Human trafficking case against Saudi princess dropped

[ttwtt78640]

Money must have changed hands here. No better than a kangaroo court.

And this in a state that ignores illegal immigration and federal drug laws. Perhaps selective law enforcement is not always such a good thing after all.

 

[Excon]

But you don't reply..you don't give your view...just keep quoting ''Saudi princess found innocent'' and rejoicing..

Anything else is de-railing the thread according to you..

Wtf?
I did give my view and there was no rejoicing. So typical that you would twist that.

And everything else you had to say was derailing from the topic.
If you want to discuss those things, you can start a topic to do so. Or do you feel prevented from doing so?

But this one was about charges being dropped because there was no crime to begin with.

"The evidence indicates very strongly at this point that the (domestic servant) was not actually the victim of human trafficking, and so this case had to be dismissed,"

evidence very strongly indicates
was not actually the victim of human trafficking
so case had to be dismissed

That is easy to understand. So why don't you?

 

[Ikari]

She got away with it scot-free. Human trafficking case against Saudi princess dropped - CNN.com

Rich people rarely face proper punishment and justice.

 

[herenow1]

She got away with it b/c there was no abuse or torture involved.

 

[Excon]

She got away with it b/c there was no abuse or torture involved.

She didn't get away with anything, as there was nothing to get away with.

Did you not read the article?

"The evidence indicates very strongly at this point that the (domestic servant) was not actually the victim of human trafficking, and so this case had to be dismissed,"

Rich people rarely face proper punishment and justice.

:doh

 

[RDS]

She didn't get away with anything, as there was nothing to get away with.

Did you not read the article?

​

:doh

You believe whatever the article says?

 

[Excon]

You believe whatever the article says?

I have no reason not to believe what the article quotes the prosecutor saying.

 

[RDS]

I have no reason not to believe what the article quotes the prosecutor saying.

Do you believe a judge let alone the prosecutor? US judge tells Sikh man called 'terrorist' by transport officials to remove 'rag' from head - World - DNA

 

[Excon]

Do you believe a judge let alone the prosecutor? US judge tells Sikh man called 'terrorist' by transport officials to remove 'rag' from head - World - DNA

Does that have anything to do with this woman having charges dropped because no crime exists?

What was that?
It doesn't?
Next.


Stop trying to confuse two separate and distinct issues. :naughty

 

[RDS]

Does that have anything to do with this woman having charges dropped because no crime exists?

What was that?
It doesn't?
Next.


Stop trying to confuse two separate and distinct issues. :naughty

The whole point is the courts can be dead wrong.

 

[Excon]

The whole point is the courts can be dead wrong.

:doh
Not by using the example you have.
In this topic, the charges were dropped because no crime exists.
Period. That has nothing to do with the Court, but with the prosecutor.
And the Judge's impropriety in the other irrelevant case has nothing to do with whether a crime was committed or not.

You might want to try and recognize these things.

 

[RDS]

:doh
Not by using the example you have.
In this topic, the charges were dropped because no crime exists.
Period. That has nothing to do with the Court, but with the prosecutor.
And the Judge's impropriety in the other irrelevant case has nothing to do with whether a crime was committed or not.

You might want to try and recognize these things.

Read my posts concerning this thread.

 

[Excon]

Read my posts concerning this thread.

I have no need to.
This discussion is here and now and about this case. Not some other irrelevant bs.
You are the one who quoted my reply to another. Within these bounds your argument is a failure.
The other incident has absolutely nothing to do with this case. It is irrelevant.

In this case, the charges were dropped, as no crime exists.
Next.

 

[RDS]

I have no need to.
This discussion is here and now and about this case. Not some other irrelevant bs.
You are the one who quoted my reply to another. Within these bounds your argument is a failure.
The other incident has absolutely nothing to do with this case. It is irrelevant.

In this case, the charges were dropped, as no crime exists.
Next.

No crime exists for oil, war is not a crime too.

 

[Excon]

No crime exists for oil, war is not a crime too.

Wtf?
:doh
You have a problem with staying withing the confines of the topic, don't you?

 

[RDS]

Wtf?
:doh
You have a problem with staying withing the confines of the topic, don't you?

Oil and an ally permeates all.

 

[Excon]

Oil and an ally permeates all.

:doh
You really have a problem with staying withing the confines of the topic, don't you?

