“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Evidence does not have to be true in order to be relevant. It could be that the sources I have cited are completely full of shit. They are still evidence, and they are still relevant.
Do you know what actually supports means?
Evidence actually supports a proposition if that evidence, if it is believed, tends to show the truth of that proposition.
Are you really saying that even if it is true that prosecutors who engage in misconduct are as common as baseball players who chew gum, that has no tendency to support my contention?
You understand all of this already. You're just bummed because after all your mocking posts about digging holes, you're the one finding yourself in a very deep pit.
Sometimes it just sucks to be you.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Can anyone possibly doubt that the phrase "the lowest thing that an attorney can possibly become" is a statement of pure opinion?
A statement of absolutely pure opinion.
Apparently your reading skills have gone in the same direction as your intellectual honesty....
I will perform an advanced search both here and at the CSB for quotes with links that will provide the full picture of just what Andrew thinks of prosecutors.
This is an opinion too:
in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it
One pulled from the deepest regions of your sit-upon, but you have presented it as fact.
