March 16, 2016

Merrick Garland "took a 50 percent pay cut; traded in his elegant partner’s office for a windowless closet that smelled of stale cigarette smoke."

"This was a time when crime here in Washington had reached epidemic proportions and he wanted to help. And he quickly made a name for himself going after corrupt politicians and violent criminals. His sterling record as a prosecutor led him to the Justice Department, where he oversaw some of the most significant prosecutions in the 1990s, including overseeing every aspect of the federal response to the Oklahoma City bombing. In the aftermath of that act of terror, when 168 people, many of them small children, were murdered, Merrick had one evening to say goodbye to his own young daughters before he boarded a plane to Oklahoma City and he would remain there for weeks. He worked side by side with first responders, rescue workers, local and federal law enforcement. He led the investigation and supervised the prosecution that brought Timothy McVeigh to justice. But perhaps most important is the way he did it. Throughout the process, Merrick took pains to do everything by the book. When people offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder root of obtaining the proper subpoenas instead, because Merrick would take no chances that someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality."

From Obama's introduction of his Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

ADDED: I quoted that because I liked it. Real facts, beautifully stated. But, of course, the political stuff had to follow. I know he's compelled to say things like this, but I am compelled to say I don't believe it:
At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they are disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight...
... though I don't consider that to be playing it straight...
and treat the process of appointing a Supreme Court justice with the seriousness and care it deserves because our Supreme Court really is unique. It’s supposed to be above politics. It has to be. 
... and it can't possibly be...
And it should stay that way.
... which assumes a fact that can't possibly be in evidence. 
To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise, that would be unprecedented. To suggest that someone who has served his country with honor and dignity, with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the American people might be treated, as one Republican leader stated, as a political pinata. That can’t be right.
Yeah, well, it can be right, and you'd be saying it's right if you were in the Senate and a GOP President made a nomination this close to the election. But I know you have to say that. These are the lines in political theater, and you have delivered them with persuasive elegance — complete with the subtle articulation of the tilde on "piñata."

Now, Republicans, take your turn on the stage with refined gestures that don't look like swinging at a piñata.

ADDED: Time's transcript has a homophone typo: "taking the harder root."

100 comments:

Big Mike said...

Well Obama has certainly played Hatch and Grassley and McConnell. I wonder whether there's a way they can table the nomination and take it up in January? Sort of giving Obama the one-fingered salute.

BDNYC said...

"When people offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder root of obtaining the proper subpoenas instead, because Merrick would take no chances that someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality."

"Root" aside, I find this statement to be puzzling.

n.n said...

Stand your ground. Let the press do its worst.

Curtiss said...

I didn't think Obama's introduction of Garland was persuasive. He didn't seem very passionate about it until he started complaining about the Senate refusing to accept his nomination.

rcocean said...

Wow, another Jewish Appeals Court Judge from Harvard Law. The Democrats really do believe in diversity, don't they?

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernandinande said...

From Obama's introduction of his Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

So, except for the part about hard roots, it's all fiction?

rcocean said...

If confirmed this would make 2% to the population, almost 50% of the SCOTUS.

And I don't believe for a second that he's a "Moderate". Beyer was a "Moderate" and so was Souter.

Bay Area Guy said...

"His sterling record as a prosecutor led him to the Justice Department, where he oversaw some of the most significant prosecutions in the 1990s,.."


It's funny during an election season, when Obama and the Dems go all "tough on crime."

Most folks understand that the Dems are NOT tough on crime, but want to hamstring the police and disarm the civilians. The goal is to sow societal chaos, and then have the Leftist politicians respond dutifully with more and more spending and government programs to "solve" the problems. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste," said a wise Chicago Pol (Rahm Emanuel).

We've seen this movie before.

Garland, though, does seem like a modest, polite gentleman, though. Too bad he's allowing himself to be a pawn for the Left's political power grabs. Trading Scalia for Garland would be a big win for the Left, no doubt.

Michael K said...

