The Rebuking and Scorning of Cynthia McKinney

[norml]

"Invisibility Looks Good on You"

The Rebuking and Scorning of Cynthia McKinney

By DAVID VEST


A Washington press corps that stood idly by while Bush and Cheney plundered the country, wrecked the environment, spied on Americans without a warrant, tortured civilians and lied the country into a war that will only get worse, woke up one morning and collectively decided: "Let's all play Get Cynthia!"

Let's get her for being too outspoken, bringing up the wrong issue at the wrong time, failing to get with the program, becoming a distraction, leaving House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi beside herself with rage.

Let's get her because, hell, she practically volunteered for it, and besides, she's an easy target, standing practically alone, fired upon at will by Republicans -- who seem to think her story cancels out DeLay, Abramoff, Katrina and Iraq -- and virtually undefended by Democrats, except by the rolling of eyes heavenward, as though to say, "Oh, please! We're not responsible for HER!"

Rep. Cynthia McKinney has now apologized for her part in the face-off at Checkpoint Cynthia. It was not enough to stop the cartooning of the coverage. Already the news wires are spinning her statement as a complete about-face, an abandonment of everything else she has said about the incident. Look, she said there was racial profiling in Washington! Look, now she's apologizing!

Journalists are reporting this story as though it were their job to "get" her, breathlessly revealing that the woman who receives more hate mail than Teddy Kennedy employs a part-time bodyguard, as though it proved something about her mental state.

But note, please, Rep. McKinney did not take back anything she has said about racial profiling in the nation's capitol. And the fact remains that, while each day's mail brings a new wave of personal threats, some of the people charged with protecting her affect not to recognize her. A Republican colleague offered the suggestion that she could announce "I am a Member of Congress" each time she passes a security checkpoint. But McKinney has served for eleven years, not eleven minutes.


snip


http://www.counterpunch.org/vest04072006.html

[nofurylike]

1. yes! thank you for posting this, norml. here is something from Rep

McKinney's site:

From the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 6::

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."


peace and solidarity!

[slaveplanet]

20. There's a real easy solution to all this

It's a tactic Brittney Spears has used to great effect.
Cynthia needs to be assigned two of the biggest, burlyest, no-necked bodyguards, one to go in the lead to display her bonafides, and one to stay with her. The expense bill needs to be sent to the capitol police. Then anytime the police want to come at her, they'll have to think TWICE. Lest people complain about the expense, it would be far cheaper than revamping the present security system. The mere suggestion would jog the CP's memory recognition skills real quick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=873982&mesg_id=879442

[cali]

21. What unaduterated bullshit.

She does NOT need bodyguards at taxpayer expense unless there's a credible threat to her. She needs to wear her little pin and use a modicum of common sense. There's no need to revamp the current security system for her.

[slaveplanet]

25. I suggest you go read

the law.

And there is certainly credible threat to her...

If not bodyguards what do you suggest?

Quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
breathlessly revealing that the woman who receives more hate mail than Teddy Kennedy employs a part-time bodyguard, as though it proved something about her mental state.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jukes]

84. AH

the tangy whiff of damp earth y musty fur!

[Twist_U_Up]

24. I'm not big and burly but

I would do it for free.

Its obvious that the new Gestapo is focused on the so called "trouble maker" IE Cindy Sheehans false arrest.

[mondo joe]

37. Or McKinney could just act like a normal human being and go through the

detectors.

[slaveplanet]

43. you mean

like a slave? eh...that it?

Make her totally ignore the constitutional fact that she is not to be impeded.

I get it. Nice and subtle of you...why don't you pass on the idea to her, she does have an email.

[mondo joe]

45. LOL - yes, because the detectors are for slaves.

Maybe we should remove doors from her path too, so they won't "impede" her.

[slaveplanet]

48. why stop at the doors

If the constitution so offends you, maybe you should petition to have it changed. It wasn't written expressly for her, but they did have the disenfranchised and marginalized in mind. Maybe that bothers you?

[mondo joe]

49. I missed the part in the constitution about doors and metal

detectors. Maybe you could point it out.

[slaveplanet]

54. I'll say,

and that ain't all your missing.

Why don't you go down to the the LOC and read about how they came to their conclusions on why they decided to include the "arrest clause"?

any checkpoint is detention without crime.
any detention can be a tool of rivals and enemies.

Regardless of what you may feel personally toward a particular congressperson.

The fact of the matter is, that to block one.
Is the same as blocking the people from access to their government.
and thats a no no.

[mondo joe]

55. I guess you don't know where it is in the Constitution either.

Oh well!

[jukes]

90. like

all the other congresspersons that waste taxpayer time, queing up for the gestapo!

how terribly naive!

[mondo joe]

96. Please cite the evidence that they don't.

I know other posters have recounted their own experience of other members of Congress - notably Dick Gephardt - being stopped.

[jukes]

155. try reading the news.

MANY congresspersons who MUST appear in time to post a crucial vote bypass security.

this strawman won't stand w/o a stick up his back.

[mondo joe]

156. But I do read the news. I've yet to see any statistic on the number of

Congress persons who are briefly stopped for ID.

If it's in the news go ahead and cite it.

[jukes]

159. you intentionally missed my point. re-read my post.

[mondo joe]

169. Please restate your point and provide the citation

that supports it.

Thank you.

[jukes]

170. research!

it's common knowledge, and has been in EVERY report on this subject. Please quit using strawman arguments, and, BTW, get a hobby.

[mondo joe]

171. Yes, you certainly should do your research before making claims you

can't support.

Thanks!

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

97. Since you are at odds with McKinney about the Capitol Police, what do you

think is causing her to lie about them?

[jukes]

119. she isn't

i've known MANY capitol "Police" when i was a federal agent; they're glorified ushers and finder-of lost-items.

and PLEASE don't spout the talking-point that things have cahnged since 9/11. no1 is buying it anymore, unless they REALLY want to.

[mondo joe]

122. When did I ever ever ever spout "things have changed since 911"?

Never said it - why do you suggest I did?

Now you say "they're glorified ushers and finder-of lost-items" and the "Gestapo" and the security check a "waste of time".

But McKinney says "I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do".

Which of you should I believe?

[jukes]

126. SO many

have trotted out this tired excuse for this deputydawg deviating from protocol. from your OBVIOUS bias, i expected more of the same.

bush wd call it "pre-emptive, but he's a liar, and i'm not.

[mondo joe]

129. So you're just accusing people of things they haven't done?

Nice.

Now since you and McKinney offer such divergent views of the capitol police, do you think she's lying or is just ignorant?

[jukes]

135. TALKING POINT!

all Cynthia said was an unfortunate incident occured, but you're ready to lynch some "strange fruit".

[mondo joe]

136. Since your assessment is so different, do you think McKinney is a liar or

ignorant or something else?

Now you say "they're glorified ushers and finder-of lost-items" and the "Gestapo" and the security check a "waste of time".

But McKinney says "I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do".

[jukes]

139. yadayadyada

political speak.

they're glorified ushers and fibders-of-lost-items. i KNOW Capitol Hill "POLICE OFFICERS' how nmany are you aquainted w/?

[mondo joe]

140. So you believe McKinney is a liar?

Now you say "they're glorified ushers and finder-of lost-items" and the "Gestapo" and the security check a "waste of time".

But McKinney says "I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do".

[Karenina]

67. "Normal" human beings

bypass the metal detectors DAILY. Rep. McKinney is NOT REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE METAL DETECTOR. Nor is she REQUIRED to wear the pin.

[mondo joe]

70. No, she's not required to go through the detector, but it would be an easy

and affordable solution for all concerned: let Congresspersons pass through the detectors and then there need be no fuss about being recognized.

Of course McKinney, like all other members of Congress, are obliged to live by the rules they set.

[Karenina]

75. I'll tell ya what

make it a REQUIREMENT FOR EVERYONE. No more free passes to pasty, paunchy, balding white men. Let EVERYONE go through the SAME PROCEDURE. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SECURITY.

[mondo joe]

77. Certainly for everyone. Who suggested otherwise?

[Karenina]

81. SOP has been otherwise

for a very l-o-n-g time.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Congressmember Jackson Lee, to what has happened to her?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: First of all, I think all of us, including Congresswoman McKinney, respect the Capitol police and respect them for their responsibility and their job.

But I believe that she is quite accurate in the fact that there are very few of us who happen to be African American women, and there are very few of us who would be so, if you will, difficult to be remembered, if you will, or to be able to be noticed. And frankly, many of us get either confused or asked for our I.D. or treated in a manner that is not necessarily accepting. And in this incident it was unfortunate. But it is the role of the Capitol police, whom we respect, to basically know the members of the United States Congress.

And if you are rushing toward a vote, a House vote -- and I think people should understand we have 15 minutes to cast a vote no matter where you might be in the entire capital of Washington, D.C. You might be in meetings off the Hill. You still have 15 minutes to vote. It's very difficult then to be stopped, while the clock is ticking, for to you cast your vote.

So I think this is a question, first of all, where it should be resolved away from the cameras. I certainly don't think an arrest warrant is appropriate. I hope that the arrest warrant is not issued so that there can be an issue on the Democratic side of the aisle, while there is an issue now with Tom DeLay on the Republican side of the aisle. And I hope that this can be resolved, respecting the Capitol police, respecting Congresswoman McKinney, who serves well in the United States Congress and serves her constituents. And most of all, I hope that we can reconcile this issue, so that we can continue our work. I think it's an issue that clearly has the opportunity to be reconciled outside the legal process and that any difficulty in identification can be solved in an administrative manner

AMY GOODMAN: Has this ever happened to you, where you were not recognized?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: Oh, on several occasions.

And, of course, you have to suffer the indignity and sometimes handle it in a way that you don't care to handle it, because of the fact that you believe that you've served in the United States Congress and that you should be identifiable. So there is merit to the points that she is making.

And there certainly may some concerns about securing the Capitol, which we understand has taken a whole different tone after 9/11.

But I think cooler heads can address this question in a way other than the criminal justice system of issuing an arrest warrant for a member of the United States Congress, who was within her right to be in the building and was within her right to be rushing toward the House floor to vote, as I understand the facts, and certainly should have had the courtesies of the Capitol police, as we should extend courtesies.

So why can't this be resolved, where we learn who each other happens to be and we improve the picture book, if you will, and the training, so that we all can be fully identified.

There is no requirement, by the way, for any member to have an I.D. We do have them. But we may have been rushing from somewhere and not carrying the I.D., and there is no requirement for us to have a pin, which is our identifying pin, which I happen to be wearing at this time. But there is no requirement, as a understand it, for members to have that at this time.

[mondo joe]

87. Now you just have to show that SOP has been otherwise.

That hasn't been done.

[Karenina]

130. All you need to do is watch C-Span

and look for the pin... Rep. McKinney made note on the day in question of the number of her colleagues who were NOT wearing pins and had NOT been tackled by security.

[mondo joe]

132. Neither was she "tackled by security". The question is how often are

members of Congress stopped for identification (of those that do not in some way first identiify themselves).

I would be very interested in the statistics and hope you can produce the data sometime soon.

[omega minimo]

89. You seem obsessive about facts and justice

THANK YOU :applause: :hi: :grouphug:



"But I believe that she is quite accurate in the fact that there are very few of us who happen to be African American women, and there are very few of us who would be so, if you will, difficult to be remembered, if you will, or to be able to be noticed. And frankly, many of us get either confused or asked for our I.D. or treated in a manner that is not necessarily accepting......

"And, of course, you have to suffer the indignity and sometimes handle it in a way that you don't care to handle it, because of the fact that you believe that you've served in the United States Congress and that you should be identifiable. So there is merit to the points that she is making.
And there certainly may some concerns about securing the Capitol, which we understand has taken a whole different tone after 9/11."

" So why can't this be resolved, where we learn who each other happens to be and we improve the picture book, if you will, and the training, so that we all can be fully identified."

"There is no requirement, by the way, for any member to have an I.D. We do have them. But we may have been rushing from somewhere and not carrying the I.D., and there is no requirement for us to have a pin, which is our identifying pin, which I happen to be wearing at this time. But there is no requirement, as a understand it, for members to have that at this time."

[jukes]

88. OH! 9/11!!!!! we almost forgot!

for a minute!


ORANGE ALERT! TERRA TERRA TERRA

[mondo joe]

92. No, you forgot that security was heightened before 911 and that Congress

is responsible for the Capitol Police.

[jukes]

145. No.

i remember that 9/11 wasa lie to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation that had nothing to do w/ terrorist activity on ameriacn soil.

and the Capitol Hill "police" aren't police.

[Karenina]

59. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

72. I think I love you slaveplanet!

<girlie sigh> NO! I'm being silly but this made me smile. Kudos. :applause: :hi:

[nofurylike]

163. yes! i tell you, i'm ready to volunteer, myself! and i'm not so big, but

raging!


peace!

[The Wielding Truth]

141. Oh my! She did not need to apologize. He should have.

It was his job to make sure she would not be detained. It was his job to know her and not stop her.

[mondo joe]

144. So why did she apologize if he was so wrong? What happened to

standing up for the right thing?

[nofurylike]

162. absolutely!! eom

[procopia]

2. One of the best

opinion pieces I've seen on this topic. Thanks for posting it.

[roody]

3. k

[procopia]

148. k?

eom

[scot]

4. What is your interpretation of calling someone "an easy target:"?

Doesn't that basically mean they did something fucked up, but you wish they hadn't?

[me b zola]

6. No

An easy target is anything/one who is unprotected--as the Honorable Rep McKinney is left by her colleagues.

[Karenina]

73. Because she is an unabashed

TRUTH-TELLER. A Buddhist priest once said to me in Osaka, where to his shock and surprise I'd tracked him down, OOOOHHH Karenina, I SOOOO worry about you!!! You are so direct. People cannot hear the truth from one such as you!" Then I followed him through the back streets up the stairs to a tiny place where we ate the most incredible sukiyaki, drank sake and LAUGHED till the tears rolled at the foolishness of it all...

[me b zola]

128. "Well behaved women seldom make history"

Unabashed truth-tellers, regardless of gender, are often (usually?) reviled in the time that they live. Women truth-tellers are especially demonized.

What a wonderful memory of your time in Japan (I'm a little jealous).


Long live truth-tellers!

Long live Rep McKinney!

Long live women who run with the wolves!!

:toast:

[nofurylike]

5. another bit, before going.

Rep Sheila Jackson Lee in interview on Democracy Now!:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/04/1419259

-snip-
But it is the role of the Capitol police, of whom we respect, to basically know the members of the United States Congress. And if you are rushing toward a vote, a House vote -- and I think people should understand we have 15 minutes to cast a vote no matter where you might be in the entire capital of Washington, D.C. You might be in meetings off the Hill. You still have 15 minutes to vote. It's very difficult then to be stopped, while the clock is ticking, for to you cast your vote.
-snip-

***

thank you, again, norml


peace and solidarity!

[wizdum]

7. I personally like Rep. McKinney and think the Officer should have rec ...

-ognized her after 11 years in Congress. The Capital Police are in cahoots with the repubs and are just trying to get this story out there as a way to distract from their sinking ship of a majority government. I have known who McKinney is for many years and I am not even from her state. This cop should have known. He should be suspended without pay until he passes a quiz and is able to identify all members of Congress.

[cali]

8. All I want is for this story

to fade away. It's bad for McKinney and bad for Democrats. I'm relieved that she apologized and glad that she's not speaking out on the incident anymore. Support for her is very thin, including support from the CBC. I fervently hope that no indictment is issued by the GJ, and I hope this incident hasn't damaged her ability to work effectively in the House.

[Tsiyu]

10. All I want is for McKinney to be who she is

She works very well for the People. In spite of the mud slung. She has a great deal of support.

We do each speak for ourselves.

[cali]

11. I have no problem with McKinney

being who she is. I'm not from her district. Who those folks elect is up to them. But you're seriously deluding yourself if you think that she has a lot of support. The evidence that the CBC does not support the actions she took in the immediate aftermath of the incident, is pretty convincing. That's not personal opinion.

[Justice Is Comin]

16. It just goes to show how

stupefyingly senseless her refusal to simply stop, flash the ID and get on her way, was. Now she had to make the apology anyway to try to ramp down the tornado she created which she could have made in the building and no one would have even heard about it.

But the even more important thing, is that she could have vented her claim of racial profiling so easily and not given the Republicans a prayer to exploit it. Simply make a phone call to the Capitol Police, write a formal letter to the Capitol Police, make a statement on the floor of the house in morning business, or could have even declared her frustration with a double standard of non recognition in a special orders speech.

That's the thing nobody has pointed out in all these postings that supported her actions.

Any of these measures would have made a public record, required the Capitol Police to respond and she could have had unity and support by the other Black women.

What she was thinking I will never know but she couldn't have handled it worse. And I'm afraid the grand jury may actually hand up an indictment. If she hit the officer, it's in the legal venue now and they are sworn to their duty. She is totally at the mercy of what that prosecutor wants to do now.

What a mess. A totally unavoidable mess. And for nothing !

[mwb970]

17. Best post on this topic so far.

"Stupefyingly senseless" says it all. What is her problem? She acts as if she is arrogant and crazy. I wish she were not a Democrat.

[Karenina]

68. What is her problem?

She's the canary in the coal mine pointing out to Amurikkka in technicolor panavision WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. Y'all continue to REFUSE to get it. See, SHE "refused" to stop. SHE will not sit down and SHE will not shut up. SHE'S DEDICATED to working for YOU, but you don't want to hear it from HER. To you SHE'S a "bumbling bossy black bitch" who needs to be taken down a peg. GO FOR IT. YOUR LOSS.

[nofurylike]

164. YES! VERY well said, Karenina!! whew! yes yes yes!! eom

[stepnw1f]

174. Yup

What Karenina said.

[Catrina]

18. If they are sworn to their duty, one of those duties was to protect

members of Congress. To do that, it is necessary to first recognize them. If you read Sheila Jackson Leigh's comments, she 'regretted' that she too has often been stopped ~

How do you think Cheney handled the aftermath of the shooting of his hunting buddy? First he blocked the cops from doing an investigation of the accident. (Obstruction of justice?? Oh, yes, only if it had been Cynthia McKinney maybe) Then his hostess told an entirely different story (regarding drinking at least) than he did when he finally spoke about it (on Fox and nowhere else).

He actually HURT someone in contrast to McKinney (was this cop injured in some way, scratched even, and who is he?)

Were you all, who are so 'outraged' over Ms. McKinney's 'behavior' as outraged by the coverage the press gave to the VP shooting a man, failing to let the police in, admitting to drinking at least one beer and thereby contradicting another witness? Where were the condemnations of Cheney's 'behavior'?

As far as the cop, he failed to do his job and she had every right to be disturbed by that. The only reason why she got the treatment she got is because she has stood up to this administration and they've been after her for a long time ~

Who is this cop? And why are they still hiding him? We have yet to hear his side of the story!! Could they be stopping from speaking because he may be put under oath and might contradict (they have already contradicted themselves btw) himself when he's bound to tell the truth.

Interesting that you don't even question the behavior/motives of someone you don't even know so cannot assess in terms of honesty and truthfulness.

Time will most likely vindicate Ms. McKinney. Cheney needed NO time to be vindicated, no one bothered to get too excited over his obstruction of the police to do their jobs.

That proves to me, that had this incident occurred and had it involved Frist, eg, had Frist knocked that cop down, the cop would have apologized. The prejudice against McKinney stinks, for whatever reason.

Your statement that she is at the 'mercy of whatever the prosecutor wants to do' is an admission of this prejudice. She should be at the mercy of no man, justice, reached by examining the facts, should be the role of the prosecutor. Thanks for at least admitting what we all know.

[Justice Is Comin]

19. What are you talking about ?

If she has such confidence she was right, why make the apology? I'll tell you why. Because she was wrong. And enough people finally got through to her to explain it. And where is that cop? Unfortunately he's probably a witness testifying to that grand jury.

So now she's trying to push water back up into the faucet. Too late. She will face whatever that grand jury does and bet your last paycheck they are hoping that last ditch apology is going to soften the prosecutor enough to consider not indicting. They are hoping that more than you can imagine.

If you cannot agree that she should have stopped after knowing the officer didn't recognize her, you are blowing my mind. And don't ascribe any motives to me of "condemning" her other than a fair evaluation of what happened that is undisputed by both parties.

I couldn't be more supportive of her fire and brimstone in verbally slamming any of those Republican assholes. This was not the place to use that same temperament.

[Karenina]

78. Was Durbin wrong? He apologized to TPTB

:shrug:

What YOU are missing is it is the JOB of security to recognize members of congress. And YES it is the place to use that same temperament, as what happened is indicative of what is SO SEVERELY FUCKED UP in Amurikkka.

[mondo joe]

80. It's also the job of security to stop and identify anyone they

don't recognize.

[Karenina]

82. Gimme a mudda farkin break already.

1. It is the JOB of security to recognize members of Congress.
Teenaged PAGES are REQUIRED to do so.
2. Rep. Mckinney is ONE of 14 black female members. THEY would be the
EASIEST to commit to memory.
3. IDENTIFYING does NOT include man-handling.
4. IDENTIFYING does NOT include returning to the booth and immediately
reporting the incident to DRUDGE.

There needs to be a COMPLETE OVERHAUL of the entire "security" system. THAT MUCH is NOW OBVIOUS. Thanks to Rep. McKinney for bringing the flaws in the sorry system to light as she has with so many other issues.

[mondo joe]

91. 1. Even if security's job is to recognize by face each member -

something you have stated but not shown - there are hundreds of reasons for it not to happen, not least of which would be a congressperson bustling through during a moment when the guard is distracted.

Furthermore, even if the security guard has absolutely failed in his or her responsibility to recognize every face, IF he or she doesn't it is THEN his or her job to stop someone bypassing the detector.

2. If thhe only people coming through were congress you might have a point - there are manny hundreds of people passing through and each face would have to be distinguished from all others.

3. Indeed - and if "man-handling" is shown to have occured there would be a real problem.

4. Indeed - did the officer do that?

[linazelle]

94. I hear ya. I am pissed at the dimunition of McKinney.

Women, alone, have a hard enough time being heard. Black women, IMHO, have to fight the gender issue and then the race issue. The media, even on shows like Bill Maher, has made fun of the racial aspect--and I don't think it's funny at all. Maher said some trite phrase to Mckinney during the interview to the gist of black women are threatening and violent if you make them mad. Not funny. Others have also tried to relegate McKinney's behavior to the color of her skin in a joking way--even the hair thing is racial IMHO. All of this while the thief in the white house and his cronies get a free ride.

At first I didn't know what to think about McKinney's story. I wanted to shy away from her defense but as I have learned more, and seen how she has been treated, and by whom she has been treated this way...I am with you. Give me a mutherfucking break.

[slaveplanet]

23. Jumping to conclusions

Quote-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It just goes to show how stupefyingly senseless her refusal to simply stop
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
is also stupefying. You do know there is at least one witness that has said it appeared Mckinney didn't realize she was being addressed until the cop went after her and put his hands on her, don't you?

It is legal to strike a cop in DC with justifiable and excusable action.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=873982&mesg_id=879442

[Justice Is Comin]

28. Did she not make a statement in one of

her many interviews that the officer was "yelling" to her. What do you suppose he was yelling to her for? She was "rushing." She had just gone past an entry door checkpoint. She wasn't in a back alley in Harlem.

The apology should tell you something. Apparently not. I hope the grand jury doesn't make the point for you.

[slaveplanet]

33. I highly doubt she

was telling the media, that the officer was yelling at her.

Of course the police have told that to the media, and the sergeant at arms was telling that to the media, and the media gleefully repeated that so that people like you could spread that around.

does that make it so?

or does another scenario make sense?

lets examine some of what went on last week.
here's a little exchange between Wolf Blitzer and McKinney's Lawyer.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNN transcript:


McKinney, 51, scuffled with a police officer on March 29 when she entered a House office building without her identifying lapel pin and did not stop when asked. Several police sources said the officer, who was not identified, asked her three times to stop. When she kept going, he placed a hand somewhere on her and she hit him, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

BLITZER: But -- but, as an officer of the court, James, if a police officer asks you to stop, don't you stop, and respond, and answer questions, and -- as opposed to -- to getting -- to -- to reacting, allegedly, the way the congresswoman did?

(Apple and Oranges preface by Blitzer, to poison the well. A congressman and a private lawyer are not held to the same legal requirements in that building, by consitution}

MYART: Well, let me put it to you this way.

The congresswoman acted and reacted, as far as I'm concerned, appropriately.

BLITZER: He has been standing by.

I know you want to weigh in, Mike. And maybe you can answer the question. Did she actually hit the police officer who was asking her to stop?

