Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Ron Fournier, political reporter for National Journal, claims Hillary should not be prosecuted because there’s a higher standard to prosecute someone who’s running for public office.
Well, no, there isn’t. But maybe there should be?
Let’s have a show of hands – who remembers a Democrat prosecutor announcing an indictment against a Republican candidate just in time to influence the election, only to quietly drop the charges after the election, or have them thrown out in disgust by a higher court? Any of these names ring a bell: Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas; Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wisconsin?
There’s a law that politicians can’t be arrested while they’re doing their jobs, under the theory of Parlimentary Privilege. But what about candidates? What about their supporters and contributors? Google the phrase “Democrat Lawfare” for an eyeful of interesting examples showing how one party abuses the power of the judiciary for partisan political advantage. Maybe we should rein in that power?
Joe Doakes
But that’d involve giving up power.
And Democrats fight for power the same way Republicans fight for unborn babies and the right to defend oneself.
Once again, the libidiot double standard rears it ugly head.
Actually, I agree with you Joe Doakes that all candidates running for office should have the same standard, or alternatively, a higher standard, applied to them. It should not matter what their party affiliation is or isn’t. But your claims here about Dems making
However, I would point out that the FBI has yet to indict Hillary.
I would also point out to you that the prosecutors in the case against Scott Walker were actually REPUBLICANS, as were the prosecutors of Sec State Elect White in Indiana who was convicted of violating that state’s voter ID law, costing him the office. Ditto the other names you mentioned were either Republicans or non-partisan. In the case of Ted Stevens for example, while the trial took place in 2008, the prosecution took place under Dubya and the conviction occurred in OCTOBER of 2008. While Obama was elected in NOVEMBER 2008, he wasn’t sworn into office — in other words was not in power – until January 2009.
And REALLY you should do a better job of research Joe. You see it was the Obama administration, specifically Democrat AG Eric Holder, who got the conviction set aside.
“On behalf of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Paul O’Brien submitted a “Motion of The United States To Set Aside The Verdict And Dismiss The Indictment With Prejudice” in connection with case No. 08-231 early on April 1, 2009. Federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan soon signed the order, and since it occurred prior to sentencing it had the effect of vacating Stevens’s conviction. During the trial, Sullivan expressed concern and anger regarding prosecutorial conduct and related issues. Holder, who had taken office only three months earlier, was reportedly very angry at the prosecutors’ apparent withholding of exculpatory evidence, and wanted to send a message that prosecutorial misconduct would not be tolerated under his watch. After Sullivan held the prosecutors in contempt, Holder replaced the entire trial team, including top officials in the public integrity section.”
So tsk tsk — sloppy sloppy sloppy when it comes to the facts — and biased as hell on your part.
This is what a failed ideology that lies and just gets shit badly wrong looks like.
You’re welcome.
Just a thought, Joe — with Obama still in the White House and a Dem-appointed head of the FBI, and a Dem attorney general………how is it you see favoritism when those Dems are granting immunity to one of Hillary’s employees related to the whole email issue? Looks to me like they are continuing to do a good job in investigating Hillary. You have yet to show any way they are not.
In contrast I seem to remember a bunch of DoJ folks who very prominently quit when it was Dubya and his DoJ, along with Karl Rove who tried to push political prosecutions that were NOT warranted. And unlike your examples, THOSE were very well documented.
Project much Joe? Apparently you do, hoping Dems might do the bad things Republicans have been busted doing.
Project much Joe? Apparently you do, hoping Dems might do the bad things Republicans have been busted doing.
Cite these busts, DG. NOW! You shirking pile of steaming dog poo! You are so stupid you do not even realize that with every projection of your own you just prove how fucking stupid and ignorant your arguments are. Every fucking time.
I have been thoroughly factual, unlike Joe Doakes. This is what the right did in 2008, not the Dems.
Let me underline that it was the right going after Stevens for example;
“On November 13, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina announced he would move to have Stevens expelled from the Senate Republican Conference (caucus) regardless of the results of the election. (Absentee, provisional, and early ballots were, at the time, still being tallied in the close election.) Losing his caucus membership would cost Stevens his committee assignments.”
I cited for example, Sec State elect White in Indiana, who was prosecuted and convicted of 4 felonies relating to voter fraud.
Justplainangry, when a righty claims that it was Dems wrongly prosecuting Republicans, and the prosecutors — who are frequently getting convictions, like the people working for Scott Walker were convicted, etc. — are Republicans, I’ve made my point, factually and logically.
Here is a quote for you, relating to Scott Walker:
Two career prosecutors–one a Republican, one a Democrat–just called Scott Walker a liar, and not a single national newspaper took notice.
The comments came after Walker, an unannounced candidate for president, used an appearance on an Iowa radio show to publicly attack a bipartisan criminal investigation into his campaign as a “political witch hunt” with the aim of “trying to intimidate people.”
The Special Prosecutor leading the probe, Francis Schmitz–a Republican who voted for Walker in 2012–fired back, stating, “these recent allegations are patently false.”
“His description of the investigation as a ‘political witch hunt’ is offensive when he knows that the investigation was authorized by a bipartisan group of judges and is directed by a Republican Special Prosecutor appointed at the request of a bipartisan group of district attorneys,” Schmitz said.
I suggest you familiarize yourself better, justplainangry, with Francis Schmitz.
SO very sorry you struggle with that concept of projection – -and with pursuing facts.
Delusional: “I’ve made my point, factually and logically.”
Oh, and thanks again Joe for proving my point that righties are shit at fact checking and that they are whiners who falsely claim to be victims when they are not.
On the fact checking point, re Scott Walker, let me underline how consistently poorly your side does::
Schmitz called upon the Governor “to join me in seeking judicial approval” to release sealed documents “which would be responsive to the allegations that have been made.” Chisholm agreed: “the truth is always a defense, so let’s get the truth out in a legal manner, not through lies, distortions and misrepresentations.”
The public comments and challenge are remarkable from the usually-reserved career prosecutors, who until now have remained silent as their reputations have been dragged through the mud by Walker’s allies
And, the comments follow a National Review magazine article published online April 20 that savaged Chisholm and decried the probe as “the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.” Although the piece also repeated long-discredited allegations from Wisconsin’s right-wing blogs, it was quickly picked up by the national right-wing echo chamber, including Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal editorial board and trumpeted as a breakthrough “investigation.”
Yet the National Review article doesn’t even mention the Republican prosecutor leading the probe, Francis Schmitz, nor does it touch on the evidence of corruption that gave rise to the bipartisan investigation.
Lying is for losers, but lies are all Joe’s got. No way can you pretend away how wrong he has been here.
Since you can’t be relied on to fact check for yourselves, here is a bit more info on the Scott Walker prosecutions, to prove they were led and approved by Republicans, and that they were not partisan and nature, but substantively driven for legitimate cause:
Although repeatedly portrayed as a “partisan witch hunt,” the investigation involves five District Attorneys, from both the Republican and Democratic parties. It was authorized by both Republican and Democratic judges, including Judge James Daley, the GOP-backed candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this year.
And it is led by Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz.
Schmitz started his legal career as a clerk for federal judge John Coffey, a Reagan appointee who the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel described as “an unyielding conservative.” Schmitz worked for years as a federal prosecutor, receiving two awards from the U.S. Department of Justice, including the prestigious “U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service” from Republican Michael Mukasey. Schmitz was on George W. Bush’s shortlist to be named the chief federal prosecutor in the state as U.S. attorney, and he served in the U.S. Army and in the U.S. Army Reserve, retiring with the rank of Colonel.
Wisconsin’s Republican Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, was initially asked to lead the probe, but declined–not because he thought the investigation was legally suspect, but because of a possible conflict-of-interest, with Van Hollen acknowledging that “a campaign financing investigation… could foreseeably involve individuals with whom I have relationships.”
Van Hollen said the probe was better handled by the state’s Government Accountability Board, which is a nonpartisan board of retired judges, from both parties, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate, and charged with interpreting and applying the state’s campaign finance law. The Board unanimously approved its participation in the investigation. Its current Chair Gerald Nichol–a former Republican elected official–has stated that the Board does “not take investigations lightly” and launched the probe after being presented with “credible, hard evidence” the law had been violated.
Tsk tsk tsk – looks like some of you shit-talkers have a bit of poo left on your chins.
Damn whiners. Damn LYING whiners.
Did you lose your tinfoil hat DG? We can send you a new one – its not the standard Tricorn style but a new model inspired by the “Vagina Monologues” with a smiling picture of Hillary in the center. What’s your hat size, 2 or 3?
Let me take on the first strawman, you ignorant slut:
“”The investigation and prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’s defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness,”
Stevens was NOT busted. He was EXONERATED. Do you know the difference? Apparently not in the LaLa land that you call FactCheckTM. de Mint moved to distance RNC from Sevens during proceedings that were BOGUS to make sure there was no semblance of impropriety. Can you say the same for frozen cash Rangle? Fucking TRAITOR Shrillary? You are going to elect a person who sold US influence to a highest bidder and was responsible for Amb Stevens death. Your pile of poo stinks to high heaven. Go crawl into you manger.
And now let’s take a look at the claims made by Joe Doakes about the prosecution of Rick Perry, which doesn’t hold up as being conducted by a Democrat OR as being for political reasons rather than legitimate wrong doing.
Politifact found the claim that the prosecutor, McCrum, was a Dem, made by felon Tom DeLay, another crooked Republican, to be false. Below is the factual evidence that the accusation was false.
The prosecutor was non-partisan, having donated to both Republicans and Democrats AND was appointed by a Republican to pursue the prosecution.
“McCrum was selected by Judge Bert Richardson, a Republican appointee of President George W. Bush. Richardson and McCrum both worked as prosecutors in San Antonio, according to the Texas Tribune.
McCrum has been tight-lipped in press accounts and did not respond to our request for an interview.
Solomon Wisenberg, a former Texas prosecutor who worked with McCrum and considers him an “old friend,” called the allegation against McCrum “pathetic on its face.”
“Mike would not be engaged in a political witch hunt. The idea that he’s politically motivated is ridiculous,” Wisenberg said. “I don’t really consider him as a political person.”
So, once again, logic and fact, and sloppy factually inaccurate whiny writing by Doakes.
Rick Perry, which doesn’t hold up as being conducted by a Democrat OR as being for political reasons rather than legitimate wrong doing
I think you should quit while you are behind – ie proving yourself wrong with every FactCheckTM. Charges against Rick Perry were dismissed. Did you know that? DID YOU? And of course I am not even going to presume you understand how Grand Jury shopping works in Texas. You are so unbelievably obtuse.
made by felon Tom DeLay, another crooked Republican
I guess our FactCheckerTM did not get the memo that “Texas appellate court has overturned the conviction of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for allegedly scheming to influence Texas state elections with corporate money.”
It is like shooting little puppies in a barrel. Really. Keep digging…
Hint: “more words” is not equal to “factual and logical”.
Doggone, you can cite the nominal political affiliations of those who persecuted Scott Walker all you want, but let’s at least clue in that the Wisconsin Supreme Court didn’t just throw the charges out. They ruled that the procedures under which the investigation proceeded were a clear constitutional violation. Same basic thing with the persecution of Rick Perry, and with that of Senator Stevens, and with that of Tom DeLay.
Somehow the same doesn’t apply for Kwame, for Blago, for Bill Clinton (who surrendered his bar license to avoid prosecution), for Alcee Hastings, for Marion Barry….you seeing a pattern here?
And being very familiar with 19 USC 1824 (one of many laws under which Hilliary ought to be prosecuted) and how crimes far less than hers are career ending for others who work with classified information, I can state emphatically that the only reason she hasn’t been indicted for this and the horrendous record of the Clinton Foundation (big donations after favorable actions from State Department, little funds to actual recipients, etc..) is that it would come back to bite Obama on the rear end. Same reason that Lois Lerner hasn’t been indicated, really.
