Jury acquits six inaugural day protesters of all charges.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

None of the six men and women facing felony charges tied to an anti-Trump Inauguration Day protest committed a crime, jurors decided Thursday. 

The six defendants had faced seven charges each. The jury returned 42 separate not-guilty verdicts. 

The charges — conspiracy to riot, engaging in a riot, and five counts of criminal property destruction — came despite the government’s acknowledgement that it has no evidence any of these half-dozen people engaged in violent personal action that day. It was in effect a legal argument they were as guilty as those who had actually smashed a window, because they chose to show up in black and stay with the group as it moved through the city. 

The verdict resolves only the first handful of cases in the sweeping felony prosecutions of black-clad marchers rounded up in downtown Washington, D.C., last January. Hundreds more face similar charges.

This was the beginning of Trump's attempt to America into a police state, and it fell flat on its face.

And the prosecution's overreach was apparent at the very outset.

One defense attorney compared the government’s case here to prosecuting everyone who happened to be wearing the same jersey at a football game because one group of fans in matching garb started a fight. 

“The law makes clear that you can be present while others are rioting, and you don’t have to leave,” Steve McCool, who defended Oliver Harris in the case, said in his closing argument. “Think about where we would be if they could simply call protesters criminals.”

McCool also reminded jurors of evidence of political bias among some key police officers involved both in managing events on Inauguration Day and in investigating the hundreds arrested that afternoon. Key video in the case was provided by James O’Keefe’s notoriously dishonest Project Veritas group, prompting McCool to invoke the specter of right-wing revenge against left-wing anti-Trump protesters.

Oh look, another abject failure by James O'Keefe.

How many is that now? 

So that is one for the 1st Amendment, and zero for Donald Trump's attempt to undermine our constitution.

Now they should just drop the charges against the other protesters and save the taxpayer money to prosecute real criminals.

Men accused of plotting to blow up a mosque in Kansas want to make sure that there are trump voters on the jury.

Courtesy of TPM: 

Three men accused of plotting to bomb a mosque and apartment complex housing Somali refugees asked a federal judge Friday to include prospective jurors from rural western Kansas because they are twice as likely to have voted for President Donald Trump.

A defense motion argues that plans to only summon citizens in the more urban counties closest to the federal courthouse in Wichita is a discriminatory practice that excludes rural and conservative jurors. The trial begins March 19.

Gavin Wright, Patrick Stein and Curtis Allen are charged with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and conspiracy against civil rights for allegedly planning to detonate truck bombs in the meatpacking town of Garden City the day after the November 2016 election. Wright also faces a charge of lying to the FBI. 

The three men, who were indicted in October 2016, have pleaded not guilty.“This case is uniquely political because much of the anticipated evidence will center around, and was in reaction to, the 2016 Presidential election,” defense attorneys wrote. 

They also argued the case will require jurors to weigh whether the alleged conduct constitutes a crime or whether it is constitutionally protected speech and assembly and the right to bear arms.

So to be clear the argument here seems to be that they want Trump voters on the jury because they believe that they are more likely to see a plan to blow up a mosque full of innocent Muslims as not so much an act of terrorism, as a simple use of their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

And the truly troubling part is that they are probably not wrong about how those Trump voters will see this.

P.S. Yes you have read about this case before.

Trial over North Charleston police shooting ends in mistrial.

To be clear the trial for THAT shooting ended in mistrial.

Here is more courtesy of the New York Times:  

The trial of Michael T. Slager, the North Charleston police officer whose videotaped killing of an unarmed black man staggered the nation as it was embroiled in debate about police misconduct and racial biases in law enforcement, ended in a mistrial on Monday. 

Judge Clifton B. Newman’s decision to halt the proceedings came three days after jurors signaled that they were within one vote of returning a guilty verdict against Mr. Slager, who could have been convicted of either murder or voluntary manslaughter for the killing of Walter L. Scott. But jurors also sent conflicting messages on Friday about whether they could break their impasse, setting off a confused legal frenzy. 

On Monday, though, the panel of 11 white people and a black man again sent word that it would not be able to reach a unanimous verdict about Mr. Slager’s conduct, prompting the mistrial ruling.

So hard for a jury to know the right decision in a case like this.

If only there were some video tape that clearly showed the suspect running away when he was shot.

Oh wait......

And as NYT points out there is nothing new about this outcome:

The outcome in the Slager case is similar to the resolutions in other recent trials involving claims of police misconduct. This fall, a jury in Cincinnati deadlocked in the case of a university police officer who fatally shot a motorist who was black and unarmed. Here in South Carolina, juries twice deadlocked when considering charges against a rural police chief who fatally shot an unarmed black man. And in December 2015, the trial of a Baltimore police officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray ended in a mistrial. (After a judge, ruling in bench trials, cleared other Baltimore officers, the prosecutor there dropped all of the criminal cases in the matter of Mr. Gray’s death.)

And people wonder why groups like BLM exist, and why they spend their time protesting in the streets. 

Milwaukee police officers successfully sue gun store after being shot by firearm obtained through a straw purchase.

Courtesy of ABC News: 

A jury in Milwaukee, Wis., has sided today with two police officers in a civil case that claimed a gun store bore some responsibility in the illegal sale of a gun that was later used in their shooting. 

Milwaukee police officer Bryan Norberg and former officer Graham Kunisch were seriously wounded in 2009, when Julius Burton shot both of them in their faces as they were stopping him for riding his bike on the sidewalk. The officers said they were left physically and mentally scarred. Authorities later linked the weapon to Jacob Collins. 

Authorities said Burton, a minor at the time, had paid Collins to illegally purchase the gun for him at Badger Guns in a deal called a straw purchase. 

Burton pleaded guilty to attempted first degree intentional homicide and is in prison. He was also convicted in the illegal gun purchase. Collins served a two-year sentence after pleading guilty to buying a gun for an underage person. 

The jury's verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications.

Man you know this is going to drive the NRA out of their minds.

Which makes it the best news ever.

Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced to death.

Courtesy of Yahoo News:

 A U.S. jury on Friday sentenced Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death for helping carry out the 2013 attack that killed three people and wounded 264 others at the world-renowned race, taking 15 hours to reach a decision. 

The federal jury chose death by lethal injection for Tsarnaev, 21, over its only other option: life in prison without possibility of release. 

The same panel last month found the ethnic Chechen guilty of placing a pair of homemade pressure-cooker bombs at the race's crowded finish line on April 15, 2013, as well as fatally shooting a policeman. The bombing was one of the highest-profile attacks on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. 

Tsarnaev, dressed in a dark sport coat and light-colored shirt stood quietly in court as the sentence was read, maintaining the stoic demeanor he had throughout most of the trial.

As a rule I am against the death penalty, and think in this case it might have been a better punishment for Tsarnaev to have spent the rest of his life behind bars forever regretting the choices he made that night on April 15, 2013. 

However I also understand the desire to see this man share the same fate that he inflicted on those three innocent victims. Not to mention paying for the mutilations of so many others.

 So I guess if I were a member of that jury, and the majority were calling for the death penalty, that I certainly would not have been the one to stand in the way.

Of course Tsarnaev will die relatively peacefully from a lethal injection, the death of his victims, and the suffering of those who survived, was anything but peaceful.

Thoughts?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the only Boston bombing suspect left alive, has been found guilty on all 30 counts.

Tsarnaev during his arrest.

Courtesy of the Boston Herald:  

Confessed murderer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will now be the one pleading for his life after a federal jury took just 11 hours to find him guilty of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and aftermath that left four dead and 260 maimed and injured. 

In a silent courtroom, a clerk read aloud the verdict finding Tsarnaev, 21, guilty of all 30 counts including conspiracy, use of a weapon of mass destruction and the murders of restaurant manager Krystle Marie Campbell, 29, Boston University graduate student Lingzi Lu, 23, and Martin Richard, 8 at the marathon finish line, as well as MIT Police Officer Sean Collier three days later. 

Tsarnaev swayed slightly on his feet, his head down, as the verdict was read and as the forewoman of the jury stared directly at him. He showed no reaction. 

The jury’s work is far from done. As early as next week, the same 12 deliberating jurors will reconvene for the start of Tsarnaev’s sentencing trial, where they will decide if he is to serve out his days behind bars or be ordered put to death.

