Comments on: Yawn, Left-Wing Blogger Caught with Dime Bag

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:28:51 +0000

Thanks, ILC. That’s kind of what I thought, but it just seemed bizarre to me that a judge’s ruling would go like that, hence my lack of understanding. My guess is that Sullivan thought that by having the charges dropped (and having the U.S. Attorney agree to it), that he would not have to admit to being charged with a crime on any immigration application, even though the judge believed otherwise. Perhaps that’s why the U.S. Attorney had no answer, or refused to answer, the judge’s questions. Under the circumstances, I understand the judge’s conclusion that the U.S. Attorney was giving Sullivan special treatment.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:16:50 +0000

I thought the White House was required to keep records of all phone calls.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:42:18 +0000

It was probably done with a phone call… no trail.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:56:35 +0000

I want to know if the White House AGAIN politicized the judicial process. Would a FOIA request be able to discern if someone in the White House spoke to the US Attorney on Sullivan’s behalf?

By: V the K

V the K — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:51:28 +0000

Ronald Radosh wonders if the Obama Administration is buying “Doc” Sullian’s support.

They don’t have to. RawMuslGlutes is smitten with Chairman Zero and would have his caramel colored baby if he could. (Which is partly the source of his obsession with Sarah Palin’s uterus.)

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:04:17 +0000

[I] don’t even understand what the judge ultimately ruled… where perhaps Sullivan did get a break is having a U.S. Attorney advocate for him

Pat, I read it and understood it. Will you accept my interpretation?
- The U.S. Attorney said, don’t prosecute Sullivan.
- The Court said, why the hell not? By “prosecute”, we’re talking about a formality that ends with the defendant paying a $125 fine, less than a traffic ticket. I plan to do it to several other people today.
- The USA said, it would adversely affect Sullivan’s immigration application.
- The Court said, how? If he’s being honest on his application, he has to admit now anyway that he has been charged with a U.S. crime. How would going ahead with the prosecution worsen that? I’m open to your reasoning, just tell me.
- The USA said, I don’t know. But it’s my decision whether we’ll prosecute him and you don’t get to ask questions.
- The Court said, the hell I don’t. But fine, I’m the judge not the prosecutor and there is no point in me going ahead without a prosecutor on board. I guess I should give in and do as you ask. But it IS exceptional treatment and doesn’t that go against everything we are supposed to believe in?

Sullivan should have urged the U.S. Attorney to not argue on his behalf

Given Sullivan’s public moral stand on special treatment which Bruce quoted in his thread – Yes, agreed.

By: Pat

Pat — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:23:35 +0000

ILC, I had a longer comment, but lost it. I don’t think it even made it to the spam filter. So I’ll just give a brief recap. I read the argument, but will admit my legalese is horrible, and don’t even understand what the judge ultimately ruled.

In any case, it does appear where perhaps Sullivan did get a break is having a U.S. Attorney advocate for him. It’s not clear whether this U.S. Attorney would advocate for someone else who was in a similar immigration status. If not, and there is no other mitigating factors, then Sullivan was unfairly given a break. And in that case, Sullivan should have urged the U.S. Attorney to not argue on his behalf.

By: B. Daniel Blatt

B. Daniel Blatt — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:57:37 +0000

ILC, you’ve shown how to disagree with my points with class and in a civil manner. Fair points all. Our liberal critics should take note.

And add this wrinkle as well–Ronald Radosh wonders if the Obama Administration is buying and criminality. The barebacking would make it worse, much worse. ---Dan]

By: B. Daniel Blatt

B. Daniel Blatt — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:26:10 +0000

Dale, that is an entirely different issue. First, there are two things there, (1) the barebacking; and (2) the issue of statutory rape. I favor laws barring sex with teenagers (18 & under). And I think barebacking is wrong.

By: Dale

Dale — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:19:01 +0000

Would you have the same nonchalant attitude if an HIV+ gay man had engaged in barebacking with a teen? Just sayin’ …

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:03:52 +0000

since I believe marijuana should be decriminalized, I don’t have a problem with an angry blogger carrying around a bag of Mary Jane.

Even though you may disagree with the law, it’s still there and we should expect folks to adhere to it.