And to further document my assertion of projection, that it is the right using prosecution to alter political outcomes to favor conservatives:
“The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006, by the George W. Bush administration’s Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was “arbitrary”, “fundamentally flawed”, and “raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions”. In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, ”
and from Politico
“Documents released today by the House Judiciary Committee show that Karl Rove, the former top political adviser to President George W. Bush, played a critical role in the firing of the U.S. attorney in New Mexico following the 2006 elections.
“The 6,000-plus pages of documents, which include transcripts from interviews with Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, make it clear that Rove and other White House aides were much more involved in the U.S. attorney firings than previously reported.”
and to continue with that claim about politicized prosecutions on the right:
“The reasons for the dismissal of each individual U.S. Attorney were unclear. Two suggested motivations were that the administration wanted to make room for U.S. Attorneys who would be more sympathetic to the administration’s political agenda, and the administration wanted to advance the careers of promising conservatives. Critics said that the attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute Democratic politicians, for failing to prosecute claims of election fraud that would hamper Democratic voter registration, as retribution for prosecuting Republican politicians, or for failing to pursue adult obscenity prosecutions. The administration and its supporters said that the attorneys were dismissed for job-performance reasons “related to policy, priorities and management”, and that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. However, at least six attorneys had recently received positive evaluations of their performance from the Department of Justice. In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General’s investigation concluded that the dismissals were politically motivated and improper…”
And apparently Joe Doakes has forgotten the resignation in disgrace of Alberto Gonzales who for years afterwards struggled to get a job and was unable to do so as an attorney? Yeah, that was led by Republicans too.
“A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. On March 14, 2007, Senator John E. Sununu (R, New Hampshire) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales’ resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the USA PATRIOT Act and misuse of national security letters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
And in the following, let me underline again, this was under a Republican administration PRIOR to the election in 2008 of Obama.
“On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper. The next day Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor Nora Dannehy to decide whether criminal charges should be brought against Gonzales and other officials involved in the firings. The IG’s report contained “substantial evidence” that party politics drove a number of the firings, and IG Glenn Fine said in a statement that Gonzales had “abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the department.”
Yeah. PROJECTION.
Lol. Evidently dg has lost some of the 100,000 daily readers that can’t start their day without checking her silly little blerg.
Down to what, you and Peeve again ya little twit?
Chuckle.
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006, by the George W. Bush administration’s Department of Justice.
OMG! How much deeper can this rabid dog dig? See China yet? RinkyDink+/-DFL must be feeding wonkapedea scraps under the table to our favorite cur.
I’ll see you 8 and raise you 93: “under former President Bill Clinton’s term as President, former Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993.
You are a sad, sad, sack, rabid cur that should be called BrainGone ’cause with every, EVERY post, you prove that you don’t have one.
Giving you a heads up, Dog Gone, so you can start on your ‘fact-checking.’ Next, I’m going to write about Republicans persecuted by Democrat minions at the unspoken behest of their masters, an illegal use of government power to suppress political opposition and chill free speech. I will mention Joe the Plumber and Lois Lerner.
Who wants to guess what crazy diversion will appear in her ‘fact-check’ response? Conservatives gave drunks cigarettes for votes? Republicans were behind the Kennedy assassination? I’m willing to start a pool – buck a guess, closest wins, decided by consensus.
Yet the National Review article doesn’t even mention the Republican prosecutor leading the probe, Francis Schmitz, nor does it touch on the evidence of corruption that gave rise to the bipartisan investigation.
DG, you do know that Federal courts also ruled that the Walker probe was a violation of the Constitutional rights of those under investigation? And that the Federal appeals court did not rule on the Wisconsin political prosecutors’ appeal because it said that the issue was not ripe and should only be opened if the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutors actions were legal under Wisconsin law? The fact that the Wisconsin Supreme Court slammed the prosecution as unconstitutional made the Federal actions moot, but let it be noted that both Federal and Wisconsin courts ruled that the prosecutors were out of line.
So no, you can’t claim that Walker was corrupt or criminal after he was exonerated in both state and Federal courts. In fact, that claim is being made about the prosecutors right now in civil court and they’re trying desperately to defend their actions.
I am beginning to get the impression Dog Gone is incapable of feeling embarrassment or humiliation …….