This is the biggest story of the day, so it seems appropriate that we discuss it here.

I don't think there was ever any doubt that Tsarnaev would be convicted, the defense case that he was under the spell of his older brother simply never seemed viable to me. 

The next question of course is what is the proper punishment for his crimes?

Life in prison?

Or death?

Your thoughts?

And finally some good news for today. Florida man who shot unarmed teenager over loud music found guilty of murder.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

A Florida man was convicted Wednesday in the 2012 fatal shooting of an unarmed teenager amid a dispute over loud rap music blaring from a car. 

Jurors in the racially tinged retrial deliberated for about five hours before finding Michael Dunn guilty of first-degree murder. 

It was the second time that Mr. Dunn, 47, a software developer who claimed self-defense in the death of Jordan Davis, 17, faced a jury. In February, a jury convicted Mr. Dunn of three counts of second-degree attempted murder – one for each of the surviving teenagers in the Dodge Durango — a crime for which he could receive a 60-year prison sentence.

I am sure that many of you remember this case from 2012, and perhaps even remember that Dunn compared himself to a rape victim at one point.

When the first jury could not agree on the first degree murder conviction, and the judge declared a mistrial, I think most of us were confused as to how such a thing could possibly happen.

I find it interesting that the former jury could not come to an agreement on the first degree murder charge, and yet this one only had to deliberate for about five hours before finding him guilty.

Mistrial declared in case of Florida man who shot teen to death over loud music.

Courtesy of NBC News:  

Jurors on Saturday found a white Florida man guilty of three counts of attempted murder and one other charge for the fatal shooting of a black teenager over loud music, but a mistrial was declared on the most-serious charge against the defendant — first-degree murder. 

The jury convicted Michael Dunn, 47, of three counts of attempted murder in the second degree and one count of firing a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle, but deadlocked on the first-degree murder charge, prompting the judge in the case to declare a mistrial on that charge. 

Sentencing on the other charges was set for the week of March 24. Dunn still faces 60 years in prison on the lesser counts. He could face a retrial on the first-degree murder case, which could bring a sentence of life in prison if he was convicted. 

Dunn argued he was acting in self-defense when he shot at an SUV 10 times while parked next to four teens at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station in November 2012. 

The shots killed Jordan Davis, 17, of Marietta, Ga.

What in the hell is the problem?

The man killed this unarmed teenager in cold blood for playing his music too loud.

I can tell you right now, with no equivocation, that if the roles had been reversed that Jourdan Davis would be on his way to prison for first degree murder and that the jury would have had no problem finding him guilty.

They should stop calling is "stand your ground" and start calling it what it really is, "a legal excuse to kill black people."

Other Zimmerman jurors issue statement distancing themselves from juror B37. Good call.

Courtesy of ABC News: 

Four members of the six-woman jury that found George Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin said today they do not share the opinions that a fifth juror in the case expressed in a TV interview. 

A juror identified only by her anonymous court ID of B37 and her face and body hidden in deep shadow said Monday on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, "AC360," that she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" when he became suspicious of Martin and that the teenager probably threw the first punch. 

Four other jurors, identified only by their court numbers -- B-51, B-76, E-6, and E-40 -- tonight released a statement through the Florida Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, distancing themselves from B37's remarks. 

"We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives," they said. "We also wish to point out that the opinions of Juror B-37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below." 

They indicated that reaching the not guilty verdict, which has ignited a storm of criticism and sparked protests in cities across the country, was not an easy decision. 

"Serving on this jury has been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of us," they wrote. "The death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts but in the end we did what the law required us to do. We appeal to the highest standards of your profession and ask the media to respect our privacy and give us time to process what we have been through."

You know the more I think about this case, especially after the revelations from this one big mouth juror that in the first vote during deliberations it was 3 not guilty; 2 manslaughter; 1 second-degree murder, the more I think that there was pressure put on the other half of the jury and that THIS juror in particular knew from the get go that she wanted Zimmerman to get off, and was probably already planning her media blitz and book writing gig.

You know we give a lot of credence to the idea of "a jury of our peers" but think about who those "peers" are for a minute. They are usually twelve, in this case six, people who either could not find a way to get out of jury duty or who want to be jurors. They are usually elderly, and in big cases Luddites who don't watch much television or surf the internet. 

