Do you think if she had voted for Mitt Romney, this would be a different story?

Last week Al Sharpton embraced convicted vote fraudster Melowese Richardson at a “voting rights” rally in Cincinnati. The United States Department of Justice under Eric Holder has done nothing to Melowese Richardson 410 days after she admitted on camera that she committed multiple federal felonies by voting six times for President Obama’s reelection.

Federal law makes it a felony to vote more than once for President. In fact, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973i(e) subjects Richardson to twenty-five years in federal prison for her six votes for Obama.

The lack of DOJ action against an unrepentant federal vote fraudster combined with Richardson’s lionization by Sharpton and the organization that sponsored the rally demonstrates how the Justice Department is facilitating a culture of brazen criminality on the eve of the 2014 midterm elections. The failure to indict Richardson is the latest example of Holder’s department excusing lawlessness in federal elections and abandoning law abiding Americans.

Melowese Richardson was charged with state voter fraud crimes in Ohio. She was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison on July 7, 2013. Unfortunately, instead of serving five years, Richardson was set free after only eight months.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...-for-Obama

She was sentenced to five years in jail… while the rest of us got four years of hell.

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail… while the rest of us got four years of hell.

She served 8 months under a state conviction. She broke federal laws, but Holder won't prosecute. My point was if a person had voted for Romney six times and got caught, do you think Holder would prosecute?

I believe the only action that the Justice Dept has taken regarding voter rights was to attempt to stop FL from purging voter rolls of illegal immigrants and deceased individuals and that was dismissed by the court system.

Holder's Dept. of Injustice. He has the dubious distinction of being the first Attorney General of the United States to be held in Contempt of Congress. Then went and hid behind Zero's skirt. America holds that b@stard in contempt.

(03-25-2014 08:44 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail… while the rest of us got four years of hell.

She served 8 months under a state conviction. She broke federal laws, but Holder won't prosecute. My point was if a person had voted for Romney six times and got caught, do you think Holder would prosecute?

DOJ Dilemma: George Zimmerman voting six-times for Obama.

Hooray!

Under equal protection, we can all vote as many times as we want now. American Presidential Elections just became American Idol.

Come on this has to Piss off even liberals! This women has undermined what it is to be an american. This makes me sick to see that someone can openly admit to a felony and get away with it. This goes beyond Right/Left. I have no words how much this pisses me off.

My question is to the democrats on this board. Do you support this women, and do you support holder not prosecuting?

There is nothing more important in a democracy than perceived fair elections. BOTH sides have to know the elected IS the rightful placeholder. She should prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No one wins in situations like these. Obama's administration should want to hold her accountable. I understand the frustration.

(03-25-2014 08:44 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail… while the rest of us got four years of hell.

She served 8 months under a state conviction. She broke federal laws, but Holder won't prosecute. My point was if a person had voted for Romney six times and got caught, do you think Holder would prosecute?

Probably goes much deeper than just this lady. Holder doesn't want to open that can of worms.

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.

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail…

In this country, how does a person go to jail for a crime that never happens?

(03-25-2014 09:03 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  Come on this has to Piss off even liberals! This women has undermined what it is to be an american. This makes me sick to see that someone can openly admit to a felony and get away with it. This goes beyond Right/Left. I have no words how much this pisses me off.

My question is to the democrats on this board. Do you support this women, and do you support holder not prosecuting?

poor people should be allowed to vote a half dozen times, because rich people like the koch brothers are using their evil money to deceive . . . poor . . . wait . . . poor people that are going to vote the way liberals want them to vote should be allowed to vote as many times as they want, because . . . well, just because they're poor.

(03-25-2014 10:01 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail…

In this country, how does a person go to jail for a crime that never happens?

Grow up. Stop playing like a stupid ignorant jack ass. The crime happens. We all say it does. We tell you this continually. What we also continually tell you is that it doesn't happen at any significant rate whatsoever as to effect the outcome of elections.

(03-25-2014 10:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:01 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail…

In this country, how does a person go to jail for a crime that never happens?

Grow up. Stop playing like a stupid ignorant jack ass. The crime happens. We all say it does. We tell you this continually. What we also continually tell you is that it doesn't happen at any significant rate whatsoever as to effect the outcome of elections.

Really?

(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.

So, what he's saying is that we can all vote 100 times and the states will slap us on the wrist so that the Feds can't touch us.

The states couldn't do anything more than a slap on the wrist, because then nobody would be footing the bill for the social expenditures.

Yes Jerry...this is all one big conspiracy put on by historically blue states like Ohio.

Are their pixies and unicorns in your own little world?

Looney fool.

(03-25-2014 10:20 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:01 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail…

In this country, how does a person go to jail for a crime that never happens?

Grow up. Stop playing like a stupid ignorant jack ass. The crime happens. We all say it does. We tell you this continually. What we also continually tell you is that it doesn't happen at any significant rate whatsoever as to effect the outcome of elections.

Really?

Pffft. Piss poor reach on your part. And I said elections, not one election. I'm sure an election...in fact probably a couple over time have been swayed by improper voting. Still doesn't change the fact that it's not rampant, nor is it any orchestrated practicality. Sorry, but 1,099 felons didn't get together and decide to illegally vote and all vote for Franken. You know...fraud.

(03-25-2014 10:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:01 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail…

In this country, how does a person go to jail for a crime that never happens?

Grow up. Stop playing like a stupid ignorant jack ass. The crime happens. We all say it does. We tell you this continually. What we also continually tell you is that it doesn't happen at any significant rate whatsoever as to effect the outcome of elections.

You are the definition of a stupid jack ass. Calling others names is typical of a lib.

(03-25-2014 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:20 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:01 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 08:41 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  She was sentenced to five years in jail…

In this country, how does a person go to jail for a crime that never happens?

Grow up. Stop playing like a stupid ignorant jack ass. The crime happens. We all say it does. We tell you this continually. What we also continually tell you is that it doesn't happen at any significant rate whatsoever as to effect the outcome of elections.

Really?

Pffft. Piss poor reach on your part. And I said elections, not one election. I'm sure an election...in fact probably a couple over time have been swayed by improper voting. Still doesn't change the fact that it's not rampant, nor is it any orchestrated practicality. You know...fraud.

Tommy, you're only taking this position because the fraudsters vote for your guy. And nice backtracking.