Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
New research takes a look at decades of corruption convictions to find the crookedest states in the union.
When we think of government corruption (as one tends to do), our biased minds often gravitate to thoughts of military juntas and third world governments. But, of course, corruption is everywhere, in one form or another. And it’s costing U.S. citizens big time.
A new study from researchers at the University of Hong Kong and Indiana University estimates that corruption on the state level is costing Americans in the 10 most corrupt states an average of $1,308 per year, or 5.2% of those states’ average expenditures per year.
The researchers studied more than 25,000 convictions of public officials for violation of federal corruption laws between 1976 and 2008 as well as patterns in state spending to develop a corruption index that estimates the most and least corrupt states in the union. Based on this method, the the most corrupt states are:
How Not To Indict a Terrorist
The Justice Department’s charges against Khatallah are curiously sparse.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy
What happens when the president who has politicized law-enforcement to a degree unprecedented in American history meets a terrorist responsible for killing Americans he has recklessly failed to protect, decimating his pretensions about “decimating” al-Qaeda?
What happens is: You get the most politicized terrorism indictment ever produced by the Justice Department. Behold United States v. Khatallah, Case No. 14 Crim. 141, quietly unsealed in a Washington courtroom last Saturday while the country dozed off into summer-vacation mode.
Ahmed Abu Khatallah, of course, is the only suspect apprehended in connection with the Benghazi massacre, a terrorist attack on a still-mysterious U.S. diplomatic installation. J. Christopher Stevens, the United States ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans — State Department official Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — were killed. Until recently, such attacks have been known as acts of war carried out by the enemy. In the age of Obama, they are now known as “crimes” for which “defendants” like Khatallah are “brought to justice” — rather than brought to Gitmo. Meaning: They are whisked into our country when no one’s paying much attention. The red carpet is rolled out at a federal courthouse, where the “defendant” is given Miranda warnings, taxpayer-funded counsel, and all the rights of the American citizens they plot to kill, including lavish discovery-of-intelligence files relevant to their civilian trial.
Gold-plated due process for our enemies begins with the constitutional right to an indictment returned by a grand jury, providing the “defendant” with notice of the charges against him. In Khatallah’s case, the first thing you’ll notice is that the indictment is tiny: less than two pages long — 15 measly lines of text once you discount the caption, citations, and signature lines. This is a startling departure from Justice Department indictments in jihadist terror cases, a turn to brevity that cannot be explained solely by Obama’s banning of words like “jihadist” from the government lexicon.
In big criminal cases — and there are none bigger than those involving terrorist attacks — indictments tend toward book length, written in a narrative style designed to cut through the legalese and explain what happened. See, if the prosecutor is ethically convinced that there is sufficient evidence to convict an accused terrorist, his duty is to plead the case as expansively as necessary to get that evidence admitted.
In terrorism cases, that has always meant fully describing the nature of the terrorist enterprise. Look at the Justice Department’s jihadist cases from the Nineties (see e.g., here). They explain the history of the international jihadist network; the different terrorist organizations and state sponsors it encompasses; the identity, status, and roles of the players; plus all of the different plots and attacks that knit the network together.
The idea is to frame the case in a way that completely and coherently relates it — making it easier for judges to admit controversial evidence and jurors to grasp the willfulness of the accused. That is why the most critical decision made by the prosecutor drafting a terrorism indictment is Count One — i.e., the first statutory offense alleged.
Because jihadist terror is concerted activity involving many terrorists and organizations, the first count should always be an overarching conspiracy charge that sets the stage for a full exposition of what the defendants did and why they did it. In the Blind Sheikh indictment I wrote in 1993, Count One was a five-year, still ongoing “conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States” (charged under the Civil War–era seditious conspiracy statute in the federal code). In the indictment filed after al-Qaeda bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Count One was a near decade-long, ongoing “conspiracy to kill United States nationals” (charged under a statute addressing “acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries” added to the code in the 1996 overhaul of anti-terrorism law). Such opening charges, framing the main themes of the prosecution, are generally prefaced by a descriptive introduction, unfolding the enterprise from its origins through its evolution in the months and years that followed — often right up to the date the indictment was filed.
Pleading the conspiracy this way enables prosecutors to prove “background evidence” — showing how the players came to know each other, and how those relationships logically evolved into a conspiratorial enterprise with a structure and hierarchy. Moreover, because the law presumes that a conspiracy continues indefinitely until its objectives are achieved, the prosecutor who alleges that the conspiracy has continued even after its latest terrorist atrocities maximizes the chances of having any newly discovered evidence ruled admissible. After all, if the principal conspiratorial agreement is to levy war on the United States or mass-murder American nationals, the conspiracy does not end just because a skyscraper or an embassy has been bombed. There are still members of the terrorist organization at large, they still seek to kill Americans, and their ongoing activities (e.g., bombings to retaliate for arrests) could help cinch the case.
Traditionally, the Justice Department handles things this way because the point of prosecuting the case is to obtain convictions on the most serious, readily provable charges that can be brought. A terrorist should be charged and convicted as a terrorist, not for some lesser offense. The more the evidence is allowed to sing for itself, the more the prosecutor is seen as revealing the truth rather than trying to shape or shade it. Jurors, using their common sense, gain confidence that the whole truth is being presented and that the accused truly are guilty of heinous crimes.
It seems, however, that the Khatallah prosecution is following a different strategy.
Khatallah has been identified by the State Department as a “senior leader” of Ansar al-Sharia, one of the al-Qaeda-tied franchises in Libya. Yet there is no mention of Ansar al-Sharia in the indictment, much less of al-Qaeda or the Islamic-supremacist ideology that ties jihadist affiliates together. In fact, the indictment does not even accuse Khatallah of being a terrorist.
This shows just how smart the American voter is. They will vote for a candidate for president from one of the most corrupt states and then re-elect him. Then Bitch about most states that are corrupt are primarily Republican. But the candidate who lost is from a state that's not even on the list. What a bunch of fucking slaves,lol.
How Not To Indict a Terrorist
The Justice Department’s charges against Khatallah are curiously sparse.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy
What happens when the president who has politicized law-enforcement to a degree unprecedented in American history meets a terrorist responsible for killing Americans he has recklessly failed to protect, decimating his pretensions about “decimating” al-Qaeda?
What happens is: You get the most politicized terrorism indictment ever produced by the Justice Department. Behold United States v. Khatallah, Case No. 14 Crim. 141, quietly unsealed in a Washington courtroom last Saturday while the country dozed off into summer-vacation mode.
Ahmed Abu Khatallah, of course, is the only suspect apprehended in connection with the Benghazi massacre, a terrorist attack on a still-mysterious U.S. diplomatic installation. J. Christopher Stevens, the United States ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans — State Department official Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — were killed. Until recently, such attacks have been known as acts of war carried out by the enemy. In the age of Obama, they are now known as “crimes” for which “defendants” like Khatallah are “brought to justice” — rather than brought to Gitmo. Meaning: They are whisked into our country when no one’s paying much attention. The red carpet is rolled out at a federal courthouse, where the “defendant” is given Miranda warnings, taxpayer-funded counsel, and all the rights of the American citizens they plot to kill, including lavish discovery-of-intelligence files relevant to their civilian trial.
Gold-plated due process for our enemies begins with the constitutional right to an indictment returned by a grand jury, providing the “defendant” with notice of the charges against him. In Khatallah’s case, the first thing you’ll notice is that the indictment is tiny: less than two pages long — 15 measly lines of text once you discount the caption, citations, and signature lines. This is a startling departure from Justice Department indictments in jihadist terror cases, a turn to brevity that cannot be explained solely by Obama’s banning of words like “jihadist” from the government lexicon.
In big criminal cases — and there are none bigger than those involving terrorist attacks — indictments tend toward book length, written in a narrative style designed to cut through the legalese and explain what happened. See, if the prosecutor is ethically convinced that there is sufficient evidence to convict an accused terrorist, his duty is to plead the case as expansively as necessary to get that evidence admitted.
In terrorism cases, that has always meant fully describing the nature of the terrorist enterprise. Look at the Justice Department’s jihadist cases from the Nineties (see e.g., here). They explain the history of the international jihadist network; the different terrorist organizations and state sponsors it encompasses; the identity, status, and roles of the players; plus all of the different plots and attacks that knit the network together.
The idea is to frame the case in a way that completely and coherently relates it — making it easier for judges to admit controversial evidence and jurors to grasp the willfulness of the accused. That is why the most critical decision made by the prosecutor drafting a terrorism indictment is Count One — i.e., the first statutory offense alleged.
Because jihadist terror is concerted activity involving many terrorists and organizations, the first count should always be an overarching conspiracy charge that sets the stage for a full exposition of what the defendants did and why they did it. In the Blind Sheikh indictment I wrote in 1993, Count One was a five-year, still ongoing “conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States” (charged under the Civil War–era seditious conspiracy statute in the federal code). In the indictment filed after al-Qaeda bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Count One was a near decade-long, ongoing “conspiracy to kill United States nationals” (charged under a statute addressing “acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries” added to the code in the 1996 overhaul of anti-terrorism law). Such opening charges, framing the main themes of the prosecution, are generally prefaced by a descriptive introduction, unfolding the enterprise from its origins through its evolution in the months and years that followed — often right up to the date the indictment was filed.
Pleading the conspiracy this way enables prosecutors to prove “background evidence” — showing how the players came to know each other, and how those relationships logically evolved into a conspiratorial enterprise with a structure and hierarchy. Moreover, because the law presumes that a conspiracy continues indefinitely until its objectives are achieved, the prosecutor who alleges that the conspiracy has continued even after its latest terrorist atrocities maximizes the chances of having any newly discovered evidence ruled admissible. After all, if the principal conspiratorial agreement is to levy war on the United States or mass-murder American nationals, the conspiracy does not end just because a skyscraper or an embassy has been bombed. There are still members of the terrorist organization at large, they still seek to kill Americans, and their ongoing activities (e.g., bombings to retaliate for arrests) could help cinch the case.
Traditionally, the Justice Department handles things this way because the point of prosecuting the case is to obtain convictions on the most serious, readily provable charges that can be brought. A terrorist should be charged and convicted as a terrorist, not for some lesser offense. The more the evidence is allowed to sing for itself, the more the prosecutor is seen as revealing the truth rather than trying to shape or shade it. Jurors, using their common sense, gain confidence that the whole truth is being presented and that the accused truly are guilty of heinous crimes.
It seems, however, that the Khatallah prosecution is following a different strategy.
Khatallah has been identified by the State Department as a “senior leader” of Ansar al-Sharia, one of the al-Qaeda-tied franchises in Libya. Yet there is no mention of Ansar al-Sharia in the indictment, much less of al-Qaeda or the Islamic-supremacist ideology that ties jihadist affiliates together. In fact, the indictment does not even accuse Khatallah of being a terrorist.
TYPICAL SLOBBRIN HIJACK. TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OP.
YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS, START ANOTHER THREAD.
Meanwhile, I'll suggest that these goobers in Red states who continue getting nailed on corruption charges are all victims of their sense of false security; that they're bulletproof and above the law.
This isn't just in red states but in all states. You don't generally find the best and brightest serving 30 years in a state legislature in Mississippi... But there's a good chance that boy's made a buck or two...
How Not To Indict a Terrorist
The Justice Department’s charges against Khatallah are curiously sparse.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy
What happens when the president who has politicized law-enforcement to a degree unprecedented in American history meets a terrorist responsible for killing Americans he has recklessly failed to protect, decimating his pretensions about “decimating” al-Qaeda?
What happens is: You get the most politicized terrorism indictment ever produced by the Justice Department. Behold United States v. Khatallah, Case No. 14 Crim. 141, quietly unsealed in a Washington courtroom last Saturday while the country dozed off into summer-vacation mode.
Ahmed Abu Khatallah, of course, is the only suspect apprehended in connection with the Benghazi massacre, a terrorist attack on a still-mysterious U.S. diplomatic installation. J. Christopher Stevens, the United States ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans — State Department official Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — were killed. Until recently, such attacks have been known as acts of war carried out by the enemy. In the age of Obama, they are now known as “crimes” for which “defendants” like Khatallah are “brought to justice” — rather than brought to Gitmo. Meaning: They are whisked into our country when no one’s paying much attention. The red carpet is rolled out at a federal courthouse, where the “defendant” is given Miranda warnings, taxpayer-funded counsel, and all the rights of the American citizens they plot to kill, including lavish discovery-of-intelligence files relevant to their civilian trial.
Gold-plated due process for our enemies begins with the constitutional right to an indictment returned by a grand jury, providing the “defendant” with notice of the charges against him. In Khatallah’s case, the first thing you’ll notice is that the indictment is tiny: less than two pages long — 15 measly lines of text once you discount the caption, citations, and signature lines. This is a startling departure from Justice Department indictments in jihadist terror cases, a turn to brevity that cannot be explained solely by Obama’s banning of words like “jihadist” from the government lexicon.
In big criminal cases — and there are none bigger than those involving terrorist attacks — indictments tend toward book length, written in a narrative style designed to cut through the legalese and explain what happened. See, if the prosecutor is ethically convinced that there is sufficient evidence to convict an accused terrorist, his duty is to plead the case as expansively as necessary to get that evidence admitted.
