The NY Times delivers a headscratcher on the latest initiative from AG Eric Holder with a suggestion of unilateral action at odds with other reporting:
Justice Dept. Seeks to Curtail Stiff Drug Sentences
WASHINGTON — In a major shift in criminal justice policy, the Obama administration will move on Monday to ease overcrowding in federal prisons by ordering prosecutors to omit listing quantities of illegal substances in indictments for low-level drug cases, sidestepping federal laws that impose strict mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses.
That was easy! The judge can't impose a minimum if the prosecutor conceals the facts.
Under a policy memorandum being sent to all United States attorney offices on Monday, according to an administration official, prosecutors will be told that they may not write the specific quantity of drugs when drafting indictments for drug defendants who meet the following four criteria: their conduct did not involve violence, the use of a weapon or sales to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or cartels; and they have no significant criminal history.
For example, in the case of a defendant accused of conspiring to sell five kilograms of cocaine — an amount that would set off a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence — the prosecutor would write that “the defendant conspired to distribute cocaine” without saying how much. The quantity would still factor in when prosecutors and judges consult sentencing guidelines, but depending on the circumstances, the result could be a sentence of less than the 10 years called for by the mandatory minimum law, the official said.
The Times provides a multi-paragraph interlude describing the success of incarceration reform in "conservative-leaning" states such as Texas and Arkansas before finally pointing out a possible problem with Holder's approach:
Still, in states that have undertaken prison and parole overhauls, the changes were approved by state lawmakers. Mr. Holder’s reform is different: instead of going through Congress for legislation to modify mandatory minimum sentencing laws, he is invoking his power of prosecutorial discretion to sidestep them.
Well, there is that dated "execute faithfully" phrase in Holder's oath of office. But as the Times notes, that is ancient history:
Earlier in Mr. Obama’s presidency, the administration went through Congress to achieve policy goals like reducing the sentencing disparity between crack and powder forms of cocaine. But it has increasingly pursued a strategy of invoking unilateral executive powers without Congress, which the White House sees as bogged down by Republican obstructionism.
Previous examples, like Mr. Obama’s decision last year to issue an executive order allowing immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children to remain without fear of deportation and to work, have drawn fire from Republicans as “power grabs” that usurp the role of Congress.
All that said, the WaPo provides a different take on the upcoming Holder speech:
Holder seeks to avert mandatory minimum sentences for some low-level drug offenders
By Sari Horowitz
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is set to announce Monday that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with no ties to gangs or large-scale drug organizations will no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences.
The new Justice Department policy is part of a comprehensive prison reform package that Holder will reveal in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco, according to senior department officials. He is also expected to introduce a policy to reduce sentences for elderly, nonviolent inmates and find alternatives to prison for nonviolent criminals.
...
Holder is calling for a change in Justice Department policies to reserve the most severe penalties for drug offenses for serious, high-level or violent drug traffickers. He has directed his 94 U.S. attorneys across the country to develop specific, locally tailored guidelines for determining when federal charges should be filed and when they should not.
The attorney general can make some of these changes to drug policy on his own. He is giving new instructions to federal prosecutors on how they should write their criminal complaints when charging low-level drug offenders, to avoid triggering the mandatory minimum sentences. Under certain statutes, inflexible sentences for drug crimes are mandated regardless of the facts or conduct in the case, reducing the discretion of prosecutors, judges and juries.
So far, that tracks the NY Times reporting. However, a plot twist:
Some of Holder’s other initiatives will require legislative change. Holder is urging passage of legislation with bipartisan support that is aimed at giving federal judges more discretion in applying mandatory minimum sentences to certain drug offenses.
“Such legislation will ultimately save our country billions of dollars,” Holder said of legislation supported by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Although incarceration has a role to play in our justice system, widespread incarceration at the federal, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable.”
Geez, that looks terribly bipartisan to me. TownHall has more:
The war on drugs has presented "a lot of unintended consequences," Holder recently told NPR, and the federal government "can certainly change" its enforcement policies. NPR reports that Justice Department lawyers have been crafting reform proposals, which Holder may roll out at the lawyer confab.
It's about time.
