General Discussion

branford

(4,462 posts)

49. If the DOJ had the evidence for a federal indictment, a case would quickly follow.

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 09:01 PM

Dec 2014

The White House and DOJ were invested in the Ferguson matter early on, including the visit from Holder. The lack of a state indictment from a Democratic prosecutor, supported by a Democratic governor, senator and state Attorney General, no less the rioting, has been very embarrassing for the president, demonstrates weakness on racial issues and hurts him with the party base.

A federal indictment would certainly take some heat off Obama. The fact that leaks indicated that no federal prosecution was likely even before the grand jury result, at least to me, indicates how badly the DOJ thinks of the evidence in their possession. They may believe a civil rights crime was committed, and would normally be eager to prosecute, but good intentions are not a substitute for admissible evidence.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

ThinkProgress: How One Woman Could Hit The Reset Button In The Case Against Darren Wilson [View all] Fumesucker Dec 2014 OP

if only... n/t libdem4life Dec 2014 #1

Had me going there for a second; but Wilson is not a defendant and... 4139 Dec 2014 #2

I don't read it to say that Wilson had to have been arrested before the court rhett o rick Dec 2014 #39

Key verbiage 4139 Dec 2014 #40

But your key verbiage is in an "or" statement. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #43

So How Do We Put Pressure On Maura McShane To Appoint A Special Prosecutor?..... global1 Dec 2014 #3

Much as I despise MO Governor Jay Nixon, the article does him a dis-service when it KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #4

calling branford for additional comment... BootinUp Dec 2014 #5

. ReRe Dec 2014 #7

I didn't try to make a joke BootinUp Dec 2014 #8

I interpreted your comment... ReRe Dec 2014 #10

gotcha BootinUp Dec 2014 #11

Ask and you shall receive . . . branford Dec 2014 #13

Thank you, sir. nt ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #32

I only have a problem with your last sentence. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #46

I have no special insight into behind the scenes activity at the DOJ. branford Dec 2014 #47

I don't doubt that we won't see any action from the Conservatively run DoJ. nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #48

If the DOJ had the evidence for a federal indictment, a case would quickly follow. branford Dec 2014 #49

I don't buy that shit for a minute. Reading the transcript shows that this case rhett o rick Dec 2014 #51

How does the Obama administration benefit from NOT charging Wilson branford Dec 2014 #52

Would you agree that the Oligarchy would like to see race riots? nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #55

No, but that doesn't answer my question. branford Dec 2014 #57

If you can't recognize the hand of the Oligarch Rulers in this, then we are on rhett o rick Dec 2014 #61

Thanks for that review. You listed three possible conflicts McCullough has. There is another sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #58

I believe you are referring to "The "Backstoppers" organization. branford Dec 2014 #59

can we start to distinguish between Democrats and Dixiecrats again please? librechik Dec 2014 #60

St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch should be charged with accessory to murder after the fact nakocal Dec 2014 #6

Now we're talking. Hear's to obscure laws who's time has come. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #9

k&r... spanone Dec 2014 #12

Even if somehow you bring it to trial where will you get evidence to convict? Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #14

that's what a trial is for noiretextatique Dec 2014 #15

The grand jury saw all of the evidence and concluded that there wasn't even probable cause, Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #17

keep repeating, that, and like Fox viewers noiretextatique Dec 2014 #23

They saw statements favorable to Brown challenged .... kwassa Dec 2014 #41

Prosecutors don't take unwinnable cases to trail Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #21

this one never even tried noiretextatique Dec 2014 #24

You choose to ignore all the physical evidence Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #27

You are wrong. kwassa Dec 2014 #42

Physical evidence doesn't have to give a reason for Wilson to get out of the car Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #53

You are wrong again. kwassa Dec 2014 #54

No, You are wrong. Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #56

In short: this case is an absolute trainwreck and would inevitably end in acquittal. Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #16

Yeah, dont pick at that scab, might find some real ugly shit underneath it, like a murder. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #28

Only in your personal opinion, unsupported by this grand jury. kwassa Dec 2014 #44

You reinforce my opinion that the best hope is a civil suit. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #18

Wilson may not actually have to testify. branford Dec 2014 #19

Didn't Wilson's grand jury testimony waive his Fifth Amendment right? Jim Lane Dec 2014 #25

You raise some interesting questions. branford Dec 2014 #31

The waiver issue seems to be unclear. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #35

I agree, the waiver issue is unclear. branford Dec 2014 #37

I don't know the facts of Wilson's appearance. (n/t) Jim Lane Dec 2014 #45

Any civil suit would be against the town Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #20

No, the suit would be against the town and against Wilson individually Jim Lane Dec 2014 #22

Wilson can't be sued individually Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #26

Even if negligence or intent can be shown, no cop can ever be held civilly liable? NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #29

It's a very, very high bar Lee-Lee Dec 2014 #30

The issue would be whether Wilson could have acted in good faith. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #34

In the Eric Garner case it won't be that high Jim Lane Dec 2014 #36

Ironically, the officer's breach of established NYPD guidelines may inure to the benefit of the City branford Dec 2014 #38

It could cut both ways. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #50

Lee-Lee is generally correct. branford Dec 2014 #33

At issue is whether Wilson is perceived to be acting under authority... brooklynite Dec 2014 #62