Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
McKinney case to Grand Jury
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, April 06, 2006

The Cynthia McKinney "much ado about a hairdo" kerfuffle has been elevated to a new level:
No more he-grabbed-she-slapped — whether U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney should be charged over a confrontation with Capitol Police last week will be decided by a grand jury, perhaps as soon as next week, said federal law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have decided to present the case, and the grand jury will begin hearing testimony Thursday, the two sources said.
I'm of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand this will be used by the McKinney camp to amplify (and in the eyes of some validate) the claim that McKinney is a 'victim'.

On the other hand, it was McKinney who elevated this confrontation in the first place, first by her actions with the police officer and then in subsequent days in which she used the event as a means of getting her face and opinion all over the air waves.

What are your opinions on how this should proceed? Hit he with a misdemeanor (simple assault) or a felony (assalting a police officer)? Maybe its just me, but it seems the point would be made with the former charge and it would make it more difficult for McKinney to embellish her "victimhood." Felony charges, and the resultant trial, would provide her the media circus she seems to crave.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: McKinney has now apologized on the floor of the House for the incident with the Capital Police officer:
"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said.

"I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation and I apologize," she said surrounded by colleagues on the House floor.

She said she would vote for a resolution expressing support for the efforts of Capitol Police.
I'd only point out that any escaltion concerning the incident was a direct result of action taken by McKinney, and no one else.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Hell, I’d just let her off entirely if she had just apologized for it in the first place. Better to go with the misdemeanor now, and make damn well sure she gets called for all her logical fallacies in court. From what I know about the situation, I’m not sure if she actually knew she was hitting an officer until after it happend. (if she did though, hold her accountable and go with the felony charge)

She simultaneously claims that the officer should have recognized her, yet at the same time claims one of the reasons he stopped her was her politics and ’progressiveness’. How would he even know what her politics were if he didn’t recognize here as a representative? And let’s not forget the racism claims.

She failed to follow an extremely simply rule - wear the pin - and yet she’s one of our lawmakers. If those who make the rules can’t even follow them, how do they expect us to? Let’s hold her accountable.
 
Written By: John Dibble
URL: http://www.reformthelp.org/
Well as she has violently attacked Scientology, believes in killing puppies, and said bad things about Dale Franks, I say go for the felony!

Honestly, I am so naive. I say charge her with what I’d get for slugging a Capitol Police officer... Have them check their records, and I’d be willing to bet you get the felony CHARGE, now you might Plea that down to the misdemeanor punishment, but I’d bet most folks get the Felony CHARGE. I think I’d get it and I’ think McKinney ought to get it.

You may be right, she’ll want the case and fight it, for the publicity and support it’ll generate. Otherwise, charge her with assualt a police officer let her plea it down to distrubing the peace and let the punishment be community service. That’s in the best of all possible worlds.

I think that there’ll be a noisy trial...whether you charge her felony or misdemeanor. Nosiy public spectacle works to her advantage.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Misdemeanor. Her chief crime is being stupid, which isn’t a felony.

But if she’s charged with a felony, I’m not going to worry much about the "martyr" angle. How can water get any wetter? She’s going to rail on about how racist her accusers are no matter what.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
John, would the cops CARE if YOU slugged one of them, but didn’t realize that you were slugging a cop? I’m betting no they wouldn’t care and you’d gett he more serious charge, even if only to make the punishment worse as you plea-bargain, so it’s irrelevant if McKinney knew she was slugging a cop or a Boy Scout. And then there’s her views on Scientology.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Although my initial reaction was to charge her with a felony count I have changed my opinion for only one reason. I too have done stupid things and am glad I didn’t receive all I could have under the law. Of course, I also learned not to repeat such stupidity. I’m not sure about her but I’m willing to let it go as a simple misdemeanor. For now.
 
Written By: Paul C. Heimerl
URL: http://
Whatever she’s guilty of — she is certainly guilty of displaying extremely bad manners and setting a poor example for her constituents. Our police officers are on the front lines every day to protect the public (and who knows — she could have been a terrorist). She should be ashamed of herself for being a whiney baby and using race and gender as an excuse for her obstinate and arrogant and stupid behavior. Put her head and arms in the stocks in the public square for a day and be done with it. Oh, and apologies to the police officer who was just doing his job.
 
Written By: bethtopaz
URL: http://
Charge her what any Joey Bag-a-donuts would be charged with. She’s demanding she be treated equally and fairly, so oblige her.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
If it had been the first time, and it could be chalked up to a "one off", then I’d say drop the charges and move on. But she has apparently done this on numerous occasions. Enough is enough, especially if she is going to escalate the ordeal like she has.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
If Hamas Cynthia were white, not an anti-Semite, and did not have her tongue up the asses of Danny Glover and Al Sharpton, she would be in prison right about now.

For treason against America.

 
Written By: Alexander Alt
URL: http://
No Alexander Alt, you are unfair... Michael Moore isn’t in prison for treason...plus it’s not really treasonous to be an idiot. And she has the right to her opinion, just not the right to slug whom so ever gets in her way.

Now the fact that she bad mouthed David Hasselhoff and said that Bay Watch had no redeeming values, that’s another issue.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
At this point, not charging her with the maximum offense would be a mistake. Had she apologized, one might excuse such occasional behaviour, but not after she went on the offensive. If you don’t throw the book at her, her arrogance is reinforced.

Reward bad behaviour, and you know what you get.
 