We're done.

 

[Ikari]

She didn't get away with anything, as there was nothing to get away with.

Did you not read the article?

​

:doh

Certainly what the DOJ is saying. Of course, if they wanted to drop it to avoid prosecution of a richer and avoid any possible political complications for a pseudo ally, that is exactly the claim they'd make.

 

[Excon]

Certainly what the DOJ is saying. Of course, if they wanted to drop it to avoid prosecution of a richer and avoid any possible political complications for a pseudo ally, that is exactly the claim they'd make.

But their is no evidence to support your hypothetical in this instance.
To suggest otherwise, is ridiculous.

 

[Ikari]

But their is no evidence to support your hypothetical in this instance.
To suggest otherwise, is ridiculous.

And all we have from the government is a statement that there wasn't enough information. We've bent over backwards to protect the Saudi's before, it's not unreasonable to state we'd do so again to avoid a big political showdown. In the end, we don't really know either way; but defending a Saudi Princess is not outside the norm of our government.

 

[Excon]

And all we have from the government is a statement that there wasn't enough information. We've bent over backwards to protect the Saudi's before, it's not unreasonable to state we'd do so again to avoid a big political showdown. In the end, we don't really know either way; but defending a Saudi Princess is not outside the norm of our government.

Utter nonsense.
You are using a ridiculous and generalized statement about our Fed Gov and applying it to that of the State Gov.
The two entity are not the same.

In the end we do know that there was no crime committed.
The prosecutor told us. There is no logical reason to doubt it.
Nor is there reason to suspect influence. There is no information that suggests any such thing.

 

[Ikari]

Utter nonsense.
You are using a ridiculous and generalized statement about our Fed Gov and applying it to that of the State Gov.
The two entity are not the same.

In the end we do know that there was no crime committed.
The prosecutor told us. There is no logical reason to doubt it.
Nor is there reason to suspect influence. There is no information that suggests any such thing.

They are different, but if the DOJ wants something dismissed, they can get it dismissed. Human trafficking is a huge problem, this Saudi Princess was doing it, the claim is that we didn't gather enough to prove it. Whether or not that is true isn't known, all we have is a government statement saying it is. But it's not like government has a strong track record with telling the truth. So who knows, I just don't buy their story hook, line, and sinker right off the bat.

 

[Excon]

They are different, but if the DOJ wants something dismissed, they can get it dismissed. Human trafficking is a huge problem, this Saudi Princess was doing it, the claim is that we didn't gather enough to prove it. Whether or not that is true isn't known, all we have is a government statement saying it is. But it's not like government has a strong track record with telling the truth. So who knows, I just don't buy their story hook, line, and sinker right off the bat.

There you go again with that speculative bs.

There is no reason and no evidence to suggest or suspect, otherwise.

It is nonsense to do so.

 

[Ikari]

There you go again with that speculative bs.

There is no reason and no evidence to suggest or suspect, otherwise.

It is nonsense to do so.

There is reason given our country's desire to protect SA from everything. We've done it before, there's no reason to believe we wouldn't still do it. It's not nonsense to doubt this, it's called skepticism. With the huge problem of human trafficking and the demographics of who typically engages in it vs. how many and who are punished for it, there's no large leap to understand the protectionism surrounding the elite class; it's even more so when royalty is involved.

Prosecution of this Princess would have opened up a can of worms, it's best if there "isn't enough evidence". I didn't say it was false, I just said I don't buy it hook, line, and sinker. Not with our demonstrated past with protecting not just the rich but our high political buddies as well.

 

[Excon]

There is reason given our country's desire to protect SA from everything. We've done it before, there's no reason to believe we wouldn't still do it. It's not nonsense to doubt this, it's called skepticism. With the huge problem of human trafficking and the demographics of who typically engages in it vs. how many and who are punished for it, there's no large leap to understand the protectionism surrounding the elite class; it's even more so when royalty is involved.

Prosecution of this Princess would have opened up a can of worms, it's best if there "isn't enough evidence". I didn't say it was false, I just said I don't buy it hook, line, and sinker. Not with our demonstrated past with protecting not just the rich but our high political buddies as well.

More speculative nonsense.

There is no reason or evidence to suspect any such thing occurred here. None!
It is illogical to speculate, especially when you apply what you suspect of one government (the Fed), to another government (the State).
None.