Liberal Forum

FAIL: Woman Tries To Show How Easy It Is To Commit Voter Fraud, Gets Arrested For Voter FraudRoxanne Rubin, Nevada Republican, Accepts Plea Deal After Committing Voter FraudA Nevada Republican arrested for voter fraud in the 2012 election, after claiming she was trying to test the system's integrity, pled guilty and accepted a plea deal Thursday, forcing her to pay almost $2,500 and promise to stay out of trouble.Roxanne Rubin, 56, a casino worker on the Las Vegas Strip, was arrested on Nov. 3, 2012 after trying to vote twice, once at her poling site in Henderson and then at a second site in Las Vegas. The poll workers at the second site said that she had already voted, but Rubin said that she hadn't and insisted on casting a ballot, which the poll workers refused to allow her to do.Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. "This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed," she told the AP Thursday. "If were showing ID for everything else, why wouldnt we show our ID in order to vote?Rubin, like many Republicans, claim that the theat from voter fraud -- which is close to non-existent -- is why voter ID laws need to be in place. But Nevada has no voter ID law -- other than for first-time voters who didn't show ID when they registered to vote -- and she was caught anyway.The prosecutor in the case said he knew of no other voters in Nevada or elsewhere arrested for voter fraud.GOP Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, who has called for a photo ID law, slammed Rubin in a statement. "If Ms. Rubin was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to commit voter fraud, she clearly failed and proved just the opposite," he said.Rubin's deal requires her to pay $2,481 to the state in restitution, complete 100 hours of community service, stay out of trouble and complete an impulse control course.Impulse control course, ROFL.I guess she had an impulse to be a Jackhole.

Report: Kwame Harris, former NFL player, charged with beating ex-boyfriend.Former NFL offensive lineman Kwame Harris has been charged with felony domestic violence after allegedly beating his ex-boyfriend following a restaurant argument over soy sauce.Following a pretrial hearing in the case Monday, a judge in San Mateo County, Calif., judge set a late April trial date for Harris, who played five seasons with the San Francisco 49ers and one season with the Oakland Raiders, Assistant District Attorney Al Serrato said.The charges stem from an altercation outside a Menlo Park restaurant between Harris, 30, and Dimitri Geier, who suffered several facial fractures that required surgery, Serrato said.According to a lawsuit obtained by the Bay Area News Group, Harris took issue with Geier pouring soy sauce on his rice during dinner at Su Hong restaurant in Menlo Park, Calif. Harris then revoked his offer to drive Geier to San Francisco International Airport. As Geier was retrieving his luggage to place into a cab, Harris attempted to pull Geier's pants down, accusing Geier of stealing his underwear.That's when the situation turned violent.Prosecutors are pursuing the domestic violence charge because the two men used to live together and had an on-again, off-again romantic relationship, Serrato said.Read MoreReally guys? Fighting over soy sauce and underwear?

Impulse control course, ROFL. I guess she had an impulse to be a Jackhole. Consistency check Do you think David Gregory should be prosecuted for violating the large capacity magazine ban in DC, when he waved the mag on the air? Or do you think he shouldn't be prosecuted because he only violated that law to make a journalistic point?

Consistency checkDo you think David Gregory should be prosecuted for violating the large capacity magazine ban in DC, when he waved the mag on the air?Or do you think he shouldn't be prosecuted because he only violated that law to make a journalistic point?It doesn't much matter what I think. The D.C. Attorney General said he would decline to prosecute the case.He did admonish Gregory and told him that any repetition of any firearms violation by any employee of NBC will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.So you think he should have been prosecuted and jailed?Would we all be safer if David Gregory was locked up?

It doesn't much matter what I think. Then WTH are you doing posting anything here? OF COURSE, it matters what you think, That's why I asked You won't say because you support this selective enforcement You don't believe in equality under the law, you only believe laws should matter to the little people. Frankly, that's disgusting

'Liberal' Group Running Anti-Hagel Ads Probable Fake Monday night Rachel Maddow expanded on her Friday report about the weird ad running in opposition to Chuck Hagel's nomination. The group running the ad calls themselves "Use Your Mandate" and claims to be a group of liberals -- gay liberals, even -- who are afraid to come out into the light for fear of White House retribution. [...] Rachel's instinct seems to be right on the money. As she reports, "Use Your Mandate" used a media buyer in San Diego to place the ad by the name of Del Cielo Media, LLC*. Del Cielo Media is the company name for Sarah Linden, who is the west coast media director for Smart Media Group. On Smart Media Group's resum: Official media buyers for the McCain-Palin campaign, Republican National Committee, NRSC, and the US Chamber of Commerce, among others. DelCielo Media's website is a splash page and a link to a map now, but as Rachel reports, one of Linden's clients is the Emergency Committee for Israel, a relatively new neocon group whose directors include Bill Kristol, Gary Bauer, and Michael Goldfarb. Michael Goldfarb is an advisor to Liz Cheney's neocon message machine, Keep America Safe, where Kristol also serves as a director. VIDEO Republicans posing as 'Liberals'. What else is new? They do this kind of crap all the time.

Would we all be safer if David Gregory was locked up? probably. i'd actually consider david gregory more dangerous than jarrod loughner.

Then WTH are you doing posting anything here?OF COURSE, it matters what you think,That's why I askedYou won't say because you support this selective enforcementYou don't believe in equality under the law, you only believe laws should matter to the little people.Frankly, that's disgustingThere is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion.Prosecutors make these kinds of choices all the time, even when it comes to 'the little people'.In this case the AG said, "Prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia, nor serve the best interests of the people."I just read a piece by William G. Otis, a law professor and former federal prosecutor who served as Special Counsel to President George H. W. Bush.He says it a lot better than I can.Why the Decision Not to Prosecute David Gregory Was CorrectIn a recent Sunday news show, NBC's David Gregory held up an empty ammunition clip to demonstrate to his guest, an NRA spokeman, the dangerousness of allowing people to possess a clip that can hold many (I think it was ten) bullets. As it happens, it was a clear violation of DC gun control law for Gregory to have the clip, empty or not. There ensued a heated debate about whether Gregory should have been prosecuted.Many on the pro-Second Amendment side (a side I generally agree with) thought that he should have been charged. They mocked the gun control crowd's flaunting the laws they so eagerly foist off on others. They derisively noted that Gregory got a free pass from the DC Attorney General, Irv Nathan, wondering whether Nathan, the same sort of liberal Democrat that Gregory certainly seems to be, would have been similarly deferential to, say, a pro-gun rights TV talk show host on Fox News who held up the same ammo clip.On the well-known conservative blog Legal Insurrection, I agreed that Nathan should have recused himself from the decision whether to prosecute Gregory. In my view, however, Nathan's substantive decision not to prosecute was correct. This provoked a firestorm of criticism from some of my fellow law-and-order conservatives. But, as I explain after the break, their criticism partakes of exactly the prosecution-as-politics ethos that, in the gun control debate as elsewhere, they correctly decry.The decision whether to prosecute a citizen of the United States should not be about making a point or showing the world that the potential defendant and his political cohorts are hypocrites. The power of the state to imprison a particular person is too fearsome to allow an individual defendant to be swept up in the general, and quite heated, debate about gun control or other controversial laws.A prosecutor needs to remember that his official function is to do justice in the individual case before him. Now what constitutes "justice" is not always so easy to discern, and that's what generates the heat. But in the Gregory case, the answer to that seemed pretty clear to me.Would a normal person consider David Gregory a criminal? Would he be leary about having him as a next door neighbor? About allowing his kids to go trick-or-treating at his house? About leaving a valuable package outside where he could see it?I doubt it. I've certainly seen no evidence of it.Given that, and given that a prosecutor's office does not have the resources to take every case it could (or anything close to every case), a decision has to be made about which ones to prosecute and which to leave behind. That decision should rest principally on which cases will do the most to advance public saftey.The idea that public safety would be advanced by putting Gregory in jail seems strained if not absurd. Thus, if one were to apply my proposed maximize-public-safety standard, the decision not to spend scarce tax dollars prosecuting Gregory seems correct, even simple.http://www.crimeandc...-to-prosec.htmlSo do you think that prosecuting David Gregory would advance public saftey?As far as laws only mattering when it comes to the little people, isn't that how it's always been?Rush Limbaugh was not prosecuted for the felony of doctor shopping, when prescription records showed that he had obtained over 2,000 pills within a few months.But another guy in Florida (Richard Paey) who suffered from multiple sclerosis and chronic pain from an automobile accident got 25 years in jail for the same crime.