So we put these elderly, unimaginative, uninformed individuals in a room and tell them to determine justice. All it takes is one strong willed juror, who refuses to change their mind, to wear down the rest, who only want to finally go home, and eventually you either get the verdict that the one has wanted all along or you get a hung jury and the process starts all over again.

I heard a prosecutor the other day say that "if you are an innocent person you want a trial in front of a judge, but if you are guilty you want on in front of a jury, because they are unpredictable."

Jury in George Zimmerman trial revealed.

Oh, well now THAT would explain the verdict.

The George Zimmerman verdict. Justice denied for Trayvon Martin. Update!

I have refrained from posting about this trial while it was going on, and believe me I watched ALL of it, because I became too emotional, and knew I would end up writing a long and rambling post that I did not have time to write and you probably did not have time to read.

However now that it is over, ramble I must. Though I will try to keep it as short and on topic as I can.

You know I thought I was prepared for last night's verdict. But I was wrong.

It hit me hard, and also made me furious.

From the outset I found nothing defensible about Zimmerman's actions.

His muttered "These assholes always get away" was evidence of racial profiling in my opinion.

The fact that he left his vehicle in defiance of instruction, determined his intent to confront in my opinion.

And his use of a gun to end an altercation with a teenage boy determined his guilt in my opinion.

Open and shut case right?

 Nope.

Zimmerman jury asking about manslaughter instructions. Update!

BREAKING: The jury question is related to the jury instructions on manslaughter. #trayvonmatin #georgezimmerman
— Jonathan Capehart (@CapehartJ) July 13, 2013

This is breaking news right now, I will update as information comes in.

Update: There is a verdict in and we should know what it is in about fifteen minutes.

Somewhere there are Fox News reporters hoping to report on race riots.

The verdict is not guilty.

Fucking unbelievable!

Convicted domestic terrorist Schaeffer Cox fires attorney and blames him for not fooling the jury into believing that he was not guilty, guilty, guilty.

Courtesy of Alaska Dispatch:

Attorney Nelson Traverso filed a motion with the court Monday asking to withdraw from the case, stating his client was extremely unhappy with the job he'd performed. No aspect of Traverso's role in Cox’s defense was up to par, according to the motion. Cox was found guilty on the most serious charge, conspiracy to commit murder, and he faces up to life in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for September. 

According to Traverso, Cox complained about how Traverso presented the case, conducted direct and cross examinations during trial, used exhibits, decided which witnesses to call and what arguments to make. In a move not usual for defendants who fail to beat the rap, Cox now claims he received "ineffective assistance of counsel" -- a legal term referring to whether Cox's constitutionally-mandated right to competent legal representation was met. The standard has two prongs: was the attorney competent, and if not, was the attorney's poor work directly responsible for the trial's outcome? 

Such claims are difficult to prove, and rarely successful. 

During the verdicts, Cox reacted with disbelief as the guilty verdicts piled up. "The prosecution withheld evidence from you guys," he at one point shouted to the jury. He took his own notes throughout the trial, and could be seen whispering -- sometimes with looks of anger and dissatisfaction -- into his attorney's ear. 

I agree, I also think that Cox had poor representation, I mean whose stupid idea was it to put Shaeffer himself on the stand?

Oh right, it was HIS idea! 

You know as much as I enjoy watching Schaeffer Cox crying like a little prison bitch on the witness stand, I would suggest that he stop while he is behind. We don't have the death penalty in Alaska, but if Cox manages to get a retrial (Which of course he won't), and decided to represent himself yet again, he just might screw it up badly enough for Alaska to reestablish one for the first time since 1957.

It is time the little jerk recognized the fact that he was only a legend in his own mind, and that, in the words of Bobby Fuller, he "fought the law, and the law won."

Alaska Militia trial now in the hands of the jury.

Coleman Barney, Francis "Schaeffer" Cox, and Lonnie Vernon.

I think this might be the most important part of the prosecutions case, courtesy of the Fairbanks Newsminer:

The most serious charge is the conspiracy to murder charge, and in jury instructions that took more than an hour to read Wednesday, jurors were told that to convict, they must determine the men committed an overt act as part of the conspiracy. 

