Reply With Quote
Pays to have friends in high places...Sullivan is a friend to this forum
...sycophants.
I see...
Andrew Sullivan, after being caught possessing marijuana in a national park, got the charges dropped while similar cases were prosecuted. The judge is not happy:
Sycophancy pays...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 cir stances.
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 cir stances 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.
Pays to have friends in high places...Sullivan is a friend to this forum
interesting
"no one is above the law"
... a myth, is/was/always.
Gambling is illegal unless permitted and strictly regulated/taxed, except on Wall St.
wait a minute. people with money and friends in high places are above the law? No way!
yeah, interesting. I don't think sycophant is the right word though.
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.
That was someone else, I haven't read Sullivan in a while. Not since we broke up.
who?
Exactly.
But, apparently, he's important enough to the Obama Justice Department to warrant intervention on his behalf.
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.
You made the inference. Was it threadbare? This fits a historical pattern...
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.
I'm looking.
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.
Here's the link.
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.
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?
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 cons utes a political favor to be repaid is more insinuated than actually argued by Radosh.
There's not much there there.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-13-2009 at 03:43 PM.
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 writes on the topic, as well. I found what he had to say interesting.
Key graf:
Then, of course, there's this.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.
A Democrat, I believe....Sullivan's attorney, Robert Delahunt Jr. (cousin of U.S. Rep. William D. Delahunt),...
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.
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.
I think you should read the Judge's letter for a refutation of that theory.
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?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 cir stances.”
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.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?
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.
Eric Holder?
Don't hold your breath.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions