You couldn’t even prove the White House staff sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ed Meese
On the Hinckley verdict regarding the shooting of President Regan.
[I should have posted this on March 30, the 30 year anniversary of the shooting, but I forgot about it.
While there is a great deal of hyperbole in this quote it does have a grain of truth.—Joe]
I see. When it suits your biased purpose, all standards of discernment are cast aside for a totally subjective pronouncement like, not “sane beyond a reasonable doubt.” Which are the criteria for a judgment like that? Is it comprised of only hyperbole (90%) and a grain (10%) of truth? Or is it really totally made-up nonsense just waiting for someone like you to give it that little “grain” of legitimacy?