Grand Jury Declines Cynthia McKinney Indictment

Originally posted by subz
Man she cant even apologize right, must be those bad genetics actin' up again eh?

Keep trolling, subz....

Did you see her "apology"?

I come before this body to personally express, again, my sincere regret about the encounter with the Capitol Hill Police. I appreciate my colleagues who are standing with me, who love this institution and who love this country. There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I have always supported law enforcement, and will be voting for H. Res. 756 expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation. And I apologize.
ledux.blogspot.com...

[edit on 19-6-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by subz
It's this irrational response in the general public that is the main aim of the establishment.

What establishment is that?

I'm not some political junkie. The woman represents my party for crying out loud, and even worse, my city. I think, as a whole, we can do better than her. Atlanta has far more inteligent, better spoken, and better mannered people that can and should be running for office.

-O

[edit on 19-6-2006 by The Big O]

Rep. Cynthia McKinney, had a full grasp of the situation...
she also understood that IF
everything & anything could get 'out of hand'...
then at the very most ~because of her position~
she might get Admonished or get 'Bad Press'

Rep. CMcK is a far, far cry from the caliber of...lets say

Julian Bond

i've noted that a few of you say that she should be excused
for her 'passion'...i say the voters should feel short-changed
and feel they have been sold a bill-of-goods which does not measure up

Of course there is a learning-curve in any position of authority...
but a 'Law-Maker' has attested that they are not neophytes and
pretty well know the ins-outs, do's-don'ts, of public behavior
&
the consequences or distractions which a grand Faux-Pax could
have on their term in office, in representing her fellow Georgians.


[edit on 19-6-2006 by St Udio]

Originally posted by The Big O
Her hair appears, and I use the word appears on purpose, frazzeled and unkept.

Do you mean, because she doesn't chemically relax it? Do you have naturally straight hair? Are you female?

I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but I'm trying to determine the spirit of your comment. It's hard to tell where you're coming from with this. (And the stuff I asked is relevent, to me. I'll explain in my next message, if I get a chance.)

Fact is, she doesn't put a lot of emphasis into her appearance, and if she is paying someone to dress her and do her hair, she needs to fire them.

I can't wait to respond to this, but I'll withhold my comments until you've answered.

posted by jsobecky
Regarding her "apology", that was a bunch of bull. Very superficial. Never once did she apologize to the officer that she assaulted, nor did she truly own up to her primary role in this ridiculous waste of taxpayers money. It was nothing more than a gambit designed to show that she had "done the right thing".

She reminded me of Pope John Paul 2 apologizing for the RCC’s “Christ Killer” Jewish appellation that contributed mightily to the Holocaust. It was so hard to get out!




[edit on 6/20/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Do you mean, because she doesn't chemically relax it? Do you have naturally straight hair?

No, I don't mean because she doesn't chemically relax it. There are many hair styles for African American women today that do not require them to chemically relax their hair.

I think she looks very nice in this picture:

Her hair is kept but not chemically straightened. It looks clean and professional as would be expected from a congressperson. Don't get me started on the leopard print collar on red, I'll save that for below.

Then, there is this:

This looks frazzeled. I understand what she is trying to do here, but leave this look for the musicians and artists that can pull it off. It does not look professional.

I can't wait to respond to this, but I'll withhold my comments until you've answered.

Please, by all means respond.

Here is a BAD outfit:

I mean, come on...the 80's called and they want their "Beat It" red leather jacket back. The only think missing are the zippers. I also have a picture of her in a lime green suit coat, looks terrible.

Here is Cynthia looking very nice:

Granted, it is a black and white picture, but I think you can see what I mean. Very contemporary, very elegant, clean lines, very profressional.

And yes, there are plenty of other congress people who are not the most dapper dressers in the world. However, I think she can do better, and for someone who attracts as much attention as her, she should.

-O

EDIT: Corrected a problem with how I used the quotes.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by The Big O]

Can I ask what bearing dress and appearance has on her ability to perform her duties as a congresswoman? As far as I am concerned politicians can wear their hair, and dress what ever way they wish so long as they uphold their oaths of office.

Subz, it is called professionalism, and it is part of the job. Most people can not walk into their job wearing pajamas and a tank top, because it's not professional.

She is a representative for the people of her district, and she should dress as such. Fact is, attire does effect how you do your job. As a matter of fact, look how lightly some of us are talking about her now, don't you think fellow congress people think the same way?

Are they more likley to caucus with her and take her seriously? Tell me, how is that effective as a politician? If you can't get anyone to listen to your debate, are you really performing a duty at all?

As a congress person it is of the utmost importance that she carriers herself well because when she speaks to people it effects the lives of all of those back in her disctrict. No one listens to the "crazy person" on the side of the street, its the same way in the halls of congress.

-O

As a counter point, look at how useless the average well dressed and well kempt congressmen and women are. Jefferson looks pretty smart and he's crooked as they come. You may think attire reflects professionalism but it doesnt.

I tend to listen to what people have to say instead of examining what they look like first. If there are congressmen and women that ignore McKinney based on what she looks like they should be ashamed of themselves.

McKinney has been a congresswoman for over 10 years, I think the majority of her constituents are happy with her lest they wouldnt keep voting for her.

You might think attire reflects professionalism but in actuality that position is nothing more than superficiality.

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong here.

In a perfect world apperance wouldn't matter, but it does, and it has a very real effect on how sucessful someone is.

In the business world, if I interview someone who looks like a schmuck I'm going to consider them less than someone who has a little less talent but dresses and carries themselves better. Especially if this person may come in contact with clients and or customers.

You don't see CEOs, outside of trendy IT startups and whatnot, looking like putzes. YOu don't go to a trade show and see people giving presentations in unpresses suits. There is a reason for this, it looks bad and impacts how well someone is received.

Cynthia may be voted in for another term, but lets not forget she did lose, and not too long ago. She had to sit out two years and then be reelected. Denise Majette beat Cynthia, who had been in office at that time in the 4th district, for several reasons. Majette didn't just win by a hair, it was like 15 or 16 points if I remember correctly.

Had Majette not decided to run for Seante, which was a dumb move, she likely would have kept her seat too. However, since she ran, that opened the door for Mckinney, and lets face it, Mckinney didn't exactly have a groupd of well organized canidates to oppose her either. She got enough votes to avoid a run off, and basically was able to rally her base enough to get accomplsihed what she needed to get done.

In addition, the House did not return her senoirity either, which may say something for their confidence in her abilities. While she may be outspoke, and many respect her for that, politics is more than being outspoken. It's about speaking at the right palce at the right time, and in the right way, to get what you need accomplished. You also have to dress the part, which she doesn't.

-O

Originally posted by The Big O
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong here.

In a perfect world apperance wouldn't matter, but it does, and it has a very real effect on how sucessful someone is.

In the business world, if I interview someone who looks like a schmuck I'm going to consider them less than someone who has a little less talent but dresses and carries themselves better. Especially if this person may come in contact with clients and or customers.

Explain to me why this is relevent when the likes of Jefferson are smartly dressed and get caught accepting bribes? The world is what you make it, if you think appearance matters that is your choice. If I dont think appearance matters then that too is my choice. Not that long ago the appearance of being black would of prevented some one from even being elected, now it does not matter.

It would not of been hard to find some one 40 years ago that would say that being black would be unacceptable. Now that is not the case and that certain aspect of appearance is not factored into how people perceive others.

I can only be frank here, I do not care what a politician wears. If my Prime Minister stood up in board shorts and a hawaiian shirt I would still not trust him as much as if he was wearing a perfect pin striped suit. That is because I know he cannot be trusted and what he wears matters not.

Cynthia McKinney has proven herself worthy of my support in what she has been outspoken about, as such I dont care if she walks around in a big foot costume. I will still listen to what she has to say. Maybe its the people who judge books by their cover that need to change and not the likes of me in my so-called perfect world.

I don't think Jefferson's appearance bares into this conversation. He took advantage of his position. His waredrobe had little to do with his evidently lax ethical standards.

I don't think shes an effective politican, and she certaintly hasn't done much of note here in the greater metro Atlanta area as of late. Yelling about the Iraq war is great, lord knows I don't support the war, but there are other things you must do as a congressperson, and that is where I feel she falls short.

-O

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by jsobecky
Regarding her "apology", that was a bunch of bull. Very superficial. Never once did she apologize to the officer that she assaulted, nor did she truly own up to her primary role in this ridiculous waste of taxpayers money. It was nothing more than a gambit designed to show that she had "done the right thing".

She reminded me of Pope John Paul 2 apologizing for the RCC’s “Christ Killer” Jewish appellation that contributed mightily to the Holocaust. It was so hard to get out!

Then again, this thread is not about the Roman Catholic Church. It is about Cynthia McKinney.

posted by jsobecky

Then again, this thread is not about the Roman Catholic Church. It is about Cynthia McKinney.

One thing leads to another. As in a simile. He said it, not me.

Now here is an interesting development.

WASHINGTON- Police labor officials, angry over a federal grand jury's refusal to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney for assaulting a police officer, said Monday said they want the House ethics committee to review her conduct.

This is from a Police Newsletter I get.

Semper

I'm sure the Capitol Police are angry. A grand jury disproved a Capitol Cop's "claim" that Ms. McKinney "struck" him. What else are they going to do? I think the problem is that the cop wants the pity party to come to him because the Georgia Congresswoman was not indicted.

I still say, he should just sweep this under the rug and move on. Being "tapped" by a cell phone is not the same as being shot by a perpetrator on the street. There are more important things to worry about.

It is simply a political exercise to continue to drag Ms. McKinney's name in the mud.

BTW, for the The Big O: The arguement about how a Black person dresses is getting old and tired. No one ever complains about how Kay Bailey Hutcheson or Elizabeth Dole dresses on their way to Congress while they are conducting business. Until someone does complain, I would think that it is prone to "bias" when complaining about Ms. McKinney. It is not about professionalism. It is about the attitudes possessed by certain people of a certain persuasion who try to place their standards on other people when they themselves have to take a glance in the mirror.

After all, Ms. McKinney did have the guts to question officials about 9/11 as well as campaign on the behalf of people victimized by human trafficking. Who else in Congress cares about such a thing?








[edit on 22-6-2006 by ceci2006]

Ceci,

I have to correct you on one thing.

A Grand Jury does not prove or disprove anything. They are a group of civilians that listen to only one person involved, usually the DA, and not the officer, and then they decide if there is enough evidence to proceed to court.

So if I start letting people "tap" me with cell phones, is it OK if they slap me, just a little?

Where does it stop?

Semper

And it was more than a "claim". There were several eyewitness to the incident.

[BTW, for the The Big O: The arguement about how a Black person dresses is getting old and tired. No one ever complains about how Kay Bailey Hutcheson or Elizabeth Dole dresses on their way to Congress while they are conducting business.

Not once did I say her dress had anything to do with her color.

I can't avoid that her ethnicity does effect how she can style her hair, but her skin color has no connection to her wardrobe.

BTW, if you think Elizabeth Dole isn't laughed at behind her back for how she dresses you need to get more friends who work on The Hill. It has a direct impact on her effectiveness, and no one takes her seriously either.

-O

Originally posted by ceci2006
I'm sure the Capitol Police are angry. A grand jury disproved a Capitol Cop's "claim" that Ms. McKinney "struck" him. What else are they going to do? I think the problem is that the cop wants the pity party to come to him because the Georgia Congresswoman was not indicted.

You gotta be kidding. The checkpoint was not manned by one person, and I'm sure there were many people and witnesses around. You are making a statement tha the cop (and witnesses) lied. The Grand Jury did not disprove anything.

I still say, he should just sweep this under the rug and move on. Being "tapped" by a cell phone is not the same as being shot by a perpetrator on the street. There are more important things to worry about.

When and if, God forbid, you get stopped for a traffic violation by a cop, I recommend trying to "tap" him with your cell phone. Then you should recommend that he sweeps under the rug and moves on. Does it sound idiotic to you already? It does to me.

It is simply a political exercise to continue to drag Ms. McKinney's name in the mud.

Oh, I listened to her for 5 painful minutes on TV the other night and the person is a moron. She doesn't need no kind of mud, but she needs a job for which she's better qualified. I heard Taco Bell was hiring.

After all, Ms. McKinney did have the guts to question officials about 9/11 as well as campaign on the behalf of people victimized by human trafficking.

Excuse me, but the 9/11 conspiracies are discussed in other threads of this forum. The topic here, may I remind you, is that some uncivilized individual accosted a police officer and got away with it.