HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » crickets » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 102 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Georgia
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 19,103

Journal Archives

Sounds like the prosecutor did screw up.


"In my entire 44-year career, I have never, ever seen a prosecutor announce charges in a major case without the suspect being in custody first," Oakland Undersheriff Mike McCabe told the Free Press.

"We don't let people turn themselves in," he said. "When a warrant is authorized by a judge, we go and get them."

On further reading, that was handled badly.

It still doesn't excuse them leaving town.

I don't know what to think about Ethan. He did a horrible thing and ended the lives of innocent classmates. He'll have to pay for that one way or another, though I hope a psych eval is involved. So many red flags beforehand were ignored or deferred, all the way up to the school meeting hours before the shooting. It's a mess. His parents didn't pull the trigger, but they did buy him a gun and left it unsecured. Any anger they may feel should be partly aimed at themselves for that.

"Crumbley's attorney says they're not on the run, they left town for their own safety

and will be back. But, they’ve been unreachable even to their own attorney. NOTE: they paid for an attorney for their case but their son, the alleged shooter used court-appointed attorney."

They left town for their own safety. Really? They left their 15 year-old son behind in jail with no family or friends for moral support, only a court-appointed attorney. They have their own attorney, but are not answering phone calls. They've grabbed a bunch of cash, ditched their car, and are now being pursued by dog teams and a large chunk of the available law officers in the area. Low ceiling is the only reason helicopters with searchlights aren't in the air.

That's some brilliant safety sense going on there.

I don't really feel any sympathy for them. Why leave your child in this situation - ever?

Any attorney with sense would have counseled them that charges might occur and they should not leave town. There's no way to argue that they are acting responsibly or in innocent ignorance. Even if they didn't know they were going to be charged, it's highly likely that they've known for hours now that they have been charged and are wanted. A phone call, one phone call could clear things up.

The prosecutor doesn't need to time the charges for the convenience of the people being charged. There's no "fair trial" involved here. The trial will not occur for a long time, if ever. The details for any additional charges re fleeing will be worked out later as well. However anyone wants to slice it, they skipped town, deserted their child, and are now evading capture. Any negative public perception is all on them -- no one else but them.

Excellent article - a must read.

It also shows how we, as a culture, take people who are pregnant for granted. I think the reason why we take people for granted and we decide that we don’t trust their decision-making when it comes to getting an abortion is because so many are women. We’re not interested in a woman’s aspirations and her decision-making. Her agency is often completely removed from these conversations.

It feeds off of the stereotype that a woman’s natural role is to be pregnant and give birth, so every and all risk should be taken by women to have a child. But in actuality, the risk of pregnancy is so substantial and it changes your physiology for the rest of your life. It’s one thing to voluntarily choose to take these risks because you want a child, but to do it to somebody against their will is downright callous. It’s unfathomable to think that adoption is a solution when you realize the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term.

The entire piece is gold: it covers everything clearly and calmly, with real world data to back up each point discussed.

Thanks for that! George Carlin could not have said it better.

Sister Joan Chittister makes many of the same points he did, and she is absolutely right.

The above is the clip most people remember. George had lots more to say about 'the sanctity of life':

The man was amazing.

Interesting Guardian article linked in tweet thread:

There’s a straight line from US racial segregation to the anti-abortion movement

Evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue” through most of the 1970s, and there is little in the history of evangelicalism to suggest that abortion would become a point of interest. Even James Dobson, who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged after the Roe decision that the Bible was silent on the matter and that it was plausible for an evangelical to hold that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being”. [snip]

Indeed, in 1971 the Southern Baptist Convention had passed a resolution calling to legalize abortion. When the Roe decision was handed down, some evangelicals applauded the ruling as marking an appropriate distinction between personal morality and public policy. Although he later – 14 years later – claimed that opposition to abortion was the catalyst for his political activism, Jerry Falwell did not preach his first anti-abortion sermon until February 1978, more than five years after Roe.

Falwell, who had founded his own segregation academy in 1967, was eager to join forces with Weyrich and others to mount a defense against the IRS and its attempts to enforce the Brown v Board of Education decision of 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “In some states,” Falwell famously groused, “it’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

So how did evangelicals become interested in abortion? As nearly as I can tell from my conversation with Weyrich, during a conference call with Falwell and other evangelicals strategizing about how to retain their tax exemptions, someone suggested that they might have the makings of a political movement and wondered what other issues would work for them. Several suggestions followed, and then a voice on the line said, “How about abortion?”

It boils down to racism, money, and power. Same old, same old.

Good. It's ridiculous that Gov Stitt is trying to pull this stunt.


Stitt ordered Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, the newly appointed head of the Oklahoma National Guard, not to enforce the vaccine mandate. Mancino, who acknowledged it put him in an awkward situation, said that under state orders, his commander was the governor. But he also said that if the guard were called up under federal orders, called Title 10, he would enforce the vaccine requirement.

A defense official who briefed reporters on the issue said that members of a National Guard unit, even under state orders, called Title 32, are still required to meet federal mission requirements, including medical requirements such as vaccine mandates.

Guard members who refuse to get vaccinated risk losing their status in the National Guard and the federal pay that comes as part of training, drills and more.

Both Title 32 and Title 10 are paid for by the federal government, not the states.

Why did Lectern Guy get a plea deal in the first place?

The other charges Johnson faced — one count of theft of government property and one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds — will be dismissed. Prosecutors have also agreed not to prosecute Johnson for any other non-violent crimes he may have committed during any events surrounding the insurrection at the Capitol.

Why? What reason was there for dropping charges? He had way too much fun mugging for cameras while walking away with government property. Just because he pled guilty to trespassing, prosecutors are not going to press any other charges or ask for jail time. They're saying that he's "taken responsibility" -- in what way?



I got nothin'.

So, he had a great time showing off as he stole government property, he serves no time, and now he wants to write a book about it. The judge told him he can't keep any profits from that book unless he waits five years to publish, boo hoo.

Johnson shouted that a bust of Washington in that vestibule would be “a great battering ram.”

Never mind. Next!


Quick web search finds:


The chart below only includes people who served in the administration, and excludes others (like members of Congress and private individuals) who may have also been swept up and indicted for the same scandal. The “Convictions” list includes both those who went to trial and were found guilty as well as those who plea bargained and pleaded guilty. The “Prison Sentences” should be considered a minimum figure, as Wikipedia's list wasn’t always clear on penalties and I wasn’t able to look all of the unclear ones up.

The number of indictments match up through Obama. Indictments are not the same as convictions, and the chart does not include tfg, as this was posted in 2017.


A Facebook post claimed that there have been 317 criminal indictments in the administrations of three recent Republican presidents — Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon — and only three indictments under three recent Democratic presidents — Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. [snip]

This claim exaggerates the number of indictments under Trump, in particular, by counting the number of criminal charges filed, rather than the number of people indicted; and it includes the indictments of people who are not part of his administration, such as 25 Russians.

On the whole, however, the indictments under the three GOP presidents do dwarf those under the three Democrats.

[Mueller, etc blablabla...] So, that’s a total of 58 or 81 charges against Trump associates — not 215.

But the claim we’re checking refers not to individual charges but indictments, of which there are only a half dozen directly tied to Trump.

This was posted in 2019. Are there any other indictments besides those from Mueller?



Democratic presidencies dating back to 1970 have produced exactly one criminal conviction from investigations into the administration. Republican presidencies have had a total of 91.

It is worth taking a second to let that sink in: three Democratic presidents. Six Republican presidents. Ninety-one convictions to one.

If you look at criminal indictments, not just convictions, its not a prettier picture: GOP Presidencies had 124 criminal indictments. Democrats had 3. This data comes from a table helpfully shared by PBS.

Yes, you read it correctly: Democrats have less total indictments since 1970 than Donald Trump does since taking office this year. And less convictions: 2-1.

Grr, it's fewer, not less. Also could not find the PBS table mentioned.

Anywhooz, it looks like the OP's graph is correct for all administrations except tfg, which, going forward, is likely to be a number much greater than 6, but has yet to be determined.

This is real? Seriously? Wow.

For those who don't do Twitter:

Heidi Cuda @Heidi_Cuda
THIS JUST IN: The 2022 annual conservative CPAC conference will be held in Budapest, because of course. H/T
Budapest to host CPAC in 2022 - BBJ
Budapest will host the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a gathering of conservative activists and elected officials from the United States and beyond, in 2022, the Budapest-based...

1:14 PM · Sep 24, 2021

Because 'America First' and all that. No doubt Tucker Carlson is pleased.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 102 Next »