No one is above the law, except...

[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 s?

[Yonivore]

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

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 me

It 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.