" Too bad he's allowing himself to be a pawn for the Left's political power grabs."

Only a dedicated leftist would allow himself to used like this.

rcocean said...

"a moderate liberal, with a definite pro-prosecution bent in criminal cases"

Per Nina Totenberg. Cue laughter.

Curtiss said...

Garland almost broke down during his speech. He could be the first "crying justice".

traditionalguy said...

Obama narrative twofer: In any Hearings, the left will laud him for a long and noble and valiant fight against the real enemy which are crazy white terrorists belonging to militias or who just collect guns, belong to the NRA, and blow up Federal Buildings all over the land.

Bay Area Guy said...

I think Obama wins this, by a split decision.

1. GOP does hold firm -- no hearings on Garland (good)

2. But, in the process, GOP might lose 1 or 2 marginal Senate seats, possibly control of the Senate (bad)

3. 1 & 2 pale in significance to who wins the Presidency. If Trump or Cruz win, hooray, but they might have to settle for a more moderate SCOTUS pick to get past Senate confirmation, if Dems retake the Senate.

If Hillary wins, will she pick Garland for SCOTUS or someone else? Don't know yet.

I've been watching a lot of House of Cards lately:) That's how they do stuff in Washington.

Alan Anderson said...

"Root" aside, I find this statement to be puzzling."

He was just using the lawyer in the private sector method of "billable hours"..

JAORE said...

"Now, Republicans, take your turn on the stage with refined gestures that don't look like swinging at a piñata."

Yeah, good luck with that.

walter said...

Was just thinking how folks would view a female SCOTUS nom blubbering at an announcement like that.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise, that would be unprecedented.

No sir. The precedent was set by a group of Democrats who used denial of up or down votes to frustrate multiple judicial appointments of the most recent Republican President. Is your Senate career already obliterated from memory, Mr. President?

LarsPorsena said...

"This was a time when crime here in Washington had reached epidemic proportions and he wanted to help. And he quickly made a name for himself going after corrupt politicians and violent criminals. "

It's quite obvious he didn't do a thorough job.

Amexpat said...

Garland, though, does seem like a modest, polite gentleman, though. Too bad he's allowing himself to be a pawn for the Left's political power grabs.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's some sort of agreement that Hillary will appoint him if she wins. It's in her interest to play up what a good choice he is. It would be hard to backtrack on that if she wins. Also, if Hillary wins wouldn't the Senate want to confirm him before January in case she decided to nominate someone who is younger and more liberal?

Michael McClain said...

Re: BDNY

I suspect THE WON pronounces "route" as "root". That's a dialect common on the East Coast.

damikesc said...

To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise, that would be unprecedented.

He didn't think that about Alito.

See, that is always going to be his problem. Complaining about the lack of an up or down vote when he voted to prevent one makes every word he says pointless.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Throughout the process, Merrick took pains to do everything by the book. When people offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder root of obtaining the proper subpoenas instead, because Merrick would take no chances that someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality.

Assuming the people turning over the evidence voluntarily had that evidence legally, then the proper subpoena is none. If he doesn't understand that then he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

David Begley said...

Garland has put people in jail. Mass incarceration. Bad guy.

Hagar said...

"Go free on a technicality" is a flashing red light for me. The "technicality" usually turns out to be the Constitution of the United States.

machine said...

this whole if a goper isn't President we're gonna wreck shit up bit is so tired...

n.n said...

Does he receive moral guidance through emanations from a penumbra?

The court already has a liberal bias, and a progressive prejudice without a principled ballast.

Hagar said...

Is "unctuous" the right word for Obama's speech?

Michael said...

Ignore it or give him the Bork good and hard and long. Months long.

Tim said...

Anyone who the NYT refers to as a "centrist" is certain to be somewhere to the left of Mao.
His position on the 2nd amendment and on the primacy of government bureaucrats disqualifies as fit to be a federal judge of any sort.
If you cannot read and comprehend the Constitution, you are not qualified to be a federal judge.

TreeJoe said...

I applaud Obama for this: Republicans painted themselves in a corner slavering to state in the aftermath of Scalia's death that they wouldn't give any presidential nominee consideration in the next 10 months. I.e. "Mr President you are not allowed to make Supreme Court Nominations during 10% of your presidency"

Terrible politics, terrible precedent, bad for the country.

When democrats get elected, they get to nominate and vote on nominees. Same for republicans.

The Republican game probably forced Obama to nominate a moderate, which is a good thing, but it's just bad for Republicans besides that.

I would prefer a federalist and strict constitutionalist be nominated to the bench, but I will happily accept a moderate be voted in from a far left president. That to me is still successful

Sigivald said...

Yeah, well, it can be right, and you'd be saying it's right if you were in the Senate and a GOP President made a nomination this close to the election. But I know you have to say that. These are the lines in political theater, and you have delivered them with persuasive elegance — complete with the subtle articulation of the tilde on "piñata."

Absolutely true - and I don't hold the fact of saying it against him, personally.

But I am dreading wading through months of people on Facebook taking him at literal face value and pretending the Supreme Court is totally non-political except when the icky Republicans bias it.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

machine said...

this whole if a goper isn't President we're gonna wreck shit up bit is so tired...

Yes, I wish the Democrats would stop doing that every time they are in power...

iowan2 said...

Why is everyone so dense? He's a great jurist, perfect. We like him a lot. If the next President nominates him I bet the vote goes well for him.
See. Easy. This is not about the jurist. It's about Obama and Reid etal, poisoning the well, and salting the earth.
Republicans only need to repeat, until next year

EDH said...

Probably not a bad guy or jurist.

Although his name reminds me of the Elephant Man's bones strewn on a Christmas tree, which is a deal breaker.

How about Garland Greene?

YoungHegelian said...

I asked one of my doctors for bunch of recommendations to some other doctors. He got his med degree from Georgetown. Guess what med school every doctor on the list went to? I guess they can hold a class reunion from my medical bills.

Well, Harvard Law people seem to be that in spades. To a HLS grad, it seems like the rest of the legal profession can't even tie their shoelaces. I wish that the rest of us could see living proof of just what the HLS mojo is every one & a while.

Oso Negro said...

How about "no", because "fuck you"? Elections, as we have been instructed, have consequences.

Rick said...

Everything Obama does is political, largely because he like many politicians see politics rather than execution as the accomplishment. After Obamacare passed he popped the champagne corks and talked about a new America. Meanwhile he didn't bother to ensure people could actually sign up, that "if they liked their policies they could keep their policies", or that the "typical" family actually experienced the 2,500 per year savings he promised. These were unimportant, the bill becoming law mattered.

Likewise this nomination is all about the politics. He sets up his surrogates with the whisper campaign that opposition to Garland is driven by people who resent his prosecution of McVeigh.

Iapetus said...

I like an 8 justice Court. Leave the seat empty for as long as possible. It means the end, however temporary, of 5-4 decisions in which Kennedy acts as the AC/DC swing vote. Decisions by the Court need to be rendered by a large majority to ensure greater clarity in the law and to provide better guidance to the lower courts. The polarization inherent in a 5-4 decision creates more legal chaos. At minimum, decisions by the Court at full strength should require a 2/3rds affirmative vote, 6-3, to overturn a lower court.

Rick said...

Obama: At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they are disposable,

If he were a decent person he'd include himself in this for claiming opposition to his policies is due to his race among many other comments. But there's effectively zero chance he does. Much like the "discussion on race" he and his allies advocate his real meaning is "let me lecture you on how to be more like me".

Humperdink said...

If I am McConnell, I would do the following:

> Conduct a thorough review of Garland's background prior to any hearing. Should take 3 or months. Advise the media the Senate takes this very seriously, but it is time consuming.

> Advise Captain O that Garland's background has too much "whiteness" in it. Please send someone of color up, preferably an Asian.

> Conduct a thorough review of ........ Should take 3 or 4 months.

