The Swift-Boating of Cynthia Mckinney.....

Still think this incident with Cynthia wasn't planned by the right?---think again... Between DeLay's corruption and Libby's revelations, I see their boat sinking in the proverbial waters....


This is nothing new from them, we have seen it all before--character assassination is their specialty... It is not going to work once people hear what the President did......

Or is this still just conjuncture, bsed on the theory that Ms. McKinny must be completely innocent of any wrongdong?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

until PROVEN GUILTY is kind of the way we're supposed to do things in this country isn't it?

Personally, I don't agree with the theory that it was a set up, BUT, I do consider McKinney to be innocent until proven guilty. That's one of the concepts that's supposed to make this country such a great place. Seems like people tend to forget it pretty regularly though.

If someone were to suggest that Tom Delay or Jack Abramoff be presumed innocent on this baord we'd all laugh them out of town. And rightfully so.

If they press charges and she ends up in a court of law, which seems possible (even likely), than we will move into another kind of discussion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

has had people surrounding him confess and be sentenced, and is under indictment.

McKinney has simply been attacked from all directions.

There's an extremely vast difference between the two.

Of course, if you want to be another passenger on the bandwagon, be my guest. I prefer to use independent thought rather than letting the media think for me.

I apologize for being such a mushhead that I let the media think for me, because clearly the only way anybody could disagree with your brilliant and enlightened self one must be a media lapdog.

Bryant

someone else who has plead guilty and been sentenced, and someone else entirely who hasn't been charged in a crime and lumped them all in the same pile.

That's a very unique world view you have.

But i doubt it would make much difference, since you are determined to miscontrue my words no matter what I say.

But say Karl Rove - as far as I know he hasn't been indicted, but I certainly don't think anybody would describe him as innocent.

Bryant

who are under indictment, he also has a long history of working with and associating with such folks.

McKinney, once again, stands alone.

Your words can only be construed one way, as an attack against a Democratic lawmaker from Georgia.

I also don't believe that Rove has ever apologized for anything. Nor has the media attacked Rove over minor bullshit.

And the OP and you are determined to exonerate her comletely. It's not enough to say "Well she clearly screwed up, but the Republicans are determined to use this to take her down." INstead you have to force us all to believe her completely innocent, and, more to the point, a victim of a conspiracy.

Bryant

Actually what I said was she should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I also said that I didn't agree with the original posters premise.

Did you read what I posted or did you just attack me for not agreeing with you?

I suggest that you re-read my posts, then get back to me. Until then, you're just proving that you can attack, not that you can actually reply to what's posted.

Now, go back and read what I actually posted instead of making it up out of whole cloth.

Here, I'll help you - my first post in this thread said, in part "Personally, I don't agree with the theory that it was a set up, BUT, I do consider McKinney to be innocent until proven guilty. That's one of the concepts that's supposed to make this country such a great place. Seems like people tend to forget it pretty regularly though."

Gee, go figure, nobody forced you to believe anything, and I sure as hell didn't say it was a set up or a conspiracy theory.

Thanks for playing.

I seems like the facts of this case are relitively simple, but the interpretation of what happened is where discussion enters.

Incidentally it strikes me that presuming that Rep. McKinney is innocent is assuming that the officer is guilty.

Bryant

How is presuming that McKinney is innocent the same as assuming the officer is guilty.

The FACTS in this case are known by two people, and only two people. The officer involved, and Mrs. McKinney. For you to presume that you know the facts is ludicrous at best, unless you were standing there when it happened.

Would it not be a more logical conclusion that both believed they were acting appropriately? You seem to be more interested in pointing fingers and blaming someone. Oftentimes, there is nobody at fault, and the MEDIA sensationalizes minor bullshit.

You still haven't explained why you attacked me, twisted my words, flat out misrepresented what I said, and then continued on as if nothing happened. . . .

and you have a very superior self righteous way of arguing and that always gets under my skin. But, as I noted earlier, I'm sure being self righteous is enjoyable to you.

You certainly attacked me as well, so I wouldn't get too self righteous.

At any rate, whatever, Cynthia McKinney has apologized, which certainly indicates something (and incidentally thank goodness she did apologize). So that settles it, unless she goes to trial (which I hope she can avoid).

a new version of what I'd said.

If you wish to debate with someone, you really should tell the truth about what they've said, not misrepresent it to somehow make it fit your argument.

I didn't attack you. I began by merely pointing out that in this country, there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

You chose to then engage in personal attacks.

If defending myself against personal attacks makes me "self righteous" in your opinion, then so be it. To me, that just means that I'm defending myself against personal (and might I add dishonest) attacks.

That's ok. The record of the conversation is there for people to read, and I'm satisfied with what I wrote. Your personal attacks were implied in teh first message you posted adn clear in the second message you posted - i.e. you attacked me well before I attacked you.

Where exactly did I, anywhere in any post, make the following representation (in your exact words) which you specifically accuse me of making:

"And the OP and you are determined to exonerate her comletely. It's not enough to say "Well she clearly screwed up, but the Republicans are determined to use this to take her down." INstead you have to force us all to believe her completely innocent, and, more to the point, a victim of a conspiracy."

Then, when you finish explaining that, explain to me how stating that whether you agree with the original poster or not, there is a presumption of innocence in this country equates to attacking you.

You're in such a hurry to attack me for pointing out the fact that you lied about what I said that you can't be bothered to actually approach the matter in a calm and collected matter. I can just picture the vein in your forehead throbbing as you figure out another way to attack me for simply stating facts.

The record of the conversation is indeed there for all to see, along with the fact that you misrepresented what I said completely and then tried to pretend it never happened.

It's actually rather comical.

We didn't satisfactorily define our terms at the outset.

I don't know in what context you meant the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." I know what I meant when I said "Completely Innocent" in my first post, which was to indicate that she was completely blameless (legally of course, but also on all other levels, politically or morally or in the court of public opinion or whatever) in this incident. In that context my assessment is that I can't say whether she broke the law or not, but it certainly looks like she made a mistake.

The parts that equate to attacking me indirectly aren't in stating that she is innocent until proven guilty.

In your first post you state "I do consider McKinney to be innocent until proven guilty. That's one of the concepts that's supposed to make this country such a great place. Seems like people tend to forget it pretty regularly though." Presumably I am one of the people you are thinking about who forget innocent until proven guilty.

In your second post you state "Of course, if you want to be another passenger on the bandwagon, be my guest. I prefer to use independent thought rather than letting the media think for me." That's a very direct attack, isn't it?

And for the record I imagine you leaning back in your chair a big self satisfied smile on your face as a warm feeling of plesent self righteousness assuress you you need never actually respond to anything i say.

bandwagon isn't a personal attack, it's merely pointing out a fact.

However, your little snide "self righteous" remarks and the like scattered throughout the whole thread are an entirely different matter.

See, I don't get giddy with, how did you put it? Oh yes, "plesent self righteousness assuress" (whatever that may be). I don't engage in such discussions unless I have facts to back me up.

I didn't attack you, I didn't attack anyone, instead, I defended the concept that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Evidently, that's a problem for you.

What does the word "innocent" in "innocent until proven guilty" mean in this context?

Does that mean that we shouldn't prejudge any legal proceedings?

Or does that mean we should hold her blameless for any wrongdoing in the incident?

It is possible to think someone made a mistake without thinking they have committed a crime, isn't it?

Bryant

presumed to be innocent.

Even her apology does not denote guilt, she instead says she's sorry that the matter occurred and that it escalated. She doesn't say she did anything wrong.

It certainly is possible to think someone made a mistake without thinking they committed a crime. For instance, my next door neighbor voted for Bush in 2000. It was a mistake, which he now acknowledges, but it wasn't a crime.

I am presuming this is what you mean, although you didn't say it clearly.

Does saying that it strikes me that she is "guilty" of making a mistake violate the spirit of "presuming innocent until proven guilty"

Bryant

since your entire position is based on public opinion, to announce in a public way that she is "guilty" of anything is tantamount to saying she's been tried and convicted, the term "guilty" is all that will stick in peoples brains.

Has she made mistakes? Perhaps, but everyone has.

DO you think it better policy to acknowledge one's mistakes or to hide them?

Bryant

to conceal your identity and do nothing but report it to the media (like the officer in question did).

incident on racism or conceal your identity and do nothing but report it to the media. Hard to say which is better.

Do you think the officer in question is guilty of bad behaivior?

The officer perhaps made a mistake in attempting to hinder a representative on her way to a session. He also perhaps made a mistake in not knowing who she was considering that she is one of a very small number of African American women in congress who is very distinctive in appearance.

Why do you insist on saying someone is guilty?

BTW, she apologized for the incident the day it happened. But that was quickly ignored and forgotten.

Here, from her own statement on the 29th: "I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of
thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now." http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga04_mckinney/incidentstmt.html


It seems your goal, once again is to attack McKinney.

Oh, and just as a matter of law, from the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 6::

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

And in exactly the same spirit.

I find his story more likely, you find her story more likely - since neither of us was there, and there isn't a lot of other evidence available, we find ourself at an impasse.

Fortunately we would agree on how much we disagree with how the Republicans are going to play this scene.

Bryant

Where did I attack the officer? Please find me an exact quote attacking the officer.

I believe I said that both believe they were acting appropriately.

Why are you continuing to misrepresent what I said, do you not actually read it? Or perhaps you don't like what I said, so you make something else up entirely to suit your argument?

What I said was "Would it not be a more logical conclusion that both believed they were acting appropriately? You seem to be more interested in pointing fingers and blaming someone. Oftentimes, there is nobody at fault, and the MEDIA sensationalizes minor bullshit."

Now, once again, where did I attack the officer?

Also smart move in editing your post after I rsponded to it - good technique, if your goal is to make the person you are arguing with look like a jerk.

At any rate I'm done with this - we aren't going anywhere with this discussion, and I'm tired of being called a liar.

Bryant

making false accusations. I know you have a hard time reading what I type (you must, considering how often you've misrepresented it), but surely you can understand that editing was occurring while you were typing, not after. See, if you're in an edit screen, you can't see someone reply, that's kind of how the forum works. For instance, the post you accuse me of editing after you replied was edited at 3:46, your reply was at 3:47. So tell me again how that equates to editing after your reply.

I make it a point not to edit after someone replies other than for spelling errors or because they pointed out a specific flaw for me to edit. I don't do it to make people look foolish.

If you tire of being called a liar, the best thing you can do is to tell the truth. You have twisted what I said multiple times, misreprsented it in every way you could, and then acted like it was my fault that you did so.

Tell me how telling the FACT that his identity remains a secret is an attack. It's merely a statement of fact. Now, stating that McKinney waited days to apologize is not a statement of fact, it's a fabrication. Stating I attacked the officer is not a statement of fact, it's a fabrication.

country... See my signature line.....

They pick someone who is already known to treat the ID requirement casually and who has a volatile temper, and plan to create an incident when she is pushed to the point where she strikes back.

Taking advantage of someone's flaws in a planned way is as much a setup as planting evidence on an entirely innocent person. If you know someone's weaknesses, you can take advantage of them in a planned way.

proof of the crime.

Bryant

It doesn't have to be staged to be used for character assasination.

It is theory based on the facts that the RW owns the media and spins and deceives all the time.

They didn't make Cynthia McKinney forget her ID pin and then skip past the metal detector. She did that on her own.

Going to wipe the brown off my nose now ...

Bake

were stopped that day, and how long this guard has been at the post.. She had her ID by the way and did show it... Many congresspeople forget their pin. We don't know the whole story...

The problem I see is that personally many people don't like Cynthia, and this is just so easy to dislike her even more... All of this should not of happened as it did.. It could of been settled behind closed doors.....

And yet, Cynthia McKinney has held multiple press conferences which have helped insure that it remains a prominent story in the media.

should she just stay quiet and let them smear her all to hell?????

Cox broadcasting reported yesterday that she said she forgot her pin. It is also accurrate that other congresspeople also forgot their pin, and you are right we do NOT know the whole story.

The one thing that bothers me about these events is that there is not enough information, and the MSM is trying to create controversy

and there's no rule that says she has to wear the pin. They also usually don't "lose" videotapes of an incident they go public with.

12 years in Congress, and one of only 14 black women in the House. It's in their job description to recognize Congressmembers, wearing a pin or not. She's like 5'4". Who couldn't recognize her...especially when it's their job to?

I also know that she is not required to wear her pin.

But I think it's fairly obvious that this would not be the media circus it is if Representative McKinney were not helping fuel the media frenzy herself.

...about the swiftboat liars, and the media got into a frenzy anyway. Who's to say?:shrug:

Perhaps Cynthia saw that and did not want to go that route.. I think the Dems have decided to take a stand against this kind of mud-slinging and I am glad to see it....

Dems get very little press as it is--but the media opens its arms wide for us when there's a hint of any scandal. She could, however, turn down any future interviews as there's nothing to gain from them at this point.

And Representatives are not required to pass through the metal detector.

Last night on Olbermann's show, a gentleman (can't recall who he was) said that 1/2 of all Representatives don't wear the lapel pin on a regular basis.

But that doesn't in any way suggest that this a Republican smear. Particularly when it looks like Representative McKinney is doing her part to keep the story in the news.

should read the whole thread before replying.

