(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  The case for Voter ID is very strong with issues like this. How hard is it to have an ID? Most places require you to show ID for things you do anyhow, why should voting be any different? Hell I had to show my ID to give blood yesterday.. I didn't get all pissy and say: You're racist and storm out.. I reached in my pocket and handed the gentleman my driver's license. Very simple.

Wasn't this issue mainly with absentee ballots in this case?

But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

It's easy to get but to ask for it to be free is a little too much. I mean it costs something to produce the damn thing. How anyone does anything in this world without an ID baffles me and the excuse that it's not free is pretty lame.

(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

As long as it does not verify eligibility, Commietom is fine with it, now, before being against it.

She should be in prison.

This is the integrity of the electoral process we are talking about.

We've already gotten the message that the 'Justice' Department has no integrity and is now entirely political in nature.

Quite a double standard in this country.
Knew it when Holder dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party
when they were even agreeing to a deal.

(03-25-2014 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  She should be in prison.

This is the integrity of the electoral process we are talking about.

We've already gotten the message that the 'Justice' Department has no integrity and is now entirely political in nature.

The state did its job. There are no grounds for the feds to step in here. I quoted you chapter and verse from the Justice Department manual based on the US Code above.

Do you want to start a precedent where the feds should come in and prosecute any cases they want, disregarding that law?

She got 5 years. She is only getting out now as she showed a health concern that the prosecutor and the judge evaluated and agreed with. It you have an issue, it's with them.

If anybody wants to put forth evidence that the judge and prosecutor acted inappropriately here in her early release, let's see it. Otherwise, you have no argument.

Sorry if that doesn't blow your skirts up.

(03-25-2014 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  She should be in prison.

This is the integrity of the electoral process we are talking about.

We've already gotten the message that the 'Justice' Department has no integrity and is now entirely political in nature.

The state did its job. There are no grounds for the feds to step in here. I quoted you chapter and verse of the law above.

Do you want to start a precedent where the feds should come in and prosecute any cases they want, disregarding that law?

She got 5 years. She is only getting out now as she showed a health concern that the prosecutor and the judge evaluated and agreed with. It you have an issue, it's with them.

If anybody wants to put forth evidence that the judge and prosecutor acted inappropriately here in her early release, let's see it. Otherwise, you have no argument.

Sorry if that doesn't blow your skirts up.

Hey chief, you didn't quote a law. Do you know what an actual law looks like?

(03-25-2014 02:02 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 12:53 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 12:19 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Fraudulent voting is far more an issue affecting local and statewide elections than Presidential elections. It is unlikely to affect Presidential election results, albeit a possibility.

Nevertheless, it can not go without mention that there have been innumerable local and statewide elections that were affected by questionable voting practices...some from both sides of the isle. Urban areas are far more susceptible to this behavior because of the denser population and the ease it provides in "sliding" in additional votes because of the likelihood that the precinct worker doesn't know the voters, etc.

How is the electoral vote done?

Believe me, I'm fully aware that it "can" happen...2000 is a perfect example. I was merely making the point that fraudulent voting has a more regular impact on local and state offices. It's how certain groups gain and grow their power....from the ground up.

That's what I'm saying... I wasn't questioning you, just saying in general... Biitches like this, voting several times are the ones who are getting the crooks in Representative positions, which decide the Electoral vote.

(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  The case for Voter ID is very strong with issues like this. How hard is it to have an ID? Most places require you to show ID for things you do anyhow, why should voting be any different? Hell I had to show my ID to give blood yesterday.. I didn't get all pissy and say: You're racist and storm out.. I reached in my pocket and handed the gentleman my driver's license. Very simple.

Wasn't this issue mainly with absentee ballots in this case?

But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

Getting an ID couldn't get any easier unless you waltzed inside the DMV and wrote down what your name might be, what you birthdate might be, and what your SSN might be...

(03-25-2014 09:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Gee...I'm not a lawyer and even I understand that there is no basis for a federal prosecution here.

Quote:Although there is no general statutory bar to a federal prosecution where the defendant's conduct already has formed the basis for a state prosecution, Congress expressly has provided that, as to certain offenses, a state judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts.

The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.

This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact.

Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy

It's very clear that the second test was not met because she was already convicted and sentenced to 5 years.

Now we can certainly discuss the judge's decision for an early release on the grounds of here medical condition and mental state and whether that was warranted, but the local prosecutor pretty much agreed and acquiessed here anyway.

It's Title 9 of the United States Attorneys' Manual. But you are correct, it's not technically a "law". But it is however the way the Justice Department operates. So again, they're doing nothing different here than in any other case. Not to mention, that its opinion is rooted in the following sections of US law: See 18 U.S.C. §§ 659, 660, 1992, 2101, 2117; see also 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a-36, 1282.

(03-25-2014 03:07 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  The case for Voter ID is very strong with issues like this. How hard is it to have an ID? Most places require you to show ID for things you do anyhow, why should voting be any different? Hell I had to show my ID to give blood yesterday.. I didn't get all pissy and say: You're racist and storm out.. I reached in my pocket and handed the gentleman my driver's license. Very simple.

Wasn't this issue mainly with absentee ballots in this case?

But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

Getting an ID couldn't get any easier unless you waltzed inside the DMV and wrote down what your name might be, what you birthdate might be, and what your SSN might be...

For most, yes it's a no brainer. But it isn't for everyone. We documented many cases back during election season of folks who either couldn't get one or were hit with a financial burden to get one.

It's rare, but it should be non-existent.

(03-25-2014 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 09:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Gee...I'm not a lawyer and even I understand that there is no basis for a federal prosecution here.

The law:

Quote:Although there is no general statutory bar to a federal prosecution where the defendant's conduct already has formed the basis for a state prosecution, Congress expressly has provided that, as to certain offenses, a state judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts.

The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.

This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact.

Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy

It's very clear that the second test was not met because she was already convicted and sentenced to 5 years.

Now we can certainly discuss the judge's decision for an early release on the grounds of here medical condition and mental state and whether that was warranted, but the local prosecutor pretty much agreed and acquiessed here anyway.

It's Title 9 of the United States Attorneys' Manual.

That's classic!

That's certifiably the dumbest thing I've seen anybody claim on here.

Oh, Lord! Thanks for that!

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:07 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  The case for Voter ID is very strong with issues like this. How hard is it to have an ID? Most places require you to show ID for things you do anyhow, why should voting be any different? Hell I had to show my ID to give blood yesterday.. I didn't get all pissy and say: You're racist and storm out.. I reached in my pocket and handed the gentleman my driver's license. Very simple.

Wasn't this issue mainly with absentee ballots in this case?

But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

Getting an ID couldn't get any easier unless you waltzed inside the DMV and wrote down what your name might be, what you birthdate might be, and what your SSN might be...

For most, yes it's a no brainer. But it isn't for everyone. We documented many cases back during election season of folks who either couldn't get one or were hit with a financial burden to get one.

It's rare, but it should be non-existent.

Is $20 a financial burden?

(03-25-2014 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  She should be in prison.

This is the integrity of the electoral process we are talking about.

We've already gotten the message that the 'Justice' Department has no integrity and is now entirely political in nature.

The state did its job. There are no grounds for the feds to step in here. I quoted you chapter and verse of the law above.

Do you want to start a precedent where the feds should come in and prosecute any cases they want, disregarding that law?

She got 5 years. She is only getting out now as she showed a health concern that the prosecutor and the judge evaluated and agreed with. It you have an issue, it's with them.

If anybody wants to put forth evidence that the judge and prosecutor acted inappropriately here in her early release, let's see it. Otherwise, you have no argument.

Sorry if that doesn't blow your skirts up.

Whoa whoa whoa, not so fast! Holder told STATE AG's that if they didn't want to adhere to the law of their state then they don't have to. Feds overstepped then, why not now?

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:07 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  The case for Voter ID is very strong with issues like this. How hard is it to have an ID? Most places require you to show ID for things you do anyhow, why should voting be any different? Hell I had to show my ID to give blood yesterday.. I didn't get all pissy and say: You're racist and storm out.. I reached in my pocket and handed the gentleman my driver's license. Very simple.

Wasn't this issue mainly with absentee ballots in this case?

But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

Getting an ID couldn't get any easier unless you waltzed inside the DMV and wrote down what your name might be, what you birthdate might be, and what your SSN might be...

For most, yes it's a no brainer. But it isn't for everyone. We documented many cases back during election season of folks who either couldn't get one or were hit with a financial burden to get one.

It's rare, but it should be non-existent.

RW, an ID is $10 bucks. Ten blooming dollars. Or is it fifteen? IDK, but it's cheap.

(03-25-2014 03:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:07 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  The case for Voter ID is very strong with issues like this. How hard is it to have an ID? Most places require you to show ID for things you do anyhow, why should voting be any different? Hell I had to show my ID to give blood yesterday.. I didn't get all pissy and say: You're racist and storm out.. I reached in my pocket and handed the gentleman my driver's license. Very simple.

Wasn't this issue mainly with absentee ballots in this case?

But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

Getting an ID couldn't get any easier unless you waltzed inside the DMV and wrote down what your name might be, what you birthdate might be, and what your SSN might be...

For most, yes it's a no brainer. But it isn't for everyone. We documented many cases back during election season of folks who either couldn't get one or were hit with a financial burden to get one.

It's rare, but it should be non-existent.

RW, an ID is $10 bucks. Ten blooming dollars. Or is it fifteen? IDK, but it's cheap.

Dude, sometimes folks don't have the documents necessary to get those ID's. That's where they either can't get them or they have to incur other costs.

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 09:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Gee...I'm not a lawyer and even I understand that there is no basis for a federal prosecution here.

Quote:Although there is no general statutory bar to a federal prosecution where the defendant's conduct already has formed the basis for a state prosecution, Congress expressly has provided that, as to certain offenses, a state judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts.

The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.

This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact.

Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy

It's very clear that the second test was not met because she was already convicted and sentenced to 5 years.

Now we can certainly discuss the judge's decision for an early release on the grounds of here medical condition and mental state and whether that was warranted, but the local prosecutor pretty much agreed and acquiessed here anyway.

It's Title 9 of the United States Attorneys' Manual.

That's classic!

That's certifiably the dumbest thing I've seen anybody claim on here.

Oh, Lord! Thanks for that!

Get over yourself and please see my edit.

(03-25-2014 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 09:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Gee...I'm not a lawyer and even I understand that there is no basis for a federal prosecution here.

The law:

Quote:Although there is no general statutory bar to a federal prosecution where the defendant's conduct already has formed the basis for a state prosecution, Congress expressly has provided that, as to certain offenses, a state judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts.

The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.

This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact.

Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy

It's very clear that the second test was not met because she was already convicted and sentenced to 5 years.

Now we can certainly discuss the judge's decision for an early release on the grounds of here medical condition and mental state and whether that was warranted, but the local prosecutor pretty much agreed and acquiessed here anyway.

It's Title 9 of the United States Attorneys' Manual.

That's classic!

That's certifiably the dumbest thing I've seen anybody claim on here.

Oh, Lord! Thanks for that!

Get over yourself and please see my edit.

Which edit?

It still says "Law."

Hilarious!

(03-25-2014 03:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 09:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Gee...I'm not a lawyer and even I understand that there is no basis for a federal prosecution here.

Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy

It's very clear that the second test was not met because she was already convicted and sentenced to 5 years.

Now we can certainly discuss the judge's decision for an early release on the grounds of here medical condition and mental state and whether that was warranted, but the local prosecutor pretty much agreed and acquiessed here anyway.

It's Title 9 of the United States Attorneys' Manual.

That's classic!

That's certifiably the dumbest thing I've seen anybody claim on here.

Oh, Lord! Thanks for that!

Get over yourself and please see my edit.

Which edit?

It still says "Law."

Hilarious!

**** you. That was from my original post up top. I'll clean it up so you don't **** your pants relishing in your gotcha moment.

(03-25-2014 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:07 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Wasn't this issue mainly with absentee ballots in this case?

But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

Getting an ID couldn't get any easier unless you waltzed inside the DMV and wrote down what your name might be, what you birthdate might be, and what your SSN might be...

For most, yes it's a no brainer. But it isn't for everyone. We documented many cases back during election season of folks who either couldn't get one or were hit with a financial burden to get one.

It's rare, but it should be non-existent.

RW, an ID is $10 bucks. Ten blooming dollars. Or is it fifteen? IDK, but it's cheap.

Dude, sometimes folks don't have the documents necessary to get those ID's. That's where they either can't get them or they have to incur other costs.

Having necessary and correct documents is a very important part of having an ID. $10 to $20 might be a problem, but they could borrow from someone if they need an ID that bad. You're making a Mariana Trench out of a mud puddle.

(03-25-2014 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

It's Title 9 of the United States Attorneys' Manual.

That's classic!

That's certifiably the dumbest thing I've seen anybody claim on here.

Oh, Lord! Thanks for that!

Get over yourself and please see my edit.

Which edit?

It still says "Law."

Hilarious!

**** you. That was from my original post up top. I'll clean it up so you don't **** your pants relishing in your gotcha moment.

It was pretty damn dumb man, astronomically stupid actually.

Still, back to the point. I'm glad she went to prison in the state but a Federal prosecution shouldn't be ruled out just because. If anything it's worse that the Feds didn't want to take the first swing at a prosecution. That's another Holder failure.