Sorry to say

What is his party affiliation...look at the case more closely. This was being debated on the radio.

gcomeau wrote:

biochem wrote:[


As the old saying goes a talented prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, so indictments aren't worth much. You need an actual conviction.


(For those outside the USA, the procesutor presents his case and witnesses to the grand jury. There is no defense lawyer present and the proceedings are secret (even after the fact). In Texas there isn't even a judge present. Therefore, the prosecuter can get away with just about anything. An ethical prosecuter won't abuse the system, an unethical one....)

Yes indeed. Except in this case the prosecutor convened the grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood.

The grand jury that will indeed generally indict a ham samdwich at the mere suggestion of wrongdoing then looked at all the evidence, said "nope, there is absolutely nothing there, we're not giving you any indictments against PP. BUT we are handing out indictments against these other idiots you brought in front of us because lookie at the crimes they were committing."

smr wrote:What is his party affiliation...look at the case more closely. This was being debated on the radio.

Who is "his" referring to exactly?

Edit:

(If it's the prosecutor who brought the case before the Grand Jury, that would be "her", and she's rather solidly Republican

If it's the governor who ordered the prosecutor to pursue the grand jury investigation, I trust we all know what the party affiliation of Rick Perry Governor of freaking Texas is.

If it's someone else... who and why should I care?)

gcomeau wrote:

biochem wrote:[


As the old saying goes a talented prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, so indictments aren't worth much. You need an actual conviction.


(For those outside the USA, the procesutor presents his case and witnesses to the grand jury. There is no defense lawyer present and the proceedings are secret (even after the fact). In Texas there isn't even a judge present. Therefore, the prosecuter can get away with just about anything. An ethical prosecuter won't abuse the system, an unethical one....)

Yes indeed. Except in this case the prosecutor convened the grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood.

The grand jury that will indeed generally indict a ham samdwich at the mere suggestion of wrongdoing then looked at all the evidence, said "nope, there is absolutely nothing there, we're not giving you any indictments against PP. BUT we are handing out indictments against these other idiots you brought in front of us because lookie at the crimes they were committing."

One of the prosecutors in that office is on the board of the Planned Parenthood involved in the case. She didn't directly present the evidence to the grand jury, but there's no doubt how she felt about it. Conflict of interest.

Now her friend and colleague who is officially the prosecutor on this case will have to present it not in a secret hearing where the prosecutor can pretty much say and do anything, but in open court with a neutral judge and a defense attorney who can challenge their interpretation of the facts. If there is truly a case, there will be a conviction. That's the true test, not a one sided, easily manipulated secret hearing.

biochem wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Yes indeed. Except in this case the prosecutor convened the grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood.

The grand jury that will indeed generally indict a ham samdwich at the mere suggestion of wrongdoing then looked at all the evidence, said "nope, there is absolutely nothing there, we're not giving you any indictments against PP. BUT we are handing out indictments against these other idiots you brought in front of us because lookie at the crimes they were committing."

One of the prosecutors in that office is on the board of the Planned Parenthood involved in the case. She didn't directly present the evidence to the grand jury, but there's no doubt how she felt about it. Conflict of interest.

Now her friend and colleague who is officially the prosecutor on this case will have to present it not in a secret hearing where the prosecutor can pretty much say and do anything, but in open court with a neutral judge and a defense attorney who can challenge their interpretation of the facts. If there is truly a case, there will be a conviction. That's the true test, not a one sided, easily manipulated secret hearing.

And the prosecutor who actually handled the case, as opposed to just working in the general geographic vicinity of it, is a solidly Republican appointee of Rick Freaking Perry.

Would you care to call "conflict of interest" in the other direction now? Or can we just admit that everything about this process was geared towards going after PP and it fell short even with a ham sandwich inditing grand jury because they had zilch to back it up.

Governors appoint 100s even 1000s of prosecutors/judges etc. Often they aren't vetted as well as they should be and are "mistakes". Even when they are vetted they can be "mistakes". I imagine Bush in 20/20 hindsight wouldn't have chosen David Souter for example.

