Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
First it was that the source was no good. Then it was that the opinion was suspect. Now it's that no matter what, you wanna cling to your outrage.
Just admit it....this is a wet dream you've been having and you dun wanna wake the fuck up.
I actually posted evidence in one thread that the DoJ followed long standing precedent throughout the NBPP case, even when they dropped it after winning a default judgement. It seems that the decisions to downgrade the case from criminal to civil were made under Bush, and were standard practice because the intimidation was not unintentional, nor was it organized. After they got the order to bar Shabbaz from polling places while in possession of a weapon there was no reason to continue the case. All of these decisions were made before Holder was confirmed, and before the specific person now considered crucial to the case by conservatives was even nominated for her office.
As I actually argued the other side of the case before I thought that might make a difference, but the only person to run with the post I made was TM, and there is not a lot of debate ability behind that name. Nevertheless, this is a non issue as all the decisions were made by career prosecutors in the DoJ, and follow longstanding policy in these case. The outcome would have been exactly the same if the people charged initially were Republicans.
I have NO problem with them downgrading it to a civil issue rather than a criminal one, perhaps that IS SOP, it is NOT however SOP to drop a case after securing a win by default or otherwise but before sentencing, and THAT was done under Holder.
Read the article posted by Bfgrn and follow the links, or just go dig up my post in the other thread where I spelled everything out. They got an injunction that is still in effect that bars Shabbaz from having a weapon anywhere near a polling place. Everything after that is standard procedure, including dropping the charges.