Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/laughing-congressional-hearing-jeff-sessions-code-pink_us_59076a93e4b05c3976810a3a WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Capitol Police officer who decided to arrest an activist because she briefly laughed during Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing in January is a rookie cop who had never conducted an arrest before nor worked at a congressional hearing. Nevertheless, prosecutors persisted this week in pursuing charges against the 61-year-old woman the rookie had taken into custody. Katherine Coronado of the U.S. Capitol Police was in her second week on the job when she was assigned to keep watch over Sessions’ confirmation hearing on Jan. 10. Coronado was involved in the arrest of Desiree Fairooz, an activist affiliated with the group Code Pink, after Fairooz laughed when Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said that Sessions’ record of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented.” (Sessions had been rejected as a federal judge in the 1980s because of concerns about his views on race, and back when he was still a Democrat, Shelby himself actually ran an ad suggesting Sessions had called the Ku Klux Klan “good ole boys.”) Fairooz was seated in the back of the room, and her laugh did not interrupt Shelby’s introductory speech. But, according to the government, the laugh amounted to willful “disorderly and disruptive conduct” intended to “impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct” of congressional proceedings. The government also charged her with a separate misdemeanor for allegedly parading, demonstrating or picketing within a Capitol, evidently for her actions after she was being escorted from the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 What gets me is not only was she arrested for laughing (which is patently absurd in my book), but that I are going ahead with the prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 What is the law? I find a lot of laws absurd,but that doesn't change them. add Convicted by a jury http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/331790-code-pink-activist-found-guilty-for-disrupting-sessions-confirmation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Subversion of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 16 minutes ago, twa said: What is the law? I find a lot of laws absurd,but that doesn't change them. add Convicted by a jury http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/331790-code-pink-activist-found-guilty-for-disrupting-sessions-confirmation Guess we know who the real snowflakes are, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 On a more serious note... so much for freedom of speech that protects political expression. And no, I don't particularly care that she was dressed like a pink Lady Liberty or making the peace sign. I would like to believe there's more to it, but I didn't really see it in the Hill article either. Arrested for disturbing the peace because she laughed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Probably should have just escorted her out. But I am sure people would have complained about that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Sessions took offense to that, but apparently takes no offense to police brutality or police committing fraud with overtime. Equal treatment, indeed. IMO, all obvious and outlandish lies should be met with the laughter they deserve. Maybe she thought Senator Shelby was telling a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 laughing at Jeff Session = prosecuted cops killing a black dude = no need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Rules are rules and laws are laws. Break the laws, get arrested. I have no sympathy for americans who get arrested in north korea for spying. There is no legitimate reason for an american to go there, so when Kim locks you up, you got what you deserve. Same situation here. Same situation with illegal immigrants. We have laws for a reason. IF YOU DONT LIKE THE LAWS, CONVINCE YOUR LAW MAKER TO CHANGE THEM. Democrats didn't turn out for the election like they needed to, and now they are facing the consequences of that choice. Stop whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 What a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: Rules are rules and laws are laws. Break the laws, get arrested. I have no sympathy for americans who get arrested in north korea for spying. There is no legitimate reason for an american to go there, so when Kim locks you up, you got what you deserve. Same situation here. Same situation with illegal immigrants. We have laws for a reason. IF YOU DONT LIKE THE LAWS, CONVINCE YOUR LAW MAKER TO CHANGE THEM. Democrats didn't turn out for the election like they needed to, and now they are facing the consequences of that choice. Stop whining. Every time I see someone say the bolded, they never seem to be actually having the same discussion as everyone else. It is questionable if she actually broke that law(you and everyone else knows they stretched the rule to justify charging her). So getting all rigid and uptight about "laws are laws" kind of means nothing when you couldn't care less when your favorites don't follow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: Rules are rules and laws are laws. Freedom of Speech was intended precisely to protect against this abuse of prosecution. She laughed. It counts frankly as a political statement. Is the Constitution suspended during Confirmation hearings? The rule as enforced is moronic. The irony of the whining comment is that arresting someone for laughing, prosecuting them, and declaring them guilty is the ultimate form of whining to me. They laughed at Sessions! They hurt his wittle feelings! Wah! Wah! And the right calls the left, snowflakes. I wish we would embrace the Constitution a bit more. We'd all be better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 When a jury has convicted you whether she broke the law is not much in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 1 minute ago, twa said: When a jury has convicted you whether she broke the law is not much in question. Not much of a student of history, are you? To a degree, I agree with you. She has been found guilty of a crime. This is also why we have appeal courts because sometimes a jury of our peers gets it wrong or acts as a mob instead of a jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Also, pointing out that the arresting cop was a rookie (in a foolish attempt to delegitimize the case) is dumb. The decision to charge her was done by the prosecutor, not the cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 Just now, RedskinsMayne said: Also, pointing out that the arresting cop was a rookie (in a foolish attempt to delegitimize the case) is dumb. The decision to charge her was done by the prosecutor, not the cop. I agree with you on that point. The only question about the police officer is whether a more senior officer would have acted in similar fashion. My guess is no. The prosecutor is the person who decided to pursue it. The shame (and in my opinion there is shame) lies mostly with him or her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 4 hours ago, Burgold said: Not much of a student of history, are you? To a degree, I agree with you. She has been found guilty of a crime. This is also why we have appeal courts because sometimes a jury of our peers gets it wrong or acts as a mob instead of a jury. You can say the rule is wrong or whatever, but the rule is still the rule. I have argument over whether or not the rule is correct or not. But, i do know there was a rule, and she chose to break it. Deal with the consequence. There are people setting themselves on fire to change the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 And yet members of the jury were saying that they thought she shouldn't have been arrested in the first place and some said they felt like they didn't have much of a way out of convicting her. The jurors indicated they felt they had to convict Fairooz because of the way the laws are written, with yet another juror describing them as “so broad.” At least three jurors said it was fair to say they felt forced into convicting her. “There’s almost no way that you can find them not guilty,” one said. “There’s not a lot of wiggle room,” said the jury foreperson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 1 minute ago, RedskinsMayne said: You can say the rule is wrong or whatever, but the rule is still the rule. I have argument over whether or not the rule is correct or not. But, i do know there was a rule, and she chose to break it. Deal with the consequence. There are people setting themselves on fire to change the world. In this case, I'd argue what is the precedent and to what degree is it absolutely followed. How many have been arrested or removed before for laughing, coughing, sneezing, etc. Is this an unusual exercise of the rule? Is it an abuse of a poorly written rule as the jurors suggested in the quote Mistertim just provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 1 hour ago, mistertim said: And yet members of the jury were saying that they thought she shouldn't have been arrested in the first place and some said they felt like they didn't have much of a way out of convicting her. jury coulda went rouge and ignored the law.....but there are consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 12 minutes ago, twa said: When a jury has convicted you whether she broke the law is not much in question. Yes, because a jury has never had a conviction overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, twa said: jury coulda went rouge and ignored the law.....but there are consequences Yeah, terrible consequences like justice and reason. Imagine of those two ideas went rampant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Burgold said: Not much of a student of history, are you? My grades and readings would say I am. What is the historical rate of overturned convictions history buff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 15 minutes ago, twa said: jury coulda went rouge and ignored the law.....but there are consequences Eh, red is not really a very good "spring trial color" though. I'm not a makeup expert but IIRC trials held in the spring are best served by wearing cooler colors like blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.