Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

EXCLUSIVE! Loughner Defense Attorney to Blame Palin, Talk Radio on Shooting

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:15 PM
Original message
EXCLUSIVE! Loughner Defense Attorney to Blame Palin, Talk Radio on Shooting
I just heard from a couple of sources that attorney Judy Clarke, who represented the Unabomber in a defense that helped educate the public into the vitriolic right wing mindset, is going to greatly highlight the responsibility of the rabid right, particularly Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party, of the violent atmosphere that led to her client's unfortunate crime. This is great, and will help drill in people's mind the TRUE reality of how the right caused this massacre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Link?
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. sources? what kind of sources?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Source: Legal aides working with Clarke's offices in San Diego & Washington
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 01:32 PM by BanTheGOP
No specific names, and the trial's a long time away anyway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. so before Clarke is approved by the court to be his lawyer or has even met Loughner
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 01:39 PM by onenote
people in her offices are leaking her trial strategy?

Right.

Color me very dubious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Fair enough
But the aides work on case prep and have indicated that law enforcement statements carry the greatest weight other than factual or circumstantial evidence. The fact that Sheriff Dubnik indicates that, by direct inference, the republican party, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. have set the stage for an actual legal inquest into vitriolic involvement vis a vis talk radio.

Check your OWN legal sources, though, to verify my own sources' concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Now that could be an interesting circus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Let the circus begin!
Oh boy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. That's not going to go over well at FOX
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chowhound Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. fox will be fine
as soon as it airs fox will immediately cut to a commercial
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. That would be interesting. I'll wait and see. Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Link or sources, please. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I too am from the "Show Me" State
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. beware, peeps
Without source, this information is pretty meaningless.

Verify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Good point. I trust sources, but cannot publicize their names.
Understandable, of course, because of the nature for secrecy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. Sources?
Do you have a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I'm also skeptical.
As an attorney, it wouldn't be the first thing I'd do to announce my "strategy", especially if I were only hired for a few hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. heck, Clarke hasn't even been formally appointed by the court and hasn't met her client to be
I'm with you 100 percent. Totally skeptical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
13. The Unabomber was right wing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Not according to his published manifesto. I guess the
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 02:09 PM by SlimJimmy
OP missed that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Actually, the point is NOT about the subject...
...it is about the rhetoric and the atmosphere that leads to the incident. Keep in mind we aren't talking about individual traits; we are talking about the entire environment of hate and insidious, vitriolic talk which, at this time in history, is 100% caused by the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. There's no evidence that is tied to the shooting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dokkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. who needs evidence
when u can make one up. Kill2 birds with one stone, defend your client while knocking off a few political heavy weights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. So, you are saying that all vitriolic hate speech is found on the right
side of the political spectrum? Is that what you are saying? Because, if it is, you are wrong. There is plenty of vitriolic hate speech coming from the left as well. Hell, some of it right here at DU. Try saying you are a Blue Dog Democrat and see some of the responses. I fall in line with those that want more measured political discourse, and I think the rhetoric from the left and right has been over the top for way too long. But I won't blame political hate speech on this one. This is a case of a very disturbed individual who had a grudge against the Congresswoman going back to 2007 - (Before Palin, or Beck, or Obama, or the Health care debate). An individual with a mental disorder that eventually caused him to act out in a violent way.

And if you doubt me, feel free to catch Randi Rhodes' rhetoric on any given day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
31. His published screed included an extensive diatribe against the left n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. I'm afraid I can't put too much faith in what you posted.
Without corroboration, it's just a rumor, it seems to me. I hope you're right, but I'm not confident that you are. It's still early days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. Again fair enough. These are words from legal researchers
These legal researchers work with many law offices, so cannot be publicly corroborated, but due to the magnitude of the event and defendent I felt that release of such information is justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneAngryDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
18. LINK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. all that story does is report the fact that Clarke is being proposed as Loughner's counsel
Nowhere does it indicate what her strategy will be in defending him, which isn't surprising since the court hasn't yet approved her appointment and, therefore, she hasn't yet met with her client to-be.

A lawyer of Judy Clarke's caliber is not likely to be deciding on trial strategy, let alone allowing it to be publicized, before she even is formally appointed as counsel and has a chance to talk to her client.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
mercuryblues Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
22. If it
is true, that means Faux news will not cover the trial. Which means they can not spread their lies about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
24. Bullshit will be wide and deep for this trial.
One doubts that Ms Clarke would want to give the prosecution any free, useful clues about her strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matthewdene Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-11 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
33. Censorship and other insanity
I want to take the time to rebut a few misconceptions expressed by "Ban the GOP" regarding the recent Arizona shooting.
First, the reference to the "Unabomber" shows a complete misunderstanding of historical fact. Ted Kaczinski was not philosophically conservative and did not share traditionally conservative views that "BanTheGOP" would likely characterize as part of the "rabid right".
According to his self-written manifesto (published in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and not disseminated to labotomized drones through coded language on the Michael Savage radio show), Kaczynski's own words make it clear that he was essentially a Neo-Luddite who hated technology and wanted modern humanity to retreat to a pre-capitalist state where humans could find "authentic" existence subsiting in small agrarian communes. Sound like any 20th Century Communists you might know? Needless to say, his worldview would more likely elicit an invitation to a private showing of Michael Moore's latest film (at Pol Pot's house, with Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin in tow)than a permanent seat at the American Enterprise Institute.

Fundamentally, "BanTheGOP" confuses tactics with ideology. Apparently the thought process is as follows: if bloodshed results, it MUST be the product of a right-wing conspiracy, correct?

Not exactly.

The fact is the left-wing ideologues of the 20th century caused more bloodletting and carnage than a thousand Iraq wars combined. Ironically, those ruthless sociopaths had more in common philisophically with members of the 'Democratic Underground' than Kaczinski and Loughner did with any conservative talk-show host.But we can let that slide, right? When it comes to liberal policy, the ends justify the means, and hey, you have to break a few eggs to cook the perfect utopian omellette.

The next concept articulated by "BanTheGop" is patently absurd, namely, that other people's speech can contribute to a "climate of hate" that exonerates individuals from the consequences of their personal choices. Does any thinking individual truly believe that? Such a defense in court would guarantee Loughner's conviction. Even the normally flimsy defense of insanity would appear rock-solid next to such deterministic bilge. And look at the consequences: the "climate of hate" argument would effectively create a near-universal defense to murder. "Your honor, we're all mind-numbed robots innoculated against personal responsibility because of the toxic culture created by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin." Even someone with submoronic brain activity could undo that rhetorical Rubick's Cube.

Let's get down to what this is really about - shutting down political speech with which we disagree. Loughner had no relation to talk radio. He's simply another crackpot. (One look at his bug-eyed mugshut and you start to appreciate the classical good looks of Nick Nolte displayed in the pic snapped of him years back for a DUI arrest.) Talk radio is populated by conservatives and constantly growing in popularity. While NPR and Air America need artificial life-support in the form of government subsidies (or ideological subsidies from like-minded wealthy benefactors), conservative talk radio flourishes. Advertisers flock to these shows because it is an organic movement. Many average Americans choose to listen to it not because they are forced to, but because they simply like it. That's too much for liberals to handle. So instead of respecting the First Amendment, liberals seek to evicerate it and squash the political expression of the opposition. That's what the Orwellian-termed "fairness doctrine" is all about.

I beleive individuals like "BantheGop" are a threat to our constitution and the basic American value that traditionally embraced tolerance for the opinions of others. There must be some card-carrying members of the ACLU on this website. Doesn't the fairness doctrine's blatant attempt to regulate the content of political speech offend your core values? Doesn't it concern you? Or are you so hypocritical that you believe the Constitution should only apply to Guantanamo terrorists, but not Americans who own Bibles or shotguns?

Your own rules for postings on this website seem to indicate the there are no true civil libertarians on this site. I will recite one of your websites "rules": "Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent or otherwise inappropriate." Are you kidding me? That sounds like a policy developed in a closed-door meeting at the Chinese Politburo for dealing with the troubling explosion of freely-exchanged ideas on the internet. A court would decisively strike down a similar policy as blatantly unconstitutional if the government attempted it. At least talk radio hosts have the guts to take on liberal callers for a good verbal sparr.

In the end, I have to laugh. I have already won. I consider any attempt to censor what I have written a blanket concession that liberals like you do not have the logical and analytical abilities to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, you resort to autocratic forms of censorship to control the flow of information and muzzle the opposition.

You guys should align with John Poindexter and swap ideas for his "Total Information Awareness" project. You obviously have a knack for controlling the flow of information.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-11 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
34. nonsense. Worthless in a court-room. Don't believe this. His attorney is supposed to have a brain.
Edited on Wed Jan-12-11 07:14 PM by JohnWxy
There is no connection as far as the law is concerned. What would this be brought up for? To mitigate this guys guilt? Certainly can't change his plea, even if it was insanity. (forget insanity plea. Evidence of premeditation. Won't mitigate guilt one fucking bit. Even if she said somebody hypnotized him, that would NOT get this guy off, nor should it.

This would just piss off the judge who would say: "Council stop wasting the courts time. Now do you have anything material to bring up?"




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 18th 2019, 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC