The leading intellect and conscience of the Republican Party speaks:
My opinion on the settlement of the Central Park Jogger case is that it’s a disgrace. A detective close to the case, and who has followed it since 1989, calls it “the heist of the century.”
Settling doesn’t mean innocence, but it indicates incompetence on several levels. This case has not been dormant, and many people have asked why it took so long to settle? It is politics at its lowest and worst form.
What about the other people who were brutalized that night, in addition to the jogger?This statement is utterly incoherent. The settlement is a disgrace because a dick who has following the case says so? It's a disgrace because "Settling doesn't mean innocence"? It's a disgrace because it took so long to settle? It's a disgrace because other people -- who the vindicated men also did not harm -- were also harmed by persons unknown?
Later on, the short-fingered vulgarian gives up his game in the one coherent sentence in his case -- in which asserts that "these young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels." The vulgarian does not state what other crimes the men have been convicted of.
Five innoicent men were convicted and served more than a decade in prison. The police who manufactured the confessions -- perhaps even Trump's quoted pal -- suffer no consequences (instead of serving out the wrongfully convicted men's convictions). New York City made no effort to protect other women by capturing the actual rapist. People don't deserve due process because Trump divines on a hairball that they must be guilty of something.
That is Trump justice. That is Republican justice.
It's a good thing that Trump inherited a lot of money, because as dumb as he is, he would have been in for a much more trying life without it (not that he doesn't greatly deserve it).
The cops and the prosecutors effectively perpetrated a fraud on the public, and Trump thinks that's okay--probably because he's okay with fraud, period, as long as it's done to benefit him, or his prejudices. Most certainly, he's for it if, in his pinheaded opinion, the retribution for such fraud might cost him a little more in taxes.
One thing for sure, if NYC had put me in jail for ten years for something I did not do, the negotiations would start with, "let's just begin with emptying out Donald Trump's bank accounts and work up from there."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only other people brutalized in this case are the men who were falsely convicted of a crime they did not commit.
I will say ol' roadkill hat is right about one thing - The case was politics at its lowest. But fortunately NYC is trying to make up for that.
Jules, excuse me, but I think that the victim may have been brutalized as well. Of course, I could be wrong.
Montag: please put a link to your blog. I used to read it but lost the link.
Trump had someone type:
"What about the other people who were brutalized that night, in addition to the jogger?"
So aside from the victim of the unknown attacker and her alleged attackers, who else is he talking about?
"who else is he talking about?"
Trump had a bad shrimp that evening, and a disappointing chardonnay. And after all that the restaurant only comped his dinner but not his parking. You just can't get more brutal than that.
Short-Fingered Vulgarian FTW!
I can't wait for his "hair" to finally achieve sentience and strangle that douchenozzle.
The point of this spewing, such as it is, is that a crime was done, and someone must be punished: and if the punished are the right color( for they didn't actually have the be the perp, 'they' are all potential perps..) so much the better.
Anon--I pretty much stopped blogging several years ago. Had the sense that I was repeating myself a good deal, and wasn't attracting much of an audience.
I think I ended up being roadkill on the information superhighway.
Short-fingered vulgarian was stolen from from Spy Magazine, a satirical monthly from back in the day.
Post a Comment