No one is above the law, except...

[Yonivore]

...sycophants.


My view is that no one is above the law, and that when a society based on law prosecutes the powerless and excuses the powerful, it is corroding its own soul.

I see...

Andrew Sullivan, after being caught possessing marijuana in a national park, got the charges dropped (http://blogs.masslawyersweekly.com/news/2009/09/10/judge-angered-by-special-treatment-for-andrew-sullivan/) while similar cases were prosecuted. The judge is not happy (http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=collings/pdf/09-0476rbcsullivan.pdf):


In the Court’s view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances.

If there were a legitimate reason for the disparate treatment, the Court would view the matter differently. But the United States Attorney refused to allow the Court to inquire into why, in the circumstances of this case where Mr. Sullivan had already been charged with the crime, either a forfeiture of collateral or an adjudication would make a difference in the immigration application.

But there is more. If, in fact, a determination that Mr. Sullivan had possessed marijuana is a factor which, under immigration law, the immigration authorities are legally charged with taking into account when deciding Mr. Sullivan’s application, why should the United States Attorney make a judgment that, despite the immigration law, the charge should be dismissed because it would “adversely affect” his application? If other applicants for a certain immigration status have had their applications “adversely affected” by a conviction or a forfeiture of collateral for possession of marijuana, then why should Mr. Sullivan, who is in the same position, not have to deal with the same consequences?

In short, the Court sees no legitimate reason why Mr. Sullivan should be treated differently, or why the Violation Notice issued to him should be dismissed. The only reasons given for the dismissal flout the bedrock principle of our legal system that all persons stand equal before the law.
Sycophancy pays...

[Nbadan]

Pays to have friends in high places...Sullivan is a friend to this forum

[Alex Jones]

interesting

[boutons_deux]

"no one is above the law"

... a myth, is/was/always.

Gambling is illegal unless permitted and strictly regulated/taxed, except on Wall St.

[George Gervin's Afro]

wait a minute. people with money and friends in high places are above the law? No way!

[Bender]

yeah, interesting. I don't think sycophant is the right word though.

[clambake]

not that long ago.....yoni had a man crush on this guy.

forget about weed or any other substance. yoni's unhappy because this guy saw the light.

[Yonivore]

not that long ago.....yoni had a man crush on this guy.

forget about weed or any other substance. yoni's unhappy because this guy saw the light.
Really? I don't recall...

Even so, this isn't about my personal feeling but, about how the Obama Justice Department is willing to flaunt its new-found power to take care if its friends...

First, the New Black Panther Party and now, Sullivan.

[Yonivore]

yeah, interesting. I don't think sycophant is the right word though.
That was someone else, I haven't read Sullivan in a while. Not since we broke up.

[iggypop123]

who?

[Yonivore]

who?
Exactly.

But, apparently, he's important enough to the Obama Justice Department to warrant intervention on his behalf.

[Winehole23]

Sullivan, a former Iraq war cheerleader, is right behind George Will and the National Review in pleading for a swift end to our involvement in Afghanistan.

How he is useful to Obama right now maybe you could spell out for us, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Sullivan, a former Iraq war cheerleader, is right behind George Will and the National Review in pleading for a swift end to our involvement in Afghanistan.

How he is useful to Obama right now maybe you could spell out for us, Yoni.
I have no idea. I guess you'd have to ask the Justice Department...they intervened on his behalf.

I did see a link to an article that made that case but, I didn't go read it and now, I can't find it.

[Winehole23]

I have no idea. I guess you'd have to ask the Justice Department...they intervened on his behalf.You made the inference. Was it threadbare? This fits a historical pattern...


I did see a link to an article that made that case but, I didn't go read it and now, I can't find it.If you can find the link, I'd be grateful if you posted it.

Otherwise, I'll be inclined to think you've issued smears based only on your own bald insinuation, as you have done so often in the past.

[Yonivore]

Whenever you find it, I'd be grateful to see it.
I'm looking.

[doobs]

Sullivan, a former Iraq war cheerleader, is right behind George Will and the National Review in pleading for a swift end to our involvement in Afghanistan.

How he is useful to Obama right now maybe you could spell out for us, Yoni.

Eh, Sullivan is a prominent "conservative" Obama supporter.

I don't know why he got this kind of treatment, but I do know that he has been in the forefront of cheerleading the rise of Obama and the decline of the GOP.

To say that something improper happened in his favor for political reasons is tempting, but it's a hard case to make.

[Yonivore]

Here's the link (http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2009/09/11/andrew-sullivans-bust-the-real-issue/2/).

I haven't read it yet so; I'm not sure how well the case is made.

It was linked at Instapundit under the words: Ron Radosh sees a payback and strings (http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2009/09/11/andrew-sullivans-bust-the-real-issue/2/).

It was on that basis, alone, I assumed someone had made the case for some sort of quid pro quo.

So, let's read together, shall we?

[Winehole23]

Radosh has nothing but inferences himself. How Sullivan blasting Bush for the very same counterterrorism policies that Obama is upholding and extending now, and which his DOJ so far has refused to prosecute -- despite Sullivan's loud demands that "higher ups" be held legally accountable -- how any of this constitutes a political favor to be repaid is more insinuated than actually argued by Radosh.

There's not much there there.

[Yonivore]

Not much there except, "what could it be other than special treatment."

I do think it warrants an explanation from the Justice Department but, they've already told the judge they don't have to explain themselves. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an public justification.

Richard Fernandez over at The Belmont Club (http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/09/11/quid/) writes on the topic, as well. I found what he had to say interesting.

Key graf:


It is entirely possible, though a little hard to believe, that the US Attorney’s intervention on Andrew Sullivan’s behalf was unsolicited; that the attorney simply took it upon himself to help Sullivan because the British writer’s great fame and star power aroused his indignation at the citation and compelled him to act. However that may be, it would be natural for some people to think that Mr. Sullivan’s lawyers may have used the telephone and the conversations resulted in the “special treatment” whose purpose ironically would be to help Sullivan qualify for an unspecified US visa.

Then, of course, there's this (http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/index.cfm/archive/view/id/450953).


...Sullivan's attorney, Robert Delahunt Jr. (cousin of U.S. Rep. William D. Delahunt),...
A Democrat, I believe.

It may just be a matter of connecting the dots, if someone has the inclination.

For what it's worth, Fernandez makes a salient point in the lead to his piece that I'll post here.


The Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon originated in a “third rate burglary”. The burglary itself was of no consequence to Nixon. It was the steps he took to protect the burglars that ultimately proved his undoing. Similarly, the recent news stories about Andrew Sullivan’s citation for pot possession on Cape Cod revolve less around the possession of a small amount of marijuana in a national park then what happened afterward.

[Winehole23]

Not much there except, "what could it be other than special treatment."Prosecutorial discretion. Maybe prosecuting people for having small amounts of pot in national parks isn't worth the prosecutor's time or the expense to the public.

[Yonivore]

Prosecutorial discretion. Maybe prosecuting people for small amounts of pot isn't worth the prosecutor's time or the expense to the public.
I think you should read the Judge's letter for a refutation of that theory.


In his opinion, Collings wrote that the U.S. Attorney is “is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances.”
If we can presume Sullivan was charged in the same court and to be prosecuted by the same attorneys as would try other cases from the Cape Cod park, the judge kind of says...Prosecutors haven't made the type of discretion call in the past. Why now?

[Winehole23]

If we can presume Sullivan was charged in the same court and to be prosecuted by the same attorneys as would try other cases from the Cape Cod park, the judge kind of says...Prosecutors haven't made the type of discretion call in the past. Why now?Who knows? Maybe the DOJ's priorities have changed since November. It isn unheard of, and it comports with Obama's more general deemphasis of the Drug War.

[Yonivore]

Who knows? Maybe the DOJ's priorities have changed since November. It isn unheard of, and it comports with Obama's more general deemphasis of the Drug War.
Well, I'll tell you who knows. The U. S. Attorney for that district. Maybe his boss will compel him to explain himself, to the judge and to the public he serves.

[Winehole23]

Eric Holder?

[Winehole23]

Don't hold your breath.

[Yonivore]

Eric Holder?
No, I'd have to go find his name but, that District has a U. S. Attorney whose office made the decision to seek dismissal.

[Yonivore]

Don't hold your breath.
Oh, I'm not. As I'm sure a few investigative reporters won't either.

We'll see if anyone's efforts bear fruit, eh?

[Winehole23]

Tell me Yoni: what, other than Sullivan's notoriety/star power, has caused you to defend his prosecution as an appropriate use of public resources?

Does it really bother you so much that people blaze up in national parks?

[Yonivore]

Tell me Yoni: what, other than Sullivan's notoriety/star power, has caused you to defend his prosecution as an appropriate use of public resources?
The principle the judge forwarded:


“a dismissal would result in persons in similar situations being treated unequally before the law. … persons charged with the same offense on the Cape Cod National Seashore were routinely given violation notices, and if they did not agree to [pay the fine] were prosecuted by the United States Attorney … there was no apparent reason for treating Mr. Sullivan differently from other persons charged with the same offense.”


Does it really bother you so much that people blaze up in national parks?
I'm firmly in favor of the decriminalization of all narcotics, from pot to heroin.

[ChumpDumper]

Meh, people make calls to get out of traffic tickets all the time.

[Winehole23]

The so-called principle cited is no more than LE custom. If the custom changes, that may indicate no more than a change in official priorities.

OTOH, the US Att'y should probably trouble itself to dispel any appearance of disparate treatment that may have arisen in this case, as you suggested above. The appearance of a multi-tiered system of justice undermines public confidence in it.

[Yonivore]

The so-called principle cited is no more than LE custom. If the custom changes, that may indicate no more than a change in official priorities.
Wouldn't you think the judge who normally hears these case would have been aware of the "custom" changing?