But in this case the only true test will be the actual trial, which hopefully will be well run with a genuinely neutral judge and competent attorneys on both sides to present their sides of the story in a fair and balanced manner.



Actually there is a significant problem with grand juries as a whole and how they are run. Independent of this story there have been case after case of misuse of grand juries. Because of the way they are currently used; unethical and/or ambitious prosecutors have repeated used them to smear opponents and/or to grandstand for the public in election years etc etc. Even if this case was presented in a fair and ethical fashion (we'll never know since it was sealed) because of the many other scandals, there need to be significant reform of the grand jury system.

biochem wrote:Governors appoint 100s even 1000s of prosecutors/judges etc. Often they aren't vetted as well as they should be and are "mistakes". Even when they are vetted they can be "mistakes".

This particular one was just recently selected by the chair of the Texas GOP as the subject of their "Texas GOP Women's Spotlight" as an example of one of the Republican women in their state they're most proud of. So yeah... keep stretching.


(edit: Although it's not unlikely they'll turn on her like jackals now if they feel they need a scapegoat for this epic embarrassment... let's watch and find out!)

But in this case the only true test will be the actual trial, which hopefully will be well run with a genuinely neutral judge and competent attorneys on both sides to present their sides of the story in a fair and balanced manner.

Indeed.

And then, as pretty much anyone paying any level of attention to this case is aware, the two idiots will almost certainly end up being found guilty because there's very little question of their wrongdoing.

I'm actually more looking forward to seeing them get their ass handed to them in the inevitable civil case. These jokers are just that fraud O'Keefe all over again.

I think your passion and zealotry for the subject is overriding your judgement in this issue. Do you really think PP wants this to go to trial. The Defense attorneys will have field day with this case. Think it through.

gcomeau wrote:

biochem wrote:Governors appoint 100s even 1000s of prosecutors/judges etc. Often they aren't vetted as well as they should be and are "mistakes". Even when they are vetted they can be "mistakes".

This particular one was just recently selected by the chair of the Texas GOP as the subject of their "Texas GOP Women's Spotlight" as an example of one of the Republican women in their state they're most proud of. So yeah... keep stretching.


(edit: Although it's not unlikely they'll turn on her like jackals now if they feel they need a scapegoat for this epic embarrassment... let's watch and find out!)

But in this case the only true test will be the actual trial, which hopefully will be well run with a genuinely neutral judge and competent attorneys on both sides to present their sides of the story in a fair and balanced manner.

Indeed.

And then, as pretty much anyone paying any level of attention to this case is aware, the two idiots will almost certainly end up being found guilty because there's very little question of their wrongdoing.

I'm actually more looking forward to seeing them get their ass handed to them in the inevitable civil case. These jokers are just that fraud O'Keefe all over again.

smr wrote:I think your passion and zealotry for the subject is overriding your judgement in this issue. Do you really think PP wants this to go to trial. The Defense attorneys will have field day with this case. Think it through.

Think what through? Have you seriously not been paying attention this entire thread?

The. Videos. Were. Faked.

Of course PP wants it to go to trial. Which is why they filed the federal lawsuit 2 weeks ago. They know the videos were faked. Everyone who has been paying g attention knows they were faked. They'll slaughter these idiots in the civil suit.

One of the guys who faked it has history for faking videos.
Even to the point of a court finding he had faked a video.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

He did not fake the video...he broke state law by tampering with state id when he was from out of state. This is becoming as usual a political football during an election cycle. Both sides of this issue think they can score points during the election cycle. Back away from your rose colored glasses and quit sipping the cool-aid from either side. I do not think abortion should be legal except under certain medical conditions, rape, or incest. However, Roe vs Wade is probably going to stand well past my lifetime and beyond.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:I think your passion and zealotry for the subject is overriding your judgement in this issue. Do you really think PP wants this to go to trial. The Defense attorneys will have field day with this case. Think it through.

Think what through? Have you seriously not been paying attention this entire thread?

The. Videos. Were. Faked.

Of course PP wants it to go to trial. Which is why they filed the federal lawsuit 2 weeks ago. They know the videos were faked. Everyone who has been paying g attention knows they were faked. They'll slaughter these idiots in the civil suit.