And when Hillary and Billy Boy left the White House, they took (STOLE??) so many articles, and have never been charged with attempted, or ACTUAL thieft, of American Tax Payer property??
HEY !!!! Does this sound like a great defence for O.J.?? Not guilty \, because he was attempting to copy those other thieves??
(bet I catch hell for this one, pointing out old news)
toro gringo
2007-09-19 11:12:29 · 11 answers · asked by NONAME 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A chosen person, GLAD to see you back. I hope that your trip was o.k.
toro gringo
2007-09-19 11:33:45 · update #1
Chris B., I am very well aware of the legal rights of prpoerty ownership !!!
My OBNOXOUS point was not aimed at O.J.'s right to reacquire his property, but rather at Billy Boy and Hillary taking items, NOT BELONGING TO THEM, from the White House, AND no one having the BALz to confront them for this theft of tax payer property !!!!
IF you or I took property, not belonging to us, but was the property of tax payers, EITHER one of us would be charged with soime degree of theft!!!
TORO GRINGO
2007-09-19 11:46:06 · update #2
O.J. is a violent sociopath that got away with murder. He belongs in jail.
Bill and Hillary are common thieves and opportunists who want to become elite dictators. THAT is far worse than O.J.
THEY should be in jail also!
2007-09-19 11:17:14 · answer #1 · answered by Philip H 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
You're not going to catch "hell" for pointing out old news, Toro! You're going to catch it for not knowing your rights. It is the right of every citizen in this country to post bail on anything less than first degree murder provided the judge and prosecution do not think the person is a flight risk!
They've taken his Passport so he cannot leave the country. Is there any more recognizable face in this world than O.J. Simpson's? He's going back home to Florida and then he'll fulfill his other obligations. After that he'll be back in Las Vegas to face the charges against him. But what has this to do with Bill & Hillary Clinton? It's apples and oranges, Gringo!
2007-09-19 11:24:27 · answer #2 · answered by Chris B 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not so as to how O.J.'s things got to the dealers' hands, but if they were stolen from O.J. , and he knew where abouts of those items, then legally, yes he can get it back, though he should have asked the police for help. But the fact that he and his associates used the gun, and held the dealers in the hotel room made it illegal and that's is why he is being charged. All it comes down to is stupidity. Because if those item really belonged to O.J., then he should have asked for police assistance.
2007-09-19 11:22:09 · answer #3 · answered by plato 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
How is unlawful attachment of plates a legal? Is there extra to this tale? after all, in case you have no earlier checklist and the only factor you have accomplished on your existence grow to be to attach stolen plates to "your? motor vehicle i do no longer think of you would be doing time or have this checklist carry you from doing something you choose in existence. you're guity and you could very own as much because it earlier the decide. perhaps in 5 years you may nicely be conscious for a pardon if it impacts you many in existence.
2016-10-19 03:29:13 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ will probably not be charged with stealing possessions; that's already been thought about.
What he will be tried for is threatening someone with a deadly weapon. Even if he wasn't holding the gun, an accomplice was, and so he can be tried alongside them for that crime. It doesn't matter if it's your own stuff; if you hold someone up with a gun, that's breaking the law. There's a difference between protecting your stuff and getting it back, and he did a bad thing while trying to get it back.
2007-09-19 11:20:20 · answer #5 · answered by K 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is no evidence of them stealing anything that was merely some clap trap started on the right to get in one last swing at the Clintons. It has never been proved and won't because it didn't happen. You really need to do some in depth research before posting this kind of crap. It makes you look kind of silly.
2007-09-19 11:24:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This case is going to collapse like a house of cards in New Orleans during Katrina.
The accuser does not even want to charge him with anything, and it is obvious that the prosecutor is pulling a "Nifong" being to over zealous in prosecuting an apparent murderer that got off scott free.
2007-09-19 11:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
He should have been convicted for the murder he committed 12 years ago and executed. Then this would all be moot.
I really want to smack that smug grin he had in the mug shot right off his face
2007-09-19 11:30:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
And your evidence in the Clinton rant is anecdotal. If there was indeed a crime don't you think Gingrich, Lott and the other GOP attack dogs would have unearthed it? I'm sure Ken Starr could have done a little more to earn his $40M.
2007-09-19 11:44:30 · answer #9 · answered by El Duderino 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"If the stuff was mine, then it's Bill and Hillary time".
I think the ghost of Johnny Cockran just possesed me for a moment.
2007-09-19 11:25:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