Prosecutors said there were several. The one most frequently discussed at the trial was the “security detail” assigned to protect Cox in North Pole. 

Cox feared he was the target of a Colorado-based hit squad, and militia members conducted two meetings about what they planned to do if plainclothes men appeared at the station and started shooting. They came up with a plan for a nine-member security detail but could find only five willing to take part. 

Vernon, Skrocki said, showed up with a helmet, body armor and an assault rifle. Barney wore body armor and carried an assault rifle equipped with a launcher with an anti-personnel shell. That constituted a plan to kill federal officers, Skrocki said, even though the government acknowledges that no FBI hit squad exists. 

The defendants also compiled names and addresses in a database held by an unindicted co-conspirator, Michael Anderson. Prosecutors likened the database to an enemies list or a hit list. Anderson, an associate of Cox but not a militia member, eventually destroyed the computer and hard drive on which it was compiled. 

Skrocki told jurors that what they heard from defense lawyers in closing arguments was a lot of excuses and attacks on government informants. By asking militia members to accompany him to the North Pole television interview, and telling them they had to be ready to kill, Cox was recruiting a hit squad ready to kill federal officials, Skrocki said. 

Now I haven't heard all of the evidence presented at trial (Though to be honest I may actually have heard more from my sources than the jury heard from the prosecution.), however it would seem to me that there is ample evidence to put these yahoos away for quite a ling time.

And I have every confidence that they will soon be seeing the world through iron bars.

I happened to peruse the comments section below this Newsminer article, and found that Norm Olson, the godfather of the Alaska militias, was back to shooting his mouth off after having laid low for awhile directly after the arrests.

normolson 

Riddle me this: 

How can the threat to kill be a crime if there is no one to kill? 

If I say that I am stockpiling long range rifles to use against alien spacecraft once they enter the atmosphere, is that a crime? If I say that I am stockpiling and training to kill as many Chinese invaders as possible, is that a crime? If I threaten to kill 200 pound flesh-eating blue parrots that are coming from zombie villages in Brazil, is that a crime? If I stalk the woods, hunting for zombies to kill, is it a crime to openly threaten either the aliens, Chinese, parrots, or zombies? 

 Comeon' folks, put your logic to work... 

On the one hand Olson's logic is flawed if he does not understand that armed men working as "security" for a raving lunatic, and who have been instructed to fight to the death against law enforcement, does not present a danger to the police officers, State Troopers, and yes even average Alaskan citizens.

On the other hand it is nice to know that Olson is prepared to defend Alaska from an attack of flesh eating parrots and alien spacecraft.  I know I'll certainly sleep better.

What a camo covered dipshit.

Schaeffer Cox takes the stand in the hopes of demonstrating to the court that he is essentially harmless. I think he may have demonstrated something else entirely.

As I mentioned on Monday, Schaeffer Cox is now serving as his own co-counsel and has, in his infinite legal wisdom, decided to put his best character witness on the stand. Himself.

Now there is probably no sweeter sound in the word to Francis "Schaeffer" Cox than the sound of his own voice (They do not call him "the preacher" for nothing.), and you can see that for yourself by visiting You Tube and watching video after video of the domestic terrorist wannabe demonstrating a seemingly affable, if perhaps kooky, personality, while openly discussing "standing up to the Federal government."

Cox clearly has a great deal of confidence in his persuasive capabilities. (After all didn't he talk this rag tag group of idiots to help him plan to kidnap and kill law enforcement in Alaska?)

So having sat in relative silence for a week, Cox was anxious to explain away all of this silly nonsense about him being a dangerous person in front of the courtroom. I don't think it went the way the thinks it went.

This from Alaska Dispatch:

On Tuesday Cox blamed everybody but himself for his predicament, in which he faces a possible life sentence if convicted of the most serious charges. 

He told the court he believed he was the target of twin murder plots. He thought a man now known to be a government informant would kill him if Cox didn't instigate violent conflict. And he believed that federal agents had sent an out-of-state hit squad to Alaska to murder his family, a government plot to end Cox's outspoken ways. He believed government feared his rising influence and would go to any lengths to stop him. (In fact there was NO plot to murder Cox.  A fact that should be obvious to all except those suffering severe anti-government paranoia. Which indeed MOST 2nd Amendment quoting sovereign citizens types suffer from.)

