Comments by "B Bodziak" (@B_Bodziak) on "VICE News" channel.

  1.  @abdiali6820  Him being 15yo at the time is the only thing that gives me pause about him.
    63
  2.  @sharktv3000  I had to rewind to make sure I heard correctly.
    23
  3. I do not think this is a case about being "a bigger person". She did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong. She does not need to be a bigger person in this situation because there is no such thing as a victim being a "bigger person"
    19
  4. Child molesters are almost impossible to "cure"
    17
  5. The first guy who was 15yo and found guilty of performing oral sex on penetrating an adult female with his fingers seems like his situation is a bit harsh for his crime. However, that may be b/c I'm having a harder time accepting if the adult woman was actually forced given he was a child at the time and she was not. Something about this isn't sitting right to me, at least. EDIT: Nevermind. I got further in the video and just heard the victim's side.
    8
  6. Perhaps, the option of ongoing chemical castration would be a solution. If the felon submits to chemical castration, then many of the requirements could be removed. No castration, full restrictions. It's used in other countries as an actual requirement for release.
    3
  7.  @marioowens798  Yes, even though laws have been passed, federal laws at that, to criminalize this procedure with mandatory prison time.
    3
  8. I would hope OB/GYNs are now taught this. I do hope that since this was filmed, there are now more than half a dozen surgeons doing this procedure worldwide.
    2
  9. Almost all criminal defense attorneys take clients they believe are guilty. If there are any that only accept clients they believe to be innocent, they don't have many clients. A defense attorney's job is to make sure a client receives a fair trial based upon the law and courtroom procedures and to ensure the defendant is afforded every legal opportunity available to them.
    2
  10. I would imagine that if he's ever concerned, he simply requires a larger retainer -- the respectable attorney trump tried to hire a few months ago required a $3 million advance retainer before agreeing to rep trump. I guess trump didn't pay it because he doesn't rep Trump on any case.
    2
  11. Attorneys do real estate closings. There are great attorneys who are not great courtroom litigators.
    1
  12. Prosecutors, district attorneys and public defenders sure aren't loyal to money. They'd be in private practice if they were.
    1
  13. For child molesters, it's about the desire.
    1
  14.  @noah1322  Yet, Lauren Boebert's spouse exposed himself to minors (girls) at a bowling alley and was convicted. He never went to prison and does not have to register. I'd say that's worse than urinating in the bushes!
    1
  15.  @LAGOMC44  Well, 11% of those on Texas death row, including those already executed, were later proven to be innocent of the crime that sent them there. However, all were convicted of murder
    1
  16.  @100KENTERTAINMENT  He's not dissing the attorney. He saying trump is obviously guilty.
    1
  17.  @johndildo8786  What? You realize the foreperson was on a special grand jury that did not have indictment powers, right? Willis still has to present the evidence to a regular session grand jury with all new jurors that can indict. You don't seem very informed, but I guess that's why you believe he's innocent when you don't even know what crimes he might be charged with doing. Wow.
    1
  18.  @pho-King  Fingers crossed
    1
  19. There are actually 3 recorded calls to Raffensberger. Trump was very careful about what he said. He always closely dances around what he wants someone to do if it's illegal just like Michael Cohen and others have stated. It won't be the phone call that convicts him. He was careful to say "I just want to find 11,780 votes" instead of "change 11k votes or create 11k votes". What will convict him? It will be the testimony of the 30+ others from his inner circle about what was happening behind the scenes. Jurors cannot use what they've seen and heard about what a defendant has done that's not related to the case they're hearing, and it wouldn't be hard to break down the phone call to show he never ordered Raffensberger to commit election fraud. Even proving trump was trying to intimidate Raffensberger by saying Raffensberger could face criminal charges can be difficult since Raffensberger experienced no actual consequences after standing up to Trump. What will get him convicted is if it's shown that Trump 100% knew the Georgia results were already accurate when he made the call and also sent mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham & others to Georgia by Trump. Proving he knew the election results were accurate before he agreed to the fake electors scheme will also prove he attempted to interfere with Georgia's election results. I think he'll be indicted in Georgia and will be convicted -- IF the new Georgia law isn't used to pull Willis off the case and shut down the case. If that happens, I hope the DOJ sues the Georgia legislature for being unconstitutional and violation of the separation of powers.
    1
  20.  @JamesWilliams-jf3hd  Don't forget he lost the GOP their Senate majority and even in 2016, he lost the popular vote. Trump has never won an actual election that wasn't a primary.
    1
  21. ​@1337Swiper It's opium
    1
  22. Trump can keep him busy for decades.
    1
  23. I think you mean "guilt"
    1
  24. There are actually 3 recorded calls to Raffensberger. Trump was very careful about what he said. He always closely dances around what he wants someone to do if it's illegal just like Michael Cohen and others have stated. It won't be the phone call that convicts him. He was careful to say "I just want to find 11,780 votes" instead of "change 11k votes or create 11k votes". What will convict him? It will be the testimony of the 30+ others from his inner circle about what was happening behind the scenes. Jurors cannot use what they've seen and heard about what a defendant has done that's not related to the case they're hearing, and it wouldn't be hard to break down the phone call to show he never ordered Raffensberger to commit election fraud. Even proving trump was trying to intimidate Raffensberger by saying Raffensberger could face criminal charges can be difficult since Raffensberger experienced no actual consequences after standing up to Trump. What will get him convicted is if it's shown that Trump 100% knew the Georgia results were already accurate when he made the call and also sent mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham & others to Georgia by Trump. Proving he knew the election results were accurate before he agreed to the fake electors scheme will also prove he attempted to interfere with Georgia's election results. I think he'll be indicted in Georgia and will be convicted -- IF the new Georgia law isn't used to pull Willis off the case and shut down the case. If that happens, I hope the DOJ sues the Georgia legislature for being unconstitutional and violation of the separation of powers.
    1