Perhaps they did help. Or perhaps it was the in-person visit that worked best. IMHO, it was his personal visit that was positive, but, he "acted stupidly" when he chose his words.

Holder chose words that inferred a racial motive for the shooting. That was not necessary to be helpful.

Did his words create an legal issue for the defense to raise ? You say "No" but, I say that, if there is a prosecution of Wilson for civil rights violations, the defense will raise the issue of Holder's "I am a black man" comments. Holder created a defense issue unnecessarily. The court will have to deal with that issue, so, your conclusory answer seems wrong to me.

Should he have chosen his words more wisely?

I'm trying to find out whether there are any Democrat attorneys, or Democrats, who can find some fault with or criticism for AG Holder's statement. So far, points that you raise constitute a vigorous defense of your client Eric Holder.

I'm also struck by the fact that the guidelines for professional conduct for attorneys warn against making extrajudicial statements such as Holder's, but, no Democrat attorney feels the need to suggest that Holder should have followed that guideline, because it would have been the right thing to do.

This is the problem with voting Democrat -- when a Democrat does something wrong or questionable, all you get from the Democrat side is a vigorous defense, regardless of notions of right or wrong.

I hope that the US electorate will understand that it will always be like this with Democrats. In fact, if we continue to vote them into political power, they will get worse.

This post was edited on 8/24/14 at 2:53 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Champagne

Already Conquered USA.

Member since Oct 2007

48678 posts

Posted on 8/24/14 at 3:32 pm to Champagne

quote:
(f) Except for statements which are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and which serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, make extrajudicial comments which serve to heighten condemnation of the accused

This is the rule for prosecutors for those licensed to practice law in the Wash D.C. AG Eric Holder's defenders will tell us all that we should ignore this rule when we analyze Holder's racial statement. They say that technically, it doesn't apply because Holder is not a prosecutor. No, he technically is not, but, he supervises and manages prosecutors.

Common sense tells us all that Holder chose his words poorly and could have helped the situation without injecting race into his comments

I submit that a wise, thoughtful, careful AG with good judgment would have chosen different words. Holder was not at his best on that day. The fact that not a single Democrat will ever admit this is a good demonstration of the lengths that Democrats will go to defend their own, no matter what.

As another poster thankfully pointed out to us -- this little goof is not the worst that we've gotten from Holder. He will have to defend his license to practice law for other misdeeds.

But, we will find not the slightest criticism from the Democrats for anything that Holder does, because he is their ideological warrior that's what's most important to the Democrats who say: Notions of right and wrong be damned, as long as the Democrat side WINS.

This is not the right way for the US Attorney General to conduct himself. Holder is smart enough to do much better, and, I hope he does.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board