RFK, Jr.: Investigate U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin for 2004 voter "caging lists"

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t agree that 2002, 2004, or 2006 victory results were affected by voter intimidation or de-registration, even though vote totals in each of those contests obviously were.
[/QUOTE]

The attempt is a crime regardless of the election’s outcome, and regardless of whether the outcome would have been the same without the cheating. (Just ask Nixon’s ghost.) Should it not be investigated where grounds for suspicion exist? And don’t they, here, based on the results of Palast’s investigation?

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The attempt is a crime regardless of the election’s outcome, and regardless of whether the outcome would have been the same without the cheating. (Just ask Nixon’s ghost.)
[/quote]

True. But I was responding to elucidator, who said:

@elucidator

Whereas the kind of voter intimidation and de-registration alleged (see? said “alleged”!) may very well have **thrown off the results **of serious and important elections.

I trust the relevance of mentioning “results” is clear in that context.

Should it not be investigated where grounds for suspicion exist? And don’t they, here, based on the results of Palast’s investigation?

I’m not sure, quite frankly, since it’s unclear to me what the provenance of Palast’s source(s) is. And Palast himself is not an unbiased observer, and as I have observed above, a Congressional investigation is more worrisome than an ordinary criminal investigation. I’d much rather see a grand jury convened than the sort of posturing that happens when Congress investigates.

And Palast’s allegations are filled with weasel-words.

For example, in your OP:

This is one of the emails subpoenaed by Congress but supposedly “lost” by Rove’s office. Palast obtained 500 of these, fifty with ‘caging’ lists attached.

Where and how did he obtain them? From Bill Burkett, or one of his ideological brethern? Or from a legitimate source?

‘Caging’ lists are “absolutely illegal” under the Voting Rights Act, noted Kennedy on his Air America program, Ring of Fire. The 1965 law makes it a felony crime to challenge voters when race is a factor in the targeting. African-American voters comprised the bulk of the 70,000 voters ‘caged’ in a single state, Florida.

The mere fact that the “bulk” of voters on the list are African American does not make it illegal. If this were an actual indictment, I’d have it dismissed in a heartbeat; it does not actually allege a crime. Where is the evidence that race was a factor?

These sorts of things are threshhold queries that would be resolved by a competent, neutral investigator – one with no political agenda.

I would certainly be in favor of an investigation led by someone neutral, with no political agenda.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m not sure, quite frankly, since it’s unclear to me what the provenance of Palast’s source(s) is.
[/quote]

The e-mails, with caging lists attached, were communications between the RNC, the Bush campaign and their top staffers, captured by John Wooden by means explained above. Confronted with them, Mindy Fletcher tried (feebly) to put an innocent construction on the caging lists, but never denied their existence or called them a forgery. Furthermore, in the event, that is, the 2004 election, the caging lists were actually used, by Republican operatives to challenge voters, on an utterly unprecedented (post-1965) scale.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’d much rather see a grand jury convened than the sort of posturing that happens when Congress investigates.
[/quote]

I could live with either, but the Congressional investigation process into this Admin’s general conduct WRT elections (that’s what it’s really about, not a few government lawyers losing their jobs when they deserved to keep them) has already started; it would be simpler to expand it.

And what’s wrong with “posturing” anyway? Didn’t posturing play some role in the fall of Nixon? And there’s no reason why it shouldn’t have, either.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
The mere fact that the “bulk” of voters on the list are African American does not make it illegal.
[/quote]

Actually it does, in the opinion of Ralph Neas, an attorney specializing in the relevant field.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I would certainly be in favor of an investigation led by someone neutral, with no political agenda.
[/QUOTE]

You won’t find one of those in Congress, nor, it now appears, in the Justice Department. Who does that leave?

[Cervaise]

Batman?

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Actually it does, in the opinion of Ralph Neas, an attorney specializing in the relevant field.

[/QUOTE]

You know, when I post here about a legal matter involving criminal law, I’m often asked for a cite, despite being an attorney who at one time practiced criminal law in the trenches of public defense work and a poster here of nearly eight years’ standing. But somehow, Ralph Neas gets off scot-free. Why is that?

I’d like to ask Ralph Neas if he has any case law to back up that opinion, because the plain language of the statute does not.

And since criminal law must be strictly construed against the government, I have to say I’m more than a little puzzled by Ralph Neas’ conclusion.

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Really? Since he was a deserter, he must have been dishonorably discharged, right? That’s what they do with deserters (unless they shoot them or send them to prison or something).
[/quote]
If Bush isn’t a deserter, then Albert DeSalvo wasn’t a serial murderer. And, for that matter, Clinton wasn’t a perjurer. By your own standard, ya know.

\Of course, if we don’t, then we will know that you are a liar, just like Dan Rather.

Mods? Nothing about the “L” word? Is that no longer a rules violation? Okay, whatever.

