Lipson's call for independent prosecutor to investigate ACORN rests on baseless claims
In a September 20 op-ed in the Chicago Tribune, University of Chicago political science professor Charles Lipson called for an independent prosecutor to investigate ACORN by baselessly arguing that Attorney General Eric Holder was incapable of conducting a "fair-minded, independent" investigation into the organization, and that Holder "compounded these concerns" because cases against Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and the New Black Panther Party were dropped. But Lipson cited no evidence to support the claim that Holder influenced either decision.
Lipson attacked Holder's partiality with baseless claims about Richardson and New Black Panther Party cases
From Lipson's September 20 op-ed in the Chicago Tribune:
ACORN's close ties to the progressive movement and Democratic Party mean that there will be little public confidence if Holder decides not to pursue an ambitious investigation and ultimately prosecute.
Ironically, ACORN's chief executive officer, Bertha Lewis, strengthens the case for an independent prosecutor with her robust defense of the organization. FOX News, she says, is pursuing her group solely for political reasons. They oppose ACORN, she says, because it is associated with progressive politics, labor organizing and the Obama administration's health-care initiative. Unfortunately for ACORN, Lewis' charges also mean that if the Obama administration decides not to prosecute or to indict only low-level employees, the public will wonder if they are seeing a political defense by ACORN's friends, a coverup rather than a fair-minded, independent decision by the Justice Department.
Holder has compounded these concerns with two recent decisions. In New Mexico, federal attorneys apparently recommended high-level prosecutions in the pay-for-play scandal swirling around Gov. Bill Richardson. Holder's office overrode them and dropped the case. Holder also decided to drop the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, where thugs were caught on tape brandishing clubs outside a voting precinct. In both cases, Holder has refused to explain his actions.
After these decisions and Holder's silence about them, there is simply no reason to hand him another high-profile case with political ramifications.
DOJ reportedly refuted claim that Holder made either decision
AP: Justice Department official claimed "Holder was not involved in the decision to end" Richardson case. In an August 29 article, the Associated Press reported: "New Mexico's top federal prosecutor confirmed Friday that no charges will be brought against Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson and his former top aides after a probe of an alleged pay-to-play scheme prompted him to withdraw his nomination as U.S. commerce secretary." The AP further reported that the "decision not to seek indictments was made by Justice Department officials in Washington, according to two people familiar with the case who spoke to The Associated Press before defense lawyers received [U.S. attorney Greg] Fouratt's letter late Thursday. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly about the case." The AP added: "However, Attorney General Eric Holder was not involved in the decision to end the case, according to a Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss the decision." [Associated Press, 8/29/09]
Department of Justice: A "career attorney in the Civil Rights Division made the final decision to dismiss charges" against New Black Panthers. In a May 29, 2009, post on the Main Justice blog, editor Mary Jacoby wrote: "The Department of Justice is disputing a Washington Times report claiming that Obama administration political appointees overruled career Civil Rights Division attorneys in dismissing a voter-intimidation lawsuit against members of the militant Black Panthers. In an editorial, the Times expressed dismay the story hadn't been 'front-page news.' " Jacoby quoted Civil Rights Division spokesman Alejandro Miyar stating, "Contrary to the report in the Washington Times, a career attorney in the Civil Rights Division made the final decision to dismiss charges against three of the defendants in this case following a thorough review that determined the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims in this case." [Main Justice blog post, 5/29/09]
But they don't want any investigation into all of the things that happened un Bush/Cheney.
The same people that issued around 1052 subpeonas to investigate non-scandals under Clinton and that could only generate around 5 subpeonas while Bush/cheney were in office.
And, then try to insinuate nonsense about Obama & Holder
I think we ought to launch some investiagtions of these right-wingers. These un-american traitourous senators, who have un-american, un-constitution leanings. I think it's about time we remove these dissident elements from public service.
[/Bachman]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still waiting, Wesley!
Amazing really, simply amazing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
They wouldn't know a Principle if he gave them detention!
Yikes, the dreaded "unnamed source"...
-- a career attorney in the Civil Rights Division made the final decision to dismiss charges against three of the defendants -- mmfa
Another yikes...makes no reference at all as to who "was" involved in the final decision.
Lipson's claim about Holder may very well turn out to be false...but this rebuttal by mmfa brings little to the table concerning their charge of "baseless claims".
9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
Bush/Cheney Lost 8 Billion Dollars in Iraq. They Put 12 Billion Dollars in cash on pallets and flew them into Baghdad.
U.S. sent pallets of cash to Baghdad
By Jeremy PelofskyTue Feb 6, 8:46 PM ET
The U.S. Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said on Tuesday.
The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.
Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone?
Good link...and another reason why I don't want the federal govt. involved in health care.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security...all headed for bankruptcy because of an inept govt. system.
No thanks on more govt. promises and subsequent failures.
I'll pose the same question I posed above: why do you want to pay double for something and get an inferior product?
In addition, the link shows the money missing from the pentagon--not medicare. It also shows the incompetence of the Bush admin. Of course if you have someone like Bush involved there is going to be lots of inefficiency.
I said the Bush admin, not all Republicans. No amount of proof would convince you. But my argument still stands, doesn't it? It is a fact that we spend on average twice as much as other industrial countries, and we rank 37th! It's hard to get around that fact, isn't it?
Of course, gops are the people who gave us the Reagan/Bush deficits, the Bush/Cheney deficits, numerous Bush recessions, the Great Depression and almost gave us another before the WH was fumigated and competence was restored to 1600.
Gops. They're incompetent on the economy, they suck at national security, foreign and domestic policy and the environment.
Well, at least ya can always run on your civil rights record.
Always a pleasure.
Correctamundo.
And now that we have a fresh pair of cheeks planted behind the desk in the Oval office...all is wonderful.
Except...he's surrounded by mostly the same bunch of congressman and lobbyists and activists that have led us to this situation.
We've never had a revenue problem...its always been a spending problem...caused by career politicos out for their own good...and not for the good of the country.
Nice cliche. I guess then it was a conservative politician who wasted all the money in Iraq? You can equally argue that conservatives want to punish success by suppressing wages and benefits of the workers in the country, the ones who created the wealth.
But all this is besides the point. As always, you are trying to deflect from the argument, that Lipson is wrong, and that if ACORN deserves an investigation, then so do hundreds of other organizations.
Nice chart and very apropos!
As Wesley said, it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending one. Live within your means. And "means" doesn't mean returning to the public trough and fleecing people out of more money, it means spending what you have judiciously and with care.
>>If you're a liberal politician they always have revenue problems because they can never get their hands on enough of it, from the rest of us.
But then, in this post says:
>>The change in debt came out of power-drunk Republicans who spent borrowed money like there was no tomorrow.
And the reason I should take your posts seriously are? You keep giving me one line cliches about fiscal responsibility that (a) don't answer my challenge on health care and (b) have nothing to do with this post and (c) contradict themselves.
Of course we do...big spending by conservatives or liberals is fair game.
I was extremely disappointed in the spending habits of the republican party...supported by the democrats...during the Bush administration.
Republican politicians spent like drunken sailors and abandoned conservative fiscal policies. Don't equate drunken republican spending with conservative ideals...they are not the same thing.
How twisted is this pretzel going to get?
(which I admit to butchering)
Sure thing, little fella. Sure thing.
The "rest of us"? You've already said in other threads that you aren't in a high income bracket.
Yet, you refuse to answer my question. Why do you want a health care system that spends twice as much and delivers inferior quality? Do we have so much money in the US that we can just burn it? I thought conservatives favored sound fiscal policies?
There is no such thing as a revenue problem without a spending problem. The two go hand in hand.
If his private health insurance hadn't been able to increase premiums huge amounts over the past couple of decades, they'd be bankrupt already!
Let 'em investigate Catholic Charities while they're at it. Ya want to put ACORN up against that bunch for checkered pasts and sordid histories, be my guest, little fraudulent fella.
Always a pleasure.
Courtesy of the Rude One.
9/18/2009
In Brief: If You're Gonna Ban ACORN Funding, You Oughta Ban Catholic Charities Funding:
Some things are easy to put in perspective: We have a case in Albany, NY, where Catholic Charities funds were used as part of a settlement on a case of molestation by clergy. In Cleveland in 2002, at a Catholic Charities-supported child care center, five workers were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of children. The number of cases of molestation by workers, of the cloth or not, at Catholic Charities-run or -owned facilities could go on and on and on, as the abuse did for years.
In August of this year, Catholic Charities received a federal government contract for $100 million over five years to work with victims of natural disasters.
And the outrage is...where exactly?
Nice try, little fella. No sale.
So you would rather continue paying 2 times what other industrial countries pay and getting inferior health care? I don't understand why you would want to pay more for something and get an inferior product.
Your current health insurance premium - is it going to stay the same over the next few years, or is it going to go up? We both know that answer to that - premiums have been going up quicker than the rate of inflation for years and years.
The Medicare Trust Fund is going to be short of money because of increases in medical costs.
If your insurance company didn't raise their premiums, guess what? They'd go bankrupt too. Saying that Medicare is going bankrupt means nothing when you look at the increased premiums, year after year, for your private health insurance!
The United States gives $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of OUR money, to primarily third-world dictators.
This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations' programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.
What most Americans do not realize is that the vast majority of the recipients of US Foreign Aid routinely vote against the wishes of the United States in the UN at an average rate of 74%. In other words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in direct Foreign Aid only about 26% or $3.5 billion went to support people who endorsed American initiatives or causes. A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people who were and are in open and direct opposition to the United States' interests and objectives.
Listed below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.
"ACORN employees, without raising an eyebrow, much less calling the police..."
At least two ACORN employees called the police.
Juan Carlos Vera of the San Diego office phoned the police:
http://www.10news.com/news/20975217/detail.html
Katherine Conway Russell of the Philadelphia office phoned the police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjyIiDUyoY
What a complete joke.
"Conservatives are much like paleontologists. They dig through prehistoric garbage heaps and anything they discover they define as a new find"...Rackjite.com