US Dept. of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at Jeff Sessions

[GMDino]

(05-05-2017, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll be relieved to hear then that that isn't what happened.

Really? Because a few folks in this thread showed examples of she did in the past and surmised maybe that's why she was charged this time.

(05-05-2017, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We can say that as it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Yep.

(05-05-2017, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes Dabo, everyone on the side opposite you are racist misogynists. 

Everyone? I was talking about Sessions and those who felt that way. I didn't realize that meant EVERYONE who voted for Trump. Interesting!

(05-05-2017, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lets see, disrupting a session of Congress is on par with being able to speak in an auditorium at an event that was specifically set up for you to speak in that auditorium?  Hmmm, yes, those seem equatable to me.

Ooooh! Close! One was a public forum...one was the government literally saying she could laugh at something.

(05-05-2017, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you have to change your pants now?  Thanks for swallowing the hook whole though, it provided me with some entertainment.

Hey, I didn't want you to have a bad day.

We all know what can happen then.

Glad to shine a little sunshine on you!

Have a great day!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2017, 12:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Really?  Because a few folks in this thread showed examples of she did in the past and surmised maybe that's why she was charged this time.

Yes, past behavior on her part that exactly mirrors what she denies doing will tend to cast doubt on the credibility of her assertions of complete innocence.

Quote:Yep.

You're learning!

Quote:Everyone?  I was talking about Sessions and those who felt that way.  I didn't realize that meant EVERYONE who voted for Trump.  Interesting!

As above, I'm taking your past statements on this exact subject and pointing out that your statement here is just the latest example of painting all those who don't share your views as racist, misogynists or both.  

Quote:Ooooh!  Close!  One was a public forum...one was the government literally saying she could laugh at something.

I think you meant to say couldn't instead of could.  I'll assume that's the case.  You seem to be confused either way, as she wasn't convicted for laughing, as clearly stated earlier in this exact thread.  But you knew that and are now engaging in Fred Tactics.

Quote:Hey, I didn't want you to have a bad day.

You're certainly not the arbiter of whether that occurs or not, but thanks?

Quote:We all know what can happen then.

No, please enlighten us.

Quote:Glad to shine a little sunshine on you!

Have a great day!

Glad to help you fulfill your role as court jester.  Job satisfaction is a wonderful thing.

[GMDino]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/protester-laughed-jeff-sessions-sentenced_us_5967de92e4b0d6341fe7a9e2?4r

Quote:Judge Tosses Jury’s Conviction Of Woman Who Laughed At Jeff Sessions, Orders New Trial
A D.C. judge tossed out the conviction of a woman arrested after laughing during Sessions’ Senate confirmation hearing.

[/url]

WASHINGTON ― A D.C. judge has tossed out a jury’s conviction of a protester who laughed during Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Senate confirmation hearing, finding on Friday that the government had improperly argued during the trial that her laughter was enough to merit a guilty verdict. The judge ordered a new trial in the case, setting a court date for Sept. 1.

Desiree Fairooz, 61, who was associated with the group Code Pink, had been convicted of disorderly and disruptive conduct and demonstrating inside the Capitol. Fairooz was taken into custody during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January after she laughed when Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) claimed Sessions had a “clear and well-documented” record of “treating all Americans equally under the law.” (The Senate rejected Sessions’ nomination for a federal judgeship in the 1980s over concerns about his views on race.)

But Chief Judge Robert E. Morin of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia tossed out the guilty verdict on Friday because the government had argued that the laugh alone was enough to warrant the verdict.

Morin said it was “disconcerting” that the government made the case in closing arguments that the laughter in and of itself was sufficient.

“The court is concerned about the government’s theory,” Morin said. He said the laughter “would not be sufficient” to submit the case to the jury, and said the government hadn’t made clear before the trial that it intended to make that argument.  

KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS

The rookie officer who seized Fairooz had never made an arrest and had no experience securing congressional hearings. Nevertheless, prosecutors pressed forward, insisting that “laughter is enough” to merit criminal charges of disorderly and disruptive conduct and demonstrating inside the Capitol. She was convicted in May.

Fairooz’s attorney had argued that she had the right to object to her arrest as she was being taken out of the room, and that a conviction based upon her conduct after the initial laugh could not stand. Attorney Sam Bogash asked the judge to toss out the jury verdict. The jury, Bogash wrote, “was not reasonable” in its evaluation of the evidence.

“Ms. Fairooz’s brief reflexive burst of noise, be it laughter or an audible gasp, clearly cannot sustain a conviction for either of the counts in the information,” Bogash wrote in a court filing. “So the only other basis for her conviction to anything are her statements after the U.S. Capitol Police arrested her for that laughing. Those statements merely expressed surprise at being arrested.”

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly] Follow
Ryan J. Reilly 

@ryanjreilly
Another protester escorted out of Sessions hearing. Her original offense appeared to be simply laughing.
10:12 AM - 10 Jan 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy

While some of Fairooz’s statements as she was being arrested ― like “Why am I being taken out of here?” ― objected to her treatment, others, like “This man is evil, pure evil,” were more political in nature, and perhaps more likely to support a conviction.

Kimberly Paschall, an attorney for the government, argued during a court hearing on Friday that “Ms. Fairooz was not merely responding” to her arrest. “She wasn’t just merely responding, she was voicing an opinion,” Paschall said.

The government argued that the jury’s guilty verdict should be upheld. Paschall had argued in court filings that the government had “presented evidence that the defendant engaged in disorderly or disruptive conduct when she loudly laughed at Senator Shelby’s comments.” Jurors “could reasonably infer that the laugh was a deliberate disruption” and “intentional,” Paschall wrote.

The government also focused on Fairooz’s conduct after the officer tried to take her into custody. “She did not merely laugh,” Paschall wrote. “Just as a defendant cannot resist arrest when the arrest is unlawful, a defendant should not be able to disrupt a hearing before Congress based on her opinion that police action was unlawful.” 

When Judge Morin said in court on Friday no one could know the basis of the jury’s conviction, Paschall tried to bring up interviews that HuffPost had conducted with the jurors after the meeting, in which they said they were focused on her actions after the laughter. “She did not get convicted for laughing. It was her actions as she was being asked to leave,” the jury foreperson told HuffPost at the time.

Judge Morin said those interviews were irrelevant.  

“Counsel, you know that’s not admissible,” Morin told Paschall. He then ordered a new trial.

Fairooz told HuffPost it was “absurd,” “ridiculous,” and a “waste of tax dollars” that she may have to go to trial again. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia declined to comment on whether the government planned to retry the case.

“For a little giggle in the Sessions hearing, it’s outrageous,” Fairooz told HuffPost. “I think they’re harassing me, it’s awful.”
Fairooz said she had been hoping that the judge wouldn’t give the government another chance to bring it to trial. “Why it got to this point, I don’t understand,” she said. 

News of Fairooz’s prosecution went viral after it was first reported by HuffPost. The international news coverage sparked jokes by late-night comedians, including Stephen Colbert, and attracted the attention of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. In a letter to the judge, Conyers wrote that “substantial questions exist with respect to the application of law” in Fairooz’s case, and asked for leniency. 

“As the Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I take seriously breaches of decorum in Congress,” Conyers wrote.
“However, in this instance, the finding of guilt under these particular circumstances raises questions that should counsel leniency with regard to sentencing.” 

Tighe Barry and Lenny Bianchi, two protesters tried alongside Fairooz for their actions at the hearing while dressed up as members of the KKK, were sentenced on Friday to 10 days suspension, meaning they likely won’t serve any jail time unless they violate the conditions of their six-month unsupervised probation. Restrictions were placed on their access to Capitol Hill.

A spokeswoman for Sessions declined to comment late Friday on whether the attorney general would like his prosecutors to once again bring the case before a jury.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I am not sure how I feel about a judge single-handedly throwing out a jury's decision.

Quote:“She did not get convicted for laughing. It was her actions as she was being asked to leave,” the jury foreperson told HuffPost at the time.

Judge Morin said those interviews were irrelevant.  

“Counsel, you know that’s not admissible,” Morin told Paschall. He then ordered a new trial.

She's yelling things like "this man is evil, pure evil" while being removed, and her buddies are there in KKK outfits... and the judge says "oh, we need a retrial because the jury doesn't know better"? Sounds like a judicial overreach to me.

[NATI BENGALS]

I cant believe there was a jury trial for this and there could be another.

Money well spent...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-16-2017, 11:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I am not sure how I feel about a judge single-handedly throwing out a jury's decision.

The legal argument would be that the jury was given inaccurate information or instructions.  The crux being that the prosecution misrepresented the facts of the case or law.  Of course, that kind of argument should be made by defense counsel.  Not sure how it's the prosecutions fault that the defense failed to do their job. 

Quote:She's yelling things like "this man is evil, pure evil" while being removed, and her buddies are there in KKK outfits... and the judge says "oh, we need a retrial because the jury doesn't know better"? Sounds like a judicial overreach to me.

Judges are human, and thus susceptible to standard human failings.  She wasn't charged with laughing, the laughing is what got her booted from the hearing.  She was charged for the scene she made after she was booted.  This case does jive well with the theme of the past year or so though, if you don't like the results of the first trial/election then just throw all your efforts into delegitimatizing the result you don't like and try, try again.  You see it here, with Trump and with Brexit.

[Vlad]

(05-03-2017, 09:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oh, that was mentioned in the article which clearly explained she was a rebel rouser. 

 

(05-05-2017, 11:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'll stand by my belief that folks like Sessions who have shown in the pase a discomfort with things not male and white deserved to be laughed at and is thin skinned enough to continue with the prosecution.

I'm also sure I believe that any second now all the same people who decried the death of "free speech" when two people cancelled their appearances at Berkley due to public protests will be in here standing up for the accused.

Any second now.

 
lol...Any second now your equivalency argument was exposed as utterly ridiculous.

And your white people meme? An addition to being an outright lie, it had no bearing on what SSF was alluding to.

Hey but "never let a good crisis go to waste" ...good opportunity to take advantage of this thread about an obnoxious "rebel" rouser facing charges by turning it into a Jeff Sessions bashing thread.

Say whatever the hell  you want about Ann Coulter, but she was spot on when she said  "you can never have a point to point debate with a liberal because they jump from one inane "point" to another so you can never nail them."

So true.

[Benton]

(07-17-2017, 10:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The legal argument would be that the jury was given inaccurate information or instructions.  The crux being that the prosecution misrepresented the facts of the case or law.  Of course, that kind of argument should be made by defense counsel.  Not sure how it's the prosecutions fault that the defense failed to do their job. 



Judges are human, and thus susceptible to standard human failings.  She wasn't charged with laughing, the laughing is what got her booted from the hearing.  She was charged for the scene she made after she was booted.  This case does jive well with the theme of the past year or so though, if you don't like the results of the first trial/election then just throw all your efforts into delegitimatizing the result you don't like and try, try again.  You see it here, with Trump and with Brexit.

I'm getting confused.

Quote:Kimberly Paschall, an attorney for the government, argued during a court hearing on Friday that “Ms. Fairooz was not merely responding” to her arrest. “She wasn’t just merely responding, she was voicing an opinion,” Paschall said.


The government argued that the jury’s guilty verdict should be upheld. Paschall had argued in court filings that the government had “presented evidence that the defendant engaged in disorderly or disruptive conduct when she loudly laughed at Senator Shelby’s comments.” Jurors “could reasonably infer that the laugh was a deliberate disruption” and “intentional,” Paschall wrote.

I had previously thought she was arrested for the things she said after, but the assistant US Attorney is saying — at least here — that it was the laugh that got Fairooze in trouble.