Written By: Roger Snowden
URL: http://nonboxthinking.blogspot.com
What meagain said! Charge her with the felony, pour encourager les autres.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
I think it depends on how solid the case is. The absolute LAST thing you want to do is charge her with the felony and then see her acquitted. If the police officer is completely unimpeachable, there are solid witnesses that can coroborate his account, and if she was not, in fact, wearing any kind of identification, I say go for the felony.

But if any of those things are not true, then stick with the misdemeanor.

If the case is solid and they go for the felony, maybe the psycho will be shown for what she is, a race baiting nut case who shouldn’t be allowed within 100 years of the capitol building, let alone allowed to serve in it. For that matter, they ought to revoke the right to vote for her entire district and remove one member of the house for a period so they get the message.
 
Written By: Sherard
URL: http://
McQ says:
Maybe its just me, but it seems the point would be made with the former charge and it would make it more difficult for McKinney to embellish her "victimhood." Felony charges, and the resultant trial, would provide her the media circus she seems to crave.
RogerSnowden says:
Reward bad behaviour, and you know what you get.
Roger makes the point I was going to, and so I have to disagree with you, McQ. Otherwise, you’re saying, in effect, that anyone who cries racism at the drop of a hat should be let off the hook, because otherwise they might make more of a scene, and "embellish [their] ’victimhood.’"

I don’t get the impression that anyone, on either side of the aisle, is very impressed with her performance to date. I’m not troubled at all by the prospect of dragging this out and her getting the widest possible viewing audience for her ranting.
 
Written By: Wiz
URL: http://
Roger makes the point I was going to, and so I have to disagree with you, McQ.
Fair criticism, Wiz. I’m looking at it in a more utilitarian fashion and asking whether, in the big scheme of things, it’s better to hit her with the felony and feed her "I’m a victim" machine (because this will become a crusade with her, I can promise), or maybe do the misdemeanor and make the same point.
Otherwise, you’re saying, in effect, that anyone who cries racism at the drop of a hat should be let off the hook, because otherwise they might make more of a scene, and "embellish [their] ’victimhood.’"
Not exactly, but I see your point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The more I have read and seen of Congresswomen McKinney, the more this who incident seems contrived. Charging her with a misdemeanor and certainly charging her with a felony would quickly make her into a martyr amongst her constituents.

She has apologized (partially) to Congress most likely due to the fact that not one Congressional Democrat has come to her defense. I’d also like to think that the meeting with CM and the Congressional Black Caucus last night persuaded her to apologize.

 
Written By: Duane
URL: http://the-pitt.blogspot.com
DAMN she’s apologized, now where will the 100-plus postings threads come from?!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I worked at the airport for many years and knew most everyone, including the security personel. However, should I have tried to go through security without my security badge, my friends would have stopped me!

Congresswoman McKinney is wrong and should be disciplined by the house.
 
Written By: B. Farrow
URL: http://
"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said.

"I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation and I apologize," she said surrounded by colleagues on the House floor.

She said she would vote for a resolution expressing support for the efforts of Capitol Police.
Anyone else see something missing in her ’apology’? She does not say ’I should not have struck the officer’ - she says ’there should not have been physical contact’. Which she can easily tell her constituents meant ’he should not have had contact with ME!’ I’m just saying, if my daughter gave me that line for an ’apology’, she’d be grounded for a week on general principal.

And, and damn the Scientologists and Xenu for their role in this whole thing!
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
She should be censured...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The only part that made it an apology was the phrase - "I apologize".
I didn’t see any acceptance of responsibility in there, except to apologize for
the ’misunderstanding’.

Even so, recognize it’s not the officer up there, or his boss, apologizing for doing their jobs, and accept this as a tactical victory for the forces of Xenu
and the Thetans.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I understand that in the Congressional Record McKinney will revise and extend her remarks to include a scathing indictment of the David Hasselhoff and Pam Anderson and the whole cast and concept of Bay Watch... We MUST be ready.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Too little too late. The time for an apology was during last Friday’s press conference. Prior to which she had ample time to reflect on her repugnant behavior. Instead she chose to use the venue, along with small children and petered out stars, to hurl baseless accusations of racism. Her failed strategy, designed to draw sympathy and deflect criticism, has thankfully been perceived by the majority for what it is- lame. Even in this new twist, the apology itself is weak. There is no remorse for her actions. She merely mentions that she is sorry that the situation has escalated this much. At the very least she needs to apologize to the Police Officer himself. If it were me, I’d be seriously exploring a lawsuit against her for libel as well as assault.
 
Written By: James
URL: http://
Will the Grand Jury, convened in DC, be composed primarily of Black Americans? If so and if they vote to indict, how does McKinney’s claim of racial prejudice stand up to scrutiny? Perhaps in most instances, the grand jury follows the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney without much argument. But in a high profile case, that is probably not true. (Remember Earle’s embarrasing effort with the second grand jury’s refusal to indict DeLay, for example.) Assaulting a police officer is not an insignificant charge, especially when the assault was committed by a lawmaker who has taken an oath regarding the laws she violated. Perhaps if the event were the result of an emotional response, I would be more sympathetic. But McKinney made no effort to apologize for some period after the event, so acting in the heat of the moment loses force as a defense! In sum, I would let the grand jury do its job and, if it decides to indict, leave her to the tender mercies of the prosecutor.
 
Written By: RAZ
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider