Off-Topic (because it doesn't pertain to the rest of the thread) but having a racist directly involved in an investigation like that could legitimately create reasonable doubt (depending on how involved and in what capacity the individual in question served). And that's the standard, it's not "which is more likely guilt or innocents" it's "is guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt".
Sorry, pet peeve, as stated not a comment on the thread or points being made therein one way or another, just something that seems oft forgotten (or at least unmentioned) in modern discourse. And something vital to retain if we are to sustain liberty.
You use exactly the (wrong) logic of OJ jury. What does it mean "racist?" Was Joe Arpaio sentenced for any crime? Does it mean that he was accused of being racist? By you? By somebody else? By press? Is "racist" the only card that will make you not consider the facts? What if he is accused of, I don't know, being corrupt? Stupid? Ignoring Constitution? Beating his wife?
Reasonable doubt is a different concept. You may be skeptical of him, and don't trust him, but his investigation established certain facts, such as the BC is fake. I wouldn't mind if you, being skeptical, claiming "racism" and all that, went over his arguments and tell us where he made a mistake. But dismissing all of these is just playing the game of any dictator who through a willing media would accuse any critic of it in something bad, like "racism."
And we saw it with anybody who dares to criticize our government, right? We've heard that Tea Party was racist, Glenn Beck was racist, Hannity and Rush were racists, heck, even Ron Paul, once he threatened to win Iowa, was labeled "racist."
I don't like the majority of American people for not voting Ron Paul. Should I ignore all facts established in USA?
And by the way, WTF moved this thread to "hot topics"? and why?
