Skip to main content

What Sort of Dirt Does Jesse Jackson have on Mike Nifong?


It happened early on that District Attorney Mike Nifong knew there was no evidence with which to convict the Duke Lacrosse players of raping a stripper. How did it take so long for the players to be exonerated? I have a theory, but the theory is based on sound historically circumstantial evidence. If anyone can prove my theory false, I will be glad to receive correction, but there is some merit to investigating it, because it involves Jesse Jackson. And Jesse Jackson has a motive.


About a year ago I wrote that the Duke players should never have been in the situation they were in, and they would never have been accused. But neither should they have been railroaded when they clearly were never guilty.

Why would the district attorney continue to press for their guilt when it could do nothing other than make him look like an eventual buffoon?

Here's my theory...

Mike Nifong felt pressure to continue his stance against the Duke lacrosse players. It was clear early on that there was no evidence. A normal district attorney would admit as much. But I can't see any other reason that Mr. Nifong would have acted the way he did, which was clearly abnormal.

Jesse Jackson became embroiled in the case early on, as he often does when he can see that there is a buck to be made and a greater division to be made among the races. He succeeded in his task very well once again.

Jesse Jackson offered to pay the girl's tuition, even if her allegations turned out to be false. He came down squarely on the side of race, at the expense of truth. Which he has done so many times before.

Mr. Jackson accused the accused of acting guilty by hiring lawyers. As if someone wrongly accused (clearly by that time) would simply roll over for him and do their time in the slammer.

And then he had this to say:

But something happened on the night of March 13th – something so compelling that Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong was prompted to say, “This case is not going away”.


That something, I think, was Jesse Jackson. Mike Nifong knew that the case wasn't going to go away because Jesse Jackson's mafia had dug up some kind of dirt on Mike Nifong. It's happened before, and lives of other people have been destroyed by the master race hustler. It's not only conceivable, but logical, to assume that it happened again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...