Gahrie said...

Now, Republicans, take your turn on the stage with refined gestures that don't look like swinging at a piñata.

If McConnell came out and said "We plan on giving the nominee an immediate hearing, and I am confident, that he will be referred from the committee and confirmed on the floor" the media would portray it as an outrageous attack on the Constitution, Obama, Garland and the American people.

Bay Area Guy said...

"At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they are disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight..."

...and, therefore, I have nominated Miguel Estrada to the Supreme Court.

Skeptical Voter said...

I see Obama still can't spell. But then he usually takes the harder "root" and sticks it in the American public's back. Obama the word is spelled "route". It will trip you up just like "corpse" man.

bgates said...

At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they are disposable,

in the seventh year of the Obama presidency,

treat the process of appointing a Supreme Court justice with the seriousness and care it deserves because our Supreme Court really is

"an unelected group of people".

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

The Senate hovers around the 10% respect and confidence level. Waiting till February to consider granting or withholding consent of the nomination would boost their reputation.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"machine said...

this whole if a goper isn't President we're gonna wreck shit up bit is so tired...

Yes, I wish the Democrats would stop doing that every time they are in power.."

One thing that gives me hope in America is that the Lefty outrage schtick is no longer taken seriously by anyone under the age of 50. Aging Boomer women and doddering GOPe politicians seem to be the only people who worry about this stuff anymore. Everyone else laughs.

Rick said...

machine said...
this whole if a goper isn't President we're gonna wreck shit up bit is so tired...


When did "wrecking" start to mean "anything other than my preferences"?

Sammy Finkelman said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/16/transcript-obama-announces-nomination-of-merrick-garland-to-supreme-court/

"When people offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder root of obtaining the proper subpoenas instead, because Merrick would take no chances that someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality."

BDNYC said...3/16/16, 10:58 AM

"Root" aside,

We're seeing a lot of errors in transcripts. That has to be "harder road" or "harder route" It could be Obama said "route" instead of the proper cliche, "road"

I find this statement to be puzzling.

Well, I find that to be very intriguing.

There must be a story there, and something about it has probably been published. I mean, somewhere someone must have written something about the consequences.

I wonder if that was part of a cover-up, and I wonder who wass really responsible for adopting , or at least advocating, such a position. Did Janet Reno tell him to do that?


hombre said...

Joe Hartzler was the lead prosecutor in the Oklahoma City bombing. Garland was Janet Reno's front man during the preliminary stages of the investigation which was handled by hoards of federal agents. Being a DOJ bureaucrat is not being a prosecutor. Neither was handling "corruption" cases for a Clinton US Attorney.

He is an Ivy Leaguer and most probably a Secular Jewish Liberal. Neither distinction enhances the odds of his being a centrist. It's just a smoke screen.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"This was a time when crime here in Washington had reached epidemic proportions and he wanted to help. And he quickly made a name for himself going after corrupt politicians and violent criminals."

I suppose that means he really spent much more time going after corrupt politicians (who?) than going after violent criminals.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...

"Assuming the people turning over the evidence voluntarily had that evidence legally, then the proper subpoena is none

It might have been a way to avoid getting evidence taht would implicate people other than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma bombing.

The day it happened, Bill Clinton knew too much. He didn't have the theory everybody else had that it was Islamic terrorism.

Sammy Finkelman said...

hombre said...

Joe Hartzler was the lead prosecutor in the Oklahoma City bombing. Garland was Janet Reno's front man during the preliminary stages of the investigation which was handled by hoards of federal agents

Ah. It wasn't Merrick Garland who made that crazy decision - it was one of Bill Clinton's political appointees at the Justice Department who did.

I'm very interested in just what information was refused.

Sammy Finkelman said...

If I am McConnell, I would...

Conduct things in such a way, so that a vote comes soon after the election, but only of Obama pledges not to withdraw the nomination if a Democrat wins. If a Republican is elected, vote him down; if a Democrat is elected, vote him up, especially if the Sneate majority is lost; and if the election is thrown into the House of Representatives, reassess the situation at that point.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Skeptical Voter said...

I see Obama still can't spell. But then he usually takes the harder "root" and sticks it in the American public's back. Obama the word is spelled "route

The question is, who prepared the transcript. Anyway, it should be "road" and not "route"

Titus said...

I wanted the Indian-he was cute.

johns said...

while the court has 8 justices, what happens to cases that get a tie vote? do they just end there, with no decision, i.e. the lower court's decision stands?

Rick said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...
Assuming the people turning over the evidence voluntarily had that evidence legally, then the proper subpoena is none. If he doesn't understand that then he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.


Bureaucratic lawyers inventing new restrictions, shades of Jamie Gorelick.

Sammy Finkelman said...

I should have written:

"It wasn't Merrick Garland who made that seeminghly crazy decision - it was one of Bill Clinton's political appointees at the Justice Department who did."

Merrick Garland was replaced as prosecutor on May 22, 1995:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/23/us/prosecutor-is-named-in-bombing-case.html

Up to now the prosecution has been led by Merrick Garland, a top aide to Jamie S. Gorelick, the Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Garland has been selected to head the criminal division after the announcement last week of the departure of Jo Ann Harris, who has headed the unit.

So Jamie Gorelick was his boss at that time.

I think Merrick Garland was the innocent fall guy - someone designed to look like he was in charge - for non-disinterested decisions by the Justice Department, whose true reason we might not even suspect.

Sammy Finkelman said...

It is not "shades of" Jamie Gorelick, it probably is Jamie Gorelick herself.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

johns said...

while the court has 8 justices, what happens to cases that get a tie vote? do they just end there, with no decision, i.e. the lower court's decision stands?

Yes, the lower court ruling stands. It does not create a precedent that other courts are obliged to follow.

R. Chatt said...

Obama is the most elegant punk in the world, or at least the most powerful one. All hail Obama.

Nice touch picking the Jewish beta male as the piñata. Obama would never subject
a brown skinned man (Paul Watford, Sri Srinivasan) to that kind of humiliation. Maybe
I'm being hypersensitive. After all, Merrick Garland was moved to tears at this great
honor.

johns said...

if Merrick Garland worked as an aide to Jamie Gorelick, I'm going to categorize Garland as "political; solidly Left"

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bill Clinton was never interested in putting people really close to him on the Supreme Court.

It probably takes far too long to affect any particvular case.

Sammy Finkelman said...

They are making this into a political campaign:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/scotus

This is a campaign ad!

Sammy Finkelman said...

I mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOjeMlEjbvg&feature=youtu.be

Sammy Finkelman said...

This is the actual recording of President Obama's announcement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGS4a18tKQI

It's captioned.

The White House captioning has "route"

It was the Washington Post or whoever they used which made the mistake of using "root"

And President Obama clearly said route.

Ken B said...

I say confirm him. The one tactic Obama did not foresee.

Sammy Finkelman said...

A peculiar meaningless bit of praise: that Merrick Garland is "uniquely qualified" to take the job immediately. Now, really. Other federal judges would have to study?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PB said...

ONLY a 50% pay cut? Not much of a partner at a big law firm where compensation in into seven figures.

dragyourbone said...

In reading these posts I find it rather easy to understand why Trump and Sanders garnered so much momentum.
If only to separate the bickering schoolchildren.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Now, Republicans, take your turn on the stage with refined gestures that don't look like swinging at a piñata.

And you'll praise 'em if they do that, right Professor? You and the Media will give Republicans credit when they act professionally and respect the institutions of government, right?
This time it'll be different--right?!?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Jamie Gorelick!

God Almighty! The intelligence "wall", Fannie Mae, the woman who hired the US Attorney who closed the IRS investigation into Lerner & Co. without charges....and on and on? Someone who might be a future S. Court Justice worked for her & presumably was happy to voluntarily have her as a superior?

Our poor, poor Republic.

MayBee said...

Obama picked the white guy because he knew he couldn't make minorities be the sacrificial lamb.

JCC said...

With all due respect to Garland, the day after Oklahome City, there wasn't a career prosecutor anywhere who wouldn't have crawled through 100 yards of broken glass to take that case. And as for turning away evidence which was being offered up, by first insisting on a subpoena, that sounds just stupid and probably inaccurate. I could see if there were some question of legitimate custody, in which case you might want a warrant, but a subpoena? Maybe our head constitutional law professor is confusing paper things which implicate the 4A.

And I do not have the sense that the OK bombing case was all that difficult to prove, although it was undoubtedly complex in terms of detail. But regarding actual proof against the 2 charged defendants, I think it was probably a gimme, although the jury did take 23 hours to convict on all 11 counts.

Paul said...

No. He'll no. Obama gets NOTHING. He can go sit down and the back of the bus. Next president gets the pick.

SukieTawdry said...

If the Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics, Mr. President, why do you so often try to drag it down into the political dirt?

I was not aware evidence turned over voluntarily by someone in legal possession of it required a subpoena. Am I correct in remembering that there were certain elements to that bombing that the Justice Dept. did not want pursued? Who was that female investigative reporter who claimed there were additional conspirators with ties to the Middle East? As I recall, President Clinton was pretty intent on laying responsibility on loud and angry voices spreading hate.

I read Garland's Wiki bio. Seems like a decent enough jurist. But seven words stood out: Jamie Gorelick-a key mentor of Garland's... Yikes. I don't think I want any part of anyone Jamie Gorelick mentored. That woman has left a lot of wreckage in her wake. I wonder why he's decided to put himself through this?

Ken Mitchell said...

Garland may be a stellar guy and God's gift to judges, but I'm a one-issue voter and he's on the wrong side of my issue. My issue is guns; I'm for 'em and he's against them.

I'm going to stick with the Obama/Biden/Schumer rule that lame-duck presidents of the opposing party don't get any more supreme court nominations.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Enough with the bullshit and tell us what you really think. In what way, shape or form could these Republican tantrums and demands to hold up nominees possibly be good for a healthy judicial system?

Ken Mitchell said...

Further: Merrick Garland isn't going to redress the religious imbalance on the Supreme Court. Prior to Scalia's unfortunate passing, the Court was three Jews and six Catholics; no Protestants or any other faiths were represented.

Nor would he break the Harvard/Yale stranglehold on the Court.

For a President who spent so much time talking about "diversity", he doesn't any desire for INTELLECTUAL diversity.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Ken Mitchell said...

Nor would he break the Harvard/Yale stranglehold on the Court.

But he emanates from flyover country: Chicago.


Sammy Finkelman said...

SukieTawdry said...3/16/16, 6:10 PM

I read Garland's Wiki bio. Seems like a decent enough jurist. But seven words stood out: Jamie Gorelick-a key mentor of Garland's... Yikes. I don't think I want any part of anyone Jamie Gorelick mentored. That woman has left a lot of wreckage in her wake. I wonder why he's decided to put himself through this?

He's too unpolitical to understand what's going on.

Sammy Finkelman said...

SukieTawdry said...3/16/16, 6:10 PM

I was not aware evidence turned over voluntarily by someone in legal possession of it required a subpoena.

It sounds like someone came up with a peculiar legal theory that a defense lawyer might later raise a claim on appeal that the material, in fact, was NOT turned over voluntarily, but was obtained by government pressure, and this government pressure was the same thing as force, and violated the 4th amendment, and should have bene excluded from evidence and a judge might rule that the conviction should be overturned.

You have to be trying really hard not to come into possession of evidence to come up with this idea. I'd like to know more about all this. It's very, very, intriguing.

Am I correct in remembering that there were certain elements to that bombing that the Justice Dept. did not want pursued?

Oh, yes. For many years. Ten years later, they refused to search Terry Nichols home for more explosive material.

http://peterlance.com/wordpress/?p=782

The most significant revelation from Scarpa Jr., according to Clemente, was Nichols’s alleged admission that “others unknown” were involved in the original Murrah Building plot—despite Timothy McVeigh’s insistence up until his execution that he and Nichols had acted alone.

Another startling new allegation Scarpa learned from Nichols was that Roger Moore, an Arkansas gun dealer whose girlfriend testified against Nichols and McVeigh, may have been an FBI informant. Nichols alleged that it was Moore who supplied the tubes of the high explosive that were buried in the crawl space.


Of course, Timothy McVeigh didn't know about the others. Or at least the connection that Terry Nichols had.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The biggest thing, of course, was saying that conspiracy started with Timothy McVeigh rather than with Terry Nichols. That way you could never find any co-conspirators. Clinton had to handpick the prosector, and the defense attorney for Terry Nichols came from the same law firm that Bill Clinton used.

Terry Nichols had experimented with bombs and explosives in Michigan but could not get them to explode very much.

All amateur bomb makers run into one of two problems - either the bomb explodes prematurely, like happened to the Weathermen, or some people in the FALN, or it is something of a dud. You really cannot learn this from the Internet.

So he took off for the Philipines and went to the same city "Ramzi Youssef" was in - Cebu City. The cover story was that he went there to bring home a mail order bride, which he did. On the way there, he stopped off in Las Vegas, and left with his ex-wife, Lana Padilla, an envelope addressed to Timothy McVeigh to be opned in the event he did not come back. (If you play with explosives you might not come back of course) She opened it as soon as he left. It told Timothy McVeigh to go ahead without him.)

So who was the boss?)

Sammy Finkelman said...

I didn't mention the key to a safe deposit box in Hot Springs, Arkansas that was found in Terry Nichols's home. This was supposedly taken during a robbery f Roger Moore, the gun dealer, who could not have been robbed, if anything about his story is to be belived, either by Terry Nichols, who didn't resemble the sketch at all, or by Timothy McVeigh who was in a gun show in Ohio on the day it took place.

It occurs to me that money or instuctions could have been passed to Terry Nichols through that safe deposit box. The bank, after all, was in Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Who was that female investigative reporter who claimed there were additional conspirators with ties to the Middle East?

You mean Angela Clemente?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmpEGM7v2NY

As I recall, President Clinton was pretty intent on laying responsibility on loud and angry voices spreading hate.

Right away. Right away.

I think he wanted to say it right away because then it would sound like it was something reasonable to believe, because look, he guessed it!

Everybody else, of course, assumed it was ISlamic terrorism, because Oklahoma City was one of the centers of Islamic radicalism and was one of the places Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, had gone to, on his trip around the country after the bombing. the otehr big place was Michigan, I think Dearborn, Michigan.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The Oklahoma bombing almost got the hearings on the Waco raid and fire cancelled, and made it much tamer. (Why Clinton murdered the Branch Davidians is a whole other story, but the ley thing is it was necessary to protect Jay William Buford, head of the BATF in Little Rock, and probably the chief architect of the raid, who had killed 3 of his own men on the day of the raid. To make David Koresh look bad, and the raid justified in retrosepct, of course, because the search warrant was based on lies. Not because the 3 men had been assigned to Bill Clinton's security which they could not have been. Clinton planted that lie in an address to treasury Department employees on March 17, 1993. It was a red herring.)

There's another coincidence worth noting. Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto made a state visit to Washington on April 10 and 11th 1995. On April 12. Timothy McVeigh leaves Kingman, Arizona, where's he's been hanging around doing nothing, and heads east, and in the course of the next week, the fertilizer bomb is put together and delivered to Oklahoma City and exploded.

The thought in my my mind is that someone in Benazir Bhutto's entourage, who was a member of Pakistan's rogue military intelligence agency, the ISI, met with President Clinton in Washington on April 10 or 11 1995, and got personal assurances that he wanted the Oklahoma bombing to take place. (More than 2 people actually built the bomb) Something like this could only be believed if it came from the President's mouth.

And we all know he went very easy on Osama bin Laden for many years, and that would be part of the explanation.

narciso said...

inconvenient facts.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261876/obama-opposed-black-conservative-judge-who-was-daniel-greenfield

no sammy they focused almost exclusively on the piddling militia threat, while the varsity was out recruiting,

SukieTawdry said...

Sammy Finkleman said...

Who was that female investigative reporter who claimed there were additional conspirators with ties to the Middle East?

You mean Angela Clemente?


No. I looked it up. It was Jayna Davis. Thanks for all the information, though. It's all sorta coming back to me now.

narciso said...

their vetting is very thorough,


http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/16/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-history-of-advocating-gun-control/

Sebastian said...

"But I know you have to say that. These are the lines in political theater, and you have delivered them with persuasive elegance" So true, except that he doesn't have to, and they are neither persuasive nor elegant. And yes, it is political theater--has been from the beginning, for those of us who saw the pretender for what he was. Who could do it justice -- Ionesco?

JCC said...

R&B -

Does anyone actually think that a delay (or a speedy confirmation) will affect the health of the Federal judiciary? This is all about the ideology of the next appointee who will tilt the Court one way or maintain it as it has been for some time now. Were the relative positions of President and Congress reversed, the respective parties would be passionately arguing the exact and complete opposite of their position now, and no one can doubt that either. Senator Obama would be claiming the people had a right to choose (by waiting for another election) and President McConnell/Whoever would be solemnly wrapping the Constitution around his outraged bones over the delay. So the hypocrsy of both sides is on display.

But the reality is that Judge Roy Bean couldn't get confirmed by the Senate until after November, and maybe not until after January.So all the conversation is really pretty meaningless, since I think no one is going to change their mind about the politics of the thing, regrardless of what anyone else says.

Joe said...

Well Obama has certainly played Hatch and Grassley and McConnell.

No, they played a game of chicken and Obama blinked. I completely fail to see how holding up the nomination helps anyone. It's an absurd theory by political insiders about political insiders.

The best move would be to praise Obama for his decision and start hearings.





Jim Nicholson said...

"Now, Republicans, take your turn on the stage with refined gestures that don't look like swinging at a piñata."

Let me give it a try. I'm not a lawyer, or a politician, so your mileage may vary:

"Fuck that pile of partisan bullshit. This nomination is dead on arrival, as the president well know. It's too bad he doesn't have the balls to bow out graciously from a fight he and his leftist cohort can't win, as even the worst "constitutional scholar" should realize. But that's what happens when a populist candidate dominates a major party. Perhaps voters will take a lesson from it, but frankly that's not likely this year, given the quality of voters our so-called 'republic' has produced."

How'd I do?

Paul said...

The answer is still NO. No 'nominee' Obama pushes will be considered. I don't care if they dig up George Washington and nominate him. The answer is still NO.

Paul said...

Joe,

It helps cause the next president will be accountable for their nomination. Obama is going in less than a year so no accountability.

Again, NO, HE'LL NO. Obama can sod off.

Matthew Sablan said...

"3. 1 & 2 pale in significance to who wins the Presidency. If Trump or Cruz win, hooray, but they might have to settle for a more moderate SCOTUS pick to get past Senate confirmation, if Dems retake the Senate."

-- If we have a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled Senate, I almost guarantee we'll see levels of obstruction that make the current levels seem quaint.

Mark said...

Yes, Matthew, you predict that the other side will act even worse in the future than your side currently is.

You have no proof, but are more than willing to call them put on future misdeeds instead of own up to reality.

And they say the left uses Alinsky tactics.

Joe said...

It helps cause the next president will be accountable for their nomination. Obama is going in less than a year so no accountability.

Bullshit.

Only political wonks care about this. Normal people are annoyed that Republicans are acting like assholes.

Fred said...

Normal people realize appointing Supremes is 100.000% political and has been for decades. Just look at Biden, Obama, and Schumer's past behavior if you doubt.