A Few Good…

By Ron Signore

One of my favorite movies is A Few Good Men, starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. For some reason, law always intrigued me. The law isn’t always fair. We all know that, like life, the ball doesn’t always bounce favorably to us.

In the movie, there are some very clear, and to some obvious, lines that really stick with me through life in general. However, I can’t find a more applicable time in my life to really believe in those lines.

Currently, the courts are at the center of many peoples attention. One side is following intently to get a resolution to a problem that we can see in the real world. The other side is defending absurdities in conspiracy theories, so no matter the outcome, there will continue to be problems.

We have seen it more and more over the last eight years. Relationships fractured over the different way to see this current Civil War we are experiencing. I can say it until I am blue in the face, it is reality versus conspiracy…free thinking versus MAGA sheep.

What A Few Good Men instilled in me really aligns to this whole legal saga with Cheeto Boy. The first obvious line is famously “…You can’t handle the truth.” Sometimes this is a good thing. While we would always hope for transparency, matter concerning national security, or the reality of some situations where ignorance is bliss. However, in this case, the truth continues to be denied, and proving it in a court of law will never change these people’s minds. A majority of this is ignorance, and a lack of education around how government operates, and the laws provided to the land. In other cases, right, wrong, or indifferent, its seeing something legitimate from a different view.

The latter may be around policy and ideological topics. Those hot button issues will always have multiple views on what is right. A majority of the time, it is supporting evidence outside of independent experience. Roe V Wade is an obvious one. The topic on abortion has two views. Either the woman should have the choice in how to treat their body; or the act should be illegal by way of associating the murder of an unborn child. The key differentiator anymore exercises an argument surrounded by legal points, or in a majority of the time, opposing with matters of religious views. Yea, I am Pro Choice. I have my reasons beyond a woman should be able to choose.

However, no matter how wrong I believe the other side to be, I am not going to change their mind. They wouldn’t be able to handle the truth of the difference between legal and religious. Faith takes over, and a blind devotion ensues.

Right now, I am in a discussion with someone on the misconduct scenario facing Fulton County DA, Fani Willis. I am not trying to plead my case with the audience, but my stance is that after observing the two days of coverage on CSPAN of testimonies being delivered, that I really couldn’t see a definitive act of misconduct. Willis’ testimony was direct, and hostile. Wade’s testimony was very general. Kind of high level, and to credit Fani with this description, lacks distinct details. For example, she said their relationship ended in August or so in 2022, but she defines that as when the discussion to end the romance happened. His position was that it was sometime in summer of 2022. But it was Fani making the stereotypical gesture that we as men may consider the end when relations seized.

Then we saw Wade’s former business partner, and ex-divorce attorney, Terrence Bradley provide what was one of the most frustrating testimonies I have ever observed. His testimony was so frustrating to watch. Not because he provided a testimony that could go against Wade and Willis, but because he gives off the perception of wondering to how he could be a lawyer and seem so unaware of law? Then I looked at some of his reviews, then it made sense. What frustrates me most is HIS misstep of breaking attorney/client privilege. He shared information with the defense that never should have been revealed. Ethically, it is dishonorable.

With every testimony I heard, with information I have seen up until now, I am trying to take a legal approach to this. I am not a lawyer, but in this instance, I am referring to going beyond calling for a specific verdict based on what side I am on. I am against corrupt politicians, and this may be an extremely hypocritical argument for Chump’s team to call out someone else’s misconduct.

My review after those two days really made me question what this proceeding really was. What are we really trying to find? She gave the Lead Prosecutor job to Wade because they were romantically involved? That she used county funds in that personal relationship? I really had a hard time figuring that out because testimonies were all over. They went on trips; she paid her way is what I heard. With her money. Wade was not her first choice for this position. There is some hearsay on some things that conflict with specific details, but ultimately, I did not get the notion of a smoking gun to any of those elements. In fact, it seemed more like a witch hunt than providing evidence of distinct misconduct. The part that got to me was how there is blame for trying to keep their romance a secret. From my view, it was out of professionalism to keep that out of the office. I am not sure anyone on the prosecution’s side has called for any wrongdoing, and this arguably could be nepotism.

First, I would have to ask if Fani Willis willing to jeopardize this whole case, the whole reason Wade is part of the prosecution, is because there is a belief that he can prosecute effectively with the evidence they have. She isn’t going to put a stooge up there knowingly. If he isn’t competent, I am sure he wouldn’t still be here. Just my two cents. This case has mounds of evidence. If she is guilty of misconduct, there is still a case to prosecute.

So, when I hear things after every little detail like, “how is that not corrupt,” it irks me. I think she is entitled to have a private life, and I haven’t heard too many details outside of a professional relationship that was professional until it wasn’t. This happens everyday in the private world. Workplace romances are common.

The thing is, no matter what the verdict is, I will be able to handle the truth. If it goes in Cheeto Boy’s favor, then my ability to handle the truth will be if/how they continue forward with the charges? The law in reality is the enemy of the MAGA wing. Like Tom Cruise stated in A Few Good Men, it doesn’t matter what we know, it matters what we can prove. MAGA morons are prone to conspiracy, which by nature tends to be arguments of what can’t be proven. The law is proof. Does that always give us the truth? Honestly, the legal system is not perfect. Things like attorney client privilege, for example, can prevent critical truths from being shared, which could be impactful to a jury’s decision. That is also why they are afraid: the proof as it relates to our laws is high, and they do not like it.

The difference between us and them is that if there is guilt found, we want the perpetrator to be held accountable. They deny the existence of wrong doing, and will continue to do so with Chump.

Click Here to Order Boxing Interviews Of A Lifetime By “Bad” Brad Berkwitt