But Cynthia is a Congresswoman and that gives her some status in our Government... This Cop is supposed to be protecting her...But doesn't a congresswoman's word count for anything?... Oh we trust a cop over a Congresswoman, or is it just this congresswoman???? Too many people already dislike her, they will disagree on that point alone don't ya know?????

mainstream Dems get a pass, no matter what shit they talk, but a fighter like her is taken to task or as Skinner did in his sideswipe at her, basically blamed by his saying she did not have her pin (1/2 normally don't) and that she didn't have her ID (he was wrong on that) and saying she "skipped" through the detector (which she is allowed to do, however snidely Skinner wants to put it as to her gait) and blaming her for perpetuating the controversy by having news conferences to defend herself from the endless smear
What do people want from her?

watch C-Span. It is rare in fact, to see all of them wearing the pin. Many replaced it with the flag lapel pin.

As far as skipping past the metal detector, there is video, but the incident itself was apparently not recorded.

The cop is trained to recognize those he is charged with protecting. He failed to recognize her. Normally this incident would have been an embarrassment for the cop, and once she showed her ID (had she been, eg, Hastert) the cop would have apologized.

I say this because I was in a situation like this through my job which on the day in question, was to greet and allow to pass to a big, private political fundraiser, all of the invited guests. Security first checked them through, but did not have a complete list, for security reasons.

I recognized most of the guests except one ~ before accusing him of crashing the party, in case he was a Senator of Congressman, I tried to get him to give me a hint as to who he was. I introduced myself and said 'hi, I'm Catrina' and held out my hand, hoping, as less arrogant guests had done, that he would not presume the whole world knew who he was and say something like 'and I'm (insert name)'. He did not cooperate ~ still, he looked somewhat familiar, and I tried one more time. 'I'm sorry, I believe I do have you on the list, I apologize for this, but could you confirm your name for me?' He was not pleased, but did give me his name and all was well.

At the time, he was a congressman, he is now a senator. I was not a political junkie then and he was not on my radar screen. But yes, he was arrogant. I could easily have asked him to step aside and make an incident out of it while I checked his ID. Others I worked with at the time, said that's what they would have done. I think it worked out best to not make a federal case out of it, and it all worked out.

The cop could have done something similar. Even the police chief agreed with McKinney's version of the incident that 'he grabbed her arm' before it was necessary ~ imo, this cop was equally responsible. Most of these politicians and other celebrities are fairly arrogant and often bristle when someone doesn't recognize them. It's something you learn to deal with and handle in a more appropriate way than he did.

Rep. Jackson Lee said she too has 'not been recognized' quite often and sympathized with McKinney's pov. McKinney herself has had this happen before ~

I'd still like to know why the cop has yet to be identified ~

Cynthia McKinney Accuses Capitol Police of Racial Profiling
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/04/1419259

US Capitol Police, training, profiles etc
http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/profiles.html

How would they get her to do that?

in a court of law... She is innocent.....

come up and grab her from behind? I suspect alot of what happens with the GJ depends on if the officer identified himself and on how often congresscritters are allowed to walk around the check-point and trust me it's often! The infamous pin was NOT an ID badge.

Let's see Libby fingers Bush, 2 HS officials get arrested for pedophilia, and Delay resigns, but this will distract the media gee god must really be on their side:sarcasm:

I don't see an advantage to anyone.

but a statement I read yesterday from a repuke congresscritter(?) said they were already planning to use it as an example of Dem's are soft on security issue. (personally I think she should have said she thought she was being mugged)

it actually was.
All we have so far is hear-say.

Hint.. It's not Delay and not Libby's revelations.

I also think that we must wait to see what the facts are regarding Mckinney.

She is sorry that this happened, it should of never gotten this far... I still say they went after her in the press big time.....

I think you have it backwards. McKinney held several press conferences. Which, by definition, means she went after the press!

about it and it reminded me of the free press they gave the swift-boaters during the election.. You have your facts backwards.. Cynthia has responded to their attacks, because she has had to defend herself.. Would you rather she said nothing and let the attacks continue... Doesn't make any sense...

And where do you think people get the idea that McKinney did in fact "strike", "punch", "poke", "lash out", "hit" the police officer, if not from the media?

By calling press conferences, the CALLER of the press conference is asking the press to bring this story to the publics attention. This is for those saying the press went after HER. They only reported what she was saying. Which, we all know, was racism, racism, racism.

because of the accusation directed at her, propagated by the MSM.

Who else but the talking heads came up with descriptions like "hit", "strike", "lash out", while they had no evidence that McKinney actually did such a thing?

then you played right into their hands when you created yet another thread about this idiotic non-issue.

press will continue to swift-boat her.. Now that she has apologized, it becomes a dull story....If anything Cynthia herself has settled the issue and this is my only post on this subject....