Tea party Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah have co-sponsored legislation (with Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.) to reform federal mandatory minimum sentences. Holder told NPR that the administration wants to work with legislators. Translation: Obama has been waiting for political cover, and now he has it.
I am not sure why the Times is simultaneously emphasizing Holder's unilateral action and the support for these reforms in "conservative-leaning" states while ignoring the bipartisan push in the Senate.Maybe they assume (or assume their readers will assume) it is DOA in the House? If so a 'DOA' quote from a House leader and a mention of the Senate effort would surely be appropriate.
I read the WashPost article and I wasn't sure what to think - it seemed like an honestly good idea from Holder.
But that's unpossible, and seeing the reporting in the NYT that discusses the implementation of this new program (lie by omission to judges, basically) is much more in line with the lawlessness and disrespect for this country and its citizens that we've come to expect from our Attorney General.
Prosecutors already HAVE discretion, on who they charge or don't charge, and what they charge. It seems to me that if Holder really wants to do what he says he wants, he can issue guidelines as to how he expects his prosecutors to exercise that discretion - and how he will evaluate their performance. He doesn't need to order them to lie to judges.
But I guess it's like the scorpion and the frog with these people - they will never, ever change.
Posted by: James D. | August 12, 2013 at 11:11 AM
The law is for little people and losers.
Obama is "sort of God." Wait for the stone tablets.
Supine, docile, pusillanimous. And that's just Boehner.
Posted by: MarkO | August 12, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Why haven't impeachment hearings for Holder begun?
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | August 12, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Perhaps someday a prosecutor will write "defendant crossed the street against the light" without saying "before stabbing the lawless dictatorial son of a bitch through the eye socket with a screwdriver", and presto! A jaywalking citation.
Posted by: bgates | August 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM
I can see defense attorneys touting how little there actually was in some cases. Yep, we've gone absurd.
===================
Posted by: What if the judge asks? Can the prosecutor answer? | August 12, 2013 at 11:22 AM
"Perhaps someday?"
Something close to that is happening right now somewhere across this land in what is called the criminal "justice" system.
Posted by: MarkO | August 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Anybody waiting for the MFM to point out how disorganized the whole Focker family was to not bring Bo with them initially? And how the sound of the Osprey probably scared the hell out of him? After all, the last campaign proved that how you transport a dog on vacation is a legitimate Presidential topic.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | August 12, 2013 at 11:29 AM
All this is move more gangbangers from their prison cell back to the savage streets of home town. I wonder how Rahm feels about this?
Posted by: JIB | August 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM
At the risk of appearing ignorant or just naive... why would a non-violent, non-gang/criminal-org, non-repeat-offender drug crime be considered a Federal court matter, anyhow?
Posted by: marymary | August 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Drug Laws-- alot of drug offernses were federalized in the 80 and 90s in response to increased criminality, and the repub Congresses made those crimes subject to minimum sentence Guidelines. It worked, the dealers are locked away and crime has gone down most everywhere, except the Bluest Blue Hells ( St Lou, ChiTown, Newark etc) Now we've forgotten what high crime feels like, and the Obamaniacs want to spring tens of thousand of voters. Just disgusting.
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM
Interesting. The federal prison in Danbury,CT is transferring 1,000+ women prisoners to a facility in Alabama. Northeast Senators asked for a delay,because the inmates will be too far away from their families. Most of the women are in the federal prison because of drug related crimes. Danbury is to become a men's prison,because the Bureau of Prisons need the space. This has been an issue for editorial boards in New England,today the Concord (NH) Monitor.
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM
NK,any news about Danbury delaying the transfer of women inmates?
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Sorry, NK, but that answer is circular. This is a federal matter because it was federalized. What allowed them to federalize local crimes?
Posted by: marymary | August 12, 2013 at 11:55 AM
The controlled substance act (with drug schedules) was passed in 1970. It was toughened significantly in the 80's. And I agree with those who point up the unintended consequences of the legislation and mandatory sentences. I also doubt we'll ever root the corruption out of the DEA without totally disbanding it.
That said, better to change the law than ignore it.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 12, 2013 at 12:01 PM
5 kilos is serious weight. 10 years is perfectly in order for Cocaine and/or any of the other very dangerous drugs.
What concerns me as much is that a lot of these moves are economic. Government simply won't afford to pay for peripheral activities such as incarcerating prisoners and many other functions.
The path was laid out 40 years ago when the cost of social welfare programs began to escalate.
Now one finds onself with a $250 parking ticket as I did the other day, or paying for access to the public pool, or huge lotteries that pay for education where budgets fall short. Kids pay to play sports now in many places.
Government has become a predatory monster with little accountability. Whether it's a city manager for a town that has a population of 50,000 making $300K/year or hidden districts and bailiwicks hiding the massive income of part time employees government is deceptive, corrupt and oppressive today.
Tammany is back in spades.
Holder is once again selectively enforcing the law and subverting the laws he doesn't like. It is a lawless, illegitimate government we now have.
Posted by: matt | August 12, 2013 at 12:01 PM
Jack,if Frederick is still working on the puffin project,please tell him the chick is due to fledge,probably this week. It will leave the burrow in the dark of night and (maybe) someday return to Seal Island.
CH,the young Romney boys loved their dog so much that Mitt put it on the roof to go on vacation. That was supposed to be a bad thing. The Obamas,it says alot that they could forget the dog.
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM
There are federal laws against possession and sale of all sorts of drugs.
Every judge I've ever talked to about it detests mandatory sentencing. And the federal judges say the worst part of their job is all the drug cases. I imagine the federal judiciary would love to see most drug crimes de-federalized.
It all derives from a congressional mindset that says if we really, really frown on some sort of behavior, we'll make it a federal crime--that'll show 'em! Hence federal laws against hate crimes, wife-beating and etc.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | August 12, 2013 at 12:06 PM
I agree with that DoT. But now with legalization by the states we are faced with a conundrum.
Posted by: matt | August 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM
What good have drug laws done?
Posted by: Extraneus | August 12, 2013 at 12:18 PM
The Federal Leviathan: with control of only 1 of three branches, the Repubs have done a fair job with sequester of delaying national bankruptcy. Of course it's not enough -- as the Entitlement nightmare will bankrupt the country on its own. But going into Debt Limit 2013, the Repubs are well-positioned to force a Hobson's Choice on Obummer-- Delay ObummerCare implementation in full, and save $100+Billion, or cut other Civilian spending $130B over the next 2 FYs. Repubs are well-positioned because the Sequester Scare Stories fell flat and exploded in the Dems face like a trick cigar. -- My only condition is NO Grand Bargains -- OBUMMER wants old white retired workers to pay for ObummerCare Medicaid and Headstart-- Repubs should say no thanks to that: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323477604579000933006361834.html
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM
'What good have drug laws done?'
Warehoused Gangbangers who if left on the street the past 30 years would have murdered thousands of innocents and made much of the USA like ChiTown or South African Townships.
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM
How many gangs would there be without drug laws?
Posted by: Extraneus | August 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM
"Don't make a federal case out of it" has become one of those things you hear only in black and white movies.
Like "It's a free country."
Posted by: bgates | August 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Marlene, the dog just a prop to those grifters; hopefully it will meet a better fate than Buddy, named after one of Slick's trash kin, did.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | August 12, 2013 at 12:31 PM
If laws came up for review based on what good they've done, the legal code would be very abbreviated.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | August 12, 2013 at 12:34 PM
Legal-- and government subsidized-- drugs have ended crime in Amsterdam and Geneva. Please. as grossly imperfect as anti-drug policy for the past 25 years, the alternatives are far worse in terms of destroyed lives and making large parts of Cities unlivable.
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM
We need to pay homage to the granddaddy of all RINOs, Nelson Rockefeller, who tried to show he was tough on crime in order to be acclaimed president.
How did that work out, Nelson, like all RINOs, screwing Americans to the end.
Posted by: sbwaters | August 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Cap'n "Anybody waiting for the MFM to point out how disorganized the whole Focker family was to not bring Bo with them initially? "
Now Cap'n, that is just not fair. Many families elect to have the family members fly separately to ensure the family will survive a crash of one plane or the other. Just good planning on the Fockers' part.
Posted by: Old Lurker | August 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM
"What good have drug laws done?"
About as much good as the War on Poverty, Ext.
Posted by: Old Lurker | August 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM
I have been out of the loop for some time but I feel sure the Federal Judge recives a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report from the probation office , which would list the full facts, including amount of controlled substance tied to a defendant.
Posted by: Fred Gregory | August 12, 2013 at 12:47 PM
NK, that's an important point.
But there HAS to be some alternative besides legalization, and what we're doing now. I know I keep saying that, but I refuse to believe that the only two options are:
Heroin and meth over the counter at the 7-11
or
SWAT teams raiding your house because you bought one box of sudafed too many; small towns serving nonviolent warrants with armored personnel carriers; civil asset forfeiture being massively applied and becoming a primary funding method for police departments; a couple of million citizens in jail/prison; unchecked power on the part of prosecutors and police; etc.
Posted by: James D. | August 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Yes sbw, all the RINOs should pay homage to Saint Nelson. Mega McCannz would have his image tattooed on her fat ass if she was bright enough to know who he was.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPhone | August 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM
JamesD-- you are a reasonable man as usual-- but this Holder defacto decrim development is NOT driven by reason. The Libertarian Senators driven by ideological purity are giving political cover to spring outta the Fed Pen. tens of thousands of current and future Dem voters. Just disgusting.
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 01:15 PM
****fair warning***im wasted****
Bottom line; the days of simply locking Negroes up to fund the private prison industrial complex are well and truly over. That's bad for most Republicans who get off on Negroes being sent away for little or nothing..... But as policy, it's done and dusted.
Trayvon 1
White man profiting off Negro incarceration 0
Posted by: DublinDave | August 12, 2013 at 01:17 PM
So even with a low IQ and in a drunken haze I can still appreciate Rick Santorum's big idea for the GOP, delivered in Iowa this weekend; Republicans need to start having 'ideas' if they want to be taken seriously in Washington.
So, the big idea delivered by an ex-republican presidential candidate is that Republicans need to start having ideas....... roflmao....
Posted by: DublinDave | August 12, 2013 at 01:22 PM
"Legal-- and government subsidized-- drugs have ended crime in Amsterdam and Geneva"
The real problem is due to the fact that cough syrup is illegal in Holland, but you can get a cough drop with a complete medical history.
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2013 at 01:24 PM
Jane-- No I get the NO CARs. There are no cars in Amsterdam so as to avoid the subsidized junkies carjacking and breaking into the cars! BRILLIANT Schinking by those Dutchmen!
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 01:27 PM
Speaking of which,
Dutch prince in coma since 2012 skiing accident dies
[snip]Posted by: Extraneus | August 12, 2013 at 01:34 PM
They have cars NK. No Nyquil, but cars. They are just second class citizens.
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2013 at 01:39 PM
Those zany and wacky Dutch. We should definitely use them as exemplars for our social conventions and policies!
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 01:40 PM
I haven't got time today for an extended debate which this will probably raise but I still can't figure out the conservative position which actively fights for the rights of smokers and drinkers, both of which seem at least as or more lethal than most illicit drugs, usually based on an individual's right to do as he pleases and yet doesn't want others to do the same with other drugs.
I don't use any of the above so I'm not some pothead, shroom eater grinding my axe, just somebody who has a hard time determining the basis for the different standards.
Posted by: Ignatz | August 12, 2013 at 02:04 PM
And since we're talking drugs I have one off topic comment.
Watched the new episode of Breaking Bad last night; how is it Walt's hair on top of his head falls out when he does chemo but not his mustache and goatee...or eyebrows...or eyelashes...or arm hair....
Posted by: Ignatz | August 12, 2013 at 02:07 PM
Whitey: Guilty.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 02:15 PM
Very very Guilty. I feel sorry for the victims of the "unproven" counts.
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2013 at 02:17 PM
Yes Jane,I agree. But he is going to rot in jail.
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 02:31 PM
Whitey will die in prison. If that's some small consolation for his murder victims' families, I'm good with that.
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 02:34 PM
I noted that Jane, Caro, Scott Johnson and others gave Amsterdam mainly good reviews when they were there for the NR events. Maybe things have been cleaned up, but I took my daughters there when they were 12 and 13 (35+ years ago) and we abandoned our planned week in that city after the first 24 hours. Sidewalks were covered with vomit, urine and worse that had to be spraywashed every morning, litter and garbage were up to one's ankles, piles of zonked-out bums slept at the fountains, on streetcorners, in every doorway, and so on. I feared it was a view to the future, when we would likely liberal ourselves out of all human dignity.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | August 12, 2013 at 02:40 PM
Store clerk denies Oprah's charges of racism.
Who knows who is telling the truth but I have to wonder why the lefties automatically believe the word of a 1 percenter of 1 percenters against a lowly proletarian clerk.
Also waiting for their condemnation of somebody seriously considering paying $38,000 for a purse.
White Americans take the food out of starving African mouths by doing so but African Americans don't?
Posted by: Ignatz | August 12, 2013 at 02:45 PM
When my wife first mentioned the Oprah story, I remarked, "I bet it didn't happen that way at all, it was likely something lost in translation, but Oprah can't resist re-telling the story in manner that suits her."
So I'm not a good one to judge who is telling the truth since I thought it BS before the clerk called her out.
Posted by: Some Guy | August 12, 2013 at 02:52 PM
Well I believe that a Swiss store clerk would be racist. The secret of Switzerland's success as a religiously and lingually diverse country is their tribalism and suspicion and hatred of all outsiders. Yeah, Oprah, if the shop clerk hates you because of how you look it's because you don't look like her exact Zuri tribe. Don't worry, that means that she hates the people from Aargau just as much...
Posted by: 2_cathyf_6 | August 12, 2013 at 02:57 PM
DoT/Mark F
From the previous thread.
I believe a knock against Clark was that after the final breakout at Anzio his Forces were in great shape to push northeast across Italy and capture Highway 6, which would have prevented the 10th German Army from escaping north as their Gustav Line collapsed.
As the troops were rolling eastward and on the move, against orders, Clark decided to instead divert many of his attacking forces and swing them in a left 180, and send them against the heavier fortified German forces covering Highway 7, the more easily defended coastal route towards Rome. They got bogged down and only broke thru there by a surprise mountain-climbing game saving push by the I believe the US 34th, that unexpectedly seized high ground and forced the Highway 7 Germans to pull back.
Much supposedly unnecessary Allied casualties ensued in that Highway 7 swing move, and his weakened eastbound troops were unable to effectively cut off the retreating Germans retreating up Highway 6, thus allowing them to escape to fight another day.
The move did allow Clark to be the first to enter Rome, which appears to contemporary comments and sources to have been the paramount thing he was interested in more than anything else---the glory and headlines of being the first General to march into Rome. Apparently he also disobeyed orders a previous time, but his superior, the Brit General Alexander, never effectively harnessed him in or upbraided him in either incident. Again, Matt would know the particulars.
I don't want to damn him in 20/20 hindsight, but that seems to be the knock on him as having blown a great opportunity to do very serious damage to the retreating 10th Germans, in order to accomplish a photo-op of limited significance. There are probably opposite arguments from his supporters.
My pop was in the weakened troops heading eastward toward to cut off Highway 6. A few months later he became the commanding Officer of the 3rd Battalion of the 7th Infantry, 3rd Division. I wish I could have paid more attention as a young pup, since he did not talk much about it, but I do not ever recall him talking poorly about Mark Clark and I do recall him commenting that Clark was always under-resourced as a Commanding General in Italy, so he was limited in the options he had available. I always recall him speaking respectfully of Mark Clark.
Posted by: daddy | August 12, 2013 at 02:58 PM
Also waiting for their condemnation of somebody seriously considering paying $38,000 for a purse.
White Americans take the food out of starving African mouths by doing so but African Americans don't?
Posted by: Ignatz | August 12, 2013 at 02:45 PM
Remember, it's "White men's greed" that runs "a world in need." Rev. Write told Oprah that when she was a member of his church. People of color are apparently either immune from greed, or they are preemptively forgiven for it under Black Liberation Theology.
Posted by: Ranger | August 12, 2013 at 02:59 PM
"Sidewalks were covered with vomit, urine and worse that had to be spraywashed every morning, litter and garbage were up to one's ankles"
AB,
I was shocked at the trash. WE'd go up to our B&B at night and the next morning there would be cigarette packs, soda cans, roaches, and other trash everywhere. And yes, they would spray down the streets in the morning. It seemed absolutely bizarre to me. I'm no environmentalist but I certainly don't litter.
Caro thought it might be that they don't have trash cans for fear that bombs would be put in them.
Re: Bulger: The victims all seem to be saying the same thing - the government was in on all of this. Jay Carney (defense lawyer and my former Mock Trial Team coach) is saying the same thing.
Good. Whitey's brother was the president of the MA senate for a long time.
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2013 at 03:13 PM
Good catch, Ranger.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 12, 2013 at 03:13 PM
The store clerk is apparently Italian not Swiss.
Posted by: Ignatz | August 12, 2013 at 03:15 PM
I'm not black and I'm not fat (both have been cited as reasons Oprah was insulted by the clerk) but I'm certain that the store personnel also would have warned me that the $40-some-thousand handbag was unaffordable. I'm too long in the tooth to be the mistress of a rich man, alas, and not groomed, coiffed or attired in a way that a multi-millionaire or the spouse of one would be.
Blacks think that if someone gives them the bad table at a restaurant, pushes in front of them at a ticket counter, ignores them in a store, that those things are racially motivated, even though they happen to all of us. A black friend of mine called the police any time she passed a construction site and someone whistled at her, telling me, "You don't understand, Bub; white men think they can whistle at black women because we're all whores." It never occurred to her that white women are whistled at too (thank you, fellas!) And so it goes.
Posted by: (A) nuther Bub | August 12, 2013 at 03:17 PM
Wow! Jay Carney is letting the federal government and the cops have it. I'm proud of him.
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2013 at 03:19 PM
In the previous article, she said that while she didn't have her eyelashes on, she did have her "little Donna Karan" skirt, so you'll have to imagine the scene after enlarging this pic:
Oprah Winfrey and best friend Gayle King arrive in Zurich last month for Tina Turner’s wedding.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 12, 2013 at 03:24 PM
leven en laten leven...
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | August 12, 2013 at 03:27 PM
Jane,I'm listening to Howie Carr. Whitey's defense team is having a presser and they are repeating the theme of the corrupt government/FBI. They were prevented from bringing forward the government corruption in the trial,so they say. By the way,Billy Bulger never showed up in court for his brother's trial. Didn't Mitt force Billy Bulger out of his U Mass position?
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 03:28 PM
I don't know the reason he left UMAss. (and I didn't know he didn't show up). But I'm very interested in the govt corruption part. I know Mueller had been subpoenaed to testify for the defense.
Let me know what Howie says about the government corruption.
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2013 at 03:32 PM
Jane, Howie thinks Whitey was happy to use the FBI protection.Yes,the FBI corruption is criminal,but Whitey is a very bad man.
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 03:34 PM
--she did have her "little Donna Karan" skirt, so you'll have to imagine the scene after enlarging this pic--
If I was in the store and saw that in a little Donna Karan skirt I'd be looking for a bag to use too.
When did she go all Gigantor again?
This sounds more like one of those pouty celebrity "Don't you know who I am" stories than anything else.
Posted by: Ignatz | August 12, 2013 at 03:35 PM
I e-mailed the daughter and asked her to get me one of those $38K purses that Oprah can't afford.Ha,Ha. They are going to Switzerland because she won a Swissair/Swiss Rail pass as a door prize at an event she attended in DC. They plan to hike and enjoy the scenery.
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 03:41 PM
Msybr Clark's situation is more like the situation when Col. Moore went into the La Drang valley, when his unit was understrength,
The law is a blunt instrument, maybe if the culture was not focused on the consumption of narcotics and other substances, one might consider deprioritization of the prosecuting for said substances,
The minimums were another Joe Biden special, btw.
Posted by: narciso | August 12, 2013 at 03:45 PM
" You can never be too rich, or too thin." Well, Ohprah's got one of those covered -- the other?... jeez .... (Gigantor-- heh!)
My wife let our daughter talk her into buying a size 6 Petite black tank minidress at J Crew yesterday. My wife modeled it for me last night... dang.... it was like Jamie Lee Curtis in True Lies... (take it easy Ignatz, the dress, there was no performance.) I'm a lucky guy.
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 03:47 PM
OT, but today being George Soro's 83rd birthday, they must have really pushed the Acorn community organizer types out the door today. Went to meet a client in Forest Hills, Queens, today. Was accosted in a Starbucks by a group of teenagers working for the Queens Community something or other, asking everyone in the store if they were registered to vote. A hundred yards away, NYPIRG kid asked me if I wanted to help fight gas drilling which is ruining our water supply. Told him I was in favor of gas drilling. The left never sleeps. It's like rust.
Posted by: peter | August 12, 2013 at 03:47 PM
This story is UNpossible.. Belfast violence? BillyC fixed that 15 years ago!
http://news.msn.com/world/n-ireland-clashes-leave-56-police-2-civilians-injured?ocid=ansnews11
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 03:51 PM
Prosecution now speaking. Government criticized about the deals that were made. We make deals because people have information that we need. It would have been worse not to make deals with people who have information. Those people are obviously not the most upstanding citizens. Howie is having a fit because the female prosecutor is speaking in Spanish. Howie sounds a bit subdued.
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 03:52 PM
Shirley they can't be serious, they as much as made Bulger, by eliminating his competition.
Posted by: narciso | August 12, 2013 at 03:54 PM
Well that's encouraging,
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/al-qaeda-on-the-run-vows-to-free-jailed-al-qaeda-members/
Posted by: narciso | August 12, 2013 at 03:57 PM
narciso,the prosecution made deals with some of the witnesses who testified during the trial. Very bad people. Reporters like Howie Carr,who know this story inside out,probably would have wanted Whitey convicted on all 19 counts of murder.But,as Howie just said,it is finally over.
Posted by: Marlene | August 12, 2013 at 04:02 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 04:12 PM
I remember back in the 90s, when they called the New Republic, 'fascist' for some reason or another, now they think it's just right;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/the_beginning_of_wisdom.html
The new bio on Hiss, references Gordievsky's note about Hopkins, through Akmerov (sic)
Posted by: narciso | August 12, 2013 at 04:14 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 04:16 PM
The only way a purse could be worth $38,000 would be if it had $37,950 or more in cash inside it.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 04:19 PM
Speaking of purses, looks like somebody forgot his...
--
David Burge @iowahawkblog 7h
One! Thingular thenthation, every little thtep he takes pic.twitter.com/rb85D77xh2 #jazzhandseverybody
--
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 04:24 PM
DaveinMa... now you've done it, you've attacked the purse culture. Torchlight march heading towards your home.
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 04:24 PM
Obummer on the course... yeah... he's hetero alright.
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 04:26 PM
Reform?
http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/war-on-drugs-air-force-floods-miami-with-cocaine/
Maybe not?
Posted by: pagar | August 12, 2013 at 04:27 PM
Cue the world's smallest violin-- Bloomberg pissed that an arrogant fascistic nazi in robes orders him to stop doing the right thing: http://news.msn.com/world/n-ireland-clashes-leave-56-police-2-civilians-injured?ocid=ansnews11
Posted by: NK | August 12, 2013 at 04:28 PM
Remember the other day we had an article says there was plenty of money?
Apparently the government is determined to get rid of it.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/08/u-s-pays-1-5-mil-to-help-brazilian-women-quit-smoking/
Posted by: pagar | August 12, 2013 at 04:31 PM
At the bottom of the pic that Dave links at 4:24 - "Putin's skinning a grizzly bear with his teeth and we're stuck with this dork."
Posted by: Janet | August 12, 2013 at 04:33 PM
"u-s-pays-1-5-mil-to-help-brazilian-women-quit-smoking" Either that, or $billions later on when they're here illegally yet covered by the "Affordable" Care Act.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 04:35 PM
Janet, somewhere there's a pink sweater and a poodle skirt missing their matching shoes. (Not to mention a Nike tennis dress separated from its little matching halfsie socks.)
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 04:37 PM
Interesting close of the last thread. OF COURSE Kim is the exception to the aggravation of the ever-changing names. One of our JOMO Tribe's great treasures!
Jack is Back, dang it, you seem to have tried to turn my proud and ancient name into an English one by misplacing an "e". For more than a thousand years my family has been associated with one of the most important manor farms of Telemark Province, Norway. But I'm always forgiving toward my friends. I do have very old English roots, sort of, but the most recent "English" ancestor was a certain black-hearted rogue named John I'd rather not talk about. I'd be prouder of a cobbler or a village idiot. Perhaps we'll touch on it in years to come, when you and your family find your way to my now much-delayed Alaska home.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | August 12, 2013 at 04:40 PM
really shows his buns nicely
https://twitter.com/ExJon/status/366614585345732608/photo/1
Posted by: andrew sullivan | August 12, 2013 at 04:51 PM
I am extrenely sick of Oprah Winfrey, and would like never to hear anything about her again. Last time I did was when she said Trayvon and Emmitt Till were "the same thing."
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 12, 2013 at 04:54 PM
Mark Folkestad, as I read the comments on name changing in the other thread, it occurred to me that I never thought of Kim as a name change. Kim is the JOMer who makes wry comments in the name rectangle.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | August 12, 2013 at 04:57 PM
change[r]
Posted by: Thomas Collins | August 12, 2013 at 04:59 PM
Well, andrew sullivan, you will really like this version of the photo: Drum Majorette In Chief
Posted by: centralcal | August 12, 2013 at 04:59 PM
change[r]
Posted by: Thomas Collins | August 12, 2013 at 04:59 PM
today being George Soro's 83rd birthday
Recalls to mind "Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher" in Billy Elliot. Funny. Dreadful. Compelling.
Posted by: sbwaters | August 12, 2013 at 05:04 PM
Taranto (in a column entitled "This Is Not Rosa Parks"):
"What Winfrey construes as a racial episode is actually a story about class--a wealthy, privileged celebrity aggrieved by a lowly saleswoman's lack of deference. And it's not her first brush with this sort of impertinence: 'The incident comes eight years after Winfrey was turned away from a Hermes store in Paris a few minutes after closing,' the News notes. Apparently fermé is un sifflet pour chien.
"It's reminiscent of the endlessly repeated claim that criticism of Barack Obama proves racism is alive and well in America. Somehow Obama's defenders are unable to see past the color of his skin and notice that he is president of the United States. As for Winfrey, she went all the way to Europe to discover that racism is alive in America."
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 12, 2013 at 05:05 PM
Paging Snake Plissken to the red courtesy phone;
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/12/breaking-federal-judge-rules-nycs-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/
Posted by: narciso | August 12, 2013 at 05:09 PM
htp://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/war-on-drugs-air-force-floods-miami-with-cocaine/
M.I.YAYO! Anyone ever hear of a Carol City Gang (AKA Carol City Cartel) called the "Boobie Boys"? Odd name Boobie! The gang was named after its leader, Kenneth "Boobie" Williams. This gang was notorious in the Miami area in the 90's and responsible for over 130 deaths, supplying not only Florida but many other states with cocaine as well.
In a Trayvon Martin family interview in Esquire, Trayvon's uncle Stephen (Tracy's brother) refers to his own son Stephen as "Boobie". Odd name Boobie?
Posted by: Rocco | August 12, 2013 at 05:16 PM
Daddy, is pole-dancing a winter or summer sport? Inquiring minds want to know.
JimmyK,
I'm tending to think it's a winter sport.
All the poles I've ever observed being danced upon have been inside buildings, which tells me that it is generally an inside venue, not an outside one. That is conducive to Winter.
Second, cold weather tends to make the artesians pop out, if you catch my drift, which is not quite the case in hot weather when it's not cold enough to make a Witches etc...
And thirdly, if we take Sports Illustrated as an example,
the Swim Suit Issue always comes out in the dead of Winter, obviously indicating that athletes in Pole Dancing attire should be wearing that attire during the chilly Winter months.
And lastly it'd knock that figure skating nonsense off the air for good!
If there is a flaw in my logic I fail to see it.
Posted by: daddy | August 12, 2013 at 05:18 PM
Pole dancing always seemed kind of hokey to me.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | August 12, 2013 at 05:30 PM
They put it out right after the Super Bowl, when all sensible people have no further interest in sports until March Madness.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 12, 2013 at 05:32 PM