I don't have any issue with them prosecuting her for comments made after she was asked to leave. And I don't have any issue with her being asked to leave for laughing. But to prosecute for laughing is a bit much.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2017, 11:51 AM)Vlad Wrote:  
lol...Any second now your equivalency argument was exposed as utterly ridiculous.

And your whitey meme? An addition to being an outright lie, it had no bearing on what SSF was alluding to.

Hey but "never let a good crisis go to waste" ...good opportunity to take advantage of this thread about an obnoxious woman facing charges into a Jeff Sessions bashing thread.

Say whatever the hell  you want about Ann Coulter, but she was spot on when she said  "you can never have a point to point debate with a liberal because they jump from one inane "point" to another so you can never nail them."

So true.

My responses (including the meme) were in direct response to other posts.  Quoting them out of context serves no purpose.

[Vlad]

Pretending as though this was the first time this woman was accused of disruption is what is being sold around here.

Instead of expensive legal action, would not a "three strikes and you're out" type of rule be more reasonable?...which would ban her from attending congressional hearings after the third offense.


Or will some liberal find a reason to cry about that too?

[GMDino]

(07-17-2017, 12:13 PM)Vlad Wrote: Pretending as though this was the first time this woman was accused of disruption is what is being sold around here.

Instead of expensive legal action, would not a "three strikes and you're out" type of rule be more reasonable?...which would ban her from attending congressional hearings after the third offense.


Or will some liberal find a reason to cry about that too?

I think the charges were an overreaction.

I don't know if there is a mechanism to keep citizens out of hearings?  I'd agree that if someone is deliberately disruptive on multiple occasions that keeping them outside of the room would a good thing.

I disagree a that a derisive laugh is disruptive enough for that.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-17-2017, 12:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think the charges were an overreaction.

I don't know if there is a mechanism to keep citizens out of hearings?  I'd agree that if someone is deliberately disruptive on multiple occasions that keeping them outside of the room would a good thing.

I disagree a that a derisive laugh is disruptive enough for that.

We shouldn't keep citizens out of hearings, but anyone who disrupts should be asked to leave, and anyone who does it a 2nd time should be banned.  

[GMDino]

(07-17-2017, 12:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We shouldn't keep citizens out of hearings, but anyone who disrupts should be asked to leave, and anyone who does it a 2nd time should be banned.  

Isn't that contradictory?

And I agree with you about potentially banning them from being inside.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-17-2017, 12:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Isn't that contradictory?

And I agree with you about potentially banning them from being inside.

???  

[GMDino]

(07-17-2017, 12:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: ???  

Saying we shouldn't keep citizens out of hearings but banning them would be ok.

Meanwhile I agree we should at least look at it.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-17-2017, 01:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Saying we shouldn't keep citizens out of hearings but banning them would be ok.

Meanwhile I agree we should at least look at it.

You think it's contradictory to say citizens should be able to attend hearings unless they disrupt them? 

[GMDino]

(07-17-2017, 01:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You think it's contradictory to say citizens should be able to attend hearings unless they disrupt them? 

No, I was just busting you for saying we "shouldn't" ban them...unless we do.  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-17-2017, 01:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, I was just busting you for saying we "shouldn't" ban them...unless we do.  

Well quit making jokes.  

[GMDino]

(07-17-2017, 01:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well quit making jokes.  

No. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-17-2017, 11:57 AM)Benton Wrote: I'm getting confused.


I had previously thought she was arrested for the things she said after, but the assistant US Attorney is saying — at least here — that it was the laugh that got Fairooze in trouble.

I don't have any issue with them prosecuting her for comments made after she was asked to leave. And I don't have any issue with her being asked to leave for laughing. But to prosecute for laughing is a bit much.

The laugh got her in trouble. The stuff after it got her prosecuted.

Keep in mind while reading that the link GMD used was HuffingtonPost. So there'll be a slant in the writing.