Is any of this REMOTELY true???

[CatWoman]

I found this on the Yahoo message board:

Conveniently Forgotten Facts

By Paul Harvey
Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow black panther named...Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was suspected of disloyalty. Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for hours by, among other things,pouring boiling water on him. When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member Warren Kimbo took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Conn.

Perhaps at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers. In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of
the killers was still in jail. The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard, and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College. Isn't that something?

As a '60s radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head, and a few years later, in the same state, you can become an assistant college dean!

Only in America!

Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water for Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a California School Board. How in the world do you think these killers got off so easy? Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during their trial. One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a California School Board. He is now head of the US Justice Department's Civil Rights division, appointed by none other than Bill Clinton.

O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther apologist now an assistant college dean? No, neither! The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the time. She is now known as The "smartest woman in the world." She is none other than the Democratic senator from the state of New York----our former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton. And now, as Paul Harvey said; You know "the rest of the story."

Pass this on! This deserves the widest possible press. Also remember it, if and when she runs for President.

[Maeve]

1. Snopes to the rescue

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/panthers.htm

Ms. Clinton wasn't a lawyer then, either; she was a Yale law student. The sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations

[lancdem]

9. Good work, Maeve

BTW, why do people keep bringing tired, old debunked Hillary smears? Get a life!

[NoMoreRedInk]

12. Does Snopes ever have to be debunked, or do they...

have the final say-so? My question has nothing to do with this particular Black Panther legend; I was just wondering because it is often treated as an irrefutable reference on these (and other) boards.

[Maeve]

17. Sometimes, they are wrong

But in general, they are honest information brokers. They do give references and back up what they say, but you have to watch for the occasional weasel when the facts aren't readily provable.

Case in point--did Dubya wave at Stevie Wonder? Snopes says false, but more as a matter of opinion than anything else. A more honest answer would have been "undetermined".
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/bushwave.htm

[On the Road]

18. I Wrote Snopes About Their Entry on the Pentagon Attack

Snopes attempted to refute the idea that the damage at the Pentagon could not have been caused by a 757. The explanation that they gave was that the wings folded up and entered the building.

Now, I have seen reasonable explanations for how a 757 could cause the damage at the Pentagon. But the Snopes explanation was ridiculous. He had clearly listened to speculation by some authority figure and not subjected it to a reality test.

I don't expect a site like Snope to support MIHOP. But when they give a refutation, I would like to be able to trust it. This one didn't pass the test.

[rock]

22. Snopes does do a good job of rising above politics

But they still suffer human fraility and are sometimes wrong. There is no truth machine.

[sallyseven]

2. Paul Harvey

is a right wing pompous a..

[Maeve]

5. Also from the snopes article

Update: Versions of the e-mailed denunciation headed "Paul Harvey's 'The rest of the story'" began circulating on the Internet in June 2000. This header plus a comment at the end of the text ("And now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the rest of the story") caused some to believe Paul Harvey had read this piece (or a shorter version of it) on air. Paul Harvey's people confirm he has never broadcast the Panthers and Hillary Clinton story.

[Wonk]

3. 1977 really was eight years after 1969

:+

[CatWoman]

4. LOL, Wonk!!!

:hi:

[arcane1]

6. more right-wing lies, they can't use TRUTH to defend themselves

I don't suppose this enlightened Yahoo potser provided you with any links to back up this claim?

I did. Snopes calls it bs:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/panthers.htm

ass'ted snips:

So, what exactly did Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton do to "defend" the Panthers in a legal sense? In Mr. Lee's case, he did absolutely nothing. He wasn't a lawyer, or even a law student; he was simply another Yale undergraduate who had nothing to do with the Black Panthers' trial. Ms. Clinton wasn't a lawyer then, either; she was a Yale law student. The sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations. That a law student's tangential participation in one of the most controversial, politically and racially charged trials of her time (one that took place right on her doorstep) to help ensure it remained free of civil rights abuses is now offered as "proof" of her moral reprehensibility demonstrates that McCarthyism is alive and well — some of us apparently believe in rights but don't believe everyone has the right to have rights.

