What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (3 Viewers)

The US has very agresive goals. But the problem is China. China has already passed the U.S. and will be producing more than half of the world's green house gases by 2030. Without China slowing down, the rest of the world's best efforts will be in the noise.
Obama reached an agreement with China in which both nations would make serious attempts to reduce greenhouse gases. Weren't you one of those who dismissed this agreement and criticized it?
I posted a graphic from the New York Times which clearly illustrated how ignorant the agreement was. Apparently that graphic either went completely over your head or you chose to ignore it.

Here is the graphic. Notice there are ZERO limits for china, just a date of 2030 when they are suppose to peak then freeze. But their current increase is almost vertical, so by 2013 they will be many many times higher than the US is. We will be working hard to cut back, they will be full steam ahead until 2030. It is a stupid agreement which only the biggest Obama's supporter could pretend to pass it off as significant.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Turns out the Clintons were receiving millions in foreign money while she was SOS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

They lied and engaged in gross, wholesale conflict of interest.

Might as well put a For Sale sign on Hillary's forehead.
Selling access hasn't hurt either Clinton in the past, so why would they stop? Serious question, not being flippant.

 
Turns out the Clintons were receiving millions in foreign money while she was SOS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

They lied and engaged in gross, wholesale conflict of interest.

Might as well put a For Sale sign on Hillary's forehead.
Wouldn't the sign be better across her butt. Much more real estate available.

 
Turns out the Clintons were receiving millions in foreign money while she was SOS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

They lied and engaged in gross, wholesale conflict of interest.

Might as well put a For Sale sign on Hillary's forehead.
Selling access hasn't hurt either Clinton in the past, so why would they stop? Serious question, not being flippant.
The only reason I can think is that they said they would.

Hillary has tried to set herself apart from Bill a lot. This whole thing with the SOS position to give her gravitas and a record on the world stage has been key. This seriously undercuts that argument.

The corruption issue aside it's just a serious, serious problem for a presidential candidate to act as a flow-through account for millions in foreign money. It's a problem for me anyway, whether national voters care about that - or anything about ethics - is an open question.

 
The US has very agresive goals. But the problem is China. China has already passed the U.S. and will be producing more than half of the world's green house gases by 2030. Without China slowing down, the rest of the world's best efforts will be in the noise.
Obama reached an agreement with China in which both nations would make serious attempts to reduce greenhouse gases. Weren't you one of those who dismissed this agreement and criticized it?
I posted a graphic from the New York Times which clearly illustrated how ignorant the agreement was. Apparently that graphic either went completely over your head or you chose to ignore it.

Here is the graphic. Notice there are ZERO limits for china, just a date of 2030 when they are suppose to peak then freeze. But their current increase is almost vertical, so by 2013 they will be many many times higher than the US is. We will be working hard to cut back, they will be full steam ahead until 2030. It is a stupid agreement which only the biggest Obama's supporter could pretend to pass it off as significant.
All I remember is that you argued that it was unenforceable. But of course, how could we possibly ever enforce any agreement on China? Was there something else?

 
The US has very agresive goals. But the problem is China. China has already passed the U.S. and will be producing more than half of the world's green house gases by 2030. Without China slowing down, the rest of the world's best efforts will be in the noise.
Obama reached an agreement with China in which both nations would make serious attempts to reduce greenhouse gases. Weren't you one of those who dismissed this agreement and criticized it?
I posted a graphic from the New York Times which clearly illustrated how ignorant the agreement was. Apparently that graphic either went completely over your head or you chose to ignore it.

Here is the graphic. Notice there are ZERO limits for china, just a date of 2030 when they are suppose to peak then freeze. But their current increase is almost vertical, so by 2013 they will be many many times higher than the US is. We will be working hard to cut back, they will be full steam ahead until 2030. It is a stupid agreement which only the biggest Obama's supporter could pretend to pass it off as significant.
All I remember is that you argued that it was unenforceable. But of course, how could we possibly ever enforce any agreement on China? Was there something else?
Enforcement was never an issue I raised. It was the pure stupidity of the agreement which I had issues with. Look at the graph. it explains the agreement. We work as butts off to cut, meanwhile China grows without any limits for the next couple of decades at which time their greenhouse gas output will be 400-500% times higher than ours. Completely idiotic and meaningless. I was very clear and explained this about a dozen times on your thread.

 
Turns out the Clintons were receiving millions in foreign money while she was SOS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

They lied and engaged in gross, wholesale conflict of interest.

Might as well put a For Sale sign on Hillary's forehead.
Wouldn't the sign be better across her butt. Much more real estate available.
Sure, more letters could fit like:

FOR SALE: All denominations including Pounds, Euros, Dinari, Yen, Yuan, Rubles and Pesos Accepted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Turns out the Clintons were receiving millions in foreign money while she was SOS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

They lied and engaged in gross, wholesale conflict of interest.

Might as well put a For Sale sign on Hillary's forehead.
Selling access hasn't hurt either Clinton in the past, so why would they stop? Serious question, not being flippant.
The only reason I can think is that they said they would.

Hillary has tried to set herself apart from Bill a lot. This whole thing with the SOS position to give her gravitas and a record on the world stage has been key. This seriously undercuts that argument.

The corruption issue aside it's just a serious, serious problem for a presidential candidate to act as a flow-through account for millions in foreign money. It's a problem for me anyway, whether national voters care about that - or anything about ethics - is an open question.
It is something I care about also, wasn't being dismissive of the issue. I don't think that she has distanced herself from Bill as much as he has just stayed in the background for the most part. I can't really think of anything that sets her apart from him, but I am more than willing to be educated about that.

I guess my point is just that Bill sold access to the White House when he was President, not just the SOS, and it didn't hurt him at all politically. More popular when he left than when he got there...I realize that was a reaction to the Republicans in Congress and the fact that the economy did well though.

 
The US has very agresive goals. But the problem is China. China has already passed the U.S. and will be producing more than half of the world's green house gases by 2030. Without China slowing down, the rest of the world's best efforts will be in the noise.
Obama reached an agreement with China in which both nations would make serious attempts to reduce greenhouse gases. Weren't you one of those who dismissed this agreement and criticized it?
I was under the impression that A) China agreed to do absolutely nothing, and B) the agreement is not binding in any way whatsoever. Is this impression incorrect?

 
The US has very agresive goals. But the problem is China. China has already passed the U.S. and will be producing more than half of the world's green house gases by 2030. Without China slowing down, the rest of the world's best efforts will be in the noise.
Obama reached an agreement with China in which both nations would make serious attempts to reduce greenhouse gases. Weren't you one of those who dismissed this agreement and criticized it?
I was under the impression that A) China agreed to do absolutely nothing, and B) the agreement is not binding in any way whatsoever. Is this impression incorrect?
I'm still not sure about the first part despite jon's assertions. It seems to me that just the admission by China that this is a grave concern is a significant step forward.

As to the agreement not being binding, again, how can any agreement between us and China be binding?

 
I mentioned earlier in this thread my concern about Hillary's foundation and the ethical questions it raised. But I doubt it will have any effect whatsoever on her campaign. If she were confronted by a populist liberal like Elizabeth Warren, then yeah such an issue could be a problem for Hillary. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I don't think the GOP candidate, whoever it is, will be able to raise it in the fall of 2016 (particularly Jeb Bush, given his family's close ties to Saudi oil.)

But the biggest reason this won't be an issue is because the public doesn't care about stuff like this.

 
If my competitor is willing to cripple himself

The US has very agresive goals. But the problem is China. China has already passed the U.S. and will be producing more than half of the world's green house gases by 2030. Without China slowing down, the rest of the world's best efforts will be in the noise.
Obama reached an agreement with China in which both nations would make serious attempts to reduce greenhouse gases. Weren't you one of those who dismissed this agreement and criticized it?
I was under the impression that A) China agreed to do absolutely nothing, and B) the agreement is not binding in any way whatsoever. Is this impression incorrect?
I'm still not sure about the first part despite jon's assertions. It seems to me that just the admission by China that this is a grave concern is a significant step forward.

As to the agreement not being binding, again, how can any agreement between us and China be binding?
:lmao: Tim, China just killed any real goals of trying to limit the increase to temps to under 2 degrees because it would impact their sovereignty. It is only a grave concern to China when other countries are doing the cutting. You can't seriously still think this was a good agreement?

 
I mentioned earlier in this thread my concern about Hillary's foundation and the ethical questions it raised. But I doubt it will have any effect whatsoever on her campaign. If she were confronted by a populist liberal like Elizabeth Warren, then yeah such an issue could be a problem for Hillary. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I don't think the GOP candidate, whoever it is, will be able to raise it in the fall of 2016 (particularly Jeb Bush, given his family's close ties to Saudi oil.)

But the biggest reason this won't be an issue is because the public doesn't care about stuff like this.
Saudi Arabia and other countries pay tens of millions of dollars ($2 billion since 2001) into an entity which the secretary of state, the to-be-president, and her spouse can convert to personal and campaign use.

And you do not personally have a problem with this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I mentioned earlier in this thread my concern about Hillary's foundation and the ethical questions it raised. But I doubt it will have any effect whatsoever on her campaign. If she were confronted by a populist liberal like Elizabeth Warren, then yeah such an issue could be a problem for Hillary. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen. I don't think the GOP candidate, whoever it is, will be able to raise it in the fall of 2016 (particularly Jeb Bush, given his family's close ties to Saudi oil.)

But the biggest reason this won't be an issue is because the public doesn't care about stuff like this.
Saudi Arabia and other countries pay tens of millions of dollars ($2 billion since 2001) into an entity which the secretary of state, the to-be-president, and her spouse can convert to personal and campaign use.

And you do not personally have a problem with this?
I do have a problem with it. I want to know more about it. I don't know if it will affect my vote, but it does concern me.
 
our beloved Sen. James Inhofe brought a snowball to the senate floor today as evidence against global warming. with leadership like this, how can we go wrong. :thumbup:

 
joffer said:
our beloved Sen. James Inhofe brought a snowball to the senate floor today as evidence against global warming. with leadership like this, how can we go wrong. :thumbup:
That is truly embarrassing. A United States senator. Unbelievable.
 
joffer said:
our beloved Sen. James Inhofe brought a snowball to the senate floor today as evidence against global warming. with leadership like this, how can we go wrong. :thumbup:
That is truly embarrassing. A United States senator. Unbelievable.
As it is a bit unbelievable that you get upset. Inhofe is on the far-end of the anti-global warming spectrum, but it was a light-hearted demonstration. If the tables were turned and it was a Democrat doing this, you would be upset with Republicans for trying to make an issue out of such a non-event.

 
I didn't think that Netanyahu should be addressing Congress right before his election. I also don't think that Obama's team should have tried to influence the Israeli election. This whole thing bothers me. If Bibi is going to speak, Congress should have also invited his opposition to speak because there is more than one Israeli viewpoint on how to handle Iran.

This whole thing really bothers me. There are two op-Ed pieces on this in Real Clear Politics this morning, and they're both quite disturbing. The first one, by liberal Michael Cohen of the Boston Globe, urges Democrats to boycott the speech. He hints that Obama is pushing for a boycott behind the scenes. I think that would be terrible. Support for Israel has always been bipartisan and if the Dems boycott it will become a partisan issue. Let's face it, there are extremists in the Democratic Party who already see it that way and who want us to distance ourselves permanently from Israel. I do NOT believe that Obama is one of these despite his distaste for Netanyahu, but a boycott would play into their hands.

The second piece was by Right wing Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, who is basically a mouthpiece for the Netanyahu government. And her tone is scary. She basically compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain and warns that American negotiations with Iran will result in Israel's destruction, and that the only thing preventing this is Netanyahu's re-election, which Obama is working hard to defeat. She says that if Bibi is defeated the new Israeli government will be slaves to Obama and forced to give up land to Hamas, etc etc. it's the same old tired bull####.

 
joffer said:
our beloved Sen. James Inhofe brought a snowball to the senate floor today as evidence against global warming. with leadership like this, how can we go wrong. :thumbup:
That is truly embarrassing. A United States senator. Unbelievable.
As it is a bit unbelievable that you get upset. Inhofe is on the far-end of the anti-global warming spectrum, but it was a light-hearted demonstration. If the tables were turned and it was a Democrat doing this, you would be upset with Republicans for trying to make an issue out of such a non-event.
There have been some Democratic politicians who have made equally stupid comments and I've been all over them. Maxine Waters is one of the dumbest most embarrassing members of Congress that I can ever recall. But I expect the House of Representatives to be dumber and more over the top than the Senate. The Senate is supposed to be more thoughtful. I can't think of a Dem Senator who has displayed such ignorance as Inhofe, but I might be missing somebody.

