Well you sure have theatrics but where is the junk science?
Some how there seem to be a lot of trouble explaining the difference between argument and evidence. In some places there is an expectation that a trial will involve some degree of oration, arm waiving and theatrics. That hardly makes it a lie. It makes it an effective argument of the evidence.
It’s not as if any comments by Senator Edwards happened in a vacuum. It’s not as if there was not a talented, skilled and experienced trial lawyer on the other side of the table who was perfectly capable of calling Mr. Edwards on it if he got out of line, if he made unfair comment on the evidence, if he started arguing stuff that was not in the record. If he was not called on it by his talented, skilled and experienced opponent I can only think that the ARGUMENT was legitimate.
I suppose the response to the above is to say that all those lawyers are in it together and the judges are in cahoots, too. It is a shame that you were not defending, Psycho. I’m sure you would have put things right in a twinkling.
If the best the people who do not want Senator Edwards to be vice-President is to take isolated passages from final arguments, present them out of context and scream that he is a trial lawyer then it is going to be a very ugly three months. This is an appeal to fear, to ignorance, and an abdication of the responsibility to become informed. It is, in short, bullshit.