Schaeffer Cox with his fellow Alaska Peacekeepers militia members.

He'd had a brush with the Office of Children's Services, brought about by a domestic violence incident he had with his wife. As a result of the case, the child welfare agency was required to make sure Cox's young son was safe in the home. Cox believed it was a ruse to get him to use force to prevent anyone from taking his child, thus sparking the conflict federal agents needed as an excuse to kill him. Cox took steps to protect himself. He wore body armor. He carried a gun. He traveled with an armed security detail at the ready. He didn't want a shootout, but he was ready for the fight if he found himself in the middle of one. (The Office of Children's Services employees do NOT carry weapons and are certainly not going to engage a parent in a shootout, especially since their focus is protecting the safety of a young child. I cannot imagine the jurors not being horrified to hear Cox's response to their concern for his son's well being.)

"There were U.S. Marshals that were trying to corner me and my wife into a shootout to fix the 'Schaeffer Cox problem,' and using my son to do it," he told jurors, explaining that the scenario was his "greatest fear."  (And the theme continues.)

But Cox was also facing, he said, life and death pressure to instigate the very violence he claimed an aversion to. Bill Fulton, a weapons dealer from Anchorage, who was later found out to be one of the government's paid informants, pushed Cox hard to lash out at the government in retaliation for any effort by state officials to go after his toddler-aged son, Cox said. 

In one breath, Cox boasted and bragged about his gun-toting force of militia members. In another, he espoused the ethics of non-violence. He wanted, he claimed, to be more like Ghandi than Rambo. But with Fulton in his face, a Ghandi-like approach could prove his undoing. 

"I was instilled with a very real fear that if I kept trying to pull a Ghandi, Bill Fulton would kill me, blame it on the feds and try to start a war," Cox said on the stand Tuesday. (I have a feeling that Cox compares himself to Ghandi simply because that is the most peaceful character he can conjure up, with apparently no understanding of Ghandi's absolute insistence on non-violent responses to aggression.)

Cox often speaks in extremes, something he's done when addressing judges and state troopers alike. He told a state court judge people would rather kill her in her bed at night than quibble with her in court, and he once told a state trooper he could have law enforcement "outmanned and outgunned." 

These were threats, investigators and prosecutors suggest. Cox answers that they were merely a "communication technique," a tactic of saying something shocking to get people off balance and "pull them out of their comfort zone and into a new frame of thought." After making a statement about his available force, or some impending conflict, Cox generally follows up with a line about how he doesn't want that to happen, about how it's preventable if both sides work toward peace. (So in the mind of Schaeffer Cox threatening judges and law enforcement with a violent response or murder is simply his way of opening a dialogue?)

There's more but I think you probably get the drift.

I have to imagine that THIS is why Schaeffer's legal team kept him off of the stand.  They had to have realized that he was suffering from severe paranoia and that having him on the stand would certainly NOT convince a jury that he was harmless, but would in fact have quite the opposite affect.

I think this testimony has probably had a chilling effect on the jury, and would not at all be surprised that they want to make sure this guy stays caged up for as long as possible.

The interesting thing is that Cox's entire defense was predicated on the idea that the plans to kidnap judges and engage law enforcement in a firefight were REALLY coming from the FBI informants, even claiming that he was "held hostage in Alaska" and was unable to leave because one the the informants would not provide transportation out of the state, and that HE was the one trying to calm everybody down and take the path of a peaceful outcome (You know, like Ghandi.)

That is a hard case to make once you admit to wearing bulletproof vests while visiting with OCS employees and having armed security accompany you everywhere, and then suggesting that you made violent threats against law enforcement in order to "pull them put of their comfort zone."

Well I have to imagine that hearing this kind of testimony has pulled the jury out of their comfort zone as well, and that Cox is possibly looking at a very uncomfortable couple of decades of his own.

And the truly troubling aspect of all of this is that lunatics with a very similar mindset to Schaeffer Cox are now in charge of the Republican party in Alaska. I worry that our troubles may just now be starting here in the Last Frontier.