i'd actually consider david gregory more dangerous than jarrod loughner.Hmmmm, let's see. One hosts a Sunday morning news show and the other shot 19 people, killing 6 of them.That makes sense.

Hmmmm, let's see. One hosts a Sunday morning news show and the other shot 19 people, killing 6 of them. That makes sense. the man puts dangerous lies into millions of people's heads. if it wasn't for people like gregory, the loughners of the world would be almost non-existent.

So do you think that prosecuting David Gregory would advance public saftey? Do you think prosecuting me would? You and I both know that I wouldn't receive such a courtesy, therefore, you are supporting unequal enforcement. "Prosecutorial discretion" is legalese for special treatment. It really bothers me that you think this is OK.

The Horse Thread is long. Please to show me where I have ever been inconsistant. Now, that's funny right there - I don't care who you are. the man puts dangerous lies into millions of people's heads. if it wasn't for people like gregory, the loughners of the world would be almost non-existent. But enough about lush rimjob... probably. i'd actually consider david gregory more dangerous than jarrod loughner. Ideas are fearsome things... Best to give a wide berth - smart move. Consistency check Do you think David Gregory should be prosecuted for violating the large capacity magazine ban in DC, when he waved the mag on the air? Or do you think he shouldn't be prosecuted because he only violated that law to make a journalistic point? Intent matters in my world. Yours?

What are you saying? He intended to violate the ban? He did you know, it wasn't accidental. NBC asked for an exemption from the DC police and was refused. So should he be prosecuted in your world or not?

the man puts dangerous lies into millions of people's heads. if it wasn't for people like gregory, the loughners of the worldwould be almost non-existent.Well I think that Rush Limbaugh is way more dangerous than some poor guy in a wheelchair.Yet Richard Paey was sentenced to 25 years in jail and the drug addled gasbag is still free to spew his hatred on radio stations across the country.

MistyBlue, on 29 Jan 2013 - 17:41, said:So do you think that prosecuting David Gregory would advance public saftey?Do you think prosecuting me would?You and I both know that I wouldn't receive such a courtesy, therefore, you are supporting unequal enforcement.If you were the host of a TV show and you showed that magazine for purposes of a discussion about pending legislation, you probably would have received the same courtesy.It's not like he had the magazine for nefarious purposes."Prosecutorial discretion" is legalese for special treatment.It really bothers me that you think this is OK.When did I say that special treatment was okay?That was me who cited the example of Rush Limbaugh getting special treatment.Remember?Whether you like it or not, there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion.Prosecutors make choices every single day as to which cases are worth using their limited resources on, and which are not.They could not possibly prosecute every case that comes before them. That's just a fact.In this case, the AG felt that to prosecute David Gregory for holding up that magazine was not worth the cost.Do I agree with him? Yes I agree with him.I don't see David Gregory as a threat to society.He was using the magazine for demonstration purposes.You can't shoot anyone without the gun that it goes in to, and without bullets.I know you think that David Gregory is some kind of a lefty, and I guess for you that's enough reason to lock him up.I don't happen to think that the world is less safe because David Gregory is not in jail.And I really can't get all that worked up about this.On my list of people who should be in jail, David Gregory is pretty far down at the bottom.Had they slapped him with some kind of a fine to cover the cost of the investigation, I'd be okay with that.

Good Lord you're pathetic. I'm asking you to make a stand for equal treatment for all under the law and you say I want him in jail because of his politics. Can't you see the danger of one set of laws for the upper echelon of citizens and another, more restrictive set for the common folks? I only want him in jail if they would throw me in jail for doing the same thing We both know they would. You are claiming that "they could not possibly prosecute every case that comes before them" That is total BS, big time,,,, Name me one other case where they didn't prosecute a magazine violation. I can name you several where they prosecuted people who were simply traveling through, or made honest mistakes. DC Metro lets NOTHING pass regarding firearms.

Well I think that Rush Limbaugh is way more dangerous than some poor guy in a wheelchair. Yet Richard Paey was sentenced to 25 years in jail and the drug addled gasbag is still free to spew his hatred on radio stations across the country. i agree. limbaugh is no different. i wouldn't shed no tears if any talking head pundit got his brains splattered across his own microphone.

Good Lord you're pathetic.So now we're resorting to insults?I'm asking you to make a stand for equal treatment for all under the law and you say I want him in jail because of his politics.Pardon me, but it looks to me like you have a hard-on for David Gregory (and not the fun kind).Can't you see the danger of one set of laws for the upper echelon of citizens and another, more restrictive set for the common folks?Seriously Chuck? Are you really so naive to think that, that doesn't go on all the time?Rich people get away with so much more than the common folks.Is it right? No. But it happens every day.I only want him in jail if they would throw me in jail for doing the same thingWe both know they would.If you were the host of Meet The Press and held up a magazine for the purposes of discussion, I do not believe that you would have been prosecuted.I guess you can't wrap your head around the difference between that and someone possessing such an item for nefarious purposes.You are claiming that "they could not possibly prosecute every case that comes before them"That is total BS, big time,,,,The real BS is you claiming that prosecutors have the resources to prosecute every case that comes before them.Why do you think they plea bargain so many cases?Name me one other case where they didn't prosecute a magazine violation.Oh good. Now you're asking me to prove a negative.I'll get right on that.

Prosecutorial DiscretionAs an elected or appointed official, the prosecutor is the most powerful official in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors exercise unfettered discretion, deciding who to charge with a crime, what charges to file, when to drop the charges, whether or not to plea bargain, and how to allocate prosecutorial resources. In jurisdictions where the death penalty is in force, the prosecutor literally decides who should live and who should die by virtue of the charging decision.Prosecutors exercise the most discretion in three areas of decision making: the decision to file charges, the decision to dismiss charges, and plea bargaining.ChargingOnce an arrest is made, a prosecutor screens the case to determine if it should be prosecuted or dropped. The decision to prosecute is based on the following factors:The sufficiency of the evidence linking the suspect to the offense.The seriousness of the offense.The size of the court's caseload.The need to conserve prosecutorial resources for more serious cases.The availability of alternatives to formal prosecution.The defendant's culpability (moral blameworthiness).The defendant's criminal record.The defendant's willingness to cooperate with the investigation or prosecution of others.Dropping ChargesAfter a prosecutor files a charge, the prosecutor can reduce the charge in exchange for a guilty plea or enter a nolle prosequi (nol. pros.). A nolle prosequi is a formal statement by a prosecutor declaring that a case is discontinued. Reasons for entering a nol. pros. include insufficient evidence, inadmissible evidence, false accusations, and the trivial nature of some crimes.Plea BargainingProsecutors also exercise discretion in negotiating pleas with defense counsel. A plea bargain is an agreement in which a prosecutor permits a defendant to plead guilty in exchange for a concession, such as reducing the charges or recommending a lenient sentence. There are advantages of plea bargaining to both the accused and the state. For the accused, it offers the possibilities of a reduced sentence and cheaper legal representation. For the government, it reduces the financial costs of prosecution, improves the efficiency of the courts by having fewer cases go to full trials, and allows the prosecution to devote its resources to the more serious cases.http://www.cliffsnot...leId-10015.html

Like I told you, I can show you time and time again cases where there was no "intent" at all, but they still get prosecuted. You can show nothing to indicate they EVER let a gun magazine charge go,, just your say so. Sorry babe, that don't cut it And if they are going to treat people that way, then they should treat ALL people that way. If you don't think so then you are part of the problem. This is similar to getting a speeding ticket and learning about the mayor's wife getting out of her DUI Perfectly acceptable to you, as a Liberal, You not only think this type is justice is normal, but you are openly advocating for it.