Toronto Escorts

The US DOJ is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at Jeff Sessions

yung_dood

Banned
Jul 2, 2011
1,698
1
0
The US Department of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at Jeff Sessions

As attorney general, Jeff Sessions now heads the Justice Department.
Updated by German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com May 2, 2017, 2:30pm EDT

It is hard to believe this is happening, but it’s real: The US Department of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at now–Attorney General Jeff Sessions during his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year.

According to Ryan Reilly at HuffPost, Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz was arrested in January after she laughed at a claim from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) that Sessions’s history of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented.”

Sessions, in fact, has a long history of opposing the equal treatment of all Americans under the law. He has repeatedly criticized the historic Voting Rights Act. He voted against hate crime legislation that protected LGBTQ people, arguing, “Today, I'm not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.” And his nomination for a position as a federal judge was rejected in the 1980s after he was accused of making racist remarks, including a supposed joke that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “was okay until I found out they smoked pot.”

Given this history, Fairooz laughed at Shelby’s claim.

But federal prosecutors have pushed forward with the case against Fairooz. As Reilly reported, prosecutors argue that “the laugh amounted to willful ‘disorderly and disruptive conduct’ intended to ‘impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct’ of congressional proceedings.” In court, they have tried to emphasize that the laugh was extraordinarily disruptive, with a US Capitol Police officer claiming that Fairooz laughed “very loudly” and people in the hearings turned around when they heard it.

Fairooz’s defense, meanwhile, has argued that her laughter was a reflex and not meant to disrupt the hearings. Fairooz was also in the back of the room, and her laughter had no noticeable impact, based on video of the hearings, on Shelby’s introductory speech for Sessions.

The trial will continue at the Superior Court in DC this week. If convicted, Fairooz faces a fine up to $500 and up to six months’ imprisonment for the laugh-related charge. She is also charged with another misdemeanor for “allegedly parading, demonstrating or picketing within a Capitol, evidently for her actions after she was being escorted from the room,” Reilly reported.

Fairooz has a history of disruptive protests. During protests over the Iraq War, she put fake blood on her hands and confronted then–Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

This time, however, Fairooz claims she was not trying to be disruptive — but merely laughing.

These details are all salient for the legal case, but it’s important not to lose sight of the big picture here: The federal government is literally prosecuting someone for laughing. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Justice Department — which Sessions now leads as attorney general — is doing the prosecuting when the laughter was directed at its leader. At the very least, it’s not a good look for the top law enforcement agency in the country.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/2/15518574/desiree-fairooz-justice-department
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Typical when you can't defend the conduct attempt to make the prosecution seem petty.

Desiree Fairooz was arrested by the Capital Police for "disorderly and disruptive conduct,” during a senate hearing. The case is handled by the U.S. Attorney's Officer because Washington is the Federal District.

She is not being prosecuted for "laughing at the Attorney General" and the Department of Justice is not handling the prosecution because it was directed to be vindictive.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,895
3,516
113
And it isn't?
I suppose the question is whether the Senate as a whole is behind this prosecution. I'm betting they are as they don't want to set a precedent of condoning this type of behavior while they are holding hearing. It isn't what happened so much that it did and by whom.

She is a well known rabble rouser who wants attention and even to be arrested for publicity. They can't afford to allow her or anyone on either side of the issues to undermine the Senate in hearings.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I suppose the question is whether the Senate as a whole is behind this prosecution. I'm betting they are as they don't want to set a precedent of condoning this type of behavior while they are holding hearing. It isn't what happened so much that it did and by whom.

She is a well known rabble rouser who wants attention and even to be arrested for publicity. They can't afford to allow her or anyone on either side of the issues to undermine the Senate in hearings.
I think you nailed it: It should be the legislators who assert their authority to deal with this infringement of the rights and privileges needed to do their important work. The Brits by their history and we by inheritance from them long ago established that the Executive and its police can be a serious danger to the Legislature. The Attorney-General makes himself look vindictive and petty by this self-serving action, just at a time when he needed to make people forget that was his record.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
I think you nailed it: It should be the legislators who assert their authority to deal with this infringement of the rights and privileges needed to do their important work.
Indeed that is what happened it was the Capital Police (which answers to the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore) which made the arrest. That under both the Canadian and American systems prosecutors are part of the Executive Branch, is just the way things are.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,895
3,516
113
Hot Damn! Got one right! Whoda Thunk it!
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,931
6,359
113
I suppose the question is whether the Senate as a whole is behind this prosecution. I'm betting they are as they don't want to set a precedent of condoning this type of behavior while they are holding hearing. It isn't what happened so much that it did and by whom.

She is a well known rabble rouser who wants attention and even to be arrested for publicity. They can't afford to allow her or anyone on either side of the issues to undermine the Senate in hearings.
Unless there was a restraining order against her, the repercussions should have been limited to removing her from the hearing, even if she is a "well known rabble rouser". Her removal would have ended the issue.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Unless there was a restraining order against her, the repercussions should have been limited to removing her from the hearing, even if she is a "well known rabble rouser". Her removal would have ended the issue.
Well you can always apply to be head of the Capital Police or Security at the Houses of Parliament.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,895
3,516
113
Unless there was a restraining order against her, the repercussions should have been limited to removing her from the hearing, even if she is a "well known rabble rouser". Her removal would have ended the issue.
I do know there was a restraining order against her at one time (2007?) for approaching Condolizza Rice with "bloodied hands" and that I believe included being barred from the Capital building. Whether that was lifted I'm not sure.

Either way her protests have expanded well beyond her initial opposition to the War and are quite direct. Sometimes she appears to be going out of her way for arrest.

She has the right to do that. And face the consequences.
 

MattRoxx

Call me anti-fascist
Nov 13, 2011
6,753
2
0
I get around.
Are they the ones continuing prosecution against her?
She's been convicted.
Three women involved with the activist group Code Pink were convicted Wednesday on disruption charges after protesting Attorney General Jeff Sessions' Senate confirmation hearing in January. One of the women, Desiree Fairooz, was found guilty of "disorderly or disruptive" conduct for laughing at Sen. Richard Shelby's (R-Ala.) claim that Sessions had a well-documented record of "treating all Americans equally under the law."
Trump and Sessions are walking bags of shit that are Making America Shittier Again.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,895
3,516
113
She's been convicted.


Trump and Sessions are walking bags of shit that are Making America Shittier Again.
So if I go up to Ottawa and disrupt parliament because I disprove of some of the things the Liberal gov't is doing you would help pay my legal fees?

Because that's what this is about. It isn't about what was done. It is where and who and why.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Indeed that is what happened it was the Capital Police (which answers to the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore) which made the arrest. That under both the Canadian and American systems prosecutors are part of the Executive Branch, is just the way things are.
Gee, no hauling her before the Bar of the Senate to answer for her crimes and offences against its privileges?
 
Toronto Escorts