OTOH, the US Att'y should probably trouble itself to dispel any appearance of disparate treatment that may have arisen in this case, as you suggested above. The appearance of a multi-tiered system of justice undermines public confidence in it.
Yes, it should. But, methinks they would have if they could and hope to keep any sense of propriety over the matter.

[Yonivore]

Meh, people make calls to get out of traffic tickets all the time.
The U. S. Attorney?

[Winehole23]

Wouldn't you think the judge who normally hears these case would have been aware of the "custom" changing?I see no reason to assume so. It's been a short time since the change in administrations. Any change in official priorities might be of very recent vintage.

[Yonivore]

I see no reason to assume so. It's been a short time since the change in administrations. Any change in official priorities might be of very recent vintage.
Well, I do. I guess we'll see if anyone takes up the challenge to investigate.

[ChumpDumper]

The U. S. Attorney?The law is the law. Do you not agree, former law enforcement official?

[Yonivore]

The law is the law. Do you not agree, former law enforcement official?
Traffic tickets are different than federal crimes. The U. S. Attorney office isn't usually in the habit of engaging in small town political favors.

[ChumpDumper]

Traffic tickets are different than federal crimes. The U. S. Attorney office isn't usually in the habit of engaging in small town political favors.So the law isn't the law. You are in favor different treatment for different people under the same law if those people have the right connections.

You think those people should be above the law.

I am not at all surprised.

[Winehole23]

The U. S. Attorney office isn't usually in the habit of engaging in small town political favors.You haven't established this is the case. You just assume that's what's happened.

To be fair, it is a plausible inference; but it is not the only one, and you give it no support other than your own private conviction it happened. I at least was able to point to a recent change in public policy consistent with the decision.

[jack sommerset]

They need to make that shit legal.

[jman3000]

What would the max. punishment be? 500 dollar fine?

Is this really a big deal?

[Yonivore]

So the law isn't the law. You are in favor different treatment for different people under the same law if those people have the right connections.
No, I just decided to ignore your leading and irrelevant question and try to get back to the issue at hand; which was, why did the U. S. Attorney intervene on Sullivan's behalf.


You think those people should be above the law.

I am not at all surprised.
You also don't know what you're talking about. I don't think anyone is above the law, I've never taken advantage of my position in law enforcement and I've never been ask to intervene on anyone's behalf. That doesn't discount the fact it happens. And, it happens at a local level because there are tens of thousands of local fiefdoms and well, local politics is what it is.

That doesn't usually translate to a federal office without there being consequences over the corruption. But, if you're willing to accept that, just say so.

[Yonivore]

What would the max. punishment be? 500 dollar fine?

Is this really a big deal?
It's not about the crime. It's about the favor.

[Winehole23]

There was no crime. It's about discretion.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I just decided to ignore your leading and irrelevant question and try to get back to the issue at hand; which was, why did the U. S. Attorney intervene on Sullivan's behalf.So your indignation is based on partisanship, as is your respect for the law.



You also don't know what you're talking about. I don't think anyone is above the law, I've never taken advantage of my position in law enforcement and I've never been ask to intervene on anyone's behalf. That doesn't discount the fact it happens. And, it happens at a local level because there are tens of thousands of local fiefdoms and well, local politics is what it is.So I do know what I'm talking about.


That doesn't usually translate to a federal office without there being consequences over the corruption. But, if you're willing to accept that, just say so.Why are you automatically speculating that it's corruption? Oh, that's right -- your partisanship. Again, why speculate?

Did you do anything to stop the political favoritism and ticket fixing when you were in law enforcement, Serpico?

[Marcus Bryant]

Sullivan, a former Iraq war cheerleader, is right behind George Will and the National Review in pleading for a swift end to our involvement in Afghanistan.

How he is useful to Obama right now maybe you could spell out for us, Yoni.

My impression is that the consensus around NR is that Afghanistan should not be abandoned.

[Winehole23]

True, but there have been rumblings. Was it Lowry who started to waver last week?

[Yonivore]

So your indignation is based on partisanship, as is your respect for the law.
First, I'm not indignant. Second, I'm simply asking if Sullivan received a favor from the U. S. Attorney and, if so, why?


So I do know what I'm talking about.
No, actually you don't. Ticket fixing is not nearly as common as you and others in here seem to believe.


Why are you automatically speculating that it's corruption? Oh, that's right -- your partisanship. Again, why speculate?
Why not speculate? The U. S. Attorney refused to tell the judge why he requested the dismissal.


Did you do anything to stop the political favoritism and ticket fixing when you were in law enforcement, Serpico?
Yeah, I didn't participate...and, if it happened with others, it must not have been much because, I wasn't witness to it.

[spursncowboys]

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.thinks this is messed up.

[spursncowboys]

Tim Geitner thinks this is unethical.

[ChumpDumper]

First, I'm not indignant. Second, I'm simply asking if Sullivan received a favor from the U. S. Attorney and, if so, why?So it's entirely possible he didn't.



No, actually you don't. Ticket fixing is not nearly as common as you and others in here seem to believe.Tell me how common it is, Serpico.



Why not speculate? The U. S. Attorney refused to tell the judge why he requested the dismissal.Why speculate?



Yeah, I didn't participate...and, if it happened with others, it must not have been much because, I wasn't witness to it.I will speculate that you did it all the time and are covering it up. I have as much proof as you do with Sullivan.

[Yonivore]

So it's entirely possible he didn't.
I would welcome an explanation from the U. S. Attorney.


Tell me how common it is, Serpico.
So common I've never personally been aware of a case of ticket fixing.


Why speculate?
It's what we do here.



I will speculate that you did it all the time and are covering it up. I have as much proof as you do with Sullivan.
Be my guest. I'm betting no one will be as interested to find out if I fixed tickets as will be interested to find out if Sullivan received a favor from the Obama administration.

[ChumpDumper]

I would welcome an explanation from the U. S. Attorney.Write them.



So common I've never personally been aware of a case of ticket fixing.I speculate you are lying.



It's what we do here.Hey, you're the one who questioned it.


Be my guest. I'm betting no one will be as interested to find out if I fixed tickets as will be interested to find out if Sullivan received a favor from the Oba.ma administration.You're right that no one has any real interest in you. All the same, I'll speculate that you are corrupt. You have proven to be a liar, so the evidence is actually stronger than anything on the US Attorney.

[Yonivore]

Write them.
I think others will find an answer before the U. S. Attorney would respond to me.


I speculate you are lying.
Speculate away...


Hey, you're the one who questioned it.
Funny how that works, isn't it.


You're right that no one has any real interest in you. All the same, I'll speculate that you are corrupt. You have proven to be a liar, so the evidence is actually stronger than anything on the US Attorney.
Okay...but, I still suspect no one will be as interested in my alleged corruption as much as they will be over the U. S. Attorney's alleged corruption. But, if that's on what you choose to focus, It won't bother me.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny how that works, isn't it.Yes, it is funny how you were the one who questioned the speculation of other people on this board when you say it's what we do here.


Okay...but, I still suspect no one will be as interested in my alleged corruption as much as they will be over the U. S. Attorney's alleged corruption. But, if that's on what you choose to focus, It won't bother me.I'm pretty sure virtually no one is going to care about this either, except as a pretense for eliminating some stupid drug laws and prosecution policies.

[Yonivore]

Yes, it is funny how you were the one who questioned the speculation of other people on this board when you say it's what we do here.
You must have missed the thread where I admitted my hypocrisy about that and gave props to Shastafarian for calling me out. My saying, "it's what we do here," was an homage to that thread. Catch up Chump.


I'm pretty sure virtually no one is going to care about this either, except as a pretense for eliminating some stupid drug laws and prosecution policies.
And, you're entitled to your opinion. I think it'll be a bigger deal than you think it will be.

[ChumpDumper]

You must have missed the thread where I admitted my hypocrisy about that and gave props to Shastafarian for calling me out. My saying, "it's what we do here," was an homage to that thread. Catch up Chump.I know all of it. It's fun to repeat the mocking. It's what we do here.


And, you're entitled to your opinion. I think it'll be a bigger deal than you think it will be.So you speculate. Not everyone is as slavishly devoted to blogs as you.

[Yonivore]

I know all of it. It's fun to repeat the mocking. It's what we do here.
Okay. Have fun with that.


So you speculate.
Yep. You don't?


Not everyone is as slavishly devoted to blogs as you.
What does that mean?

[ChumpDumper]

Okay. Have fun with that.Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!



Yep. You don't?Not the same as you, no.



What does that mean?That means not everyone is as slavishly devoted to blogs as you.

[Yonivore]

Hey Chump. Have you ever noticed that other posters quit participating in a thread when you and I get into one of these silly flame wars? Maybe that's your intent, I don't know but, frankly, I don't understand your obsession with forum personalities over the political issues we try to discuss.

That's one of the reasons I put you on ignore in the past. These threads get so tedious with you trying to provoke a response of personal ad hominem attacks.

I'd rather talk about the issues instead of about me -- of which, as you pointed out, not many people -- if anyone at all -- is interested.

What do you say, can we stick to the topic or not?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chump. Have you ever noticed that other posters quit participating in a thread when you and I get into one of these silly flame wars? Maybe that's your intent, I don't know but, frankly, I don't understand your obsession with forum personalities over the political issues we try to discuss.

That's one of the reasons I put you on ignore in the past. These threads get so tedious with you trying to provoke a response of personal ad hominem attacks.

I'd rather talk about the issues instead of about me -- of which, as you pointed out, not many people -- if anyone at all -- is interested.

What do you say, can we stick to the topic or not?We are talking about the topic.

Feel free to not respond if my posts trouble you so.

[Winehole23]

What's there to discuss? Radosh's "allegation'' is just as flimsy as your own. Conjured from the thin air. The judge's own complaint does no more than allege the appearance of impropriety, no actual wrongdoing.

Yet you go on and on about corruption.

[ChumpDumper]

No dude, you got it all wrong. It's of grave importance. Right up there with the New Black Panther Party and the AF1 photo op. The patriots of the blogosphere are not done with those yet!

[Yonivore]

We are talking about the topic.
Actually, we're not longer talking about the topic. You're talking about me.


Feel free to not respond if my posts trouble you so.
eh, it's an OCD I have. Trust me, I will when it gets too tedious.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, we're not longer talking about the topic. You're talking about me.No, you're talking about me now. I was talking about the topic and you. Try to keep up.


eh, it's an OCD I have. Trust me, I will when it gets too tedious.Then quit whining.

[Yonivore]

No dude, you got it all wrong. It's of grave importance. Right up there with the New Black Panther Party and the AF1 photo op. The patriots of the blogosphere are not done with those yet!
Right on cue...

Speaking of which:

Obama Administration Stonewalls U.S. Civil Rights Commission on Black Panther Case. (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-administration-stonewalls-u-s-civil-rights-commission-on-black-panther-case/)


“The Justice Department won’t cooperate with an inquiry into why they helped the New Black Panther party avoid the legal consequences of voter intimidation.”
You did know there was a federal inquiry into the matter, right? Maybe not since it's been ignored by the media. Blame my slavish devotion to blogs.

Instapundit speculates:


You know, this case is a puzzlement. Perhaps there was fear that a prosecution would open up evidence of wider misconduct that would be more politically damaging than this scandal? Because that’s the only thing that makes sense here.

[Yonivore]

What's there to discuss? Radosh's "allegation'' is just as flimsy as your own. Conjured from the thin air. The judge's own complaint does no more than allege the appearance of impropriety, no actual wrongdoing.

Yet you go on and on about corruption.
Winehole, it was the judge's court. It would seem his opinion on the matter would carry some weight. And, he does more than allege an appearance of impropriety. He's pissed because the U. S. Attorney flatly refused to answer the question of why they requested the dismissal.

[ChumpDumper]

Right on cue...

Speaking of which:

Obama Administration Stonewalls U.S. Civil Rights Commission on Black Panther Case. (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-administration-stonewalls-u-s-civil-rights-commission-on-black-panther-case/):lmao

Right on cue!


You did know there was a federal inquiry into the matter, right? Maybe not since it's been ignored by the media. Blame my slavish devotion to blogs.That and a pathological hatred for all things Obama.

No one cares.

Still.


Instapundit speculates:I speculate no one cares. I speculate if the Republicans get control of one or both houses of congress they will pretend to care, but no one else will.

[ChumpDumper]

And, he does more than allege an appearance of impropriety.What else does he do?

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Right on cue!

That and a pathological hatred for all things Obama.

No one cares.
I disagree. You don't care. And, granted, there are a bunch of people who don't care. But, it's far from being a circumstance where no one cares. Hell, a federal prosecutor is investigating the incident. Obviously, someone cares.


Still.

I speculate no one cares. I speculate if the Republicans get control of one or both houses of congress they will pretend to care, but no one else will.
They have control of neither and there's a federal investigation. Someone cares. Someone more important than you or me.

[ChumpDumper]

I disagree. You don't care. And, granted, there are a bunch of people who don't care. But, it's far from being a circumstance where no one cares. Hell, a federal prosecutor is investigating the incident. Obviously, someone cares.Not enough to matter.


They have control of neither and there's a federal investigation. Someone cares. Someone more important than you or me.I said "if." You are bad at reading.

It still won't amount to anything.

And still no one will care.

[Yonivore]

Not enough to matter.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I don't share it.


I said "if". You are bad at reading.
No, I read it. I was ignoring your statement and pointing out that someone caring (pretending or otherwise) wasn't contingent upon the Republicans regaining power. There's already an investigation...and, being under a Democrat ruled Congress and White House, I very much doubt the interest is a pretense.


It still won't amount to anything.
Why speculate?


And still no one will care.
That's already a demonstrably false statement. At least one federal prosecutor cares.

[Winehole23]

Winehole, it was the judge's court. It would seem his opinion on the matter would carry some weight. And, he does more than allege an appearance of impropriety. He's pissed because the U. S. Attorney flatly refused to answer the question of why they requested the dismissal.Does some point of the law require the US Att'y to explain?

If not, the judge's demands are beside the point. The decision to prefer or withdraw charges in this case would seem to be discretionary. Perhaps no one is owed an explanation as to why.

[ChumpDumper]

What is your great hope here, Yoni? That this gets Obama impeached because his AG failed to prosecute a black man with a stick who didn't prevent anyone from doing anything?

I now expect you to say you won't speculate.

[Yonivore]

What is your great hope here, Yoni? That this gets Obama impeached because his AG failed to prosecute a black man with a stick who didn't prevent anyone from doing anything?
Nope. That his Justice department be required to explain their actions and, if inappropriate, that they be held accountable for them.


I now expect you to say you won't speculate.
And, you'd be wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. That his Justice department be required to explain their actions and, if inappropriate, that they be held accountable for them.What does that mean?



And, you'd be wrong.Nah, you were as vague as I thought you would be.

[Yonivore]

What does that mean?
That the Justice Department be required to say why they vacated a summary judgment against the New Black Panther Party and, if the reason is an inappropriate reason -- such as granting a favor os some quid pro quo, that whomever made the decision to vacate the judgment be held accountable.

That the U. S. Attorney be required to say why he intervened on Andrew Sullivan's behalf and, if the reason is an inappropriate reason -- such as granting a favor or some quid pro quo, that he be held accountable.

How hard is that to understand?


Nah, you were as vague as I thought you would be.
Sorry, I didn't think I was being vague. I hope I cleared it up.

[ChumpDumper]

So what exactly do you think happened, and what will happen to those responsible?

[Yonivore]

So what exactly do you think happened, and what will happen to those responsible?
I think both the New Black Panther Party and Andrew Sullivan received inappropriate favors from the Obama Justice Department.

As to what will happen...I have no idea. It depends on if the Justice Department is ever compelled to explain their actions.

[ChumpDumper]

So you won't speculate.

[Yonivore]

So you won't speculate.
I just did...I speculated on what they did.

What happens is dependent on what is discovered and if it shows criminality, corruption, or both.

[ChumpDumper]

I just did...I speculated on what they did.

What happens is dependent on what is discovered and if it shows criminality, corruption, or both.So what do you think it will show?

[Yonivore]

So what do you think it will show?
I think a successful investigation will show the Justice Department granted favors to the New Black Panther Party and to Andrew Sullivan. I've already said that's what I think happened.

I'm sorry, am I not being clear enough?

Whether or not anyone's held accountable will depend on whether or not the investigation succeeds in discovering that.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sorry, am I not being clear enough?No, you're not.

Do you think it will show criminality, corruption, or both?

[Yonivore]

No, you're not.

Do you think it will show criminality, corruption, or both?
I think it will at least show corruption.

I can't think of a legitimate reason the U.S. Attorney would request a dismissal of the charges against Andrew Sullivan. They would have submitted any legitimate reason to the judge when asked.

Similarly, I can't think of a legitimate reason the Justice Department would vacate and already awarded summary judgment against an organization that intentionally intimidated voters. They've failed to explain themselves there, as well and, it bought them an investigation.

We'll see if the Sullivan incident does the same.

[antimvp]

what

[antimvp]

hey dorkivore, where are all those threads where we tell you that you have been had been right wing PR shits?

[Yonivore]

hey dorkivore, where are all those threads where we tell you that you have been had been right wing PR shits?
Sorry, that's doesn't make sense.

[Yonivore]

And, seriously ChumpDumper, do you think I would have even started the thread if I didn't believe there was wrongdoing involved?

[antimvp]

Sorry, that's doesn't make sense.

completely brainwashed, it finally happened.........let me know when you start thinking for yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

And, seriously ChumpDumper, do you think I would have even started the thread if I didn't believe there was wrongdoing involved?I think you are such a partisan hack you would use it just for the innuendo.

[Yonivore]

I think you are such a partisan hack you would use it just for the innuendo.
That Andrew Sullivan had a U. S. Attorney intervene on his behalf isn't innuendo. That's a fact. The only question is why and the U. S. Attorney won't say. I'm curious. You're not.

That the New Black Panther Party had members who were ruled against in a summary judgment by a court only to have the Justice Department vacate the judgment isn't innuendo. That, too, is a fact. As is the ongoing investigation. Again, the only question is why the Justice Department refused to take the win.

Again, I'm curious. You don't seem to be.

This is a political forum. I raised a political issue. It's what we do here. I can live with your lack of curiosity over the matters. The issue won't be resolved in these threads anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

That Andrew Sullivan had a U. S. Attorney intervene on his behalf isn't innuendo. That's a fact. The only question is why and the U. S. Attorney won't say. I'm curious. You're not.Over a joint? No, I'm not.


That the New Black Panther Party had members who were ruled against in a summary judgment by a court only to have the Justice Department vacate the judgment isn't innuendo. That, too, is a fact. As is the ongoing investigation. Again, the only question is why the Justice Department refused to take the win.

Again, I'm curious. You don't seem to be.I read what is alleged. It's pretty much nothing. not one voter claimed to be intimidated. I was curious -- I'm not anymore.


This is a political forum. I raised a political issue. It's what we do here. I can live with your lack of curiosity over the matters. The issue won't be resolved in these threads anyway.You'll post for innuendo value in the future, certainly.

[Yonivore]

Over a joint? No, I'm not.
Then why doesn't the U. S. Attorney dismiss all such cases. Again, it's not about the crime. I don't think weed should be illegal, anyway.