In terrorism cases, that has always meant fully describing the nature of the terrorist enterprise. Look at the Justice Department’s jihadist cases from the Nineties (see e.g., here). They explain the history of the international jihadist network; the different terrorist organizations and state sponsors it encompasses; the identity, status, and roles of the players; plus all of the different plots and attacks that knit the network together.
The idea is to frame the case in a way that completely and coherently relates it — making it easier for judges to admit controversial evidence and jurors to grasp the willfulness of the accused. That is why the most critical decision made by the prosecutor drafting a terrorism indictment is Count One — i.e., the first statutory offense alleged.
Because jihadist terror is concerted activity involving many terrorists and organizations, the first count should always be an overarching conspiracy charge that sets the stage for a full exposition of what the defendants did and why they did it. In the Blind Sheikh indictment I wrote in 1993, Count One was a five-year, still ongoing “conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States” (charged under the Civil War–era seditious conspiracy statute in the federal code). In the indictment filed after al-Qaeda bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Count One was a near decade-long, ongoing “conspiracy to kill United States nationals” (charged under a statute addressing “acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries” added to the code in the 1996 overhaul of anti-terrorism law). Such opening charges, framing the main themes of the prosecution, are generally prefaced by a descriptive introduction, unfolding the enterprise from its origins through its evolution in the months and years that followed — often right up to the date the indictment was filed.
Pleading the conspiracy this way enables prosecutors to prove “background evidence” — showing how the players came to know each other, and how those relationships logically evolved into a conspiratorial enterprise with a structure and hierarchy. Moreover, because the law presumes that a conspiracy continues indefinitely until its objectives are achieved, the prosecutor who alleges that the conspiracy has continued even after its latest terrorist atrocities maximizes the chances of having any newly discovered evidence ruled admissible. After all, if the principal conspiratorial agreement is to levy war on the United States or mass-murder American nationals, the conspiracy does not end just because a skyscraper or an embassy has been bombed. There are still members of the terrorist organization at large, they still seek to kill Americans, and their ongoing activities (e.g., bombings to retaliate for arrests) could help cinch the case.
Traditionally, the Justice Department handles things this way because the point of prosecuting the case is to obtain convictions on the most serious, readily provable charges that can be brought. A terrorist should be charged and convicted as a terrorist, not for some lesser offense. The more the evidence is allowed to sing for itself, the more the prosecutor is seen as revealing the truth rather than trying to shape or shade it. Jurors, using their common sense, gain confidence that the whole truth is being presented and that the accused truly are guilty of heinous crimes.
It seems, however, that the Khatallah prosecution is following a different strategy.
Khatallah has been identified by the State Department as a “senior leader” of Ansar al-Sharia, one of the al-Qaeda-tied franchises in Libya. Yet there is no mention of Ansar al-Sharia in the indictment, much less of al-Qaeda or the Islamic-supremacist ideology that ties jihadist affiliates together. In fact, the indictment does not even accuse Khatallah of being a terrorist.
So is this your way of answering my question is to divert the subject???? The truth hurts does it not?
New research takes a look at decades of corruption convictions to find the crookedest states in the union.
When we think of government corruption (as one tends to do), our biased minds often gravitate to thoughts of military juntas and third world governments. But, of course, corruption is everywhere, in one form or another. And it’s costing U.S. citizens big time.
A new study from researchers at the University of Hong Kong and Indiana University estimates that corruption on the state level is costing Americans in the 10 most corrupt states an average of $1,308 per year, or 5.2% of those states’ average expenditures per year.
The researchers studied more than 25,000 convictions of public officials for violation of federal corruption laws between 1976 and 2008 as well as patterns in state spending to develop a corruption index that estimates the most and least corrupt states in the union. Based on this method, the the most corrupt states are:
A corruption study that goes back to 1976 is meaningless. A lot of those states were blue in 1976.
You can start by flipping Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee to blue. And you could probably flip Pennsylvania to red.
The common denominator is high poverty and relatively low populations. Not political parties.
And the only meaningful statistic is corruption NOW.
Where are you getting your sources??? Alabama has voted Republican in every single election since 1980- Tennessee since 1980 only went DEM and both were Clinton's elections, Mississippi last voted for a Democrat in 1976- they voted GOP every election since 76. There has been 10 Presidential elections since 1976 Louisiana voted Dem in 1976, 92, and 96 and voted GOP all the other years. Florida has been the closest it's voted 4 times DEM and 6 times GOP. Pennsylvania in the last 10 elections since 76 has voted DEM 7 times and GOP 3 times- so all your data is totally incorrect. None of the states you mentioned can be flipped- only one that was wishy washy was Florida in which many of the elections have been close.
The DATA going back to 1976 is not meaningless especially if they stopped collecting data in 2008- that's 9 elections and as mentioned before most of those states in those years voted one particular way.
Governor Edwin W. Edwards (D) - 8 years in a federal penitentiary
Mayor Clarence "Ray" Nagin (D) Convicted in 2014 of "20 out of 21 charges of wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering related to bribes from city contractors before and after Hurrican Katrina."
Congressman William J. "Dollar Bill" Jefferson (D) Convicted of bribery in 2009 and sentenced to thirteen years in federal prison.
Former Port Allen City Council Member Sentenced in Operation Blighted Officials
U.S. Attorney’s Office
April 26, 2012
BATON ROUGE, LA—United States Attorney Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr. announced that, as part of Operation Blighted Officials, Chief U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson sentenced Johnny L. Johnson, Sr. (D), age 65, of Port Allen, Louisiana, to two years’ probation, with a conditions of having to spend six months in a half-way house and forfeiture of the bribe proceeds.
During his guilty plea, Johnson admitted that, on November 19, 2008, while he was a member of the Port Allen City Council, he and then-Port Allen Mayor Derek Lewis provided false official letters of support for a conceptual product known as the Cifer 5000. In exchange for the false letters, Johnson and Lewis accepted an $8,000 suite at the Bayou Classic football game, with Johnson’s share being six tickets worth $2,500.
In July 2010, Johnson was first contacted by federal law enforcement authorities concerning this matter. He promptly took responsibility for his actions, agreed to cooperate with the investigation, and pled guilty before the late Chief Judge Tyson on July 23, 2010.
At today’s sentencing, the court and the United States repeatedly credited Johnson for having been the first defendant in Operation Blighted Officials to accept responsibility, cooperate with the investigation, and plead guilty in a timely manner. While noting that Johnson’s criminal betrayal of the public trust must not go unpunished, the United States asked the Court to give significant consideration to Johnson’s limited role in the overall scheme and his commendable actions since being caught.
United States Attorney Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr., stated, “Today’s sentence reflects the court’s recognition of the importance of accepting responsibility and cooperation, particularly in public corruption matters. While the defendant’s corrupt actions are inexcusable and warrant the resulting felony conviction, the choices he made to accept responsibility and cooperate are commendable and the sentence appropriately reflects as much.”
The status of the remaining Operation Blighted Officials defendants follows.
Maurice Brown (D): In February 2011, the former mayor of White Castle, Louisiana was convicted by a federal jury following a two-week trial of violating Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, engaging in honest services wire and mail fraud, and use of an interstate facility in aid of racketeering. Judge Jackson sentenced Brown to 120 months in prison.
Thomas A. Nelson, Jr. (D): In June 2011, the former mayor of New Roads, Louisiana was convicted by a federal jury following a two and a half week trial of violating the RICO Act, engaging in honest services wire fraud, using an interstate facility in aid of racketeering, and making false statements to the FBI. Judge Jackson sentenced Nelson to 132 months in prison.
Derek A. Lewis (D): In June 2011, the former mayor of Port Allen, Louisiana pled guilty to violating the RICO Act. He awaits sentencing before Judge Jackson on June 12, 2012.
Frederick W. Smith (D) : In October 2011, the chief of police for Port Allen, Louisiana, was convicted by a federal jury following a two-week trial of 11 counts of violating the RICO Act, engaging in honest services wire and mail fraud, and using an interstate facility in aid of racketeering. Judge Jackson sentenced Smith to 90 months in prison.
George L. Grace, Sr. (D) : In March 2012, the former mayor of St. Gabriel, Louisiana was convicted by a federal jury following a six week trial of violating the RICO Act, engaging in honest services wire and mail fraud, bribery, obstruction of justice, making false statements, and use of an interstate facility in aid of racketeering. U.S. District Judge Maurice Hicks detained Grace pending his sentencing scheduled in August 2012.
This matter is part of Operation Blighted Officials, an investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with assistance from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Office of Inspector General. Operation Blighted Officials has been prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Corey R. Amundson, Senior Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division; Patricia Jones, Senior Litigation Counsel; and Michael Jefferson. http://www.fbi.gov/neworleans/press-...hted-officials
Deputy Commissioner for the Louisiana Department of Insurance Richard L. Chambers, Sr., (D) age 67, of LaPlace, Louisiana, pled guilty today before Chief U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson to using an interstate facility in aid of racketeering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952, and forfeiture, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982. Chambers faces up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release following imprisonment, a fine of $250,000, and forfeiture of all proceeds from the offense. Sentencing is scheduled before Chief Judge Jackson at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2012.
