My posts were meant to show the "lady" was behaving entirely in character.
And to suggest the current efforts to canonize her are somewhat premature.
And mine was to submit that the issue was dead, and that those continuing to pursue it had a preexisting desire to see her smeared.
I, personally, just want to know why everyone hates her current hairstyle? I think it flatters her much more than those rolls!
snood,
You keep saying that after 11 years she should have been recognized and not stopped.
What if the cop was new on his job?
She was on Bill Maher last night on HBO. Bill did give her a bit of a tough time but she expressed herself quite deftly and with the good humor associated with the show. The hairdo had changed, too. She did state she would be sure she had her badge on in the future. I don't believe she left it off to test anyone but that it was an oversight.
mysteryman wrote:snood,
You keep saying that after 11 years she should have been recognized and not stopped.
What if the cop was new on his job?
What if he wasn't? The issue is dead. It's understandable that she might have been preturbed at being stopped - again. She had no right to hit anyone.
An unfortunate impulse -- it's happened to me when I've misinterpreted someone's motivation to harm me when that wasn't the case.
MM
She claimed she showed them her congressional ID, so why wouldn't they let her through after that?
Either way, this some folks are making way too big a deal out of this.
Doesn't Bush have himself in more hot water these days? Now that's something people should pay serious attention to ;-)
I guess the people who seem to be keeping it alive is in direct proportion to the people who say it's a dead issue.
A Grand Jury will hear the case.
The cop's eye is still blue.
It's not dead.
The decision hasn't been made to have a Grand Jury look at a black eye incident. I'm glad they didn't look at my black eye incident. In fact, the bloke in question was drunk and was escorted out of the establishment never to be heard from again.
The Grand Jury has already heard some testimony.
That's testimony is whether or not to proceed. If it required a Grand Jury at the tax payer's expense to examine a simple assault and battery case, this nation has gone to the dogs.
LW-- If it had been Hastert or DeLay, you wouldn't mind the cost.
It's so hard for me to believe that people really think it's ok to hit cops. No matter who they are.
Sources: McKinney case heading to grand jury
Federal prosecutors could have a decision by next week
Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Posted: 10:07 p.m. EDT (02:07 GMT)
Rep. Cynthia McKinney says racial profiling was a factor in her confrontation with Capitol Police.
Manage Alerts | What Is This? (CNN) -- 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.
Senior congressional sources said that two House staff members -- Troy Phillips, an aide to Rep. Sam Farr, D-California, and Lisa Subrize, executive assistant to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan -- have been subpoenaed to testify.
The Justice Department and the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, which is handling the case, refused to comment.
James Myart, an attorney representing McKinney, said the news was mere conjecture, but added that he wouldn't be surprised if his client were indicted.
"Grand juries do what grand juries do," Myart said. "However, I would think that they would recognize that there simply is not enough evidence here to even bring an indictment."
__________________________________
Just FYI. From CNN.
Lash wrote:LW-- If it had been Hastert or DeLay, you wouldn't mind the cost.
It's so hard for me to believe that people really think it's ok to hit cops. No matter who they are.
Why bring Hastert into this. Delay's transgressions are far more serious than reacting on an impulse and giving a law officer a blackie. Maybe she just wanted him to somewhat match her own complexion?
I realize in Washington DC that the due process of law is not the usual police report and a DA decided to prosecute or not prosecute. Has the officer filed a complaint?
Tempest in a teapot.
And, what do you know about Hastert? Is he a crook, too?
Not that I don't think McKinney's action to be reprehensible but I think her rebel image has caused this to be blown way out of proportion. I can see why Republicans would grasp at this straw considering the **** they are swimming in.
Apparently it's okay to hit cops when you want to put out a brushfire in your party and set your sights on gaining a Congressional majority. Jews and gays be damned, at least she's a Democrat.
It seems she'll be reliving her 2002 nightmare:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/matttowery/2006/04/06/192790.html
It'll be interesting to see who wins in this Jewish-Gay-BlackMale-BlackFemale-White tug-of-war.
Melting pots. You gotta love 'em.
Lightwizard wrote:Not that I don't think McKinney's action to be reprehensible but I think her rebel image has caused this to be blown way out of proportion. I can see why Republicans would grasp at this straw considering the **** they are swimming in.
...and there's some serious grasping going on...
It will also be interesting to see who win's Tom Delay's seat since he was asked to step down (don't believe anything different) in order for the Republicans to save their butt in that Texas district.
A democrat would have won the next election there if he had peed in public, groped a police officer and drug a WASP down the street with his car.