Slowly and carefully now: Dan Rather wasn’t running for President. He doesn’t matter. Bush was, and is. Got it now?

Now try this: If you’re AWOL for 30 days, and don’t intend to return, then you become a deserter. You could look that rule up too, if you cared.

Okay, now that* that’s * clear (and if it isn’t, try a few more times), try this: If the CBS document had never existed, the evidence of Bush’s desertion would still be exactly as strong.

@Bricker

Shodan – don’t waste your time. ElvisL1ves has zero interest in the truth

If it feels good to say that rather than to actually address ANYTHING that’s been pointed out to you, ANYTHING, that’s fine. Just don’t pretend you’re fooling anybody but Shodan, okay?

'Cause, you see, I don’t matter either. The facts do. Bush deserted. The sons of rich Congressmen didn’t have to take consequences for doing so, obviously.

When we get to a Congressional investigation, though, the playing field changes. First, we lose the secrecy. Someone targeted by a baseless accusation investigated by Congress suffers harm even if Congress determines that the accusation was, in fact, baseless

That didn’t seem to bother you much under the last administration, did it? :rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
You know, when I post here about a legal matter involving criminal law, I’m often asked for a cite, despite being an attorney who at one time practiced criminal law in the trenches of public defense work and a poster here of nearly eight years’ standing. But somehow, Ralph Neas gets off scot-free. Why is that?
[/quote]
Because he does civil rights law as a specialty, every day, as a personal passion. But *you * claim to have more credibility on the subject just because you’ve been posting on this damn message board instead? :dubious:

I’d like to ask Ralph Neas if he has any case law to back up that opinion, because the plain language of the statute does not.

Let’s see what BrainGlutton is referring to, of course (the PFAW site does not directly mention it that I can see), but perhaps you’re looking at the wrong statute, or perhaps amendment?

And since criminal law must be strictly construed against the government, I have to say I’m more than a little puzzled by Ralph Neas’ conclusion.

Perhaps rereading all those patient lectures of yours about strict scrutiny applying in cases of racial discrimination would jog your memory.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
…Merely asking for ID, you say, is intrusive enough to count as intimidation…
[/QUOTE]

Ah, no, not actually. Didn’t. Not about to.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Because he does civil rights law as a specialty, every day, as a personal passion. But *you * claim to have more credibility on the subject just because you’ve been posting on this damn message board instead? :dubious:
[/quote]

No, no - I’m not claiming any particular credibility on this issue, other than as someone generally trained in the law and with the ability to read statutory law. I’m saying that when I do claim expertise, based on my years of experience in criminal law which was a passion – as public defenders were never in it for the money, I assure you – I’m still often asked for a cite. Which is fine - I should be able to back up what I say, no question. But why are this guy’s words, who hasn’t spent any time at all here building credibility, accepted as gospel?

Let’s see what BrainGlutton is referring to, of course (the PFAW site does not directly mention it that I can see), but perhaps you’re looking at the wrong statute, or perhaps amendment?

I suppose that’s possible, although I would point out that a law that said what’s claimed – a majority of African American names is an irrebutable presumption of “race based” and therefore felonious – would itself be vulnerable to challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment. So I’m reasonably certain it’s bullshit.

Perhaps rereading all those patient lectures of yours about strict scrutiny applying in cases of racial discrimination would jog your memory.

I suggest you review those patient lectures of mine, since they have apparently fallen on deaf ears (blind eyes?). Strict scrutiny is indeed applied when weighing the validity of a law under the Equal Protection Clause when the law in question creates racial classifications. That process is used to invalidate (or affirm) laws.

Now we’re talking about a law that creates criminal conduct. We’re not talking about weighing that law to see if it’s constitutional, which might well involve strict scrutiny. We’re talking about applying the law, a criminal law, to conduct. When this is done, the law is always construed against the government.

Two completely different contexts.

[wonky]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
No, no - I’m not claiming any particular credibility on this issue, other than as someone generally trained in the law and with the ability to read statutory law. I’m saying that when I do claim expertise, based on my years of experience in criminal law which was a passion – as public defenders were never in it for the money, I assure you – I’m still often asked for a cite. Which is fine - I should be able to back up what I say, no question. But why are this guy’s words, who hasn’t spent any time at all here building credibility, accepted as gospel?
[/QUOTE]

I can’t address the specific point of this particular person’s credibility, but he’s not an anonymous user of an internet messageboard. No matter what you say or how long you’ve been here, I don’t know who you are or what your credentials really are.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Ah, no, not actually. Didn’t. Not about to.
[/QUOTE]

Apologies. I’ve seen that claim made by many people here, and I unfairly imputed it to you. My bad.

We may not be too far apart on this, then. I favor a requirement for photo ID for would-be voters, with the caveat that each state shall make photo IDs available at a sliding scale of cost that includes free IDs for those unable to pay anything. I favor a rigorous paper trial/verification system to augment any “touch screen” or other electronic voting scheme.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I can’t address the specific point of this particular person’s credibility, but he’s not an anonymous user of an internet messageboard. No matter what you say or how long you’ve been here, I don’t know who you are or what your credentials really are.
[/QUOTE]

There’s some truth to that. Still, as a poster of seven+ years standing, I’d say I’ve built a reputation of credibility in the area of criminal law practice and procedure. It’s true that you don’t know me or my credentials, but you know my posting history in that area.

[wonky]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
There’s some truth to that. Still, as a poster of seven+ years standing, I’d say I’ve built a reputation of credibility in the area of criminal law practice and procedure. It’s true that you don’t know me or my credentials, but you know my posting history in that area.
[/QUOTE]

I’m far (faaaaaaaar) from being a law expert. I wouldn’t know bs from the truth when it comes to criminal law. I don’t even watch lawyer shows!

I generally trust that people are who they say they are, but there is a big difference, in my mind at least, between being introduced to someone as an anonymous poster and being introduced to them as an identified (not just self-identified) lawyer in a high-profile case.

Also, you are probably often asked for cites simply because you’re available to provide them.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]

Also, you are probably often asked for cites simply because you’re available to provide them.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And please note I’m not quibbling about being asked for cites. It’s right and proper, and it gives people a chance to see how the law is developed. And taking anyone’s word for it is not as valuable as checking firsthand information.

My only gripe is that this lawyer – who is himself far from a neutral, detached observer – makes a claim and it’s accepted with no skepticism whatsoever.

[elucidator]

So if the OP had posted the initial opening with the same exposition, but in a tone of scorn and derision, it would have been better?

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
So if the OP had posted the initial opening with the same exposition, but in a tone of scorn and derision, it would have been better?
[/QUOTE]

Better only in the tiny sense that it would have provided some needed balance and some interesting novelty here… but not better in that it still would have been poorly supported and not well argued.

[Zoe]

Bricker: You know, when I post here about a legal matter involving criminal law, I’m often asked for a cite, despite being an attorney who at one time practiced criminal law in the trenches of public defense work and a poster here of nearly eight years’ standing. But somehow, Ralph Neas gets off scot-free. Why is that?

Let me know when I don’t have to cite for language and grammar comments. I really hate googling to support something that I’ve known for forty years. You have my sympathy.

The dishonest rhetor never acknowledges the fact that there is doubt or lack of certainty in his claims; he simply repeats them, again and again.

Opening quote from The Wit and Wisdom of George W. Bush?

Bricker, you argue so beautifully. Why are you always on the wrong side?

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Mods? Nothing about the “L” word? Is that no longer a rules violation? Okay, whatever.

[/quote]
Calling you a liar isn’t an insult; it’s an observation.

Your own cite, from Cecil himself, says specifically that your allegations that Bush is a deserter are false. You have posted, and repeated, your charges, after this fact was pointed out to you. You are therefore a liar. QED.

'Cause, you see, I don’t matter either.

Finally you posted something true. Congratulations.

@jsgoddess

you are probably often asked for cites simply because you’re available to provide them.

Well, isn’t that the problem? There is no possibility of getting a cite from this lawyer, because the accusations are being presented at third hand by a known partisan. Would you accept such an assertion from a Republican blog?

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
… Would you accept such an assertion from a Republican blog?..
[/QUOTE]

You mean, if a Republican blogger accused the GOP of rampant corruption and an insatiable lust for power? Gee, that’s a toughie…

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
But why are this guy’s words, who hasn’t spent any time at all here building credibility, accepted as gospel?
[/quote]
If you’ll read back a bit, you’ll notice that they haven’t been, other than as an aside by BrainGlutton.

I would point out that a law that said what’s claimed

Again, let’s let the claim be explained or at least cited before declaring for ourselves what it is, shall we, hmm?

We’re talking about applying the law, a criminal law, to conduct. When this is done, the law is always construed against the government.

That does seem to support the alleged PFAW allegation, doesn’t it?

Still, as a poster of seven+ years standing, I’d say I’ve built a reputation of credibility in the area of criminal law practice and procedure. It’s true that you don’t know me or my credentials, but you know my posting history in that area.

You’ve built a reputation indeed, but it isn’t necessarily the one you’d like to have, or think you have. When a question is sufficiently narrowly focused on a technical point of law, you do indeed generally know your shit, no question.

When discussing what laws and principles apply, what constitutional interpretations are and mean, in fact anything at all requiring any embrace or even comprehension at all of the *spirit * rather than the letter of the law, the *why * rather than the what, well, your reputation is not one you should be proud of. Unfortunately, this topic is in that latter category. Further, the fact that only Shodan is supporting you should give you pause, knowha’mean?