I read what is alleged. It's pretty much nothing. not one voter claimed to be intimidated. I was curious -- I'm not anymore.
A federal prosecutor doesn't share your lack of curiosity.


You'll post for innuendo value in the future.
I'll post whatever I feel like posting.

[ChumpDumper]

Then why doesn't the U. S. Attorney dismiss all such cases.There could be any number of reasons. It's such a nothing charge I just can't bring myself to care.



A federal prosecutor doesn't share your lack of curiosity.Good for him. What's taking him so long?



I'll post whatever I feel like posting.Including innuendo.

Because you;re a partisan hack.

[Yonivore]

There could be any number of reasons. It's such a nothing charge I just can't bring myself to care.
And yet you continue to post on it. Maybe you share the same OCD I do. That would explain a lot.


Good for him. What's taking him so long?
He seems to have run into an obstinate and uncooperative Justice Department.



Including innuendo.
If it suits me.


Because you;re a partisan hack.
Nah, but you can call me one if it helps.

[ChumpDumper]

And yet you continue to post on it. Maybe you share the same OCD I do. That would explain a lot.It's the thread topic.



He seems to have run into an obstinate and uncooperative Justice Department.Was there even a voter who said he or she was intimidated?



If it suits meIt must suit you since you do it so much..



Nah, but you can call me one if it helps.The shoe fits.

[Yonivore]

It's the thread topic.
About a topic over which you claim not to care but continue to post. I'm fine with that but, just pointing it out.


Was there even a voter who said he or she was intimidated?
Again, not the point. I'm not even that familiar with the case. The facts are that court of competent jurisdiction found against the members of the New Black Panther Party -- in a summary judgment because they didn't even bother to show up for the trial. The Justice Department, for reasons they refuse to explain, vacated the courts ruling.

It's like the quarterback of a football team telling the umpire, no thanks, we don't want those six points...take it off the scoreboard.


It must suit you since you do it so much..
Your characterization, not mine. And, not particularly germane if no one cares what I think or post, as you so often remind me.


The shoe fits.
So, you tried it on?

[ChumpDumper]

About a topic over which you claim not to care but continue to post. I'm fine with that but, just pointing it out.i'll post what I want, where I want, when I want.



Again, not the point. I'm not even that familiar with the case. The facts are that court of competent jurisdiction found against the members of the New Black Panther Party -- in a summary judgment because they didn't even bother to show up for the trial. The Justice Department, for reasons they refuse to explain, vacated the courts ruling.So?


It's like the quarterback of a football team telling the umpire, no thanks, we don't want those six points...take it off the scoreboard.So what should they have done? thrown them in jail for 20 years for not showing up? Which voters were intimidated? Were any?


Your characterization, not mine. And, not particularly germane if no one cares what I think or post, as you so often remind me.It's my characterization, and particularly germane sine you post innuendo so often.


So, you tried it on?You suck at metaphors.

[Yonivore]

i'll post what I want, where I want, when I want.
I don't think I asked you not to. I was merely pointing out the fact you continue to post about a topic you claim not to care about. I think that's interesting.


So?
I'm curious.


So what should they have done? thrown them in jail for 20 years for not showing up? Which voters were intimidated? Were any?
They should have enforced the courts judgment. Whatever that was. What's the point of vacating a judgment you've won? The case was brought by the Justice Department.


It's my characterization, and particularly germane sine you post innuendo so often.
I think I said it was your characterization.


You suck at metaphors.
Says you.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think I asked you not to. I was merely pointing out the fact you continue to post about a topic you claim not to care about. I think that's interesting.Not really.



I'm curious.It's pretty obvious when you decide to become curious about the activities of government -- it's when someone other than Republicans are there. You went eight full years without a whiff of curiosity.



They should have enforced the courts judgment. Whatever that was. What's the point of vacating a judgment you've won? The case was brought by the Justice Department.What judgment was that? Did the judge hand down a sentence, or was that left up to the attorneys?



I think I said it was your characterization.So?



Says you.And it's true.

[Yonivore]

Not really.
I didn't say you thought it was interesting.


It's pretty obvious when you decide to become curious about the activities of government -- it's when someone other than Republicans are there. You went eight full years without a whiff of curiosity.
That's not true. I satisfied my curiosity on all the questions raised in this forum and elsewhere on the alleged wrongdoings of the Bush administration. That I reached a different conclusion than you doesn't make me incurious.


What judgment was that? Did the judge hand down a sentence, or was that left up to the attorneys?
I don't know, if you're curious go read up on it. There's a federal investigation going on so, I'm thinking there's a question to be answered about the Justice Department's actions in relationship to this case.


So?
You said it as if I hadn't just done so.


And it's true.
Again, says you.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't say you thought it was interesting.I wasn't saying I thought it was interesting.


That's not true. I satisfied my curiosity on all the questions raised in this forum and elsewhere on the alleged wrongdoings of the Bush administration. That I reached a different conclusion than you doesn't make me incurious.:lol Of course -- your curiosity was jsut so much more easily satisfied during the Bush years since you were so biased in favor of him.


