And **'luci ** neglecting to villify an obviously partisan blog as a source. It’s a twofer.
What I’m complaining about is bringing up legalities when no actual action is seriously being proposed. Unless it’s illegal to hate Bush.
It’s also borderline when someone says something like “Bush should be removed from office, because so and so,”, and someone replies why that won’t work due to legalities. Bricker does stuff like that, but everyone does.
I specifically did not complain about bringing up the legalities of the practical merits of proposed actions (such as"the American people CAN impeach Bush!!!). If you had any reading comprehension in your knee-jerk brain, you would have been able to see that.
Prefer stalkers who are female, buxom and oral compulsive. Advise.
Walk slower.
In dark alleys.
Seems fair to me! After all, the allegiance of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Gonzales, and their underlings and supporters, among which last we may place Ms. Coulter, to the constitutional proprieties is legend*.
- “Legend” – having a loose affiliation with historical fact but chiefly fictional in nature.
Don’t drag me into this.
I know I’ve said this before but one of my old VPs actually dated and um, you know, with her. He said you REALLY didn’t want to piss her off by being late. You just didn’t.
The Palm Beach Post is not a partisan blog.
Arrangeable. How much stalking can you afford?
What a crock of total shit. Witnesses change stories all the time. Sometimes they refuse to testify. That doesn’t stop the state from prosecuting. If the only evidence is eyewitness testimony, you may have a point, but in this case there would, it seems, be clear physical evidence. There should be a voter registration card, filled out by Coulter, with an address where she did not live, and signed by Coulter, probably right below a statement affirming that everything on the form is true to the best of her knowledge under penalty of perjury. That’s what my voter registration looked like. If I put a fake address on it and signed it, I would be guilty of a crime, regardless of whether some moron working the polls saw me or said something to me or whatever and then changed his mind. Physical evidence is much more powerful than eyewitness evidence.
And since when do lawyers care about fair mindedness and even handedness? Lawyers are concerned with getting the best possible outcome for their client, regardless of what may be fair or even handed. How many lawyers say “let’s give back that 28 million dollar judgment, because it probably wasn’t fair”?
This is the funniest shit I’ve seen in a long long time. 
how YOU doin’?
PLease review my sentence: When your only witness says completely contradictory things and admits that he may have been responsible for the violation, there’s no realistic way to establish a crime.
If it were simply that he changed his story, you’d be correct: prosecutors can and do obtain convictions based on other than testimonial evidence. The fatal flaw here is the admission that he may have been responsible. Regardless of what the forms say, if she can point to a poll worker and say, “He told me to do thus-and-so,” and he has agreed that he did, in fact, say that… there’s no realistic way to obtain a conviction. No jury will impose criminal liability when someone can point to a mass of forms and say, “I just did what the man in charge told me,” especially when the violation is not obvious.
Lawyers operate within ethical bounderies that are defined by their profession. Of course they are vigorous advocates for their clients. But they (generally) do not exercise that advocacy past the ethical limits of their state bar’s rules.
Thank you for the compliment at the beginning.
And as to your latter observation, this is a thread devoted to a LEGAL ISSUE. To approach it without considering the legal implications seems curiously bereft of purpose.
Nah, this is a thread about what a blazing tool Ms Coulter is, with the possible bit of spice that she receives preferential treatment from the Powers That Be, but Ought Not. I know, you’re a hammer, so all issues look like nails. Nobody expects Ms Coulter to be sweating on the Prada chain gang, however delightful the prospect may be.
You need to get out more, counselor.
From what I can tell with the limited information available, there are two possible crimes: falsifying a voter registration form and voting in the wrong precinct. The witness who changed his story was a poll worker, and he said that he may have had a hand in her voting in the wrong precinct. Even if he had a hand in her voting in the wrong precinct, he’s not saying he had a hand in her falsifying her registration, which should be easy to prove without any eyewitnesses. Coulter’s attorney said that she was relying on advice from another attorney when she falsified her registration. The falsification of the form is the main crime, AFAICT, and the failure to file charges on that charge cannot be explained by a flaky poll worker.
And even if someone (her lawyer or even an election worker) told her to put a false address on a government form and then sign her name to it, I seriously doubt she would be able to use that as a defense. I’m assuming it has some kind of perjury warning right above the signature line.
It is not. It is about a possible abuse of power by one particular public official, which stinks even if it is not a crime.
Look, I still disagree with you about Bennett’s gambling, I think his losing $8 million was irresponsible, and I also think that the movie adaptation of RENT sucked, it’s just an opinion, and I know I went overboard in my disagreement with you,
but I honestly never meant for it to get you disbarred. Just tell me who to write and I’ll get around to it at some point (so long as I don’t have to claim to like RENT or Bennett).
I think the problem Bricker has with you stems from the fact you tend to make posts like this all the time, acting as the SDMB’s crusader to uncover the evils of the Bush Administration and anyone associated with it. In this crusade you routinely start a post where you give one newspaper article as your source and then your analysis of the evidence is either misleading, or the evidence itself is not cut and dry. When called on either thing, you refuse to even acknowledge it’s possible your first, gut level reaction to the news (and your posting suggests you can’t control yourself when it comes to relaying whatever garbage you’ve found in the news on an hourly basis) was incorrect. You consistently act as though your sources of information are beyond criticism, and any evidence or counter-points anyone makes against you are totally without merit.
To be honest I’m not surprised Bricker has been calling you on it lately, I’ve noticed it ever since I started posting here a few years ago. It’s never gotten under my skin enough for me to say anything about it, but I definitely don’t view Bricker’s accusations to be remotely off-base.
I can’t believe I participated in an Ann Coulter thread and failed to dis the anorexic witch. I must be slipping.
The issue is a non-starter. Just another example of the old adage, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”; the equivalent of getting a parking ticket fixed.
I graciously accept your accolades.
That’s why I started this thread in the Pit. It ain’t GD material, but it is fair grounds for recreational outrage.