MIKE RAFFAUF, ATTORNEY FOR CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: Wolf, let me say that, first of all, sex, race and politics are probably involved in this. They're involved in most things out of Washington, D.C.

But, basically, what you have here is an ineffectual policy being implemented by an ill-trained officer. You cannot let people pass a checkpoint based on an I.D. badge. You -- you should pass them because you know them. He did not know the congresswoman. That's the policy that led to this breakdown.

He -- apparently, she walked by, just like she always does, just like all congressmen do. This officer did not recognize her. He chases her down. And he, again, uses inappropriate touching, as has already been said.

BLITZER: When you say inappropriate touching, Mike, what do you mean by that?

RAFFAUF: Well, I think that the evidence is going to show there was some kind of grab by this officer on the congresswoman.

If you read the full transcript , McKinney was sitting right there and her attorneys would not let her answer questioning along those lines, while threat of grand jury was hanging over her. That is why Wolf had to turn the questions to her attorneys, and they certainly didn't say she heard the officer addressing her. Now why would she, as you state, go against her attorneys all of a sudden and say something compromising?

------------------------------------------
AP press release:

The officer, whose name has not been made public, has said he asked McKinney three times to stop. {She did not}. AP's embellishment in brackets

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we get a hint of may really have happened- from a former DC US district Attorney no less

Abrams report transcript 4/5:

Capitol police are recommending prosecutors charge Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney with misdemeanor assault. This after the six-term Democrat allegedly scuffled with a Capitol police officer last week. The officer claims that McKinney was asked three times to stop as she tried to walk around a metal detector and that she then struck the officer.
Now members of Congress don’t have to go through the detector, but they are supposed to wear an identifying lapel pin, and McKinney admits she wasn’t wearing hers. But she says the officer then touched her inappropriately when he tried to stop her, and she says the real issue here is racial profiling. I had a spirited exchange with James Myart, one of her attorneys on the program yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES MYART, JR., ATTORNEY FOR REP. MCKINNEY: The fact of the matter is, if he had known by face recognition Cynthia McKinney, this incident would not have occurred. The point is, is that he did not know who she was, so to him, at least in my mind, she was just another black person not abiding by authority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: All right. As I said last night, you know, that doesn’t necessarily excuse hitting a police officer, if it happened and that she hasn’t provided any evidence that this occurred based on her race. But the question of course is how will the prosecutors go about deciding, whether to charge.
With me now, Billy Martin and Tim Susanin, both former prosecutors who worked at the U.S. Attorney’s Office that’s considering whether to file charges against McKinney. Good to see both of you.
All right. Billy, we know what the congresswoman says. And you know how these decisions are made in the office. The police are coming forward; they’re saying we want her charged. How do you go about making that decision?
BILLY MARTIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Dan, one of the things that’s great in Washington is that you have a prosecutor who will meet with the police and try to decide this. For a number of years I was the executive assistant U.S. attorney here in Washington of operations, and I ran all the criminal operations here in Washington. And I was part of a unit or a team that would sit down and look at this.
What we’re going to do or what they’re going to now do is determine if a crime occurred and can they prove it. What I really would hope, and I think the U.S. attorney will do this, is that everybody will step back from this, catch their breath, and figure out what’s the real just thing to do. This is Washington, and many congressmen both senators and members of the House of Representatives encounter difficulties and their conduct is viewed by the U.S. attorney without issuing any type of arrest warrants.
I think it may be difficult to—quote—“prove an assault occurred here”, and I think more troubling to me if I were trying this is what perception does she as a woman, whether she’s white or black, as a woman feel when a male touches her. And I think there’s a problem there because you have a woman going through Congress who she thinks was inappropriately touched as a woman.
ABRAMS: Well that’s what she’s saying, Billy. I mean that could just be her excuse because she hit a police officer and now she needs to say something.
MARTIN: Yes, but Dan if you think about it, as I understand it, the video camera sees her coming in, walking around the metal detector, but it does not capture what occurred between...
ABRAMS: Right.
MARTIN: ... her and the officer. So you’re going to have a one-on-one situation here in Washington, and what are we trying to prove. Misdemeanors are handled in a variety of ways. Many of them are sent to diversion before going to court. I would hope there’s a police officer, if this matter could be resolved without resorting to filing criminal charges that probably should be done.
ABRAMS: Tim Susanin.
TIM SUSANIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well I have a different take on it, Dan, although I was low level enough at that office that had I overlapped with Billy he would have been my boss by several rungs on the ladder. But I tell you what. I think from what we’re hearing anyway, if we can believe the reports, she certainly was offended at the touching and Billy makes compelling statements about her perceptions.
But the reports are that she was called after several times. In other words, she was told to stop three times. That drastically changes that analysis. And I think the other thing that we’re hearing here is that there are eyewitnesses and perhaps even videotape. I tend to agree with Billy it’d be nice if this case could go away, but I come at it from a different angle.
Frequently prosecutors are accused of loving to go after a celebrity, a politician. Most lawyers like to try their cases in the courtroom based on the facts and the law without the glare of the spotlight that a celebrity trial like this would bring. I think that the U.S. attorney that Ken Wainstein is sitting with his staff thinking how can we make this go away.
ABRAMS: Well that’s what I was going to say. I mean is there an argument to be made that maybe, and Billy isn’t quite saying this, but I think that he’s alluding to this, that maybe it’s just not worth it?
SUSANIN: Well, sure. I think that’s an argument to be making as you’re sitting around with the upper echelons at that office kicking around. The problem is security everywhere is a serious matter, particularly these days, particularly the Capitol building and its office buildings and it’s tough when a—when the process comes forward with evidence. Remember the standard is probable cause. That’s a low threshold...
ABRAMS: Yes.
SUSANIN: ... if these reports are right and we have a straightforward simple assault on videotape, it’s hard to turn that down.
ABRAMS: Again, the actual assault may not be on tape. But Billy, we’re getting a lot of e-mails on this and what people are saying is it’s simply never OK to hit a police officer, and that that message...
MARTIN: Yes.
ABRAMS: ... needs to be sent in particular to a Congressperson. Again, be it black, be it white, be it male, be it woman, that they’re not above the law.
MARTIN: Yes, Dan, and what I don’t understand, and clearly I don’t have all the information nor does the public yet, but I understand that the officer was shouting out to her and she as a member of Congress perceived that he wasn’t talking to her. I mean really—there’s no exchange between the two of them until the touching occurs. Now these are issues that would come out in trial.
But if he’s saying stop, stop, stop, and as an 11-year member of Congress if she doesn’t perceive that he’s speaking to her and she keeps going, if he then touches her, I think it makes it difficult. And the standard here should not be whether probable cause exists. The standard should be whether they can prove this case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


A) Now, is the former assistant DA a wackjob? B) Would Mckinney put herself in jeopardy?

or C) Are you just trying to stir up shit against a Dem congresswomen on a Dem board?

I choose C

[nofurylike]

165. outstanding, thank you, slaveplanet !! eom

[tomp]

44. you're right, in the back alleys of harlem....

...the cops would've just shot her.

[omega minimo]

103. "...didn't realize she was being addressed until the cop went after her"

"You do know there is at least one witness that has said it appeared Mckinney didn't realize she was being addressed until the cop went after her and put his hands on her, don't you?"


OMG more FACTS!!!!!!!!????????? From a witness? Get OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl:

See, if I were impartial or investigating or Columbo: "See, I was just wondering, there's just one thing--if there was time for the officer to be calling out to her 3 times, how attentive was he to her passing, how far away was she when he first called, how long did it take him to catch up to her, did that speed, momentum and bodies-in-motion thing affect how he contacted her?"

Columbo: "And how many times had this particular person passed through this hallway during the past 11 years? And ya say she had recently changed her hairstyle-- were there any other distinguishing characteristics the officer may have used to recognize her?" :shrug:

"And how many times are female African American Members of the United States Congress stopped and required to identify themselves, in relation to-- say-- all the other male and/or white members?" :shrug:

"Am I asking too many questions? Oh-- thank you, thank you for your time. Gotta Light?" :evilgrin:

[Karenina]

142. Erraaa, like her VOICE

if she was talking on her cell... and we ALL KNOW how LOUD folks get! ;-) How about her gait and body type? How about style of her dress??? Things that make ya go Hmmmm....

[omega minimo]

151. "Bo-NEE-vah?!"

"Oh no you dih n't" B-)

Unfortunately, my apology on behalf of All Stiff, Spoiled, Self-Conscious, Rhythmically-Challenged, Clueless Pink People is no longer available.



Those that identify with the Oppressor will not defend the Oppressed.

[Karenina]

167. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:Rhythmically-Challenged, Clueless Pink People:rofl::rofl::rofl:

"Those that identify with the Oppressor will not defend the Oppressed."

Those who do NOT identify with the Oppressor usually can dance! ;-)

[wizdum]

26. Democracy is messy...

Rep. McKinney was profiled,IMO, for being a black woman. The reps in congress don't even have ID's to flash. She is tired of being stopped all the time when she goes to government buildings in the capital and I don't blame her. She's a human being, not a saint. It gets to people after awhile to be so disrespected and questioned and yes, profiled. She didn't make a stupefying mess, but this situation was exploited by the media and pushed to take the egg off Bush's face for a second. McKinney is allowed to work while being black and this officer should be suspended for not knowing his job.

[NYCGirl]

30. Re: your claim of "this situation was exploited by the media"

Rep. McKinney gave not one, but TWO press conferences with special guest stars, etc. And you don't think she wanted it to be "exploited"?

[mondo joe]

53. It was exploited by the media, the GOP and McKinney herself.

And I'll be shocked if it's not exploited again for fundraising purposes.

[wizdum]

157. She's a Congressional Representative, she can give as many...

...news conferences as she likes. That's her right. Why are you trying to censor her speech? In democracies, people talk. In our democracy, our free speech rights are protected by the first amendment. Remember the bill of rights? Your stance is similar to the popular response by many democrats these days. Silence. Silence is not golden. It's stupid. This cop was out of line. He should know who the reps are that he is supposed to be protecting. The media exploits things for many reasons, one of them being its how they earn a living. Just because media types have to earn a living does not mean Rep McKinney should not be entitled to exercise her first amendment freedoms.

[cali]

168. Yikes. Engaging in some binary thinking

there? "Silence. Silence is not golden. It's stupid." Funniest statement I've seen on DU this morning. Guess what? Sometimes it's best not to speak. Sometimes it's best to speak. Really, how hard is that to figure out?

McKinney has every right to hold as many press conferences as she wishes. Just as I have every right to say that, in my opinion, the Friday press conference she gave, was not only a huge tactical error, it was a circus that focused unneccessary attention on the whole incident. Cynthia Tucker wrote an excellent opinion piece about why that press conference was such a mistake. Did you notice, btw, that not one member of the CBC showed up? One of the major reasons why the media was so able to exploit the whole thing, is that McKinney handed them lots of ammunition.

[wizdum]

175. The media does what they do and Rep. McKinney does...

what she feels she needs to do. The situation involves her and she has every right to discuss it if that is what she feels she needs to do. What happened to her was wrong. That officer had no right to touch her. God knows how many people just walked through while he was busy confronting her. She has been a congressional rep for 11 years. That's more than enough time for everyone to know her. This situation has less to do with tactics and more to do with inequality. You don't know how it must feel to walk in her shoes for the past 11 years as a minority female congressional representative in the capital. It must suck to receive the treatment she's been describing in her interviews. It's outrageous, and if it happened to me I wouldn't be shutting up about it anytime soon. Let the tacticians be damned. She should continue to speak out as much as she wants, and her right to do that is protected by the constitution and should be respected.

[Inland]

34. When the article in the OP notes that she's an easy target

I can't argue, and I wish she hadn't made herself an easy target.

She never should have left the checkpoint without trying to clear things up. It's tne sort of thing that should end with apologies over misunderstandings.

[Sterling]

27. I think it has helped her actually

She is getting a lot of face time and for example on Bill Mahr about half the interview was on topics that the audience reacted to very positively. She has had time to talk about all the things the medie usually never lets her address.

[druidity33]

9. EXCELLENT analysis

Finally, someone with sense has detailed why this incident is just another example of "the Man" keeping people down... wait, but she is part of "the Man"... NOT! I agree with David Vest, "why can't she be my President?"

thanks for posting this!
K&R

[IselaB]

12. I'm just glad she apologized and that this issue is finally going away

The idiot who wrote this opinion piece doesn't understand the dynamics of this thing at all. It is precisely because we want to focus on what the Republican party has done and continues to do wrong that we prefer McKinney deal with her petty little issues with Capitol Hill security on her own time. This non-issue was nothing but a distraction, an embarrassment, and a comfort to the Republicans. I don't know about you, but I didn't send my Democratic Representative to Congress to waste time in egotistical pissing contests with anonymous security guards, but to get some work done.

[LostinVA]

15. So, why is the writer of this piece "an idiot"?

Because he's telling the truth?

And why are you insulting Rep. McKinney, a very courageous woman? Because terms like "petty issues," "non issue," embarrassment," "pissing contest," and admonishing her to "get some work done" are insulting. McKinney was correct: it was racial profiling, she was insulted, and she is threatened daily. And, the CHP are REQUIRED to know ALL the members of Congress. That is literally their job. THis cop or guard of whatever failed at performing the basics of his job. Yet, McKinney is the one vilified.

Please.

[EFerrari]

52. I don't think we read the same post.

The Cabal excels in distraction via personal attack. That's what they do. They create hatred.

And for the rest of us to allow anyone one of us to be culled from the herd is despicable -- maybe especially so when the individual has worked hard for ordinary people as long as Cynthia McKinney has.

[marions ghost]

13. over-reaction

in a tense political climate.

Cynthia McKinney has always been feisty, proud, a strong personality. It's in her nature. We accept this personality much better in men.

Yawn. This is the old hammering of the nail that sticks up, the picking of the tall poppy--your basic "whack-a-mole" mentality, whether seen in liberals or conservatives. Republicans will go for the jugular while Democrats will look the other way lest they be tainted by association. It's the same pack mentality. Rigid thinking is not limited to Republicans. Jumping to conclusions is not limited to Republicans. "Judge first, ask questions later" is a feature of our expedient society.

We are just so fearful these days.

[Sterling]

29. I agree

Some person up-thread asked why she apologized if she thought she was wronged by the CHP. I think Cynthia is doing the right thing by acknowledging what she did wrong in the incident. But it does not change the fact she was harassed and "assaulted" at least as much as the CHP person was. It would be great to see the CHP say sorry for having their heads up their ass.

[opihimoimoi]

14. She got the GUTs to be President...and the Brains too

[Laughing Mirror]

22. Restore McKinney's seniority NOW, Pelosi

NOW!!

[KoKo]

31. Excellent article. Also...how many Dems like Reid, Durbin and others have

been "forced" by the Repug and Media outrage to have to apologize just in the last year?

Why is it ONLY DEMS who are forced to apologize for speaking out...whereas folks like Duke Cunningham don't apologize until they are just about to walk into jail. Has anyone heard Abramoff or Delay apologize?

The hypocracy of the way the Repugs and Media went after McKinney forcing the Black Caucus to have to reign her in (which I think was Pelosi pressure) is disgusting.

I still think Cynthia was set up, though. And I'm probably the only one here on DU who does.... so I speak for my own 2 cents.

[arikara]

32. Thanks, a good article

I am saddened by many koolaid guzzlers among us. Thankfully there are some that aren't demanding the lynching of Cynthia McKinney for having the courage to speak out.

Peace to you Cynthia.

[omega minimo]

35. Openminded people continue to support Rep. McKinney until facts are known

Some here have taken another opportunity to kick her while she's down and rub her face a bit deeper into the muck.

Some doing that on DU are total phonies and have really soured the discussion-- others don't see the point of giving someone the benefit of the doubt; or of waiting for actual information and evidence before making vicious accusations.

One eye-opener for some of us was how much racism there is in Democratic circles (that may sound naive) and how little people acknowledge the FACT of racial profiling.

On DU, rather than acknowledge that this sort of harrassment has gone on for years for Rep. McKinney (and was documented in a film) (details of this were provided in other threads) some folks here decided she had a "chip on her shoulder."

I don't know what happened. I don't claim to know what happened. But if it's true that "some sort of a grab" was used, which McKinney claims was inappropriate, and she said "I used my arm to get him off of me" it's not hard to imagine that he could have handled it better and she would not have reacted in the way that she did. Until it's proven, I do not see any proof that she "struck" or "hit" the officer. WHERE'S THE TAPE!!!???

From her lawyer:

MIKE RAFFAUF, ATTORNEY FOR CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA MCKINNEY:

"...what you have here is an ineffectual policy being implemented by an ill-trained officer.

"You cannot let people pass a checkpoint based on an I.D. badge. You -- you should pass them because you know them. He did not know the congresswoman. That's the policy that led to this breakdown.

"He -- apparently, she walked by, just like she always does, just like all congressmen do. This officer did not recognize her. He chases her down. And he, again, uses inappropriate touching, as has already been said.

BLITZER: When you say inappropriate touching, Mike, what do you mean by that?

RAFFAUF: "Well, I think that the evidence is going to show there was some kind of grab by this officer on the congresswoman."



To me, if I were to assume, it sounds like the officer was not paying attention and she got too far away (she was rushing) before he knew it ("called after her 3 times"????) and chased after her, getting worked up and "bodyblocked" or "grabbed" her.

Here's what I still want to know:

Do ALL Congressmembers wear their magic badges ALL the time? So far the answer is NO

Would the man have had less trouble recognizing her if she were not an African American woman?

Would the man have spoken to, chased after, physically restrained and confronted Rep. McKinney differently if she were not an African American woman?

Would the man have spoken to, chased after, physically restrained and confronted Rep. McKinney differently if she were not an Cynthia McKinnney?


:rant: ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ATTACKING AND INSULTING CONGRESSWOMAN MCKINNEY OUGHTA BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES AND THAT GOES DOUBLE FOR THE TROLLS THAT HAVE ADDED FUEL TO THIS FIRE ON DU. :puke:

[AtomicKitten]

36. Manipulative people arbitrarily establish guidelines for open-mindedness.

One can support Ms. McKinney and still not support what transpired; enough information has been put forth by Ms. McKinney herself to make that determination thoughtfully. It is possible to hold two seemingly opposing ideas in your head simultaneously; they are not mutually exclusive.

What is unfortunate in this situation is anyone that carelessly invokes an immoral issue such as racism to punctuate their point.

Ms. McKinney has apologized for her behavior. That should put this matter to rest, yet some continue to use the incident to divide, browbeat, and demean.

[omega minimo]

42. "Arbitrary"? As in: wait for facts before pronouncing judgement?

"One can support Ms. McKinney and still not support what transpired." On this we agree; I meant "support" in the neutral, "we'll suspend judgement until we know what the hell we're talking about" sense.

How can we "support what transpired" until we know what transpired? I am still surprised that so many here jumped on the hater bandwagon.

"What is unfortunate in this situation is anyone that carelessly invokes an immoral issue such as racism to punctuate their point."

Maybe she ought ot have said "racial profiling" and there could have been a more constructive debate, including on DU. Folks who don't even consider how her race and gender played into this are fooling themselves; DU could have learned something from a dialogue on this instead of ignorant flamewars. Still could. Maybe.

I have met you on two of these threads and been friendly, and asked you if you had any specific information to contribute-- to which you never replied. Now you call me "manipulative" so unfortunately it is you who "continue to use the incident to divide, browbeat, and demean."

:cry:

[AtomicKitten]

46. You can continue to keep your head in the sand

so you can vociferously raise your banner in this fake crusade, but the point here is that Ms. McKinney has apologized for her behavior. Perhaps it's time you considered stop apologizing for it.

And your posts are nowhere in the vicinity of friendly.

[omega minimo]

51. Perhaps they both were wrong. She said she was sorry that it happened

Perhaps you don't remember the previous posts to you in those other threads. I was friendly to you because I had no reason not to be. I did not assume that our differing opinions on this meant we could not discuss it. Any more than I prejudge Rep. McKinney for whatever it was that actually happened (which none of us know).

If there is some sort of legal action, the impartial view is the only appropriate one. I understand that folks like having the right to a free-for-all and talking out of their ass on a forum.............. but attacking a Democrat without actual facts on a Democratic board is pretty silly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

150. "attacking a Democrat without actual facts on a Democratic board is pretty

silly"

What is even more ironic and silly are the ones that rally behind her for WANT rather than for REASON while casting away all concepts of logic and deduction. There have been plenty of facts, and the ones presented already paint a clear simple picture that had an end result of her striking a cop in someway when she absolutely shouldn't have. Most of us now can see all of the details and her performances afterward, and have moved past the "oh it's cynthia? No way, I'm defending her till the end just because" knee jerk reaction stage. So yes, we have plenty of facts available to forge quite good opinions on what happened. It is in my opinion detrimental, Yes, detrimental, to our DU community to keep the racial profiling attacks going and smearing anyone who says otherwise in context to this incident. It comes off as just defending while not having any real leg to stand on or persuasive argument to support it. It makes us look hypocritical and on the level of the dreaded freepers when some will attack so viciously in opposition to an opinion and inability to admit a mistake. Freeps can't do it. We can... ...or so it seems, most of us can.

Look, Cynhtia made a mistake. She made physical contact with an officer. BIGGGGGG NO NO. But after she got her hyped up news conferences and tv appearances out of her system, she finally apologized as she should've and has tried to help things blow over. Hopefully this time they do.

[jukes]

98. ' kitten

you're trying WAY too hard!

[AtomicKitten]

105. or maybe you're not trying hard enough

lazy thinking abounds here at DU. But I'm flattered that you are following me around to interject your silly barbs.

[jukes]

115. don't flatter yourself

you're just quoting talking points easily refuted.

[AtomicKitten]

118. that's funny

most thinking people agree with my assessment.

The administration here at DU, Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, the Dem Black Caucus, etc., etc., etc.

Now what was that about talking points ....

[jukes]

123. sure

I'm convinced now! what were you saying about "group think"?

i spent the last 7 years of my career as a ferderal agent in DC. i KNOW how things work, and see a character-assasination for EXACTLY what it's worth.

but you have a "group" to think for you...

[mondo joe]

125. Yes, you see the Congressional Black Caucus does "know how things

work".

[mondo joe]

39. LOL~! "Open minded" enough to make assumptions about the

officer, I see.

[omega minimo]

40. If you read the post more carefully and with an open mind

you might understand it.

[mondo joe]

41. No worries -- I understood it perfectly.

Too bad.

[omega minimo]

47. Not if you're claiming I made assumptions about the officer

Try again:

"I don't know what happened. I don't claim to know what happened. But if it's true that "some sort of a grab" was used, which McKinney claims was inappropriate, and she said "I used my arm to get him off of me" it's not hard to imagine that he could have handled it better and she would not have reacted in the way that she did."

I DONT KNOW I DONT CLAIM IF IF IF ITS NOT HARD TO IMAGINE............................

"To me, if I were to assume, it sounds like the officer was not paying attention and she got too far away (she was rushing) before he knew it ("called after her 3 times"????) and chased after her, getting worked up and "bodyblocked" or "grabbed" her."

TO ME IF IF IF IF I WERE TO ASSUME IT SOUNDS LIKE.................................


HERE'S WHAT I STILL WANT TO KNOW:

Do ALL Congressmembers wear their magic badges ALL the time? So far the answer is NO

Would the man have had less trouble recognizing her if she were not an African American woman?

Would the man have spoken to, chased after, physically restrained and confronted Rep. McKinney differently if she were not an African American woman?

Would the man have spoken to, chased after, physically restrained and confronted Rep. McKinney differently if she were not Cynthia McKinnney?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatWoman]

69. Lordy

did I do that?

[Pastiche423]

83. I think I "helped"

We both used a "naughty" word that I have seen used here thousands of times (and NOT deleted), but I don't know if that is the reason.

In any case, I suggested that those that don't get it, don't want to get it. Furthermore, I said shame on those that don't get it.

In case this too gets deleted, I'm saving it and will send to you.

[CatWoman]

107. Thanks, Pastiche

I must admit that I am completely flabbergasted by the Swifthairdressers for Truth's level of "outrage" :D

[Pastiche423]

112. "Swifthairdressers"

Yeah, it's beyond amazing to me how many DUers are damning her W/NO TAPES SHOWN AND THE OFFICER HAS NEVER COME PUBLIC.

[Karenina]

152. The tapes

will NEVER see the light of day.

[Pastiche423]

160. Of course not!

It would screw up the smear. Moreover, the cap cop will never be known. It sure makes me wonder why...

[EFerrari]

50. Yes. And it would be an admirable thing if some of us didn't

immediately join the Thug bandwagon every time they decide to slime one of the good guys. Dean, Cindy, and now Cynthia McKinney.

[AtomicKitten]

57. it would be admirable if some were discerning enough

to be able to differentiate between the three people/scenarios you presented. The attacks on Dean and Cindy Sheehan are completely unfounded, Cynthia not so much so, and the press conferences she gave compounded the equivocal "facts" leaving the door wide open to the pounding she got by the rightwing.

FTR and too bad this has to be said, but not agreeing with her on this one issue is tough love - not an attack, but I realize that dramatic interpretation works better in the crusade to divide here at DU.

Hopefully no charges will be filed and the page will be turned.

[Karenina]

66. "not agreeing with her on this one issue is tough love"

Aha... Like referring to her as a "disgrace" to her party "and her race." I LOVED the pounding she received in all your posts during the feeding frenzy. Yes dear, black women are ALL in need of your brand of "tough love" lest we, too, "disgrace our race." PLEASE DO teach us how to stay in our place.

There's nothing "dramatic" about race and gender discrimination. It's an everyday occurence. It only becomes "dramatic" when one affected by it says, "THIS IS BULLSHIT. FULL.STOP."

I should like EVERYONE on this board to consider the scenario of a black guard not "recognizing" a white female MEMBER OF CONGRESS on her cell phone rushing to a vote and GRABBING HER FROM BEHIND, getting poked with her phone and returning to the booth to repeat the story to a Democratic aide who immediately calls Daily Kos or Josh Marshall. A CP COP HAS BEEN ASSAULTED BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS!!! I can jst see the headlines now!!!

The bottom line is Cynthia McKinney had ZIP. ZERO. NADA. BASTA. NICHTS ZU TUN with this media frenzy. It was an administrative "he said/she said" matter that NEVER should have reached the press. The "guard sould be FIRED on THAT POINT ALONE.

I am replying to a post by a white woman (no fault of her own) who has ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE. Racism is NOT a part of her daily existence and empathy is not a strong point. But BLAME works. AKODLUHPBW!!!! SnF!!! OM!!! Decipher my acronym and I'll buy you a beer in the Lounge!!! :evilgrin:

[AtomicKitten]

71. Right, and if she is charged with assault you'll really be howling.

It takes a reasonable person to look at a situation and evaluate it objectively rather than with the overlay of emotion and other extraneous issues that may or may not play a part. I unapologetically stand by my angry response to invoking racism as a punctuation point and so should everyone that cares about the rampant racism in our country; there is no honor in invoking racism capriciously and every single one of my black friends agrees, but then again they are thinkers, not whiners, and know what battles are worth fighting.

Like I told my son when he was suspended in junior high school for lobbing water balloons off the roof at school, I'm glad to listen to his excuse but he needed to know regardless of any excuse he proffered, what he did was wrong. That's called tough love.

A Grand Jury has met and taken witness testimony to an event many of you claim never happened. They are pondering whether to charge Cynthia with assault of a police officer. That is NEVER right according to the law regardless of the provocation, regardless of the excuse, and something every one of us would be prosecuted for had we done the same thing.

Racism is rendered moot in the legal prosecution of this case when the incident was provoked. Had her behavior been pristine, this matter would never had gone before a Grand Jury and she could legitimately claim the moral high ground.

Cynthia realized the gravity of this situation and the fact that you simply can't cross certain lines no matter who you are. It's unfortunate that so many of you don't. And all the snottiness and barbs and vulgar acronyms lobbed at those of us who do understand the legal ramifications of this case really reflect badly on those that don't, although stalking from thread to thread seems to be a sport at DU.

I hope this whole matter is dropped for Cynthia's sake.

And that's really all I have to say to you. I'll pass on the beer in the Lounge. :)

[slaveplanet]

85. cite that law

first of all she is not every one of us, she is a congresswoman.

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------
That is NEVER right according to the law regardless of the provocation, regardless of the excuse, and something every one of us would be prosecuted for had we done the same thing.
-------------------------------------------------

show me the law where there is no exceptions, because the DC code clearly leaves room for exception.

they have to prove the assault occured after she had already recognized it was law enforcement barking at her and touching her.
and then it says when the officer is in process of arrest.

now the first part may well be the case in this case, that's what the (hopefully impartial) courts are for.
but there is wiggle room on that second part.

and if the first part is true, then her immunity is gone, then why did the officer shirk his sworn duty and let her escape?

on edit: meant impartial instead of partial

[AtomicKitten]

93. the possible charges are as follows

1) Assault on police officer, felony.

Type of Offense: Felony
DC Code Citation: §22-405
Former Code Citation: §22-505
Charge Elements: The elements of this offense are:

1. That the complainant was a member of a police force operating in the District of Columbia;
2. That the defendant assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with the complainant;
3. That the defendant did so while the complainant was engaged in the performance of his/her official duties; and
4. That at the time the defendant did so, he or she knew or had reason to believe that the complainant was a member of the police force operating in the District of Columbia; and
5. The defendant acted voluntarily and on purpose, not by mistake or accident.
.


2) Simple assault, a misdemeanor (the charge that Capitol Police recommended to prosecutors)

Type of Offense: Misdemeanor
DC Code Citation: §22-404
Former Code Citation: §22-504
Charge Elements: The elements of this offense are:

A. Attempted-Battery Assault:

1. The defendant made an attempt or effort, with force or violence, to injure another person;
2. The time the defendant made that attempt of effort, he or she had the apparent present ability to injure that person;
3. The defendant made the attempt or effort voluntarily and on purpose, not by mistake or accident;
4. The defendant’s conduct was not justified by the use of reasonable parental discipline.

B. Intent-to-Frighten Assault:

1. The defendant committed a threatening act that reasonably would create in another person a fear of immediate injury;
2. The time the defendant made that attempt of effort, he or she had the apparent present ability to injure that person;
3. The defendant made the attempt or effort voluntarily and on purpose, not by mistake or accident;
4. The defendant’s conduct was not justified by the use of reasonable parental discipline.

C. Non-Violent Sexual Touching Assault:

1. The defendant committed a sexual touching on another person;
2. When the defendant committed the touching, he or she acted voluntarily and on purpose, and not by mistake or accident;
3. The other person did not consent to being touched by the defendant in that manner.


3) or they could decline to prosecute the case.

[slaveplanet]

117. yes , and it's prefaced

by a) Whoever without justifiable and excusable cause.

and clarified:
It is neither justifiable nor excusable cause for a person to use force to resist an arrest when such arrest is made by an individual he or she has reason to believe is a law enforcement officer, whether or not such arrest is lawful.

and the former DC DA:

MARTIN: clearly I don’t have all the information nor does the public yet, but I understand that the officer was shouting out to her and she as a member of Congress perceived that he wasn’t talking to her. I mean really—there’s no exchange between the two of them until the touching occurs. Now these are issues that would come out in trial.
But if he’s saying stop, stop, stop, and as an 11-year member of Congress if she doesn’t perceive that he’s speaking to her and she keeps going, if he then touches her, I think it makes it difficult.

of course this all has to be hashed out in court.

but your theory that it is NEVER ok , is simply not true.

[AtomicKitten]

127. You're suggesting there is a justifiable excuse?

Good luck on that one.

I could see if the law enforcement officer didn't identify himself perhaps, so I will amend my absolute statement in light of that. However, that's not an issue in this case. She admits not hearing/ignorning him, and it was his duty to stop her; touching her under those circumstances is appropriate. But, like you said, it will be hammered out in court. Or maybe she'll get lucky and they'll let the whole ugly mess slide.

[jukes]

100. big "IF". 'kitten

i wdn't stake your portfolio on it.

[AtomicKitten]

104. I hope they decide not to prosecute her

but some of you are in total denial that a Grand Jury was convened to consider doing just that

[jukes]

113. yes,

and moses REALLY parted the red sea.

"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

"grand Juries" are comprised of "community leaders" rubber-stamping the official tag-line. I've testified in front of numerous "grand Juries"; they have no legal training and do as their instructed.

[mondo joe]

114. How do you feel about the Fitzgerald grand jury?

[jukes]

120. SHOWBOAT

are you kidding?

[mondo joe]

124. I'm asking a question. What do you think of the Fitzgerald Grand Jury?

[jukes]

131. i answered

Grand Juries are comprised of "community leaders" w/ NO legal training. they do as they're told. in a high profile case like this, they pretend to weigh the facts.

i've testified before beaucoup grand juries, i know how they work, and how they're used.

[mondo joe]

134. So you think very little of the Fitzgerald Grand Jury?

Thank you.

[jukes]

137. you're most welcome!

i wasn't impressed by the "9/11 commision" either.

[mopinko]

58. everybody wants a dem with spine, or so they say.

then, we get one, and what do we do? why, we bring out the tar and feathers!
some of you people are hopeless.
thank you all for the chance to build myself a really comprehensive ignore list.
go cynthia.

[mondo joe]

60. I like my dems with a spine, and with a brain attached to it.

Holding our own accountable isn't tarring and feathering, any more thann holding our government accountable is "hating America".

[AtomicKitten]

62. what Cynthia did was not smart

Any complicity in the incident prevents one from taking the moral high ground. Whatever underlying racial/political profiling exists - and hell yes there is lots of that directed at her - is rendered moot by provoking the incident. That's a simple legal fact.

[jukes]

101. PROVOKING?

response to a possible assault seems more likely.

but color it in the way that suits you....

[AtomicKitten]

102. hmmm, let's do the math

Prosecutors are considering charges against her, not the other way around.

But then YOU are coloring it the way that suits you regardless of the facts. That seems to be epidemic here at DU. It's easy going with the tide but it's lazy thinking.

[jukes]

110. "considering"

a legal term equal to "taking under advisement"; which meams there's no case, but they won't admit wrong.

legalize is meant to obfuscate and trick the naive.

[AtomicKitten]

116. considering charges does not mean there is no case.

Nice try.

Since she has apologized and "made nice," I am hopeful they will let it go.

I have no doubt all of it was blown out of proportion, however, you would be remiss to continue thinking it was nothing. But have at. Musn't stray from the groupthink.

[jukes]

121. ow! that will leave a mark!

surely you can do better!

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

64. As Long As It Ain't No "Uppity Black Woman"!!!!!!!11

As ugly as all this has been, it has pulled back the flap of the "Big Tent."

There are a lot of issues here that we could have discussed, in addition to racism, sexism, profiling, political targeting, WH distractions, authority, questioning authority.................

We never got past Square One.

[rasputin1952]

61. I have wonder if this scenario had played out w/say Schmidt...

would there be such a ruckus?

McKinney has been a target of the GOP since she took office. She is outspoken, intelligent and a woman...3 things the GOP despises.

Look at what else is going on in DC...The GOP is using her as a smoke-screen...bush will use anything to get the heat off of him from Libby.

AFAIC...this is a non-issue; I have great respect for McKinney, she shows a spine that has not yellowed w/cowardice, she is for the citizen, and this is what we should be zeroing in on...:)

edited: I really should use spellcheck...:blush:

[AtomicKitten]

63. indeed ... we would ALL be better served if the page is turned.

Including Cynthia, and I pray she isn't charged with assault.

Two witnesses testified and I really hope this is dropped.

[omega minimo]

65. All Congress Members shall be required to wear stiff, shiny toupees!

:yoiks: :bounce:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. Sighhhh. And Here I Thought We Were Finally Letting This Go.

I was happy she apologized for her error and admitted she should never have touched the officer, which unfortunately if had been done from the start could've avoided all the negative stuff afterwards. Though the apology came a bit late, I'm proud of her for doing it regardless and was hopeful it was a start to this negative incident being put behind us. I don't consider her a victim in this; I consider her to be an honorable congresswoman that made a mistake that luckily she has owned up to. I know racial profiling still runs rampant in this nation and know well also how courageous she's been in her career, as the article articulates. But I don't think her honorable past gives her a free pass with this either. I think the many here that disagreed with her actions and after-actions still hold her in high regards for all that she's done but are just being fair and objective by admitting she shouldn't have done what she did, this time. I know I still think highly of her despite my disagreement with her in this. But those of us that feel that way shouldn't have to deal with the level of guilt trip and abuse that have been slinged at us merely because we are fair enough to admit when members on our side make mistakes, which lord knows the freeper fuckers can never do.

[mondo joe]

76. For some it's a crusade, with a sort of religious fervor rather than

reason or even political sense.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. And For Others, Methinks It's Just So They Can Hear Themselves Talk

in order to feed their inadequate egos LOL. I agree some do come off like they're on some sort of crusade. Even so, there are others who do genuinely side with her 100% for their own genuine reasons and do so respectfully, and it's easy to find them since they respond to the discussion in a civil manner and in a conversational tone. I for one though, just wish this story would die. There's nothing at all positive that can come out of its continuing existance.

[Karenina]

86. The "crusade" here

is white supremacy. Why haven't we, after all this brouhaha, seen video??? Who among us believes that the ENTIRE AREA is NOT under surveillance?

[mondo joe]

95. Really? What's the Congressional Black Caucus saying about it?

[Justice Is Comin]

138. Could she have had two

more yokel lawyers? They stirred the pot and were just as complicit in driving the issue to the legal venue.

Why she thought they were the best counsel is incredible to me. They were in way over their head to represent anyone on national media. It was almost as if they couldn't believe they were on network TV. They tried to come off like F. Lee Bailey and looked more like F Troop.

Fortunately John Q. Lewis was able to get through to her and rationalize that she had to make an apology statement and hope that it wasn't too late.

Of course I'm sure that won't carry any weight with the blind supporters come hell or high water either. Mr. Lewis is just another one of us McKinney haters.

[jeffrey_X]

109. How about your little crusade? You've made 18 of the 1st 95 posts...

in this thread without giving McKinney any benefit of the doubt.

In fact, you just keep attacking and attacking.

[mondo joe]

111. What benefit of the doubt would you like? McKinney herself apologized.

If she was wronged she should absolutely file suit.

And not one of my posts was an "attack".

[bloom]

99. Sounds spot on to me

People ought to be able put what she did in perspective with everything else other politicians have done as well as how outspoken she has been.

[radio4progressives]

106. Spot the Fvck On! Excellent Post!

[aikoaiko]

108. Thanks for bringing this up again so we can rehash it one more time.

:sarcasm:

McKinney screwed up and got an overreaction from the press. If she had handled the confrontation better and not come up with post confrontation bizarro excuses, she wouldn't be such an easy target for villification.

[QC]

161. But the horse isn't quite dead yet!

I tell you, it's not!

[norml]

166. I hadn't posted anything about it before, though I did talk about it...

on the radio, both on my own FM show, and on a local right wing AM call in show.

Though I didn't spend much time on it, I thought I should say something.

The article mirrors my own thoughts on the subject, so I posted it.

[jukes]

146. i have MUCH better things to do than

refute the ridiculous claims on McKinney detractors.

shw WILL be re-elected, she won't be silenced, and she will ALWAYS call out the illegal bush administration for their obvious deficiencies and lies.

go tune in talk-radio if you need to hear what you want to hear what you so despertely need to hear; you'll find no support here.

[mondo joe]

147. But you're her detractor.

Now you say "they're glorified ushers and finder-of lost-items" and the "Gestapo" and the security check a "waste of time".

But McKinney says "I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do".

Is she lying? Ignorant? Naive?

[jukes]

153. just stop!

you're making a fool of yourself

Cynthia Must make some "political" comments; she's a public figure.

I'm just a retired fed that knows what lickspittle, under-emloyed pseudo-cops these lackeys are.

I'm not a liar, and you're just pushing a silly agenda that ISN't going to tarnish an honest congressperson unafraid ti cal the rove-machine out for their blatent lies.

you're obvious, & no one is litening to you.

you're dismissed!

[mondo joe]

154. You seem to be saying she's lying.

Now you say "they're glorified ushers and finder-of lost-items" and the "Gestapo" and the security check a "waste of time".

But McKinney says "I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do".

To explain this you say "Cynthia Must make some 'political' comments; she's a public figure."

Hm, and the talk so far has been that she's so honest - you say so yourself. But then say she's just saying things for "political" reasons.

Go figure.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

172. Hm, the response was deleted. Again, you seem to be saying she's lying.

Now you say "they're glorified ushers and finder-of lost-items" and the "Gestapo" and the security check a "waste of time".

But McKinney says "I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do".

To explain this you say "Cynthia Must make some 'political' comments; she's a public figure."

Hm, and the talk so far has been that she's so honest - you say so yourself. But then say she's just saying things for "political" reasons.

Go figure.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[opihimoimoi]

177. McKinney for Preznent....she got the Balls AND das good nuff fo me