FWIS3

So I get all that. The regular criminal justice system is not about victims at all. It is about protecting society. The case is "The People" against a defendant. Often time the victim gets trampled or at least lost in the process and may be nothing more than a state's witness. However in the case with Clinton, this wasn't a couple of city detectives deciding whether to file charges based on some heresay, and maybe a little physical evidence and then thinking better of it and going to have a coffee and donut. This was a highly funded, highly motivated republican attack to find anyting, ANYTHING against Clinton and take him down. Starr had all kinds of latitude, resources, and a mandate, and all he could get was perjured testimony. Maybe he thought that was enough and stopped building a case involving all these other "victims." I don't know. But I'm still saying if they could have nailed him then, they had everything in their power allowing them to do so.

Thumper wrote:So I get all that. The regular criminal justice system is not about victims at all. It is about protecting society. The case is "The People" against a defendant. Often time the victim gets trampled or at least lost in the process and may be nothing more than a state's witness. However in the case with Clinton, this wasn't a couple of city detectives deciding whether to file charges based on some heresay, and maybe a little physical evidence and then thinking better of it and going to have a coffee and donut. This was a highly funded, highly motivated republican attack to find anyting, ANYTHING against Clinton and take him down. Starr had all kinds of latitude, resources, and a mandate, and all he could get was perjured testimony. Maybe he thought that was enough and stopped building a case involving all these other "victims." I don't know. But I'm still saying if they could have nailed him then, they had everything in their power allowing them to do so.

I'll just mention that Weinstein and Krauss haven't been convicted of anything either...

Suzanne Moore says it so much better than I do.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... buse-power

And TBH I'm regretting my own denialism about Hillary Clinton's role in this shit. Not my vote for her - what bloody alternative was there? - but I mean, goddamn if this doesn't tell you something ugly about my country.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Thumper wrote:So I get all that. The regular criminal justice system is not about victims at all. It is about protecting society. The case is "The People" against a defendant. Often time the victim gets trampled or at least lost in the process and may be nothing more than a state's witness. However in the case with Clinton, this wasn't a couple of city detectives deciding whether to file charges based on some heresay, and maybe a little physical evidence and then thinking better of it and going to have a coffee and donut. This was a highly funded, highly motivated republican attack to find anyting, ANYTHING against Clinton and take him down. Starr had all kinds of latitude, resources, and a mandate, and all he could get was perjured testimony. Maybe he thought that was enough and stopped building a case involving all these other "victims." I don't know. But I'm still saying if they could have nailed him then, they had everything in their power allowing them to do so.

I'll just mention that Weinstein and Krauss haven't been convicted of anything either...

They haven't had a Grand Jury & Ken Starr & hordes of highly motivated and resourced republicans trying to nail them to the wall AFAIK. I'd really like these issues to be resolved by the rule of law rather than the court of public opinion, that earlier we were lamenting caused Monica Lewinsky to have PTSD.

Nowhere have I said Bill Clinton was a top bloke or that I stand by his actions, alleged or otherwise. I just disagree "he's the same" as x or y or z, all of whom are different from each other.

The continuous need in society to make everything morally equivalent is destroying logical thought and nuance. When I look at the news, it seems like on one hand we have the stupidest, most incompetent, most child like head of state imaginable (running the USA), that even if depicted in a comedy movie would interfere with the suspension of disbelief, then on the other hand, amongst others going in to battle we have a media machine of automated offence taking that resembles a thin skinned and vicious lynch mob. There's no room for nuance, it's one side or the other.

There are more things I'd like to say on this topic, but it is utterly impossible in this climate without being completely misinterpreted.

In case it wasn't clear above, I actually think Trump is that stupid, it was not in this case a commentary on media depiction of him.

Also in case it wasn't clear, I think sexual assault is one of the worst crimes imaginable.

This climate and trying to communicate in a forum like this. If we all sat down over a beer, I guarantee you we'd agree on more than we disagree and it would be WAY easier to resolve disagreements.

For the record, your above assessment is one I agree with. I thought that's what I've been saying but apparently I've done a piss poor job of it.

SciFi Chick wrote:This climate and trying to communicate in a forum like this. If we all sat down over a beer, I guarantee you we'd agree on more than we disagree and it would be WAY easier to resolve disagreements.

Yeah but where's the fun in that?

I agree with SFC's notion that we need to do this while drinking beer together.
I agree with squid's characterization of the non-nuanced world we live in, and his description of Trump.

I agree with the above agreements.