I'd disagree with that assertion: There's no proof they did it during the Super Bowl runs; other teams were very likely also guilty; and for goodness' sake, why wouldn't opposing teams change their signals for each game anyway?
Howard Dean, responding in an interview published in The Concord Monitor about whether Osama bin Laden should be put to death, said, "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials".
Then why didn't he ask the tough questions, why did he just vote for the war?" In Dr. Dean's latest bit of trouble, a New Hampshire newspaper, The Concord Monitor, quoted him on Friday as saying, "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials".
It is somewhat unpalatable that the same treaty will very likely not allow US personnel guilty of war crimes to be extradited to the UK.
In his summing up, Judge Channell commented that the acts of the defendant in hiding the gun and fleeing Eastbourne "were acts which a guilty man would be very likely to do".
And very likely in most cases, they frame people who are guilty.
From the start of the trial, I thought it very likely he would take the lead in pushing for a guilty verdict, if not a hanging.
You can't tell me that on some very visceral level Shriver did not know of or at the very least suspect the sort of lewd behavior of which Arnold was likely guilty.
I'd like to say up front that I've been guilty of saying every one of these, and that I'm very likely to reoffend.