I don't know, if you're curious go read up on it.But you're curious. Why don't you know? Sounds like you are merely satisfied with the innuendo at this point. No surprise.
There's a federal investigation going on so, I'm thinking there's a question to be answered about the Justice Department's actions in relationship to this case.What question is that?



You said it as if I hadn't just done so.No, I didn't.



Again, says you.Again, I'm right.

[Yonivore]

I wasn't saying I thought it was interesting.
I know.


:lol Of course -- your curiosity was jsut so much more easily satisfied during the Bush years since you were so biased in favor of him.
You don't know how easy it was or wasn't. But, it's true we disagree on almost every issue related to the Bush administration.


But you're curious. Why don't you know? Sounds like you are merely satisfied with the innuendo at this point. No surprise.
I'm more curious about what the federal investigation will reveal. I read an article sometime back that explained the judgment and what it meant for the Justice Department to vacate it and I questioned it then. Now that a federal investigator is involve, I'm curious again. I might actually get around to refreshing my memory on the particulars but, if you can't wait for me, I invite you to go educate yourself. That's all.


What question is that?
As best as I can tell, the question appears to be, why did the Justice Department give up a case they had already won?


No, I didn't.
I took it that way.

I said, "It's your characterization, not mine." and you responded to that sentence, [look down the thread if you like] with "It's my characterization,..." I was merely pointing out that I had already made that acknowledgment. Is there anything with which you won't quibble?

It's a minor point, belabor it if you like.


Again, I'm right.
Declarations don't make you anything.

[ChumpDumper]

I know.Then why act like I was.



You don't know how easy it was or wasn't.It's easy to tell it was very, very easy.


As best as I can tell, the question appears to be, why did the Justice Department give up a case they had already won?It's possible there just wasn't much of a case against them in the first place.



I took it that way.Well, you were wrong. Happens a lot.


Declarations don't make you anything.But I'm right anyway.

[Yonivore]

Then why act like I was.
I didn't.

Look, if you're going to engage in these tedious line-by-line exchanges, you really should try to keep up with the dialog.

I said, "I don't think I asked you not to. I was merely pointing out the fact you continue to post about a topic you claim not to care about. I think that's interesting," to which you responded, "Not really," to which I said, "I didn't say you thought it was interesting," to which you replied, "I wasn't saying I thought it was interesting," to which I replied, "I know."

Really, if you can't keep up with your silly exchange exercises you should give up on them.


It's easy to tell it was very, very easy.
Okay...I can't argue with your perceptions. Have them.


It's possible there just wasn't much of a case against them in the first place.
You'd think they'd of said so. Instead they're stonewalling the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights whose made a formal inquiry into their reasons.


Well, you were wrong. Happens a lot.
I don't think so and I also believe a reasonable person would see where I could come to the conclusion as I. You parroted back "It's my characterization..." right after and in response to me saying, "It's your characterization." Seems like I had reason to point out that I had already acknowledged that.

But, again, you keep on keeping on if this is so important. Explain to me how I was wrong.


But I'm right anyway.
But, of course. In your mind, you're never wrong. At least I can't think of a time you've ever conceded a point.

[Yonivore]

Chump, you may be too young for the reference but...

http://davidakin.blogware.com/200808271106.jpg

...good night.

[TDMVPDPOY]

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3586/whiteguysinsuits.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Chump, you may be too young for the reference but...

http://davidakin.blogware.com/200808271106.jpg

...good night.
LOL...

Chump may be too young, but I'm old enough I forget!

I remember the characters, but I forget the scene.

Was that the timeclock scene?

[LnGrrrR]

LOL...

Chump may be too young, but I'm old enough I forget!

I remember the characters, but I forget the scene.

Was that the timeclock scene?

Yup.

I forget the names though... Ralph and Sam? Ahh classic Looney Tunes. I've got to get some of those for my soon-to-be-here kid.

[Yonivore]

LOL...

Chump may be too young, but I'm old enough I forget!

I remember the characters, but I forget the scene.

Was that the timeclock scene?
Yep. I was punching out and putting our differences aside until ... well, the next time we punched in.

[Yonivore]

Yup.

I forget the names though... Ralph and Sam? Ahh classic Looney Tunes. I've got to get some of those for my soon-to-be-here kid.
You go, Dad. Be sure and expose the little booger to all the classics. Road Runner, Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig...etc...

And, for some reason, I think Ralph and Sam is correct.

[LnGrrrR]

You go, Dad. Be sure and expose the little booger to all the classics. Road Runner, Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig...etc...

And, for some reason, I think Ralph and Sam is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_and_Sheepdog

Holy crap I was right.

Why does my brain work this way? Why can I remember the most inane bit of information, yet have trouble remembering if I called a client or not? Argh.

[DarkReign]

Possession of marijuana.

Regardless of whose name is attached to "...DOJ has dropped charges", I am always happy.