Let's Be Clear: Ayotte Lost Supreme Court Case

Answers!! (0.00 / 0)

Yes, no, no.  Facts aren't something republicans worry about, no matter how often they can be checked and "refudiated"!

---

by: mevansnh @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:02:10 PM UTC

Ayotte & Palin both won... (0.00 / 0)

Ayotte won her Supreme Court case in much the same way that Palin won her Vice Presidential campaign--- i.e., they both lost.  


sitting state rep: running for re-election in 2012.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 13:30:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ayotte's Website (0.00 / 0)

Go to www.ayotteforsenate.com  and see what pops up.  Kelly doesn't get it.

---

by: mevansnh @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 12:16:40 PM UTC

Ayotte won in that (4.00 / 2)

she was paid by New Hampshire taxpayers for the entire political episode and built up her right-wing credentials on our dime.

The loser in the case is the New Hampshire taxpayer, who paid the lawyers on both sides of the issue.

The winners were perhaps the crooks who went unnoticed by Ayotte while she pursued the case. Who has time for FRM?

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 14:04:23 PM UTC

The opportunity costs for thisand the death penalty cases were high indeed. (4.00 / 2)

When staff and resources were redirected to this little venture into Winglandia and the career building exercises into death penalty cases, the financial crime section of the Public Integrity Section was disbanded. FRM, while a tragedy for those involved, represents only the tip of the iceberg of mortgage fraud enabled by the lack of prosecution in the AG office and the US Attorneys.

Who has time for FRM? Certainly not either of the Republican politicians running prosecutions in NH for the last decade.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 16:10:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And who made the decision (0.00 / 0)

to disband the financial crime section?  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 16:16:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suspect there's theory that if someone can be "persuaded" to (0.00 / 0)

give up a right, including a right to property or the security of one's person, then the "persuader," like the mugger who cries, "your money or your life," without brandishing a weapon, is in the clear.  That's a theory which conservatives are trying to reassert in their support for "traditional marriage" in which women pledge to "love, honor and obey," and which forms the basis for the reincarnation of involuntary servitude known as "stop loss" in the Army.

The rationale seems to be that consent, once given, cannot be taken back.  It's sort of like being baptized means one has to be a Catholic or saved for life.  Certitude trumps liberty.

Under that rubric there can be no financial crimes since deception is not a crime.  That's been true ever since Eve.  Believing satan was her fault.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 17:47:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The attorney general. (4.00 / 2)

The attorney assigned to financial crimes was given new assignments that simply left no resources for to devote to financial predators. Instead of seeking adequate resources to fully staff the enhanced requirements of the death penalty cases and the Supreme Court Folly, other units, including  Public Integrity were cannibalized. All those decisions can only be made at the top.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 11:59:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]