Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Infuriating Insanity
The September 10 edition of NR has an article on a gross miscarriage of justice. It seems that before her sterling* performance as the Attorney General back in the Clinton administration, Janet Reno was one of the first prosecutors getting convictions in the mass hysteria about child abuse in daycare centers back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
As it happens, there is still one man in prison, Frank Fuster, from those cases. It’s bad enough that he’s there for a crime that never happened, but the way that the conviction was obtained makes it so much worse.
How does this happen? How can a prosecutor (along with the police investigators) abuse children into accusing an innocent man and then torture a confession from his wife and everyone pretends it’s all just fine? And when the truth comes out, that we sent several completely innocent people to prison for years because of nonsense psychobabble about repressed memories, how have we let someone stay incarcerated all this time? Why do we as a society have such a hard time saying “We were wrong” and trying to make amends?
We pay lip service to the idea that “it’s better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted” but when we do convict an innocent man, we just shrug our shoulders and say “[redacted] happens.”
Instead we get all outraged over nonsense like a controversial ex-NFL QB getting a contract with a big promotions company or whatever the next Twitter freakout will be 10 minutes from now when the current freakout ends. It’s infuriating.
*No, wait. The exact opposite of that.
Published in Law
On what basis do you believe they risk crucifixion? Do you have polling data on this topic?
Mueller is as corrupt as they come, and is in this whole thing up to his eyeballs, and is likely using this “investigation” to cover his own tracks. If the press weren’t merely an arm of the DNC, someone might win a Pulitzer if they looked into it. Imagine if the press went after Mueller the way they tried to go after Ken Starr, calling his investigation a “Starr Chamber” etc. What a cesspool.
Where is the press camped out in his driveway every morning?
Always remember, the Left isn’t liberal, and I’ve never heard a Marxist defend the principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty.
For example, the current Leader of Canuckistan’s federal socialist party actually said explicitly that it only applies to the courts, and not to political activists like himself and his minions.
Heck, the guy who originally coined the phrase was himself the target of a whisper campaign accusing him of the crime of “seduction” (though he was never indicted for it). You’d better believe the current batch of #believeher Marxist-feminists would have him on their hit list. I’m surprised that they don’t use William Garrow as proof that the presumption of innocence is a construct of white male privilege.