It was
not her duty to prosecute him. Fathers have been known to tell a
errant child to go to the authorities, confess and turn themselves in. Mothers are more about nurturing even when all hope is lost.
On 3/2/2026 10:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:13:57 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 8:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:17:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Only if you're biased or prejudiced, or both.
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Except that we the paranoid public view it as an admission of guilt.
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone >>>>> know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is >>>>> a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the
wrote:
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are >>>>>>> already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the >>>>>>> president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely >>>>>>> fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a >>>>>>> lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to >>>>>>> congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated. >>>>>>> Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or >>>>>> don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of >>>>>> guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better >>>>>> to avoid the whole deal.
potentially guilty.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to >>>>> an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no
adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify. >>>>
We knew that the same way we knew that oj was guilty in spite of the
verdict.
You could just be prejudice against OJ because, among other things, he >married a white woman. Just saying.
OJ did not take the 5th Amendment.
Instead, he waived his right to testify and formally stated in court, "I
did not, could not, and would not have committed this crime".
The witness who notoriously invoked the Fifth Amendment was LAPD
Detective Mark Fuhrman!
What did Fuhrman know, and when did he know it?
We ain't so dumb that you kin tell us any ole thing.
Remember the Steele Dossier?
"If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." - Johnny Cochran
--The question is, what did Jimmy know, and when did he know it?
People certainly saw it that way when jimmy used it. That might have
been what got him a pair of cement shoes. He should have admitted
faulty memory and deep ignorance.
Bill Clinton provided extensive testimony, famously stating "I don't
recall" multiple times in depositions, but never invoked the Fifth.
Bill is still running loose. What does he know and when did he know it?
On 3/2/2026 10:45 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:08:05 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Don't bother to learn anything?
On 3/2/2026 8:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:13:41 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Other stupid questions:
On 3/2/2026 5:50 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What charges?
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are
already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the >>>>>> president to testify."
The question is, what did they know, and when did they know it?
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely >>>>>> fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a >>>>>> lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass?
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to >>>>>> congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing,
remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated. >>>>>> Even better is avoid testifying.
Stupid question.
What did your Queen know, and when did she know it?
I don't have any queens.
Crown Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada and Canada's formal Head of State.
What did did she know, and when did she know it?
--Apparently, she financed Andy's payout to Virginia in the legal settlement. >>>Andy's mother hoped for the best for and cared about her son. It was
not her duty to prosecute him. Fathers have been known to tell a
errant child to go to the authorities, confess and turn themselves in.
Mothers are more about nurturing even when all hope is lost.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 12:04:53 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 10:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:13:57 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You could just be prejudice against OJ because, among other things, he
On 3/2/2026 8:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:17:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Only if you're biased or prejudiced, or both.
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Except that we the paranoid public view it as an admission of guilt. >>>>>
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>> wrote:So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone >>>>>> know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is >>>>>> a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the >>>>>> potentially guilty.
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are >>>>>>>> already planning to launch an array of investigations rCo and summon the
president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely >>>>>>>> fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a >>>>>>>> lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass? >>>>>>>>
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to >>>>>>>> congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing, >>>>>>>> remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated. >>>>>>>> Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or >>>>>>> don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of >>>>>>> guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better >>>>>>> to avoid the whole deal.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to >>>>>> an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no
adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify. >>>>>
We knew that the same way we knew that oj was guilty in spite of the
verdict.
married a white woman. Just saying.
OJ did not take the 5th Amendment.
But he did murder his wife. Even the civil trial jury knew that much.
So oj paid big time. This is what we know about implications in
certain situations. And we do know. Most of us.
And the mafia knew too, so cement shoes for you jimmy.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2Instead, he waived his right to testify and formally stated in court, "I
did not, could not, and would not have committed this crime".
The witness who notoriously invoked the Fifth Amendment was LAPD
Detective Mark Fuhrman!
What did Fuhrman know, and when did he know it?
We ain't so dumb that you kin tell us any ole thing.
Remember the Steele Dossier?
"If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." - Johnny Cochran
On 3/2/2026 12:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 12:04:53 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Despite the civil verdict and public opinion, he was never convicted of
On 3/2/2026 10:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:13:57 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You could just be prejudice against OJ because, among other things, he
On 3/2/2026 8:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:17:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Only if you're biased or prejudiced, or both.
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Except that we the paranoid public view it as an admission of guilt. >>>>>>
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>> wrote:So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are >>>>>>>>> already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the
president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely >>>>>>>>> fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass? >>>>>>>>>
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to >>>>>>>>> congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing, >>>>>>>>> remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated. >>>>>>>>> Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or >>>>>>>> don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of >>>>>>>> guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better >>>>>>>> to avoid the whole deal.
know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is
a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the >>>>>>> potentially guilty.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to >>>>>>> an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no >>>>>>> adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify. >>>>>>
We knew that the same way we knew that oj was guilty in spite of the
verdict.
married a white woman. Just saying.
