Hard to reconcile
Interesting point.
Mitch McConnell is going to have to swear an oath to be impartial.
Now, broadly speaking, it’s bound to be difficult to impossible to make an airtight case that X is not impartial, because we can’t see inside each other’s heads. But if X comes right out and says – on national tv at that – “There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this,” then that’s your airtight case.
Not that I think it will matter. The criminals have seized the engine room and they are never giving it back.
So… could Moscow Mitch be charged with perjury?
Applause, Stewart.
Thank you, but it’s hard to take credit for spotting “the bleeding obvious.”
Yes but it’s the thinking of the perfect illustration for it. Belittle it not!
Well, the first jury I thought of was the one from the Max Davidson comedy “Jewish Prudence,” that was used here (https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944/1336346149717176/?type=3&theater) but then further brainstorming improved things.
Ya, much better.
Off topic…it’s so bizarre that an all-male jury was taken for granted at that late date. 1857 I could understand it but 1957…jeez.
Good point. Was it realism or did Rose just not want to call it “Twelve Angry People of Both Sexes”?
I assume it must have been realism?
Also of course…all white. In NYC.
It’s the realism for which it was most praised back then (though Earl Wilson used the fact that Cobb was wearing the same toupée he’d worn in “On the Waterfront” as an excuse to make a crack about cutting down on overhead…).