At today’s hearing, Chambers admitted that, while serving as Deputy Commissioner for the Louisiana Department of Insurance, he engaged in two bribery schemes in which he took bribes in exchange for using his official position to (1) steer insurance business and (2) support a conceptual trash can cleaning concept known as the Cifer 5000.
TYPICAL SLOBBRIN HIJACK. TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OP.
YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS, START ANOTHER THREAD.
Meanwhile, I'll suggest that these goobers in Red states who continue getting nailed on corruption charges are all victims of their sense of false security; that they're bulletproof and above the law.
This isn't just in red states but in all states. You don't generally find the best and brightest serving 30 years in a state legislature in Mississippi... But there's a good chance that boy's made a buck or two...
Stick to the topic, Slobbrin.
The bitch-slap is the quickest and best way to recapture a person's attention. Let's do that for iffy and jim, the fiery and flaming asshole streaking across the sky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
So is this your way of answering my question is to divert the subject???? The truth hurts does it not?
Everybody knew that would be the way he would answer the question.
How Not To Indict a Terrorist
The Justice Department’s charges against Khatallah are curiously sparse.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy
What happens when the president who has politicized law-enforcement to a degree unprecedented in American history meets a terrorist responsible for killing Americans he has recklessly failed to protect, decimating his pretensions about “decimating” al-Qaeda?
What happens is: You get the most politicized terrorism indictment ever produced by the Justice Department. Behold United States v. Khatallah, Case No. 14 Crim. 141, quietly unsealed in a Washington courtroom last Saturday while the country dozed off into summer-vacation mode.
Ahmed Abu Khatallah, of course, is the only suspect apprehended in connection with the Benghazi massacre, a terrorist attack on a still-mysterious U.S. diplomatic installation. J. Christopher Stevens, the United States ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans — State Department official Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — were killed. Until recently, such attacks have been known as acts of war carried out by the enemy. In the age of Obama, they are now known as “crimes” for which “defendants” like Khatallah are “brought to justice” — rather than brought to Gitmo. Meaning: They are whisked into our country when no one’s paying much attention. The red carpet is rolled out at a federal courthouse, where the “defendant” is given Miranda warnings, taxpayer-funded counsel, and all the rights of the American citizens they plot to kill, including lavish discovery-of-intelligence files relevant to their civilian trial.
Gold-plated due process for our enemies begins with the constitutional right to an indictment returned by a grand jury, providing the “defendant” with notice of the charges against him. In Khatallah’s case, the first thing you’ll notice is that the indictment is tiny: less than two pages long — 15 measly lines of text once you discount the caption, citations, and signature lines. This is a startling departure from Justice Department indictments in jihadist terror cases, a turn to brevity that cannot be explained solely by Obama’s banning of words like “jihadist” from the government lexicon.
In big criminal cases — and there are none bigger than those involving terrorist attacks — indictments tend toward book length, written in a narrative style designed to cut through the legalese and explain what happened. See, if the prosecutor is ethically convinced that there is sufficient evidence to convict an accused terrorist, his duty is to plead the case as expansively as necessary to get that evidence admitted.
In terrorism cases, that has always meant fully describing the nature of the terrorist enterprise. Look at the Justice Department’s jihadist cases from the Nineties (see e.g., here). They explain the history of the international jihadist network; the different terrorist organizations and state sponsors it encompasses; the identity, status, and roles of the players; plus all of the different plots and attacks that knit the network together.
The idea is to frame the case in a way that completely and coherently relates it — making it easier for judges to admit controversial evidence and jurors to grasp the willfulness of the accused. That is why the most critical decision made by the prosecutor drafting a terrorism indictment is Count One — i.e., the first statutory offense alleged.
Because jihadist terror is concerted activity involving many terrorists and organizations, the first count should always be an overarching conspiracy charge that sets the stage for a full exposition of what the defendants did and why they did it. In the Blind Sheikh indictment I wrote in 1993, Count One was a five-year, still ongoing “conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States” (charged under the Civil War–era seditious conspiracy statute in the federal code). In the indictment filed after al-Qaeda bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Count One was a near decade-long, ongoing “conspiracy to kill United States nationals” (charged under a statute addressing “acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries” added to the code in the 1996 overhaul of anti-terrorism law). Such opening charges, framing the main themes of the prosecution, are generally prefaced by a descriptive introduction, unfolding the enterprise from its origins through its evolution in the months and years that followed — often right up to the date the indictment was filed.
Pleading the conspiracy this way enables prosecutors to prove “background evidence” — showing how the players came to know each other, and how those relationships logically evolved into a conspiratorial enterprise with a structure and hierarchy. Moreover, because the law presumes that a conspiracy continues indefinitely until its objectives are achieved, the prosecutor who alleges that the conspiracy has continued even after its latest terrorist atrocities maximizes the chances of having any newly discovered evidence ruled admissible. After all, if the principal conspiratorial agreement is to levy war on the United States or mass-murder American nationals, the conspiracy does not end just because a skyscraper or an embassy has been bombed. There are still members of the terrorist organization at large, they still seek to kill Americans, and their ongoing activities (e.g., bombings to retaliate for arrests) could help cinch the case.
Traditionally, the Justice Department handles things this way because the point of prosecuting the case is to obtain convictions on the most serious, readily provable charges that can be brought. A terrorist should be charged and convicted as a terrorist, not for some lesser offense. The more the evidence is allowed to sing for itself, the more the prosecutor is seen as revealing the truth rather than trying to shape or shade it. Jurors, using their common sense, gain confidence that the whole truth is being presented and that the accused truly are guilty of heinous crimes.
It seems, however, that the Khatallah prosecution is following a different strategy.
Khatallah has been identified by the State Department as a “senior leader” of Ansar al-Sharia, one of the al-Qaeda-tied franchises in Libya. Yet there is no mention of Ansar al-Sharia in the indictment, much less of al-Qaeda or the Islamic-supremacist ideology that ties jihadist affiliates together. In fact, the indictment does not even accuse Khatallah of being a terrorist.
Total bullshit .
Name a single terrorist who has escaped justice by being given to the civilian courts.
Name one who didn't receive his fair measure of punishment by being given to the civilian courts.
Just leave him at Gitmo until he finds Jesus? Until Obama trades him for a truly good receiver out of the backfield for the Redskins or some shit?
Cricket sounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
This shows just how smart the American voter is. They will vote for a candidate for president from one of the most corrupt states and then re-elect him. Then Bitch about most states that are corrupt are primarily Republican. Looks to me like you're the bitch(er) here. When the facts back a person up, they don't bitch about it. But the candidate who lost is from a state that's not even on the list. What a bunch of fucking slaves,lol.
Jim
And then there was one.
No jim. It shows how stupid you are.
You're the only person to publically state that a person from a state on the 10 most corrupted states list has to be corrupted too. Basically denying them part of their Constitutional rights.
And that a person from a state not on that list can't be corrupted and should be above suspicion.
With @25000 convictions between 1976 and 2008, that leaves the vast majority, and yes even those from these "evil" states, of the every day people as just that.
Uncorrupted (at least to the degree needed for a conviction).
The bitch-slap is the quickest and best way to recapture a person's attention. Let's do that for iffy and jim, the fiery and flaming asshole streaking across the sky.
Everybody knew that would be the way he would answer the question.
Total bullshit .
Name a single terrorist who has escaped justice by being given to the civilian courts.
Name one who didn't receive his fair measure of punishment by being given to the civilian courts.
Just leave him at Gitmo until he finds Jesus? Until Obama trades him for a truly good receiver out of the backfield for the Redskins or some shit?
Cricket sounds.
And then there was one.
No jim. It shows how stupid you are.
You're the only person to publically state that a person from a state on the 10 most corrupted states list has to be corrupted too. Basically denying them part of their Constitutional rights.
And that a person from a state not on that list can't be corrupted and should be above suspicion.
With @25000 convictions between 1976 and 2008, that leaves the vast majority, and yes even those from these "evil" states, of the every day people as just that.
Uncorrupted (at least to the degree needed for a conviction).
Obarkys #1 boy comes to mind... marshmellowman
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin
A corruption study that goes back to 1976 is meaningless.
Totally agree. WTF is the University of Hong Kong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer
And the only meaningful statistic is corruption NOW.
The other problem is the arresting, trying and convicting of corruption. There may be huge pockets of corruption but few will ever get convicted because most are on the take or the corruption has been institutionalized. Someone from New York may have heard about it.
Governor Edwin W. Edwards (D) - 8 years in a federal penitentiary
Mayor Clarence "Ray" Nagin (D) Convicted in 2014 of "20 out of 21 charges of wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering related to bribes from city contractors before and after Hurrican Katrina."
Congressman William J. "Dollar Bill" Jefferson (D) Convicted of bribery in 2009 and sentenced to thirteen years in federal prison.
Former Port Allen City Council Member Sentenced in Operation Blighted Officials
U.S. Attorney’s Office
April 26, 2012
BATON ROUGE, LA—United States Attorney Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr. announced that, as part of Operation Blighted Officials, Chief U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson sentenced Johnny L. Johnson, Sr. (D), age 65, of Port Allen, Louisiana, to two years’ probation, with a conditions of having to spend six months in a half-way house and forfeiture of the bribe proceeds.
During his guilty plea, Johnson admitted that, on November 19, 2008, while he was a member of the Port Allen City Council, he and then-Port Allen Mayor Derek Lewis provided false official letters of support for a conceptual product known as the Cifer 5000. In exchange for the false letters, Johnson and Lewis accepted an $8,000 suite at the Bayou Classic football game, with Johnson’s share being six tickets worth $2,500.
In July 2010, Johnson was first contacted by federal law enforcement authorities concerning this matter. He promptly took responsibility for his actions, agreed to cooperate with the investigation, and pled guilty before the late Chief Judge Tyson on July 23, 2010.
At today’s sentencing, the court and the United States repeatedly credited Johnson for having been the first defendant in Operation Blighted Officials to accept responsibility, cooperate with the investigation, and plead guilty in a timely manner. While noting that Johnson’s criminal betrayal of the public trust must not go unpunished, the United States asked the Court to give significant consideration to Johnson’s limited role in the overall scheme and his commendable actions since being caught.
United States Attorney Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr., stated, “Today’s sentence reflects the court’s recognition of the importance of accepting responsibility and cooperation, particularly in public corruption matters. While the defendant’s corrupt actions are inexcusable and warrant the resulting felony conviction, the choices he made to accept responsibility and cooperate are commendable and the sentence appropriately reflects as much.”
The status of the remaining Operation Blighted Officials defendants follows.
Maurice Brown (D): In February 2011, the former mayor of White Castle, Louisiana was convicted by a federal jury following a two-week trial of violating Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, engaging in honest services wire and mail fraud, and use of an interstate facility in aid of racketeering. Judge Jackson sentenced Brown to 120 months in prison.
Thomas A. Nelson, Jr. (D): In June 2011, the former mayor of New Roads, Louisiana was convicted by a federal jury following a two and a half week trial of violating the RICO Act, engaging in honest services wire fraud, using an interstate facility in aid of racketeering, and making false statements to the FBI. Judge Jackson sentenced Nelson to 132 months in prison.
Derek A. Lewis (D): In June 2011, the former mayor of Port Allen, Louisiana pled guilty to violating the RICO Act. He awaits sentencing before Judge Jackson on June 12, 2012.
Frederick W. Smith (D) : In October 2011, the chief of police for Port Allen, Louisiana, was convicted by a federal jury following a two-week trial of 11 counts of violating the RICO Act, engaging in honest services wire and mail fraud, and using an interstate facility in aid of racketeering. Judge Jackson sentenced Smith to 90 months in prison.
George L. Grace, Sr. (D) : In March 2012, the former mayor of St. Gabriel, Louisiana was convicted by a federal jury following a six week trial of violating the RICO Act, engaging in honest services wire and mail fraud, bribery, obstruction of justice, making false statements, and use of an interstate facility in aid of racketeering. U.S. District Judge Maurice Hicks detained Grace pending his sentencing scheduled in August 2012.
This matter is part of Operation Blighted Officials, an investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with assistance from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Office of Inspector General. Operation Blighted Officials has been prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Corey R. Amundson, Senior Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division; Patricia Jones, Senior Litigation Counsel; and Michael Jefferson. http://www.fbi.gov/neworleans/press-...hted-officials
Deputy Commissioner for the Louisiana Department of Insurance Richard L. Chambers, Sr., (D) age 67, of LaPlace, Louisiana, pled guilty today before Chief U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson to using an interstate facility in aid of racketeering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952, and forfeiture, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982. Chambers faces up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release following imprisonment, a fine of $250,000, and forfeiture of all proceeds from the offense. Sentencing is scheduled before Chief Judge Jackson at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2012.
At today’s hearing, Chambers admitted that, while serving as Deputy Commissioner for the Louisiana Department of Insurance, he engaged in two bribery schemes in which he took bribes in exchange for using his official position to (1) steer insurance business and (2) support a conceptual trash can cleaning concept known as the Cifer 5000.
The 10 most corrupt states in the Union are.....