OJ did not take the 5th Amendment.
But he did murder his wife. Even the civil trial jury knew that much.
So oj paid big time. This is what we know about implications in
certain situations. And we do know. Most of us.
the murders in a criminal court. Just saying.
The mafia knew what, and when did they know it??And the mafia knew too, so cement shoes for you jimmy.
--Instead, he waived his right to testify and formally stated in court, "I >>> did not, could not, and would not have committed this crime".
The witness who notoriously invoked the Fifth Amendment was LAPD
Detective Mark Fuhrman!
What did Fuhrman know, and when did he know it?
We ain't so dumb that you kin tell us any ole thing.
Remember the Steele Dossier?
"If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." - Johnny Cochran
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 09:31:04 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On 3/2/2026 12:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 12:04:53 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Despite the civil verdict and public opinion, he was never convicted of
On 3/2/2026 10:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:13:57 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>You could just be prejudice against OJ because, among other things, he >>>> married a white woman. Just saying.
On 3/2/2026 8:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:17:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Only if you're biased or prejudiced, or both.
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Except that we the paranoid public view it as an admission of guilt. >>>>>>>
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>> wrote:So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are >>>>>>>>>> already planning to launch an array of investigations rCo and summon the
president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass? >>>>>>>>>>
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to
congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing, >>>>>>>>>> remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or >>>>>>>>> don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of >>>>>>>>> guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better >>>>>>>>> to avoid the whole deal.
know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is
a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the >>>>>>>> potentially guilty.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to >>>>>>>> an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no >>>>>>>> adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify. >>>>>>>
We knew that the same way we knew that oj was guilty in spite of the >>>>> verdict.
OJ did not take the 5th Amendment.
But he did murder his wife. Even the civil trial jury knew that much.
So oj paid big time. This is what we know about implications in
certain situations. And we do know. Most of us.
the murders in a criminal court. Just saying.
He also did not make a credible defense as the mafia noticed. They
tend to be very intolerant of such things. That is how people get
cement shoes.
The mafia knew what, and when did they know it??And the mafia knew too, so cement shoes for you jimmy.
Everything always.
What did Jimmy know, and when did he know it?
On 3/3/2026 10:13 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 09:31:04 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 12:04:53 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Despite the civil verdict and public opinion, he was never convicted of
On 3/2/2026 10:41 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:13:57 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>You could just be prejudice against OJ because, among other things, he >>>>> married a white woman. Just saying.
On 3/2/2026 8:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:17:24 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Only if you're biased or prejudiced, or both.
On 3/2/2026 6:02 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Except that we the paranoid public view it as an admission of guilt. >>>>>>>>
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:50:20 -0500, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:So, I'm not convinced you finished your 5th grade civics class. Everyone
Wash post,
"If Democrats take control of the House in January: Lawmakers are >>>>>>>>>>> already planning to launch an array of investigations u and summon the
president to testify."
Like learn how previous attempts to prosecute and harass himbo merely
fueled his popularity. Anyway, as of Nov 2027 he will officially be a
lame duck. Isn't it time to start preparing to forget his ass? >>>>>>>>>>>
Why bother to summon people to testify to congress? Because lying to
congress is a crime. Your best bet is to say you saw nothing, >>>>>>>>>>> remember nothing, know nothing, as the clintons so ably demonstrated.
Even better is avoid testifying.
You can't be prosecuted for what you didn't see, don't remember or >>>>>>>>>> don't know. Jimmy's 5th amendment trick amounts to an admission of >>>>>>>>>> guilt. Ignorance is a little cleaner. But we still get it. Better >>>>>>>>>> to avoid the whole deal.
know that taking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is
a constitutional protection for innocent individuals as well as the >>>>>>>>> potentially guilty.
In a U.S. criminal case, taking the Fifth Amendment does not amount to
an admission of guilt, and a judge will instruct the jury that no >>>>>>>>> adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant's refusal to testify. >>>>>>>>
We knew that the same way we knew that oj was guilty in spite of the >>>>>> verdict.
OJ did not take the 5th Amendment.
But he did murder his wife. Even the civil trial jury knew that much. >>>> So oj paid big time. This is what we know about implications in
certain situations. And we do know. Most of us.
the murders in a criminal court. Just saying.
He also did not make a credible defense as the mafia noticed. They
tend to be very intolerant of such things. That is how people get
cement shoes.
The mafia knew what, and when did they know it??And the mafia knew too, so cement shoes for you jimmy.
Everything always.
What did Jimmy know, and when did he know it?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:03:57 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 196,197 |