Posted on 12/18/2007 3:35:08 PM PST by T.L.Sink
Having read the transcripts I don't believe they received a fair trial due to the prosecutors withholding information that would have ruined the credibility of their main witness.
While they may not be totally innocent, I don't think they received a fair trial, and doubt that they would have been convicted on all the charges they were convicted of had they received a fair trial.
I have a problem with the Congress acting as a “jury” bestowing guilt or innocence on people.
Congress wrote the laws, that most people feel were misapplied in this case. This act would not overturn the conviction, but would effectively force their release from prison.
I have a problem with the Congress acting as a “jury” bestowing guilt or innocence on people.
It may not be a good policy, but I don't see how it is unconstitutional. Congress' control of the purse strings of the government is an important way in which the different branches of government are balanced against each other.
I do think that Congress and the President should wait until the appeals court rules. I think it is likely that the appeals court will order a new trial, and possibly remove some of the misused charges. If that happens, I suspect that the justice department will attempt to settle the case without a new trial, likely for time served.
I doubt that the government will totally dismiss the charges, nor am I sure that they should.
“I urge you to do further research on the case”
And I urge you to get off your lazy ass and actually read the transcripts than relying on idiot publications and talk shows that want to sell add time.
Yeah I agree. And mean while Ah Shucks Hucks is doing well in the polls. Who are these people supporting him?
I said it was non-constitutional. The power of pardon is reserved for the Executive. We cannot cherry pick, like liberals, which parts of the constitution we want to ignore.
“Congress lies to us every day. Time for us to do the same if it’s in the best interests of the nation.”
And who determines what is in “the best interest of the nation”? You? After that rant I wouldn’t trust you to dogsit for me.
Yes, but Congress has the power of the purse and Tancredo rightly wanted to exercise it to rectify the results of this judicial show trial and blatant perversion of justice.
Well Bob, you would have made a good Tory Loyalist 232 years ago.
“Having read the transcripts I don’t believe they received a fair trial due to the prosecutors withholding information that would have ruined the credibility of their main witness.”
This is another one of those tidbits R&C pardon supporters constantly throw out there as if it was evidence.
What information was with held by the prosecution? The OAD second run was brought up BY THE DEFENSE AT TRIAL. One may argue that information was withheld (although I’m not sure it was) but even if it was it was presented at trial and the judge ruled it inadmissable.
So arguing that if that information was given to the defense and may have led to a different verdict is assinine. Now you may want to argue that the judge ruled incorrectly and that would be up to the appeal judges, but I don’t think they will reverse on that order.
Congress has never before tried to use the power of the purse to force a change in a judicial verdict. They don’t have that power under the Constitution. If this was a perversion of justice, there are two remedies under the Constitution: a higher court can overturn the verdict, or the president can issue a pardon or commutation.
These are the same people that cried foul when Pelosi and Reid tried to use the power of the purse strings to effect a pullout from Iraq.
Well not quite. If a jury says your a not guilty, then you are not guilty, but if they say you are guilty, that can be challenged on any number of grounds, and it can be overturned by a judge, an appellate Court, or the Supreme Court. (both State and Federal, depending). Or it can be overturned by a new jury in a new trial if one is ordered on appeal. (Technically the order for a new trial overturns the old verdict, but I think y'all know what I meant).
Well not quite. If a jury says your a not guilty, then you are not guilty, but if they say you are guilty, that can be challenged on any number of grounds, and it can be overturned by a judge, an appellate Court, or the Supreme Court. (both State and Federal, depending). Or it can be overturned by a new jury in a new trial if one is ordered on appeal. (Technically the order for a new trial overturns the old verdict, but I think y'all know what I meant).
I see no reason Congress cannot pass a resolution requesting a pardon.
I think trying to force one by not appropriating money in this micro-managing way is unconstitutional.
As are attempts to muscle in on his commander-in-chief control of the military by requiring specific amounts of leave time for soldiers. I think most conservatives can recognize this when Congress tries to micro-manage something they dislike into existence. I guess it is harder when it is something you support.
I agree it is not a “good” solution. But anything beats letting these guys rot in jail for 10 years.
True, but pissant doesn’t fit into any of those scenarios...heheh.
That is within their power to do, if they can muster the votes. They've done it before.
It's reprehensible and sickening, but not unconstitutional.
And they are still trying. In this case all they have to do is nothing, that is *not* pass the necessary appropriations. Since doing nothing is easy, even for Congress, they have succeeded in not passing the appropriations bill, either the regular Defense bill or the special "war" supplemental.
The Bastids.
“I agree it is not a “good” solution. But anything beats letting these guys rot in jail for 10 years.”
How about Hunter or Tancredo submitting legislation clarifying and amending the ten year mandatory sentence as it relates to LEOs? Seems like that would be slam dunk in the House and Senate and would be put on the fast track seeing as how members of both parties agree.
Can you tell me why neither has done this? Can you tell me why neither has even proposed it? Why aren’t you and your supporters lighting up the telephone and fax lines in the offices of Hunt and Tanc demanding so?
Bloviating politicians and ax grinding political activists are so transparent.
Ah, right to the extreme example. Of course, a racially based piece of legislation would be subject to "strict scrutiny" (narrowly tailored to a compelling interest). It's unlikely that such legislation would be upheld under that standard.
Tancredo's idea is not racially based and so would not be subject to "strict scrutiny." The Congress can decide to cut off its funding of anything. Remember that it did this regarding the funding of the Vietnam War. I think that was very wrong, but it wasn't Unconstitutional.
It already does not apply to LEO’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.