Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Former GOP official says grand jury included Democrats(so it's unfair)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
LiviaOlivia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:00 PM
Original message
Former GOP official says grand jury included Democrats(so it's unfair)
Boston.com
The Associated Press
Former GOP official says grand jury included Democrats
By Katharine Webster, Associated Press Writer
May 17, 2005

CONCORD, N.H. --A former Republican official says charges that he conspired to jam Democrats' get-out-the-vote phone lines on Election Day 2002 should be dismissed because the grand jury that indicted him included Democrats.

The grand jury "included purported victims of the alleged scheme -- Democrats," said a motion filed by James Tobin, who at the time was the Northeast political director of the national Republican Senatorial Committee. He was indicted in December.

~snip~

Federal prosecutors countered that Tobin is required to prove actual bias by the grand jury: He cannot ask judges to assume that Democrats would indict based on their political convictions, anymore than judges can assume Republicans would indict Democrats in violation of their oath to look only at the evidence.

~snip~

Tobin is accused of telling Chuck McGee, former executive director of the state Republican Party, that former GOP consultant Allen Raymond could help with McGee's plan to jam five phone lines set up by the Democratic Party and a ride-to-the-polls line operated by the Manchester firefighters union. Raymond then hired a telemarketing firm to make hundreds of hang-up calls.

~snip~

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/05/17/former_gop_official_says_grand_jury_included_democrats/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sanity Claws Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. So that means it was unfair for the Supreme Court to
decide the 2000 election because there were Republicans on the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Good point
but we all know that they get a whole seperate set of rules, don't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. So he thinks he is a Noble?
In the old English legal system no commoner could sit on a jury to judge a member of Nobility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. oh, for christs sake!! whinner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I'll beg your pardon? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. It would seem using that argument
You couldn't have any Republicans on the jury either. They may have benefited from his actions and be pleased by them.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. So there should have been all
republicans on his jury? Why didn't his lawyer make that so?

Typical repuke whiner..things aren't going his way so he pisses and moans that it's anybody's but his fault.

Sounds like bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UrbScotty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
GET OVER IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. What the.....
:rofl:
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
10. So women would be restricted from being on grand juries for rape cases?
Let's take it a step further. Humans would be unable to sit on juries for murder cases?

If the jury included Democratic candidates or members of the state Democratic party leadership, he might have a valid point, but otherwise...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC