Saturday, June 23, 2012
Roger and Me
A few days ago, I got a call from Forbes reporter Daniel Fisher, who had some intriguing questions about the Roger Clemens verdict. You can see the results of the interview here.
I think Fisher raises an excellent point-- that jurors do seem skeptical in cases that are borderline, or where there is no real harm that can be identified. This is especially true when it is the weight of the federal government that is brought to bear.
Now where real harm IS identified, there is no such reluctance, as Jerry Sandusky found yesterday in being convicted of 45 counts (albeit in a state court).
Comments:
<< Home
Do theatrics and opportunity for sound bites play a role?
I believe Republican control initiated the Edwards' charges and the current Justice Department was required to prosecute.
If "Fast and Furious" was begun in the previous administration, why is AG Holder the only one on the hot seat? Why hasn't Chairman Issa's committee started their investigation at the beginning and interviewed and suppoened information from those in the previous Justice Department? Does it play that well with the "base"?
Is it justice sought or campaign "fodder" that drives certain prosecutions?
Why has it taken so long to hold accountable those in positions of authority (like Monsignor Lynn) in the Church, at Penn State, in state houses and police departments for being complicent and looking the other way?
Can we blame jurors for being skeptical? Most deliberate seriously the case they are seated for. Oh, for the day when our politicians deliberate as seriously the cases they promote.
Theatrics, sound bites and plenty of media face time "righteousness." Justice?...
I believe Republican control initiated the Edwards' charges and the current Justice Department was required to prosecute.
If "Fast and Furious" was begun in the previous administration, why is AG Holder the only one on the hot seat? Why hasn't Chairman Issa's committee started their investigation at the beginning and interviewed and suppoened information from those in the previous Justice Department? Does it play that well with the "base"?
Is it justice sought or campaign "fodder" that drives certain prosecutions?
Why has it taken so long to hold accountable those in positions of authority (like Monsignor Lynn) in the Church, at Penn State, in state houses and police departments for being complicent and looking the other way?
Can we blame jurors for being skeptical? Most deliberate seriously the case they are seated for. Oh, for the day when our politicians deliberate as seriously the cases they promote.
Theatrics, sound bites and plenty of media face time "righteousness." Justice?...
# posted by 
: 3:03 PM
: 3:03 PM
I pray that Sandusky's victims can begin to find healing. I pray for his family and for him too actually.
Clemens though is a Yankee traitor, who only cared/cares about the moola.
Scott Davis
Clemens though is a Yankee traitor, who only cared/cares about the moola.
Scott Davis
# posted by : 9:03 PM
: 9:03 PM
Great article! Insightful comments. I agree that those two verdicts are part of the great backlash against a federal government completely overflowing its banks and flooding the nation with harmful micro-management and a top-down, one-size-fits-all operating model. Justice is just one emblematic element of the bureaucratic leviathan. My sense is that this path is wholly unsustainable.
Point of Inquiry:
Is it really true, as New Christine asserts, that a Republican Justice Department initiated the Edwards proceedings and the Obama Justice Department was powerless to do anything but continue the case?
Is it really true, as New Christine asserts, that a Republican Justice Department initiated the Edwards proceedings and the Obama Justice Department was powerless to do anything but continue the case?
My source was the article below. I believe it to be accurate.
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Print This Article
Posted on Mon, Jun. 11, 2012
Why criminal charges were brought against John Edwards remains unclear
Anne Blythe and John Frank | The (Raleigh) News & Observer
last updated: June 11, 2012 07:41:19 AM
More than two years of investigation and a six-week trial subjected the actions of presidential candidate John Edwards in 2007 and 2008 to unsparing scrutiny, revealing such intimate details as the likely conception date of his out-of-wedlock daughter and a hotel scene of his mistress in her nightie.
But one aspect of the case remains unexplained: Why was it brought as a long and costly criminal case rather than as a civil matter for the Federal Election Commission?
George Holding, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina and now a Republican candidate for Congress, initiated the investigation more than three years ago. He acted after reports surfaced that Edwards had used money from two supporters to hide his pregnant mistress during his run for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Print This Article
Posted on Mon, Jun. 11, 2012
Why criminal charges were brought against John Edwards remains unclear
Anne Blythe and John Frank | The (Raleigh) News & Observer
last updated: June 11, 2012 07:41:19 AM
More than two years of investigation and a six-week trial subjected the actions of presidential candidate John Edwards in 2007 and 2008 to unsparing scrutiny, revealing such intimate details as the likely conception date of his out-of-wedlock daughter and a hotel scene of his mistress in her nightie.
But one aspect of the case remains unexplained: Why was it brought as a long and costly criminal case rather than as a civil matter for the Federal Election Commission?
George Holding, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina and now a Republican candidate for Congress, initiated the investigation more than three years ago. He acted after reports surfaced that Edwards had used money from two supporters to hide his pregnant mistress during his run for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
# posted by : 5:01 PM
: 5:01 PM
Thank you, "A Waco Farmer"
Republican control may have been a poor choice of words. In a discussion earlier this month, I was informed a Republican affiliated U.S. Attorney initited the case. The comment was more in passing and I was not sure of the actual set of circumstances. This article speaks to the same...
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Mon, Jun. 11, 2012
Why criminal charges were brought against John Edwards remains unclear
Anne Blythe and John Frank | The (Raleigh) News & Observer
last updated: June 11, 2012 07:41:19 AM
More than two years of investigation and a six-week trial subjected the actions of presidential candidate John Edwards in 2007 and 2008 to unsparing scrutiny, revealing such intimate details as the likely conception date of his out-of-wedlock daughter and a hotel scene of his mistress in her nightie.
But one aspect of the case remains unexplained: Why was it brought as a long and costly criminal case rather than as a civil matter for the Federal Election Commission?
George Holding, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina and now a Republican candidate for Congress, initiated the investigation more than three years ago. He acted after reports surfaced that Edwards had used money from two supporters to hide his pregnant mistress during his run for the 2008 Democratic nomination...
Republican control may have been a poor choice of words. In a discussion earlier this month, I was informed a Republican affiliated U.S. Attorney initited the case. The comment was more in passing and I was not sure of the actual set of circumstances. This article speaks to the same...
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Mon, Jun. 11, 2012
Why criminal charges were brought against John Edwards remains unclear
Anne Blythe and John Frank | The (Raleigh) News & Observer
last updated: June 11, 2012 07:41:19 AM
More than two years of investigation and a six-week trial subjected the actions of presidential candidate John Edwards in 2007 and 2008 to unsparing scrutiny, revealing such intimate details as the likely conception date of his out-of-wedlock daughter and a hotel scene of his mistress in her nightie.
But one aspect of the case remains unexplained: Why was it brought as a long and costly criminal case rather than as a civil matter for the Federal Election Commission?
George Holding, the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina and now a Republican candidate for Congress, initiated the investigation more than three years ago. He acted after reports surfaced that Edwards had used money from two supporters to hide his pregnant mistress during his run for the 2008 Democratic nomination...
# posted by : 5:11 PM
: 5:11 PM
"...sensative to charges of political interference" would have been much better than "Required" to prosecute. Thank you "AWF" for holding my feet to the fire...
John Edwards' prosecution an uphill battle from the start
NEWS ANALYSIS The campaign fraud case against John Edwards was almost impossible to win, experts said from the moment of indictment. A key flaw was the lack of sanctions from the FEC.
June 02, 2012|By David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times
Months before the case went to trial, Edwards' lawyers accused the Justice Department of a politically motivated and "vindictive" prosecution. In October, they sought and failed to have the charges dismissed on grounds that the Republican U.S. attorney in Raleigh at the time, George Holding, was politically biased against Edwards, a Democrat.
Holding, the millionaire scion of a North Carolina banking family and former aide to Sen. Jesse Helms, donated to Edwards' Republican opponent in a 1998 U.S. Senate race. As senator, Edwards helped block Holding's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2001.
"This case is about politics.... A Republican U.S. attorney with political ambitions of his own has used this high-profile case to his personal benefit," Edwards' lawyers wrote in the motion to dismiss.
The Obama administration, sensitive to charges of political interference, left Holding, a George W. Bush appointee, in office while Holding was prosecuting North Carolina's Democratic then-governor, Mike Easley. Holding indicted Edwards in June 2011, then resigned a week later to run for Congress in the state's 13th District.
John Edwards' prosecution an uphill battle from the start
NEWS ANALYSIS The campaign fraud case against John Edwards was almost impossible to win, experts said from the moment of indictment. A key flaw was the lack of sanctions from the FEC.
June 02, 2012|By David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times
Months before the case went to trial, Edwards' lawyers accused the Justice Department of a politically motivated and "vindictive" prosecution. In October, they sought and failed to have the charges dismissed on grounds that the Republican U.S. attorney in Raleigh at the time, George Holding, was politically biased against Edwards, a Democrat.
Holding, the millionaire scion of a North Carolina banking family and former aide to Sen. Jesse Helms, donated to Edwards' Republican opponent in a 1998 U.S. Senate race. As senator, Edwards helped block Holding's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2001.
"This case is about politics.... A Republican U.S. attorney with political ambitions of his own has used this high-profile case to his personal benefit," Edwards' lawyers wrote in the motion to dismiss.
The Obama administration, sensitive to charges of political interference, left Holding, a George W. Bush appointee, in office while Holding was prosecuting North Carolina's Democratic then-governor, Mike Easley. Holding indicted Edwards in June 2011, then resigned a week later to run for Congress in the state's 13th District.
# posted by : 5:24 PM
: 5:24 PM
Wow! All of that is news to me, but it certainly affirms the potential for mischief in re the Feds. Shameful. Thanks for the clarification, New Christine.
Post a Comment
<< Home
