<< Michigan CJ | Main | News Scan >>


Efficient When It Wants To Be

| 15 Comments

The AP reports:

A person with knowledge of a federal campaign-finance investigation says a criminal probe has been opened into whether Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell broke the law by using campaign money to pay personal expenses.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity to protect the identity of a client who has been questioned in the probe. The case, which has been assigned to two federal prosecutors and two FBI agents in Delaware, has not been brought before a grand jury.

O'Donnell, who set a state record by raising more than $7.3 million in an unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign this year, has been dogged by questions about her finances.

My goodness. DOJ can decide in eight weeks to investigate a losing Senate candidate from the opposition party, but, after more than a year, still cannot decide on even the venue in which to try the man who planned the 9-11 mass murder.

Efficient when it wants to be.  Yes indeed.

15 Comments

Stop exploiting the delay in prosecuting 9/11 suspects to promote partisan politics. The fact that Christine O’Donnell is a Republican is neither here nor there. Corruption is corruption.

You just crossed the line.

An uneven, agenda-driven, administration of justice has become the hallmark of the Holder Justice Department.

"Stop exploiting the delay in prosecuting 9/11 suspects to promote partisan politics."

When I suspect banana republic-style "justice" I will say so, as I did when the other party was in power.

"The fact that Christine O’Donnell is a Republican is neither here nor there."

How do you know her party affiliation played no part in DOJ's decision?

"Corruption is corruption."

How do you know she engaged in corruption?

"You just crossed the line."

You do not determine the "line" on this forum. CJLF alone does that. If, however, you did determine it, you could start with your own history of petty, snide, dishonest and insulting comments.

Too funny. You are defending the most politically partisan DOJ I have ever seen in a post attacking another of political partisanship.

No one is saying that O'Donnell's campaign should not be investigated if there is a credible claim of corruption. The issue is that they seem to move very fast for O'Donnell and drag their feet when it comes to a Black Panther with a nightstick or a 9/11 mastermind. In fact, the decision regarding venue is being held up SPECIFICALLY for purely political reasons.

Your faux indignation is best reserved for the DOJ.

By the way, do you have that evidence of "unlawful executions" being "par for the course" yet? Do you stand by your words or run from them?

Two points that I find very interesting.

1) "Abolish the Death Penalty" and his ACLU types appear to have an unwavering faith in "innocent until proven guilty" (and usually still innocent after that) unless a political adversary is involved. Then, it is "corruption is corruption" even though no one has been charged and we have absolutely zero details.

2)Prosecutors and law enforcement are the most dishonest, cheating, blood thirsty individuals in society when they are "oppressing" violent criminals and thugs. When it comes to prosecuting political adversaries, they should all be fitted for halos.

"When I suspect banana republic-style "justice" I will say so, as I did when the other party was in power".

Corruption is corruption, no matter which party is in power. If Christine O'Donnell is guilty, there will be no quotation marks around the word, "justice".

"How do you know her party affiliation played no part in DOJ's decision?"

You have no evidence that it did.

"How do you know she engaged in corruption?"

I do not. Hence the purpose of an investigation.

"You do not determine the "line" on this forum".

Judging by articles such as this one, I do not disagree.

"...you could start with your own history of petty, snide, dishonest and insulting comments."

Which I have already apologized for. That does not excuse you for writing this below the belt article.

“"Abolish the Death Penalty" and his ACLU types…”

I am not an “ACLU type". I despise the activities of US prosecutors only because they favor human rights abuses. But if I were a lawyer in a country like France or Germany, I would have no problem being a prosecutor over there.

If the United States had neither the death penalty nor draconian mandatory minimums, I would be in favor of the abolition of trial by jury. I would also be in favor of abolishing the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden on prosecutors, as is already the case in some continental European countries.

"I am not an “ACLU type". I despise the activities of US prosecutors only because they favor human rights abuses. But if I were a lawyer in a country like France or Germany, I would have no problem being a prosecutor over there."

My first point is that no one seems to be stopping you from becoming an attorney in France and Germany.

My next point would be to have you define "human rights abuses" (want to bet that it would be a list similar to an "ACLU type"?) and to produce evidence that any substantial number of US prosecutors favor them. Of course, you never seem to produce evidence, just absurd and baseless allegations. An example is my repeated attempts to have you provide evidence that "unlawful executions" are "par for the course." Instead, you move on to the next blog post and verbally vomit more absurdities.

You stated: "If the United States had neither the death penalty nor draconian mandatory minimums, I would be in favor of the abolition of trial by jury."

Would you care to elaborate on why the institution of your courtroom oligarchy is dependent on the abolishment of the DP and mandatory minimums?

"My next point would be to have you define "human rights abuses"..."

Not on this forum. But I will say this: life imprisonment without even the POSSIBILITY of parole is definitely one example of a human rights abuse. It is an anomaly in most European jurisdictions.

The maximum sentence for any crime should be 25 years to life, just like in the International Criminal Court.

"...produce evidence that any substantial number of US prosecutors favor them."

You would be hard pressed to find many US prosecutors who favor the abolition of life without parole. Even Kamala Harris favors it.

"An example is my repeated attempts to have you provide evidence that "unlawful executions" are "par for the course."'

"Par for the course" means an occurrence that is normal or standard. It does not have to be fifty percent. Since 1973, there have been more than 2,500 capital exonerations in America.

"Would you care to elaborate on why the institution of your courtroom oligarchy is dependent on the abolishment of the DP and mandatory minimums?"

I want to see more criminals put behind bars, provided that their human rights are not violated.

In many ways, European jurisdictions are tougher on crime than the United States is.

ABOLISH --

1. Don't you think it's a bit odd to refuse "on this forum" to define "human rights abuses" while using this forum to accuse others of committing them?

2. "...life imprisonment without even the POSSIBILITY of parole is definitely one example of a human rights abuse. It is an anomaly in most European jurisdictions."

Meaning that it is practiced in other European jurisdictions -- not that it makes any difference anyway, since European jurisdictions have neither the right nor the power to define "human rights" for everyone else.

3. "Since 1973, there have been more than 2,500 capital exonerations in America."

First, this is cleverly non-responsive to the point, which was (emphasis added) your claim that "unlawful EXECUTIONS," not unlawful capital convictions, are "par for the course."

Please name a neutral source that has determined that a single factually innocent person has been EXECUTED in the United States at any time in the last 37 years. Justice Scalia was unable to find one in his concurring opinion in Kansas v. Marsh, but you might know something he didn't.

But that's not my main point, which is to ask (1) whether you would provide a link to your source for the claim that since 1973, there have been more than 2,500 capital exonerations in America; and (2) your definition on "exonerated."

Most people would take "exonerated" to mean "found by competent authority not to have done it." Is that your definition, and if not, why not?

Mr. Otis answered most of your responses more competently than I ever could but I'll still address some of your more ludicrous statements.

You stated: "Not on this forum."

What? Human rights abuse is an aspect of law, which this blog was created to discuss. There is no reasonable purpose for not discussing it here other than you know that your "definition" is indefensible.

You stated: " But I will say this: life imprisonment without even the POSSIBILITY of parole is definitely one example of a human rights abuse. It is an anomaly in most European jurisdictions."

The fact that European countries may or may not have LWOP is irrelevant to whether it is a "human rights abuse." The Europeans may have chosen through their political process to limit their maximum sentence but that does not mean it is a human rights abuse (not that their opinion matters in our sovereign nation).

You stated: "The maximum sentence for any crime should be 25 years to life, just like in the International Criminal Court."

That is a statement, not an argument. You are strongly implying that we should follow Europe's lead. It is just as valid for me to say that they should follow ours.

You stated: "You would be hard pressed to find many US prosecutors who favor the abolition of life without parole. Even Kamala Harris favors it."

You are depending on an unproven premise (that LWOP is a human rights abuse), thus your argument regarding prosecutors is not sound.

You stated: "Par for the course" means an occurrence that is normal or standard. It does not have to be fifty percent.

"Par for the course" means: "1. An amount or level considered to be average." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/par+for+the+course

In the case of a percentage, "average" would be 50%. That said, you are attempting a red herring. I even stated that you could supply only 10 examples. You provided zero. I'll even lower the threshold to five for you. I await your examples.

You state: "Since 1973, there have been more than 2,500 capital exonerations in America."

Really? Do you have such a low opinion of the intellect of the people populating this blog that you would attempt such an obvious bait and switch?

Without even mentioning the absurdity of your statistic, we were speaking about unlawful EXECUTIONS. Once again, please provide documentation that unlawful EXECUTIONS are "par for the course." If not, an honest person would retract the statement.


“Please name a neutral source that has determined that a single factually innocent person has been EXECUTED in the United States at any time in the last 37 years”.

Please name a neutral source that has determined that a single factually innocent person has NOT been executed in the United States at any time in the last 37 years.

“Justice Scalia was unable to find one in his concurring opinion in Kansas v. Marsh, but you might know something he didn't.”

It would not make any difference to Justice Scalia whether he could find one. Justice Scalia does not believe that the Constitution protects the rights of factually innocent people not to be executed, just as long as they received a fair trial.

But as an originalist, I actually agree with Scalia. So you made a fair point, Mr. Otis.

“But that's not my main point, which is to ask (1) whether you would provide a link to your source for the claim that since 1973, there have been more than 2,500 capital exonerations in America; and (2) your definition on "exonerated."”

(1) Ask Dudley Sharp. He likes to use the “2,500” figure to debunk the 139 innocents “scam”.

(2) A person who was sent to death row unlawfully.

"Par for the course" means: "1. An amount or level considered to be average."

Touché. I tip my hat to you.

Permit me to rephrase:

Unlawful death sentences and unlawful executions are vast and wide-ranging where capital punishment is concerned.

There. Can we cease arguing about semantics? 2,500 exonerations is still 2,500 exonerations. That is my point.

“Do you have such a low opinion of the intellect of the people populating this blog…?”

No. In spite of my prior rants, I have a very high opinion of the intellect of the people populating this blog, including you and Bill Otis.

“Without even mentioning the absurdity of your statistic, we were speaking about unlawful EXECUTIONS”.

I specifically said that “unlawful death sentences and unlawful executions are par for the course where capital punishment is concerned”. Both of them COMBINED are par for the course. I chose my words carefully. You surely did not think I was asserting that 2,500 people were unlawfully executed, now did you?

ABOLISH --

"You surely did not think I was asserting that 2,500 people were unlawfully executed, now did you?"

Of course you could have made it clear to start with, rather than suggesting an exaggeration only to have to back off when questioned by TarlsQtr.

Just so I'll be clear on your position, how many people are you asserting have been EXECUTED in this country since 1973 who DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT for which they were convicted?

Please supply the names of those people and the neutral and authoritative body (for example, a court) which has so determined.

What you're trying to do is imply that we're executing innocent people, without ever getting specific about who they are or whether anyone other than abolitionist organizations agrees with you.

The fact of the matter is that every person executed in this country since 1973 met his fate based on a court adjudication of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The great majority of those adjudications have been reviewed for years in state and federal court, typically multiple times. They have been reviewed, moreover, under the most exacting standard known to the law.

But, again, if you know better, and we've been executing innocent people, let's see the specifics.


You stated: "Permit me to rephrase:

Unlawful death sentences and unlawful executions are vast and wide-ranging where capital punishment is concerned."

Sorry, it does not help you one bit. I have asked you to provide as few as FIVE examples of "unlawful executions." If it was such a "vast and wide-ranging" occurrence, you could easily provide ten times that number. An honest person would retract the statement or at least say that they believe it but have no evidence to support the assertion. Are you an honest person?

You stated: "There. Can we cease arguing about semantics? 2,500 exonerations is still 2,500 exonerations. That is my point."

You should have quit when you were behind. Do you really want to assert that the difference between a conviction and execution is mere "semantics?"

And again, I am sure we would all love to see you provide some sort of reliable source for the figure. You have been asked repeatedly and have failed to do so. After having failed so often, it is logical to assume that you cannot.

You stated: "I specifically said that “unlawful death sentences and unlawful executions are par for the course where capital punishment is concerned”. Both of them COMBINED are par for the course. I chose my words carefully. You surely did not think I was asserting that 2,500 people were unlawfully executed, now did you?"

There you go insulting our intelligence again.

Again, even your retreat needs two things to be a logical (and honest)argument.

1) Reliable proof that 2500 people convicted of and/or executed for capital murder have been "exonerated."

2) Reliable proof that the proven number is at least 50% of the people convicted.

If not, you are merely spewing unsupported assertions.


Leave a comment