Had her lawyer merely said "no comment" or "we'll let the authorities conduct their investigation and answer any complaints at a later time", it would have died in the news until "the authorities" decided on their response. The likely response: none. Even she did it, it's not worth the DA to take the 20 seconds necessary for deciding to ignore the allegations.

Had the twaddle been "Rep. McKinney passed the checkpoint without her customary lapelpin and apparently did not follow the officer's instructions; while it is not uncommon for elected representatives to make this error, she does regret the incident", it likely would also have blown over with even *less* notice, and probably wouldn't not been carried past the first 24-hour news cycle on any station but Fox, where it would be a sort of in joke for a few days. The ding to her reputation would have been unnoticeable: among Foxians, her character's long been dead and buried, and assassination is impossible, while among those that respect her there's no shame in forgetting you're not wearing a lapel pin--even if you frequently don't wear it.

Her press conferences and counter-allegations have produced more of a reaction than the original allegations: this is completely reasonable, her allegations are far more serious, inflammatory, and unprovable than the original one.

begin with and I believe alot of this is about her personality rather than anything else.. People don't like her, therefore, whatever her lawyers do or say, or whatever she does or says it wrong... I don't think she was set up, but I think this was hyped in a swift-boat fashion by the M$M, indeed, I do....

The media isn't forcing her to say the things she does.

The media is pounding her... She has to respond to the attacks....

press conferences, allowing her lawyers to basically say "oops" in a bland manner, the press may well have salivated at the chance to tear into her, but all they would have been able to say was "Rep. McKinney allegedly struck an officer after being stopped while entering the halls of Congress, bypassing a checkpoint under the impression she had been recognized; her lawyer has declined to comment, the officer's name has not been released, and the DA is withholding comment pending an investigation of the matter." They may have addressed her past history and made mocking or derisive comments, but that, at best, is gravy on the story: the story itself would have been as dry as my mother's roast beef, and just as unpalatable the next day.

Had the lawyer actually apologized on her behalf, or had her apologize in an inoffensive manner, the entire affair would have had a lesser halflife in the media. "Rep. McKinney allegedly struck an officer after being stopped while entering the halls of Congress, bypassing a checkpoint under the impression she had been recognized; her lawyer has issued an apology, calling her actions the result of a misunderstanding; the officer's name has not been released, and the DA is withholding comment pending an investigation of the matter." Had this happened, rude and derisive comments would have seemed inappropriate even as gravy on the story.

As it is, the charges of racism and such riled up people and gave them a nice, juicy, succulent story. Short on facts, long on emotion. But red meat.

against McKinney because of her supposedly "hitting", "poking", "punching" the officer.
Her press conferences came after that. There are accusations against her in the public arena, she is defending herself in the public arena against those accusations.

But continue on with the tinfoilhattery.

Her apology, as worded intentionally avoids accepting fault. Her apology was very cleverly worded: "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation and I apologize."

She doesn't admit fault in any way, she apologize for the fact that it escalated, not much more.

happy to hear that she used the phrase "I apologize" because that does imply fault. But your point is well taken that her other words may be avoiding fault.

I'm hard pressed to understand an apology that doesn't include some responsibility for some action.

This is not the first time she has taken that attitude with the capital police or others who she thinks holds a "lesser" station in life. Swift boat my ass, if anything she swift boats her own ass. I hope she gets arrested, though I am sure she will get away with it. She thinks she's so much better then an ordinary cop right? He does not recognize her so its fine to slug him right?

Right Wing Setup? NO its more likely that she has setup herself and again shows herself to be one of the most self centered people in Congress.

You most certainly proved my point..

Its all about her personality. If she didn't have the traits I was mentioning there would be nothing to report now would there be? If she didn't hit the guy there would be nothing to report right? If she didn't right away hire a lawyer and play the race card there would be nothing to report right?

without all the facts for one thing.. A person is still considered innocent in this country until a trial, for another thing, she is a US Congresswoman and thus deserves what every other congress person in that house recieves....

You don't like her, that does not make her quilty of anything, but makes you bias because of your personal feelings, you really can't make that decision....

though the incident is most definitely being used by the Right to make political hay.

to help them do it.

Yes, both are innocent, personally, as I stated above, I believe both think they were acting appropriately under the circumstances.

all be rejoicing because he/she thinks they are above it all, but because it's a prominent anti-war, pro-civil rights congresswoman it's automatically the fault of the cop who should have recognized her. I also agree with Skinner that McKinney is doing enough to fan the flames of this controversy.

That said, I personally believe she's guilty as hell. I would never be allowed to serve on a jury because I would say that up front. If she weren't so desperate to cry racism and get her picture on TV, this crap would have settled down days ago. Now she's apologized, but she's already made a jackass out of herself for several days.