It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Well said BH,

McKinney herself uses race as it suits her, we need to accept that and realize that it is a ploy to detract from the real issue of a violation of the law.




posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Yea, well, racism does exist in America. Most people don't want to accept that fact because then they'll have to do something about it. This particular case may not have been started because of race, but the social inequalities that exist in America and, in particular the government, are indeed large.

And, when we talk about women, the disparities grow even larger. I don't want to derail this thread to focus on thos subjects though. But, I think it's good to remember that when someone claims the race card, it's important to take it on a case by case basis and not automatically assume that their claims are not true just because we hear "race." Although race is biologically meaningless, the perception people have of "race" unfortunately still does exist. And, there are not just white racists, but black, hispanic, asian, etc. etc. as well.

I guess the reason people were upset with jsobecky's comments is that genetics is the foundation for "race" and by claiming that she has bad genetics, jso might be saying something indirectly about people who are black. Only he knows what he meant though.

All in all, I still think that the capitol officer SHOULD have known who she was, but as far as I know there is no direct evidence for that assumption.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn


I guess the reason people were upset with jsobecky's comments is that genetics is the foundation for "race" and by claiming that she has bad genetics, jso might be saying something indirectly about people who are black. Only he knows what he meant though.

I just wonder why they immediately made the race connection. Instead of age, sex, religion, or anything else.

And so many were so quick to support that connection.

I've never put forward a racist argument here before.

That tells me a lot about those who wanted to make it a racist comment.


All in all, I still think that the capitol officer SHOULD have known who she was, but as far as I know there is no direct evidence for that assumption.


Just curious... did you see the before and after pictures of her hairdo? It is entirely believable that she was not recognized because of it.

One more thing about facial recognition. Is it not plausible that a nefarious element could use a body double to gain entry and commit mischief?

This is a conspiracy site, after all.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yea, well, racism does exist in America.


Absolutely. It exists.
I agree it's important to remember that.



I guess the reason people were upset with jsobecky's comments is that genetics is the foundation for "race" and by claiming that she has bad genetics, jso might be saying something indirectly about people who are black.


Yes, I understood that part. Thanks. My point is that even if jsobecky is racist, what does pointing that out or having him 'admit' it, have to do with McKinney? What does badgering jsobecky have to do with the subject of this thread? It doesn't. We all have our judgments.


Sorry about the sidetrack.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I just wonder why they immediately made the race connection. Instead of age, sex, religion, or anything else.

Err genetics has nothing to do with age or religion. Genetics has a bearing on sex and race, so which was it? Given that I asked you three times to explain EXACTLY what you meant, and you refused to answer, what are we meant to assume? That you have the genetic blueprint for Cynthia McKinney on your desk and have the capacity to determine exactly what "poor genetics" means? It's your fault you typed that remark, its your fault you didnt clarify what you meant and its your fault there is no rationalization of that blatantly racist insult.


Originally posted by jsobecky
And so many were so quick to support that connection.

Thats because you didnt attempt to clarify and there is no other explaination for your "poor genetics" remark. Why did it take you so long to put forth that story regarding her father? Since when does some one saying a racist comment taint the genetic pool of a whole family? Shall I infer your family too has poor genetics? What a crock, jsobecky.


Originally posted by jsobecky
I've never put forward a racist argument here before.

Well you did this time, you got called out on it and you've got no defence.


Originally posted by jsobecky
That tells me a lot about those who wanted to make it a racist comment.

So its our fault you typed "poor genetics". I see, I see.

[edit on 19/6/06 by subz]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by jsobecky
I just wonder why they immediately made the race connection. Instead of age, sex, religion, or anything else.

Err genetics has nothing to do with age or religion. Genetics has a bearing on sex and race, so which was it? Given that I asked you three times to explain EXACTLY what you meant, and you refused to answer, what are we meant to assume?

I didn't refuse, subz, I was just ignoring your blatant attempt at trolling.


It's your fault you typed that remark, its your fault you didnt clarify what you meant and its your fault there is no rationalization of that blatantly racist insult.

Once again, this is your interpretation, and attempt to start an argument.

I don't know why you continue to harangue me, instead of debating McKinney, subz. I didn't think that behavior was encouraged here.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
A genetic malfunction it could certainly be, having not a thing to do with nationality or country of origin or skin color, or religion.....perhaps the genetic anamoly would be one of lacking the common sense gene, or having an abundance of knucklehead dna, or even a disturbingly small amount of intelligence quotient material......

from my vantage point an abundance of self-righteous and egotistical genetic material is likely the problem


though it could be the fear gene that is quite distorted, or maybe an abundance of paranoia double helix material is the problem.....

methinks jsobecky correct in the assumption it is a genetic thing.

edit of verbage by smoken'



[edit on 19-6-2006 by smokenmirrors]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
What ever, you were stone cold caught out in a racist insult. Nothing more needs to be said from me to show that. Genetics, as far as you can tell without a superficial apraisal, has nothing to do with this thread.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Neither does trying to paint me as a racist.


smokenmirrors got it right.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Ahhh! The beauty of the Grand Jury system. It can let a prosecutor bury a case that has political ramifications without any chance of the fallout ruining the prosecutor's career. It is called political expediency. Somewhere down the line something nice will happen to the cop who was assulted because he played along with the game.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Ahhh! The beauty of the Grand Jury system. It can let a prosecutor bury a case that has political ramifications without any chance of the fallout ruining the prosecutor's career. It is called political expediency. Somewhere down the line something nice will happen to the cop who was assulted because he played along with the game.


You are absolutely right. Anyone punches a cop and goes to jail, but on the Capitol it can't be that simple, I suppose


Whoever said that the cop should have recognized this idiot: no sir, there is a security protocol that should be followed. I'm not saying that GWB should present his ID at every checkpoint around the WHite House, but that Cynthia moron was passing through a very busy checkpoint, and if a cop thought he should see her ID, he had a 100% right, according to his job description, to do so. If Cynthia doesn't like the working conditions on the Hill, there is always the door. Maybe the electorate will pick a literate, eloquent, smart and polite person next time, instead of this dummy. She gives the democrats a bad name.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
If you read Loam's post you'll note that 4 prior incidents took place with Ms McKinney.

One in 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1998.

Remarkably these took place during the Clinton administration, so quite frankly trying to paint this as Bush's cronies systematically harassing this poor hardworking public servant is an insult to readers of any intellect.

Oh by the way to those of you overseas or otherwise not familiar with American Politics, here's a stupendous newsflash for you... Cynthia McKinney is NOT the only African American member of our nation's legislature! Holy crap! And the other African American members of our nation's legislature do not find themselves harassed at the door because they behave in the same courteous manner as their colleagues of all other races as well. Nor has any other African American member of our nation's legislature (It's called the Congressional Black Caucus though judging by some of the posts here I don't expect that to be known) have ever TAKEN A SWING AT A COP!

By the way, without expecting too much from certain judgemental folks overseas who have never been the Capitol, here's something for you... in my many visits to Capitol Hill that I had been priveleged to take through various college programs and Internships I noticed that THEY ALL WEAR THE PIN WHEN COMING AND GOING. And that was pre-9/11.

I won't proclaim to know how things work in the security apparatus at the House of Lords (for example) since I haven't a clue, I would expect the same from people who know nothing about ours.

EDIT to add that my home state of New York is proud to have 4 African American members of Congress, Congressmen Meeks, Owens, Rangel and Towns, and not one of them has EVER in their many years of service (Rangel and Owens have been there forever) had an incident like that.

Whatever, race baiting to excuse a woman's lunatic outburst may be trendy but it's nothing but stupid.

[edit on 6-19-2006 by Djarums]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   


posted by subz
A grand jury declined to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney over an altercation she had with a Capitol Police officer. McKinney admitted striking the police officer when he grabbed her in a House office building. The officer claimed not to have recognized McKinney and wanted her to pass through the metal detectors at the door. McKinney claims she is being harassed by Capitol police over her political stances and that she should be recognized after serving for many years as Representative of Georgia.



W-DC A grand jury declined to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering the House office building. The grand jury considered the case after the March 29 incident, which has led to much discussion on Capitol Hill about race and the conduct of lawmakers and the officers who protect them. "We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter" said U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein.
[Edited by Don W]



Thank God the opponents of Cynthia McKinney didn't get their chance to indict her for this altercation. Just look at the photo used in that article for crying out loud. They are trying to make her look like a wild woman, why? Whats their agenda? Who told them to use that photo?

I don't believe there are many honest politicians left any more . . I would say Cynthia McKinney . . decent people left. All I say is people like her are what is needed in today's World. With more politicians like her we could have a chance of making a just society.

[Edited by Don W]


First, the prosecutor is lying through his teeth. He brought the case and wanted desperately to have the Grand Jury indict her. That would have been a 5 star on his curriculum vitae. Don’t forget he is a GOP appointee looking to get into a high priced law firm after doing his obligational tour of duty in the trenches.

Second. Rep. McKinney did wrong at the moment she was grabbed, and she compounded that mistake with the very poor advice how to handle the mistake. She needs to fire that person.

Had she come straight out and promptly apologized to the guard, she could have looked good, instead she played the race card and it backfired. No one saw it as a racial thing. Lucky for her the Grand Jury did not follow the prosecutor’s recommend, which is 100% to indict.

The outcome was dead on.



[edit on 6/19/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Re: Djarums last post:

Once again, I am disappointed that we cannot vote a WATS for our mods. But I guess that these very good posts are what make them mods, after all.


In case anyone is confused, Djarums's post was very succinct, imo. And I applaud him/her for it.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
ATSNN is held to a higher standard, and as such, off topic remarks, personal attacks, and other posting indescretions are not appropriate, and will not be tolerated. now, back to the news topic at hand: Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment.

Mod Note For The Record: Since the four preceding posts had been edited by their authors to nothing, they have been deleted.

Thanks.


[edit on 19/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I didn't refuse, subz, I was just ignoring your blatant attempt at trolling.

Trolling does not come into this, you wrote what you wrote. It ostensibly sounded racist, I asked you to clarify what you meant by that remark. You didnt, refused, ignored, what ever, the chance to clarify what you meant. Therefore myself and others were left no option but to assume you were being racist.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Once again, this is your interpretation, and attempt to start an argument.

I don't know why you continue to harangue me, instead of debating McKinney, subz. I didn't think that behavior was encouraged here.

It's my interpretation because you have thus far ignored any opportunity to clarify what you meant by clearly stating that you think McKinney's actions are the result of "bad genetics".

If you make ostensibly racist remarks on this messageboard you should expect to be called out on it. Hell, I get called an anti-semite for refering to Zionism. I dont leave any one with any questions as to whether I am a racist, I address every accusation promptly and in a forthright manner because I am not racist. When you failed to do the same you left yourself wide open to being viewed as a racist.

For the record jsobecky, djarums was not specific in who he was refering to, so your crowing is misplaced. He was not succint in any definition of the word.

[edit on 19/6/06 by subz]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
First, the prosecutor is lying through his teeth. He brought the case and wanted desperately to have the Grand Jury indict her. That would have been a 5 star on his curriculum vitae. Don’t forget he is a GOP appointee looking to get into a high priced law firm after doing his obligational tour of duty in the trenches.

Donwhite,
While I can agree with much of your post, this part seems a little harsh to me.

This D.A., if he does have aspirations to, as you put it, "get into a high priced Law Firm...," certainly doesn't need this case to do it:

Wainstein began work as a prosecutor in 1989 with the U.S. attorney's office in New York. He moved to the prosecutor's office in Washington in 1992.

"Obligational tour of duty.." eh? 17 YEARS?



He steadily rose through the ranks of the Washington office, especially during Lewis's tenure, when he handled several well-publicized cases, including the successful prosecution of Carl D. Cooper for three slayings at a Georgetown Starbucks coffeehouse in 1997.

While prosecuting a case in 1996, a murder defendant stabbed him in the hand while lunging at a government witness.

In August 2001, Wainstein became the Justice Department's director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.

This year, as interim U.S. attorney, he helped try a case in D.C. Superior Court, winning a conviction of a man accused of assault with intent to kill.

D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said last night that Wainstein's experience as a prosecutor and top FBI official gives him a useful perspective for working with law enforcement officials.

Source: Washington Post Article

Seems his C.V. is already plenty packed, if a partnership in "... a high priced Law Firm..." is all he's after. I'd say he's eyeballing becoming Atty. General, or possibly running for office. If so, then I don't believe a prosecution of a political figure would be all that helpful.

As far as "...wanted desperately to have the Grand Jury indict her..."(McKinney), that's not how the law enforcement officers saw it:

McKinney probe enters 3rd month: Police unions criticize U.S. attorney

"Right from the start this U.S. attorney has handled this case differently from every other case," said Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police. "And it's because she is a sitting congresswoman..."

...What most angers the police about the McKinney case is that it involves an assault — no matter how minor — of a police officer. Police reported that McKinney hit an officer in the chest after he failed to recognize her as a member of Congress and tried to stop her from going around a security checkpoint, something members of Congress and their aides are typically allowed to do.

"It's obviously frustrating for us," said Andy Maybo, head of the Capitol Hill police union. "This sends out the message that it's OK to hit a police officer — and it's not, regardless of who you are..."

In legal terms, McKinney's case "is as simple as you can get," said George Washington University legal expert Jonathan Turley. Usually anyone who hits a police officer is immediately arrested on felony charges, police and legal experts said.

In political terms, however, Mc-Kinney's case is far from simple. "It is loaded with emotion, and I think the U.S. attorney is being very, very conservative in how they approach this."

Given the political sensitivity — made all the more delicate by Mc-Kinney's early accusations that she was the victim of racial profiling — legal experts said it's understandable that no decision has been made.

"That would be unusual for a run-of-the-mill case, but this isn't a run-of-the-mill case," said Frank Carter, former head of the public defender service in Washington whose clients included White House intern Monica Lewinsky...

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution Article

So, the guy certainly didn't seem to be chomping at the bit to conduct this prosecution, at least not in the eyes of the people that live and work right there in the area.

Harte



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Simply an obscure observation here. There seems to be an overall acceptance that Congressmen and women are no different to other citizens when it comes to their actions. But there seems to be a case where assaulting a police officer is more of a crime than assaulting any other citizen. Is it really the case that Police are unassailable and not equal to ordinary citizens whereas congressmen and women are?

Just an interesting observation.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   


n legal terms, McKinney's case "is as simple as you can get," said George Washington University legal expert Jonathan Turley. Usually anyone who hits a police officer is immediately arrested on felony charges, police and legal experts said.


Hate to say I told you all so, but I told you all so.

She committed a crime and for several different reasons, not the least of which is that all Grand Juries are made up of Civilians, with all of the baggage that comes with them, as well as a very limited knowledge of the law.

So she walks away and can continue to search for the ever ellusive Tupac.

Semper



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
As well as she wants an impartial investigation into the unanswered occurances of 9/11 and into why the US congress was lied to with regards to authourising the invasion of Iraq.

Dont be too dismissive of Ms. McKinney. She has more going for her than wanting to know why a US citizens death has mysterious circumstances around it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join