Jay Klingman nunes at NORTHLINK.COM
Tue Jan 18 09:21:43 MST 2000

I agree and I live here now.  Jay

> From: Jim Nantz <98564 at EF.GC.MARICOPA.EDU>
> Subject: Symington
> Date: Thursday, September 04, 1997 2:50 PM
> Here's a little more info on why I think that the Federales wanted to get
> Symington.
> He proved the validity of Reagan's argument that if you cut taxes and get
> government out of the way the situation of the people will improve.  In
> each of the last four years Symington pushed through income tax cuts and
> worked to remove unnecessary regulations.  He also established a state
> funded agency called the constitutional defense council which he set up
> challenge the Federales when they violate the 10th ammendment.  In other
> words he kept his campaign promises and refused to bend over and lube up
> for Bubba.  Bubba took offence to this attitude and was ticked off when
> Tucker was removed from office and decided to use Symington as an example
> for the other governors who got it into their head to stand up to the
> Federales when they're wrong.  Another thing, the stuff Symington was
> accused of doing happened between 7 and 10 years ago.  Charles Keating
> convicted for crimes that happened during that time frame.  If what
> Symington did was so terrible then why did they wait almost 10 years to
> after him?
> Here's another point that got little if any attention in the national
> media.  One of the jurors was kicked off the jury.  She did not think
> Symington was guilty of anything and she stuck to this when the jury was
> deliberating.  The other jurors complained to the judge that she was not
> cooperating and the judge had her removed.  It was later found out that
> while deliberating the jurors were talking about issues that the judge
> them to ignore and that the lady who was kicked off the jury complained
> about this.
> I smell something fishy here.  The jurors are violating the judge's
> a juror complains about it and she's kicked off the jury.  Previously in
> the trial the judge appeared to be trying to make sure that the Governor
> was being given a fair trial.  Here's a theory I came up with:
> The judge knew from the beginning that the Governor was being screwed.
> During the trial he made every effort to make sure that Symington got a
> fair trial.  While the jury was deliberating and this issue came up with
> the juror he tried something new to help Symington.  Remove a juror who
> should not be removed and don't grant a mistrial when it's discovered
> the jury was discussing issues the judge told them to ignore.  This makes
> it easier for Symington's defence when they appeal because there will be
> many mistakes in the trial they can point to.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list