Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
That’s fair, Zach, and I appreciate how you said it.
And you’re absolutely right that everyone should have the same rights and a fair shot in court. That’s foundational. I don’t believe in guilt by association as a default. Where I draw the line is when patterns emerge. Not just one questionable friend, but repeated proximity to corruption, criminality, and abuse, with no distancing, no accountability, and in some cases, open defense of it.
If one of my friends did something corrupt, I’d feel responsible to speak up, create distance, and make it clear where I stand. And if I didn’t, if I kept showing up at coffee shops, or just going to the mall or hanging out with them where we generally go, brushing off their behavior, or defending them publicly, then yeah, people would have reason to question my integrity. Not because of guilt by association, but because silence and consistency eventually become complicity. Know what I mean?
So while due process should be respected, it’s hard to honor it blindly when wealth, status, or connections can seriously tilt the scale. At some point, it’s less about legal outcomes and more about whether we can still call right and wrong by name. If that makes sense.
|
This is crazy how this works. Money and politics can buy your way out of anything. Epstein got canned, but look how long it took to do it. Now Trump is talking about pardoning the chick who was in on the sex trafficking with him. At least I know it’s on the table, based on what she wants in exchange for information the government wants from her.
With BK, they’re saying he has no chance at parole. There was some other caveat though that was said during sentencing, but I forgot what it was. I just remember it being something to do with parole.
Threaded Mode
