Angela Corey Still At It

The utter lack of professionalism and fair play from Zimmerman special prosecutor Angela Corey continues to amaze.  She is still smearing George Zimmerman after the verdict, calling him a liar and a murderer.

Does it occur to her that she is attacking an innocent man, one found not guilty at the very least?  What is the point of continuing to smear Zimmerman after the verdict?

Alan Dershowitz is right.  She should be disbarred.  And so should any prosecutor who puts pet opinions and destroying people’s lives and reputations above justice, fair play, and basic professionalism.

Post-verdict Thoughts on the Zimmerman Case

Like most rational people, I was relieved to see the not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.  But . . .

As if the prosecution did not dig low enough during the trial, they dug deeper in their post-verdict press conference.  Instead of being somewhat professional in accepting the verdict, they kept smearing Zimmerman.  Angela Corey even played the race card in doing so:

This case has never been about race. . . .

No, not at all!

. . . nor has it ever been about the right to bear arms. Not in the sense of proving this as a criminal case. But. . .

But I’m going to make it about race.

. . . Trayvon Martin was profiled. There is no doubt that he was profiled to be a criminal. And if race was one of the aspects in George Zimmerman’s mind, then we believe that we put out the proof necessary to show that Zimmerman did profile Trayvon Martin. . . .  

Corey’s conduct throughout this case has been despicable.  And don’t take my word for it.  Alan Dershowitz:

[Angela Corey] submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. She, by the way, has a horrible reputation in Florida. She’s known for overcharging, she’s known for being highly political. And in this case, of course she overcharged. Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn’t going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I’ve seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I’ve seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor,

Dershowitz also said that the only civil rights charges that should be filed should be filed against her for violating Zimmerman’s civil rights and that she should at least be disbarred.

Speaking of civil rights, although Obama’s Justice Department is investigating George Zimmerman for possible civil rights charges, I do not think anything will come of it.  Eric Holder and company have no case.  And filing federal charges against Zimmerman would be politically toxic for Obama and Democrats.  The backlash and outrage would be Hell to pay.  Obama and Holder are not that stupid. . . .  Are they?

In any case, I expect them to try to please most people and say they looked at going after Zimmerman, but that charges are unlikely to succeed.  The nice part of me hopes for that for Zimmerman’s sake, and because bringing additional charges would be flat wrong.  But the not-so-nice part of me wants to watch Obama and Holder self-destruct.

But I do not think the Feds should even be allowed to file charges in this case.  Nor do I think a civil lawsuit should be allowed.  I firmly believe that no person should be tried or sued more than once for the same alleged act, period.  It’s not for nothing that the Constitution disallows double jeopardy.  Yet de facto double jeopardy is rampant in this country.

(And, yes, I know Fed charges or a lawsuit would not technically be double jeopardy under today’s corrupted law.  But it would be double jeopardy in spirit, and it would be wrong.  And, also yes, I thought the civil lawsuit against O. J. was wrong.)

But I do hope Zimmerman succeeds in a lawsuit against NBC.  They and the rest of the “mainstream” news media have a lot of answer for in this case . . . a lot.

Finally, a sad note.   Many of those who would have been in danger from lynch mobs 100 years ago have become the lynch mobs themselves. 

Sad indeed.

The Napolitano Resignation and Harry Reid

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did something odd yesterday even for him.  He threatened to go “nuclear” and change Senate rules to stop filibusters of presidential nominees even though Obama hasn’t had that much trouble getting his nominees through the Senate . . . and that in spite of how awful most of them are.

Why would Reid so stir up the pot for so little gain . . . and with the probability of it backfiring whenever Republicans next gain the Senate?

I think we just found out why this morning.  Janet Napolitano is resigning as Homeland Security Secretary.  And I think Reid knew.

Now if Obama nominates anyone nearly as bad as her as a replacement, there may be and should be a long confirmation fight in the Senate.  I think Reid’s threat yesterday was designed to discourage such opposition to Obama’s nominee, whoever that may be.

Yes, I do connect the dots sometimes.

Politics, Justice, Retribution, and the IRS

I’ve been thinking lately about when justice calls out for retribution against political players.  Two events this year have especially pushed me so to deliberate – the IRS targeting scandal and the overthrow of the Morsi regime in Egypt.

First I should state clearly that it is best of all if all political differences be settled by lawful political means.  And I am convinced that the U. S. Constitution is the best framework ever devised by man to do just that.  History is full of times in which differences were settled by violence or by the whim of one or of the few.  Our Founders rightly strove for a United States in which differences were settled by lawful political means with the consent of the governed.

So, as I said, it is best if bad policies and bad guys in politics are defeated by political means.

But what if the bad guys again and again refuse to respect the rule of law, refuse to play by the rules?  And what if they deal with political adversaries with a “punish your enemies” mentality, including using the power of government to punish them and muzzle them?  And what if they, when they don’t get their way by lawful political means, disregard and even tear up the law of the land to get their way?  And what if they also unlawfully rig the political process itself with various forms of election fraud?  What if they even nullify elections and referendums that don’t go their way?

Sound familiar?

If such episodes were exceptional and not systemic, the good guys would probably be wise nevertheless to stick to political means to contest political issues.  Retaliatory justice might feel good but would serve only to sharpen divisions and increase the odds that the good guys would be the target of retaliation in the future.

But what if the more-or-less good guys have restrained themselves, stuck to lawful political means and avoided retaliatory justice while the bad guys have thrown off lawful restraint and gone after the good guys anyway?  And what if the bad guys’ conduct endangers the rule of law itself, including constitutional political processes?

In such a situation, I think the bad guys must be made to pay a steep price for their unlawful behavior otherwise they will do it again and again and again and thereby erode the political process and constitutional freedoms.  Political defeat alone likely will not suffice.

That we are so stinking wimpy in this country about making political bad guys pay has contributed to our problems.  Very few ever go to jail for election fraud.  So guess what is a big problem in our elections?  Very few blatantly unconstitutional and even anti-constitutional judicial rulings get defied.  So they continue (and will surely get worse without the next president making excellent judicial appointments).  Personally, I think it is sad that not a single state told the Supreme Court to stuff it after Roe v Wade.

Now about the right response to the IRS targeting scandal.  I’ve been very open that I want people in prison over this.  And that not just because of my anger, but because there has to be a steep enough price to pay for it that future bad guys, and the IRS in particular, will think twice before trying anything like it again.  (I also think the IRS is so unreformable that it should be abolished, but that is another topic.)

While I’m at it, if Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder is guilty of half of what he seems to be, I want him in prison.  Does that seem over the top?   A number of Nixon Administration officials, including his Attorney General John Mitchell, went to prison.  And neither that administration nor Mitchell did half of what the Obama regime has done.

There should have been a price to pay for the enormities of the Nixon Administration.  And there sure as heck should be a price to pay for the predations of the IRS, of Eric Holder, and of the rest of the Obama regime.  This is another time when politics is not enough to deal with the bad guys.

Downfall IX: Obama, Citizen’s United, and the IRS

One of the nice things about being a blogger is that one can let others do the heavy lifting at times.  And Edward Stewart does just that for me with an interesting and perceptive article linking Obama’s anger over the Citizen’s United ruling and the IRS scandal.

Remember how angry Obama was about the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United ruling?  He even called out the justices to their faces in his 2010 State of the Union address (as Democrats cheered lustily) – behavior almost unheard of from a President.

Well, Obama was upset because the Court shut down avenues for him to target and muzzle political enemies by using the FEC.  So after getting spanked in the 2010 elections, his regime found other avenues . . . using the IRS.

And I think knowledgeable readers can fill in the rest of the story so far.  If my prediction of Obama’s downfall proves correct, the determination of Obama and his thugs to find alternative ways to muzzle opponents after Citizens United will prove to be a big factor in that downfall.  For that determination led to the ongoing IRS scandals.

Having said that, I do not presume to do Mr. Stewart’s article justice, so do go read it!

----

Downfall is an ongoing series anticipating and tracking what I expect will be the self-destruction of Obama.

The first post may be found here.  The series may be found here.

Pope Francis Should Stop Harming the Liturgy

Among the accomplishments of Pope Benedict XVI is he improved the liturgy of the Roman church by encouraging and facilitating more traditional and less sloppy forms than have prevailed since Vatican II.

There are already signs that Pope Francis not only does not appreciate Benedict’s liturgical reforms but is intent on reversing much of them.  One of the earliest signs of that was his cutting key parts of the Easter Vigil:

One of the most dramatic moments of the Easter Vigil . . . when the pope would share the light of his candle with others until the entire basilica twinkled - was shortened this year as were some of the Old Testament readings.

The Easter Vigil is not supposed to be short.  But you’d think he had a roast in the oven or wanted to beat the Protestants to Luby’s by how he so likes to shorten that and other masses.  Heck, he even checked his watch during his installation!

Now there are rumors that Pope Francis may appoint Archbishop Piero Marini as the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.  Marini is a divisive figure and no friend of traditional liturgy to say the least.

The liturgy of God’s Holy Church is not about Pope Francis’ personal preferences.  We hear much about his supposed humility.  He needs to exercise enough humility to recognize that Pope Benedict XVI was much more perceptive and wise about the liturgy than he and back off . . . now.  

For Those British Unhappy with Royal Expenses

I’ve noticed some British are unhappy with the expenses of the Royal Family.  To which I say . . .

Quit yer whinin’.  And be thankful you are not stuck with King Obama.

Seriously, The Queen is penny pincher compared to him.