 
And Infohe is now the chairman of the Senate committee on this issue! Are you ####### kidding me? It makes us look like a laughingstock to the rest of the world.

 
Obama doesn't want Bibi speaking because 1. He is pro-Palestine and 2. He thinks it will upset Iran. No. 2 is really the main reason, but this is what happens when you blow off a friend and we shouldn't be abandoning an ally for the sake of a beelicose theocracy that plainly views as an enemy. This is horse and cart stuff.

 
Obama doesn't want Bibi speaking because 1. He is pro-Palestine and 2. He thinks it will upset Iran. No. 2 is really the main reason, but this is what happens when you blow off a friend and we shouldn't be abandoning an ally for the sake of a beelicose theocracy that plainly views as an enemy. This is horse and cart stuff.
First off Obama is not "pro-Palestine" unless you regard anyone who wants a two state solution as pro-Palestine (as Bibi and Caroline Glick no doubt do). Second, this has nothing to do with "upsetting Iran"- it has to do with whether or not we can negotiate with Iran over nuclear weapons. Perhaps you are skeptical of these negotiations but what choice do we have? The economic boycott hasn't worked. Are you willing to go to war with Iran as Bibi, Lindsay Graham and John McCain seem to want? To me that would be the height of insanity.
 
joffer said:
our beloved Sen. James Inhofe brought a snowball to the senate floor today as evidence against global warming. with leadership like this, how can we go wrong. :thumbup:
That is truly embarrassing. A United States senator. Unbelievable.
As it is a bit unbelievable that you get upset. Inhofe is on the far-end of the anti-global warming spectrum, but it was a light-hearted demonstration. If the tables were turned and it was a Democrat doing this, you would be upset with Republicans for trying to make an issue out of such a non-event.
There have been some Democratic politicians who have made equally stupid comments and I've been all over them. Maxine Waters is one of the dumbest most embarrassing members of Congress that I can ever recall.But I expect the House of Representatives to be dumber and more over the top than the Senate. The Senate is supposed to be more thoughtful. I can't think of a Dem Senator who has displayed such ignorance as Inhofe, but I might be missing somebody.
Your tone is completely different. When you speak against Democrats, it is you disagree and they should not be doing that. When talking about Republicans, it is scary, dangerous, and embarrassing. Your criticism of Democrats is always very measured and targeted at very specifics vs. Republicans when you cast your large net and are over the top with the rhetoric.

 
You know what? Whatever jon. You seem obsessed by the notion that I am secretly a liberal. I'm not going to convince you otherwise. So be it. Let's turn to the topic. I know from your writings, that though you think liberals can be over the top about climate change, you also don't think its a hoax and you have acknowledged that its a cause for concern. That being the case, doesn't Inhofe's stunt embarrass you?

 
Obama doesn't want Bibi speaking because 1. He is pro-Palestine and 2. He thinks it will upset Iran. No. 2 is really the main reason, but this is what happens when you blow off a friend and we shouldn't be abandoning an ally for the sake of a beelicose theocracy that plainly views as an enemy. This is horse and cart stuff.
First off Obama is not "pro-Palestine" unless you regard anyone who wants a two state solution as pro-Palestine (as Bibi and Caroline Glick no doubt do). Second, this has nothing to do with "upsetting Iran"- it has to do with whether or not we can negotiate with Iran over nuclear weapons. Perhaps you are skeptical of these negotiations but what choice do we have? The economic boycott hasn't worked. Are you willing to go to war with Iran as Bibi, Lindsay Graham and John McCain seem to want? To me that would be the height of insanity.
It's the same thing.

Netanyahu speaking is tantamount to upsetting Iran which is tantamount to potentially disturbing the negotiations. If negotiations means turning our back on our ally, what is the point of the negotiations?

 
Obama doesn't want Bibi speaking because 1. He is pro-Palestine and 2. He thinks it will upset Iran. No. 2 is really the main reason, but this is what happens when you blow off a friend and we shouldn't be abandoning an ally for the sake of a beelicose theocracy that plainly views as an enemy. This is horse and cart stuff.
First off Obama is not "pro-Palestine" unless you regard anyone who wants a two state solution as pro-Palestine (as Bibi and Caroline Glick no doubt do). Second, this has nothing to do with "upsetting Iran"- it has to do with whether or not we can negotiate with Iran over nuclear weapons. Perhaps you are skeptical of these negotiations but what choice do we have? The economic boycott hasn't worked. Are you willing to go to war with Iran as Bibi, Lindsay Graham and John McCain seem to want? To me that would be the height of insanity.
It's the same thing.

Netanyahu speaking is tantamount to upsetting Iran which is tantamount to potentially disturbing the negotiations. If negotiations means turning our back on our ally, what is the point of the negotiations?
Bibi would be proud of you- that's exactly how he wants you to think. But negotiating with Iran is not turning our back on Israel, any more than negotiating with Israel in 1948 was turning our back on England, or Nixon going to China was turning our back on Taiwan, or a dozen other examples I can think of. The world is a more complicated place than Bibi wants it to be.
 
hey tim, I put a reminder on my calendar in October to check in on our bet today. so just checking if you want to settle up now or wait and see if the Lakers can make a miraculous run here.

 
Obama doesn't want Bibi speaking because 1. He is pro-Palestine and 2. He thinks it will upset Iran. No. 2 is really the main reason, but this is what happens when you blow off a friend and we shouldn't be abandoning an ally for the sake of a beelicose theocracy that plainly views as an enemy. This is horse and cart stuff.
First off Obama is not "pro-Palestine" unless you regard anyone who wants a two state solution as pro-Palestine (as Bibi and Caroline Glick no doubt do). Second, this has nothing to do with "upsetting Iran"- it has to do with whether or not we can negotiate with Iran over nuclear weapons. Perhaps you are skeptical of these negotiations but what choice do we have? The economic boycott hasn't worked. Are you willing to go to war with Iran as Bibi, Lindsay Graham and John McCain seem to want? To me that would be the height of insanity.
It's the same thing.

Netanyahu speaking is tantamount to upsetting Iran which is tantamount to potentially disturbing the negotiations. If negotiations means turning our back on our ally, what is the point of the negotiations?
Bibi would be proud of you- that's exactly how he wants you to think. But negotiating with Iran is not turning our back on Israel, any more than negotiating with Israel in 1948 was turning our back on England, or Nixon going to China was turning our back on Taiwan, or a dozen other examples I can think of. The world is a more complicated place than Bibi wants it to be.
Negotiating with Iran is not turning our back on Israel.

Turning our back on Israel so we can negotiate with Iran is turning our back on Israel.

 
hey tim, I put a reminder on my calendar in October to check in on our bet today. so just checking if you want to settle up now or wait and see if the Lakers can make a miraculous run here.
i meant to pm you. I lost your info. Send it to me again and I'll take care of it today.
 
Tell you what else is ridiculous about this. If Obama had simply met with Netanyahu when Netanyahu was seeking a meeting, instead of refusing, so that he could simply make his case, maybe Bibi would not be doing this right now. Any treaty with Iran has to go through the Senate. If he can't get a hearing in the WH he damned well knows he can get one in Congress, and frankly he is entitled to be heard but really Obama and his team should have thought of this before they just shrugged him off. Now they have to deal with Bibi in Congress instead of just containing him to their own private chambers.

This is not "Smart Power."

 
Obama doesn't want Bibi speaking because 1. He is pro-Palestine and 2. He thinks it will upset Iran. No. 2 is really the main reason, but this is what happens when you blow off a friend and we shouldn't be abandoning an ally for the sake of a beelicose theocracy that plainly views as an enemy. This is horse and cart stuff.
First off Obama is not "pro-Palestine" unless you regard anyone who wants a two state solution as pro-Palestine (as Bibi and Caroline Glick no doubt do). Second, this has nothing to do with "upsetting Iran"- it has to do with whether or not we can negotiate with Iran over nuclear weapons. Perhaps you are skeptical of these negotiations but what choice do we have? The economic boycott hasn't worked. Are you willing to go to war with Iran as Bibi, Lindsay Graham and John McCain seem to want? To me that would be the height of insanity.
It's the same thing.

Netanyahu speaking is tantamount to upsetting Iran which is tantamount to potentially disturbing the negotiations. If negotiations means turning our back on our ally, what is the point of the negotiations?
Bibi would be proud of you- that's exactly how he wants you to think. But negotiating with Iran is not turning our back on Israel, any more than negotiating with Israel in 1948 was turning our back on England, or Nixon going to China was turning our back on Taiwan, or a dozen other examples I can think of. The world is a more complicated place than Bibi wants it to be.
Negotiating with Iran is not turning our back on Israel.

Turning our back on Israel so we can negotiate with Iran is turning our back on Israel.
Youll have to explain how we are turning our back- I don't understand.
 
Well, if you are facing someone, you shift your feet to face the opposite direction and move your torse with you so that you are facing the opposite way once complete.

 
Obama doesn't want Bibi speaking because 1. He is pro-Palestine and 2. He thinks it will upset Iran. No. 2 is really the main reason, but this is what happens when you blow off a friend and we shouldn't be abandoning an ally for the sake of a beelicose theocracy that plainly views as an enemy. This is horse and cart stuff.
First off Obama is not "pro-Palestine" unless you regard anyone who wants a two state solution as pro-Palestine (as Bibi and Caroline Glick no doubt do). Second, this has nothing to do with "upsetting Iran"- it has to do with whether or not we can negotiate with Iran over nuclear weapons. Perhaps you are skeptical of these negotiations but what choice do we have? The economic boycott hasn't worked. Are you willing to go to war with Iran as Bibi, Lindsay Graham and John McCain seem to want? To me that would be the height of insanity.
It's the same thing.

Netanyahu speaking is tantamount to upsetting Iran which is tantamount to potentially disturbing the negotiations. If negotiations means turning our back on our ally, what is the point of the negotiations?
Bibi would be proud of you- that's exactly how he wants you to think. But negotiating with Iran is not turning our back on Israel, any more than negotiating with Israel in 1948 was turning our back on England, or Nixon going to China was turning our back on Taiwan, or a dozen other examples I can think of. The world is a more complicated place than Bibi wants it to be.
Negotiating with Iran is not turning our back on Israel.

Turning our back on Israel so we can negotiate with Iran is turning our back on Israel.
Youll have to explain how we are turning our back- I don't understand.
I can recall Obama refusing to even meet with Netanyahu at least once, maybe twice. I think another time Obama walked out on a meeting with him, after leaving him waiting, and then greeting sending him out through the side entrance instead of the traditional front entry reserved for heads of state. The whole thing was and has continued to be humiliating. Is it any wonder Bibi is getting a hearing where he can?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-israel-iran-netanyahu-idUSBRE88A10B20120911

There is nothing that would please Iran more than DC essentially giving our own ally the cold shoulder. Refusing to meet with the leader of a country in such a public fashion is indeed turning our back on them.

 
Holder vows to lower threshold for US civil rights charges
Attorney General Eric Holder says he will try to change the standard needed to bring federal civil rights cases in his last few weeks in the job.

In an interview with Politico, Mr Holder said "if we adjust those standards, we can make the federal government a better backstop".

His comments come after his department said it would not bring such charges in the Trayvon Martin case.

Mr Holder is set to leave after his successor, Loretta Lynch, is confirmed.

Ms Lynch, a US prosecutor in New York, was approved by a Senate committee panel on Thursday and must be confirmed by the wider Senate in the coming weeks.

Mr Holder, who has spoken out strongly about minorities communities relations with law enforcement, said he would use his last days as the US' top lawyer to talk about how the justice department decides to bring civil rights cases.

Nationwide protests followed the death of Mike Brown, an unarmed black teenager.

"I think some serious consideration needs to be given to the standard of proof that has to be met before federal involvement is appropriate, and that's something that I am going to be talking about before I leave office," he told Politico.

The US justice department's civil rights division often opens up investigations separate from local law enforcement when they believe a person has been killed specifically because of their race, but bringing charges requires a high legal standard involving intent of the suspect.

Earlier in the week, the justice department announced it had finished its investigation into the death of Martin, an unarmed black teenager killed by a volunteer neighbourhood watchman, George Zimmerman in 2012.

Mr Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder charges in 2013. The justice department said its investigation into Martin's death did not meet the "high standard" needed for federal civil rights charges against the Florida man.

A similar investigation into another high-profile case, the killing of Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer is expected to be completed soon.

When asked if the legal standard should be lower in such cases, Mr Holder told Politico there needed to be an adjustment.

George Zimmerman was cleared of murder charges in the death of Trayvon Martin.

"I think that if we adjust those standards, we can make the federal government a better backstop - make us more a part of the process in an appropriate way to reassure the American people that decisions are made by people who are really disinterested," he said.

"I think that if we make those adjustments, we will have that capacity."

It is unclear if Mr Holder will be successful in making any changes with a short time left in office, but he told the website he was proud of what he was able to accomplish during his tenure as attorney general, including civil rights charges against police departments as a whole for discriminatory practices.
Holder is a nut. He seems to want to bring civil rights cases without having to prove intent, that would be insane. Does he want just the appearance of intent to be enough to bring civil rights charges in cases where an individual was found not guilty of a criminal act? This would be similar to the hostile work environment for businesses in a sexual harassment case, which would be obscene for the feds to criminally apply to an individual. And the Zimmerman case happened three years ago, and the loons are now just finishing up the investigation. What a waste of taxpayers money. Probably had a team of lawyers sitting on a Florida beach the last couple of years pondering the case over umbrella drinks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holder vows to lower threshold for US civil rights charges
Attorney General Eric Holder says he will try to change the standard needed to bring federal civil rights cases in his last few weeks in the job.

In an interview with Politico, Mr Holder said "if we adjust those standards, we can make the federal government a better backstop".

His comments come after his department said it would not bring such charges in the Trayvon Martin case.

Mr Holder is set to leave after his successor, Loretta Lynch, is confirmed.

Ms Lynch, a US prosecutor in New York, was approved by a Senate committee panel on Thursday and must be confirmed by the wider Senate in the coming weeks.

Mr Holder, who has spoken out strongly about minorities communities relations with law enforcement, said he would use his last days as the US' top lawyer to talk about how the justice department decides to bring civil rights cases.

Nationwide protests followed the death of Mike Brown, an unarmed black teenager.

"I think some serious consideration needs to be given to the standard of proof that has to be met before federal involvement is appropriate, and that's something that I am going to be talking about before I leave office," he told Politico.

The US justice department's civil rights division often opens up investigations separate from local law enforcement when they believe a person has been killed specifically because of their race, but bringing charges requires a high legal standard involving intent of the suspect.

Earlier in the week, the justice department announced it had finished its investigation into the death of Martin, an unarmed black teenager killed by a volunteer neighbourhood watchman, George Zimmerman in 2012.

Mr Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder charges in 2013. The justice department said its investigation into Martin's death did not meet the "high standard" needed for federal civil rights charges against the Florida man.

A similar investigation into another high-profile case, the killing of Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer is expected to be completed soon.

When asked if the legal standard should be lower in such cases, Mr Holder told Politico there needed to be an adjustment.

George Zimmerman was cleared of murder charges in the death of Trayvon Martin.

"I think that if we adjust those standards, we can make the federal government a better backstop - make us more a part of the process in an appropriate way to reassure the American people that decisions are made by people who are really disinterested," he said.

"I think that if we make those adjustments, we will have that capacity."

It is unclear if Mr Holder will be successful in making any changes with a short time left in office, but he told the website he was proud of what he was able to accomplish during his tenure as attorney general, including civil rights charges against police departments as a whole for discriminatory practices.
Holder is a nut. He seems to want to bring civil rights cases without having to prove intent, that would be insane. Does he want just the appearance of intent to be enough to bring civil rights charges in cases where they were found not guilty of a criminal act? And the Zimmerman case happened three years ago, and the loons are now just finishing up the investigation. What a waste of taxpayers money. Probably had a team of lawyers sitting on a Florida beach the last couple of years pondering the case over umbrella drinks.
Are you kidding me?

Attorney General Eric Holder says he will try to change the standard needed to bring federal civil rights cases in his last few weeks in the job.
"I think some serious consideration needs to be given to the standard of proof that has to be met before federal involvement is appropriate ...
That's a legal standard, the AG can't legally just up and change the law all on his lonesome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holder can not be serious. He is probably just using it as an excuse as to why he can't bring charges in these cases. Those darn laws which require us to prove stuff.

 
I think you guys are confusing prosecutorial discretion with the burden of proof at trial. The AG can't change the law, but he can definitely change the Justice Department's policies.

 
I think you guys are confusing prosecutorial discretion with the burden of proof at trial. The AG can't change the law, but he can definitely change the Justice Department's policies.
Reading other sources, it sounds like he wants to approach Congress about changing the law. I have a better chance at walking on the moon tonight.

 
I ...agree with jon mx (gasp!) I don't despise Eric Holder like some of you guys but this is pretty dumb if the quotes are accurate.

 
I think you guys are confusing prosecutorial discretion with the burden of proof at trial. The AG can't change the law, but he can definitely change the Justice Department's policies.
The policy is to bring cases that be successfully prosecuted, if the legal standard is not changed but the prosecutorial standard is the lowered then they would be bringing frivolous cases.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you guys are confusing prosecutorial discretion with the burden of proof at trial. The AG can't change the law, but he can definitely change the Justice Department's policies.
The policy is to bring cases that be successfully prosecuted, if the legal standard is not changed but the prosecutorial standard is the lowered then they would be bringing frivolous cases.
Yep. I have to agree with this too.

 
I think you guys are confusing prosecutorial discretion with the burden of proof at trial. The AG can't change the law, but he can definitely change the Justice Department's policies.
The policy is to bring cases that be successfully prosecuted, if the legal standard is not changed but the prosecutorial standard is the lowered then they would be bringing frivolous cases.
Yep. I have to agree with this too.
Not my area of the law, but the way I read the article is that Justice currently applies a higher threshold than what the courts require. I might just be reading it wrong.

 
I think you guys are confusing prosecutorial discretion with the burden of proof at trial. The AG can't change the law, but he can definitely change the Justice Department's policies.
The policy is to bring cases that be successfully prosecuted, if the legal standard is not changed but the prosecutorial standard is the lowered then they would be bringing frivolous cases.
Bringing up frivolous cases can be a great harassment tool the feds can use to punish people they don't like.

 
I think you guys are confusing prosecutorial discretion with the burden of proof at trial. The AG can't change the law, but he can definitely change the Justice Department's policies.
The policy is to bring cases that be successfully prosecuted, if the legal standard is not changed but the prosecutorial standard is the lowered then they would be bringing frivolous cases.
Yep. I have to agree with this too.
Not my area of the law, but the way I read the article is that Justice currently applies a higher threshold than what the courts require. I might just be reading it wrong.
It's possible.

But even if true, maybe it should be a higher threshold. I mean, we're perilously close to double jeopardy here.

Let's go back a step. The reason these laws were instituted in the first place is because during the Civil Rights era, KKK dudes would commit all sorts of heinous acts and then get acquitted by all white racist juries and judges. So we attempted to fix that by having allowing for the Feds to come in afterwards and try these guys on civil rights. Then it was expanded to hate crimes.

But the thing is, those all white racist juries don't exist anymore. You can disagree with what happened in the Martin and Brown cases, (and in many ways, I do) but the people who made the decisions to acquit Zimmerman and not even try Wilson did so based on reasonable arguments, and not on racism. It's extremely rare that a jury these days is going to let some guy off scott free based on race. So based on that, if anything, Holder is 180 degrees from what SHOULD be done- it should be harder these days, not easier, for the feds to get involved.

 
Can someone explain Holder investigating Zimmerman for nearly three years? The guy is a nobody.
The killing of Trayvon Martin was a huge news story. Of course there are going to be demands for an investigation, and money and time spent. Why would you expect anything else?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top