Most did know that Hillary was guilty, but was let off (connections! and future!), part of the in-crowd, the PC-Klan.

I’m hoping Trump will push Barr to indict more of the Dem criminals, with further investigations following the IG notes. The IG did not claim criminal intent, yet there were criminal actions.

Trump mentioned that he could not do much while Mueller was investigating, because most actions could be interpreted as “obstruction of justice”. I’m certainly now one of those who are “out for blood” of the all the deep state criminals.

Another rumor is that Mueller was a set-up against the deep state, giving them the ropes to hang themselves. I give this only a 10% chance, but that’s higher than I thought for Trump being brought up on collusion. Tho I feared there were other skeletons that would be found out.

Were the Dems really afraid that Trump was with the Russians, or were they just attacking Trump?
a) they were afraid — so now they’re happy to hear NO Trump collusion
b) they just wanted to attack – so now they’re sad to hear NO Trump collusion.

This reaction is not “demeanor”, but it’s an indication of actual reasons to be supporting the witch hunt.

He is a creep. Plus, of course, a serial plagiarizer.

No one can find where that law or ruling is supposed to be. It’s an unfounded rumor from 1782.

By the way Neo, you as a lawyer have an opportunity to dismantle that great legal scholar Joe Biden. As part of his imaginary history he cannot even get the name of the ostensibly relevant court right.

Old Joe:

” … back in the late 1300s, so many women were dying at the hands of her husbands because they were chattel, just like the cattle or the sheep, that the Court of Common Law decided they had to do something about the extent of the deaths. So, you know what they said? No man has a right to chastise his woman with a rod thicker than the circumference of his thumb. This is English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture.”

Yeah? Except the court he is attempting to reference in his fable was called “Common Pleas”; and one of the the most notable things about that period of English legal history was the statutory mandate that the English language be henceforth used in English law courts, instead of French. That latter, was so the parties to the actions could actually understand what was being said.

As for the rulings of the Common Pleas courts of the late 14th century, although I am no expert in that period and my studies date back to a generation ago, I recall no principle of even Norman-French law in England that made a wife chattel to be legally killed or disposed of at will.

And certainly, English sensibilities and English domestic related laws prior to the Norman Conquest were in some ways very much more liberal and enlightened than those rooted in feudal conceptions.

From a not particularly enthusiastic survey, which still admits that ….

http://www.earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk/reference/essays/women-and-law/