Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
autorank (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 10:31 PMOriginal message Elena Kagan: Willing Accomplice in Don Siegelman's Prosecution Quote Elena Kagan - Willing AccompliceBy Michael CollinsThen, when Siegelman appealed his case to the Supreme Court in 2009, President Obama's Attorney General dispatched Solicitor General Elena Kagan to argue against the appeal in November.Before accepting the case, Elena Kagan knew or should have known: that the U.S. Attorney who began the Siegelman investigation was closely tied to Karl Rove; that Siegelman never benefited personally from the contribution to an education funding initiative; that the case was so outrageous, forty-four attorneys general petitioned Congress; and, that the presiding judge in the case owned a major interest in a defense firm that received a $178 million federal contract between Siegelman's indictment and trial, a massive conflict of interest.Most revealing, before her argument against the former governor's appeal, Kagan knew or should have known the following. After two charges had been dropped in a 2009 appeal, Justice Department attorneys recommended a twenty year sentence instead of the seven years already rendered. Fewer offenses for sentencing meant thirteen additional years by the strange logic of federal justice.Kagan knew or should have known all this and more. That didn't stop her from arguing that Don Siegelman should be kept in jail. ... That judgment is that Elena Kagan was a willing accomplice in one of the most outrageous political prosecutions of our time. Why should anyone ever trust her?Her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States should be rejected unanimously.http://www.opednews.com/articles/Elena-Kagan--Willing-A...
Elena Kagan - Willing AccompliceBy Michael CollinsThen, when Siegelman appealed his case to the Supreme Court in 2009, President Obama's Attorney General dispatched Solicitor General Elena Kagan to argue against the appeal in November.Before accepting the case, Elena Kagan knew or should have known: that the U.S. Attorney who began the Siegelman investigation was closely tied to Karl Rove; that Siegelman never benefited personally from the contribution to an education funding initiative; that the case was so outrageous, forty-four attorneys general petitioned Congress; and, that the presiding judge in the case owned a major interest in a defense firm that received a $178 million federal contract between Siegelman's indictment and trial, a massive conflict of interest.Most revealing, before her argument against the former governor's appeal, Kagan knew or should have known the following. After two charges had been dropped in a 2009 appeal, Justice Department attorneys recommended a twenty year sentence instead of the seven years already rendered. Fewer offenses for sentencing meant thirteen additional years by the strange logic of federal justice.Kagan knew or should have known all this and more. That didn't stop her from arguing that Don Siegelman should be kept in jail. ... That judgment is that Elena Kagan was a willing accomplice in one of the most outrageous political prosecutions of our time. Why should anyone ever trust her?Her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States should be rejected unanimously.
librechik (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 10:35 PMResponse to Original message 2. I sadly concur but more and more I realize this administration is a completely different animal than I believed I was voting for. Either they have misrepresented who they are and what they believe in, or it's like they are holding their seats for somebody else, trying to do as little as possible and solve as few problems as possible until that other person arrives in the near future. Didn't they listen to Obama? WE are the people we have been waiting for. I guess he didn't really mean that, come to think of it.
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 10:55 PMResponse to Reply #7 10. I'm not sure what your point is. This was a case in which the United States was a party, that was appealed to the Supreme Court level (though I don't believe the Court granted certiorari.) Elena Kagan's job as Solicitor General was to argue against the appeal request, because it urged the Supreme Court to review a ruling in favor of the government. This has nothing whatsoever to do with her personal views on the merits of the prosecution, or even the particular legal merits of the questions involved: she was representing the government, she was not an independent actor.
autorank (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-22-10 11:01 PMResponse to Reply #10 17. She was not forced to do this The reason I used Kagan "knew or should have known" is because it's standard legalese from indictments. She knew or should have known what a lousy case the government had, how political the prosecution was, etc. etc. Knowing that, she had a choice. Follow her job requirements and take responsibility for being on the very wrong side of justice or stand up and say, no way. That would mean resigning but I seem to recall a guy named Elliot Richardson who did that. Worked outwell for him.
For once I agree with the DUmmies in part. Kagan shouldn't be confirmed, but not for their reason.
