Infinity_Wasted

I would vote for him. I really would. and not just because he's the host of my favourite news program and a damn good comedian; no, it's because he's the only one who appears to have the sheer testicular fortitude to openly- and logically- challenge the current political attitude in the USA.

related anecdote: I stopped by an Amish community while I was driving through Pennsylvania a few weeks ago, in the town center. even though I was driving a car, using a cell phone, and was quite literally an affront to almost everything they believe in, they were very nice to me, and the lady behind the counter even let me off when I was a $1.20 short on my purchase.

curious: what kind of evidence was submitted by the prosecution? wouldn't the burden of proof be on them? how can be it be allowed that you were convicted on circumstantial evidence, since you're supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty".

how do you think the Jury perceived you? I've read that both judge and jury are more likely to move to acquit especially charismatic people.. Jury perception is one reason why some legal scholars think that the idea of "Professional Jurors" sitting among the jury might not be a bad idea.

serious question: would the host still accept any of those answers, even if it's not a typical response?