-----------

In a woefully bad piece of "journalism," Insight magazine writer John Elvin tried his best, despite his lack of any real evidence, to huff and puff and assert as true the claim that Hillary Rodham was leading campus protests in support of the Black Panthers. His conclusion was a model of disingenuousness:


Can there be any doubt, based on the foregoing facts, that Rodham and Lee indeed were student leaders during the Panther protests at Yale? The correct answer is no.
Sure, the answer is "no," because the wrong question has been asked. That Hillary Rodman could fairly have been described as a "student leader" is something no one would dispute. The question being asked here is "Was Hillary Clinton leading campus protests in support of the Black Panthers?" -- a question Elvin dishonestly avoids answering because he can't demonstrate the answer to be "yes." The "foregoing facts" he refers to can be summarized thusly:

The person who started this rumor says it's true.

Hillary Rodham associated with people I don't like.

A bunch of books I don't name say she was a campus activist.

----------------------
and it goes on and on....

[heidiho]

7. Please send the correction and"reply all" - that's what I always do

and then send them the Snopes link to the real story.

I'm so sick or people sending forward to everyone and their brother before they ever check the facts.

I'm thinking about starting my own e-mails saying stuff like:

George Bush was arrested for cocaine dealing fifteen times - Laura
Bush is a transsexual - Karl Rove is a woman - and on and on and on.

They are despicable.

[arcane1]

10. "if it arrives in my inbox, it must be true!"

sadly, that attitude is all too prevalent lately. I finally got my dad to top sending me this kind of b.s. by doing as you say- reply-to-all with the refutation. After presumable embarassing him a few times in front of his army buddies, he took me out of the mailing list

I'm sure these things still get passed around, though, without the inconvenience of finding out they are bullshit. It's no fun to actively hate the Clintons when your reasons are phony!

[CatWoman]

11. I didn't get it in an email

I'm posting/reading a discussion thread on Yahoo.

I replied to that particular post, and included the Snopes link.

Thanks, guys :D

[Maeve]

13. Always glad to help!

I only click on your posts to see the cats, tho... :P

[CatWoman]

15. LOL

:hi:

[Skip Intro]

8. Al, Bill and Hillary invovled with torture, murder and radical blacks

Guess the dope-smoking communist baby killing got edited out.

:eyes:

[aquart]

14. Wow, resurrecting racist terror sleaze.

I know nothing about the case, but I'm guessing, just guessing mind you, that there were serious civil rights violations. The Black Panthers were seriously targeted for taking the extreme position in the civil rights battles of the 60s.

And to condemn trial lawyers for defending people who might be guilty is really showing a strong misunderstanding of the American constitution and the principles of trial by jury instead of lynching.

As to Al Gore being willing to give a fellow student a second chance, well, that's Christian more than constitutional. So let's condemn him for behaving as Christ might have done under similar circumstances.

Paul Harvey seems to have a poor grasp of western civilization's laws, customs, religion, and traditions.

[Solly Mack]

16. The snake in the bible will be replaced by the image of the Clintons

As all temptation sprang from them...


Hey, here's a thought....my fellow ladies...we are no longer the cause of original sin! It's the Clintons!!!


ho hum....gawds, why is this crap still going around?

[kcwayne]

19. This thread should be locked.

You are quoting from a right wing source, and offer no opinion on its content. According to the rules of the site, this thread should be locked.

If you want it to live, you should edit your post to reflect your opinion on this right wing wet dream fantasy.

[CatWoman]

20. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

it's NOT from a right wing source, it's from Yahoo message boards. You'd be surprised how many liberals post on those boards.

Besides -- that rule is primarily for the 2004 forum.

[welshTerrier2]

21. Talk About Guilt By Association

first of all, the information in this article appears to have been debunked by many of the above replies ...

but, even if it were true, Mr. Harvey's little essay implicitly does great damage to the truth just in the way he presented the information ... it's the classic guilt by association ...

the alleged crime is a most horrific one ... but there's certainly no information that either ms. clinton nor mr. lee in any way condoned such heinous actions ...

and the implication that providing a defense for an accused in a court of law somehow does anything but allow each defendant to receive the best possible defense is an insult to the very premise of our legal system ... that the attorneys of record may have supported the broader political goals of the organization in no way makes them complicit in the torturing of mr. rackley ...

and finally, the fact that a parole board sought to release the torturers and the fact that they have now achieved some degree of prominence is also not based on either the good or bad conduct of the attorneys ...

the entire article, even if true, is nothing but a smear campaign by mr. harvey ... he should have known better than to publish such trash ... the really sad part is that he probably does know better ... and that was his real crime ...

[Moderator]

23. Locked

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator