Chris Wallace Grills Amy Klobuchar About Investigation Into Teen's Life Sentence

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Several takes from this article -- both pretty damning!!

Wallace, during an interview with Klobuchar on “Fox News Sunday,” noted that the Democratic presidential candidate has held up Burrell’s conviction as an example of how she’s been “tough on crime.”

“[AP] found police offered cash to potential witnesses and relied on testimony from jailhouse informants who got reduced sentences,” Wallace said. “Senator, did you know when you were the prosecutor about any of that and should this man’s case be reopened?”

##################################################

Leslie Redmond, the president of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, said during a press conference last week that Klobuchar must immediately suspend her campaign.

“Young people, young adults, were given life sentences to rot away in prison,” she said at the press conference. “This benefits no one. However, it does benefit politicians that have used the criminal justice system to enhance their political careers, and enough is enough.”

“Amy Klobuchar,” she added, “you have questions that need to be answered.”
Before this goes ANY FURTHER -- YES! I do believ that black people are singled out even more than your average everyday person!!





The Associated Press last week published a yearlong investigation into the 2002 murder of Tyesha Edwards, an 11-year-old who was killed when a stray bullet struck her while she was doing homework at her dining room table.

Myon Burrell, then 16, was charged with her murder. Klobuchar, a top prosecutor in Minnesota at the time, led the case against Burrell, who was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

But the AP report brought to light a slew of inconsistencies in the police’s investigation of Edwards’ murder, claiming evidence that Burrell says would have cleared him was never seriously pursued by investigators.

Wallace, during an interview with Klobuchar on “Fox News Sunday,” noted that the Democratic presidential candidate has held up Burrell’s conviction as an example of how she’s been “tough on crime.”

“[AP] found police offered cash to potential witnesses and relied on testimony from jailhouse informants who got reduced sentences,” Wallace said. “Senator, did you know when you were the prosecutor about any of that and should this man’s case be reopened?”

Klobuchar appeared to sidestep the question, laying out why Edwards’ death was tragic and noting that “justice must be done.”

“It was a big deal within the African American community,” Klobuchar said of Edwards’ slaying. “Our focus was on bringing the people to justice. ... So what happened was three people were convicted ―”

Wallace interrupted, “But senator, let me just say, we know it was a bad case. The question is whether this young man did it. And this AP investigation indicates that other people that were there said he didn’t do it and that some of the witnesses that were relied on were very questionable. You were the head prosecutor ― did you know? And if you didn’t, shouldn’t you have known?”

Klobuchar noted that there were two trials in Burrell’s case ― one of which took place after she left the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office.

The Minnesota Supreme Court overturned Burrell’s conviction in 2005, citing “several errors” that occurred during his trial. But he was convicted a second time in 2008 after Klobuchar had left the prosecutor’s office.

“My view, as someone who has worked with the Innocence Project for years, is that if there is new evidence it must come forward,” Klobuchar said Sunday. “It must come forward and it must be considered immediately by the court. The job of a prosecutor is to do justice, and that means to me convict the guilty, protect the innocent.”

But Wallace interrupted her again: “Senator, you’re not answering my question. Did you know about the fact that there was this questionable evidence that the police were coming up with?”

Klobuchar said she “didn’t know about this new evidence” and “couldn’t have” because she hasn’t worked in the state attorney’s office for 12 years.

Wallace continued to press her, asking again whether she knew about the “questionable evidence” while she was the prosecutor and noting that she’s polling at below 1% of support from African American voters.

“Well, I think what you’ve seen all across the country is that when people get to know me, I do well,” Klobuchar said. “And it’s on me. I’ve got to go out there and get to know people.”



 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,467
4,534
136
Hit piece.


No kidding.



"Klobuchar said she “didn’t know about this new evidence” and “couldn’t have” because she hasn’t worked in the state attorney’s office for 12 years."
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Nobody is debating the jury`s second verdict......
What is being said and implied here is that there would have been no need for a 2nd trial!!
But it appears that in the first trial and in gathering evidence for the first trial here were improprieties that were ignored by the prosecutor which was Amy Klobuchar!
Wallace interrupted, “But senator, let me just say, we know it was a bad case. The question is whether this young man did it. And this AP investigation indicates that other people that were there said he didn’t do it and that some of the witnesses that were relied on were very questionable. You were the head prosecutor ― did you know? And if you didn’t, shouldn’t you have known?”

Klobuchar noted that there were two trials in Burrell’s case ― one of which took place after she left the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office
. <-- this was a deflection from the 9intial question!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
No kidding.



"Klobuchar said she “didn’t know about this new evidence” and “couldn’t have” because she hasn’t worked in the state attorney’s office for 12 years."
That has no bearing on the intial question that Wallace asked! That was a deflection!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,218
14,904
136
Nobody is debating the jury`s second verdict......
What is being said and implied here is that there would have been no need for a 2nd trial!!
But it appears that in the first trial and in gathering evidence for the first trial here were improprieties that were ignored by the prosecutor which was Amy Klobuchar!
Wallace interrupted, “But senator, let me just say, we know it was a bad case. The question is whether this young man did it. And this AP investigation indicates that other people that were there said he didn’t do it and that some of the witnesses that were relied on were very questionable. You were the head prosecutor ― did you know? And if you didn’t, shouldn’t you have known?”

Klobuchar noted that there were two trials in Burrell’s case ― one of which took place after she left the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office
. <-- this was a deflection from the 9intial question!

So what’s the implication here? That Amy is a bad person and complicit in a broken system?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,426
7,485
136
That's a hell of a hit piece, and a bunch of badgering. But hey, at least she knows how she'll be treated in the General Election if she wins the primary.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,523
9,895
136
Democrats: “If only we could find a candidate worthy enough to pass our purity tests!”

Republicans: “LOL!!!! Purity!!??!! HAHA!!”
Yeah, basically, we are saying no previous prosecutors. Harris got the same attacks as well.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
I'd vote for her over Trump, but I am generally not a fan of former military, cops, and prosecutors as politicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,400
6,078
126
Hit piece.
Perhaps you can help me with more explanation. I have to this point found Amy Klobuchar to be a rather impressive candidate but it would not please me to vote for her if she intentionally avoided exculpatory facts in achieving a prosecution that built up her political reputation. I would call that intentionally being evil. What I want to know is if your idea of a hit piece is something that can hit with truth and be ignored or is it hitting with a false truth that is intended to damage without any real guilt. Her answer to my mind does not answer the meat of the question she was asked, did she know there were suspect facts used by her to gain a conviction that an honest prosecutor would not have used?

I do not know the answer. I understand there were two trials but she was pointedly asked what she knew or didn't know in the first, whether she know that the evidence she used to convict the first time had been brought to her attention as questionable.

I wish I could know the real truth because I find it abhorrent to build ones reputation on the destruction of innocent people. That's a really big no no in my book.

That leaves me hoping that what you mean by hit piece is that the charges against her are false and you know something I don't.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,218
14,904
136
Perhaps you can help me with more explanation. I have to this point found Amy Klobuchar to be a rather impressive candidate but it would not please me to vote for her if she intentionally avoided exculpatory facts in achieving a prosecution that built up her political reputation. I would call that intentionally being evil. What I want to know is if your idea of a hit piece is something that can hit with truth and be ignored or is it hitting with a false truth that is intended to damage without any real guilt. Her answer to my mind does not answer the meat of the question she was asked, did she know there were suspect facts used by her to gain a conviction that an honest prosecutor would not have used?

I do not know the answer. I understand there were two trials but she was pointedly asked what she knew or didn't know in the first, whether she know that the evidence she used to convict the first time had been brought to her attention as questionable.

I wish I could know the real truth because I find it abhorrent to build ones reputation on the destruction of innocent people. That's a really big no no in my book.

That leaves me hoping that what you mean by hit piece is that the charges against her are false and you know something I don't.

So your proof that she did this on purpose would be what exactly?
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,027
2,595
136
So what’s the implication here? That Amy is a bad person and complicit in a broken system?
Yes. I think a lot of prosecutors do shady things to get convictions and don't care about putting away the right people because these are elected positions and only the political appearance of being tough on crime matters. It's beyond me how prosecutors have yet to band together and demand reforms so they can instead pursue justice as opposed to reelection. My sense is that she was totally guilty of what Wallace was asking because that is a standard practice across the industry.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
I'd vote for her over Trump, but I am generally not a fan of former military, cops, and prosecutors as politicians.
Agreed, particularly prosecutors that were active during the nations "tough on crime" stint.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,400
6,078
126
So your proof that she did this on purpose would be what exactly?
Actually I was not thinking along the lines of of her guilt so much as I was wanting to see some clarification on the relevance of Wallace's question. Were there real concerns about the validity of the evidence against the convicted that she was aware of at the time that she prosecuted the case she corruptly withheld information on to gain a conviction or is all of this just a horse shit hit job? Her answer was, in my opinion, very weak.

I hold both parties to my own personal moral standards right up to the point where I have to choose the lesser of two evils.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,218
14,904
136
Actually I was not thinking along the lines of of her guilt so much as I was wanting to see some clarification on the relevance of Wallace's question. Were there real concerns about the validity of the evidence against the convicted that she was aware of at the time that she prosecuted the case she corruptly withheld information on to gain a conviction or is all of this just a horse shit hit job? Her answer was, in my opinion, very weak.

I hold both parties to my own personal moral standards right up to the point where I have to choose the lesser of two evils.

I get that but to even entertain whether or not amy did something nefarious you’d have to ignore everything about her. Is there something about her that makes you think, “yeah I could see her doing that”, if not then you are legitimizing a hit job.

Ask yourself this; why did this come out now? Did the people looking into this case just now find evidence that Amy might have purposely left out information that would hurt her case? Has anyone provided a smoking gun that shows Amy was involved in such a thing? No? Then it’s a hit job, same shit different candidate.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
I get that but to even entertain whether or not amy did something nefarious you’d have to ignore everything about her. Is there something about her that makes you think, “yeah I could see her doing that”, if not then you are legitimizing a hit job.

Ask yourself this; why did this come out now? Did the people looking into this case just now find evidence that Amy might have purposely left out information that would hurt her case? Has anyone provided a smoking gun that shows Amy was involved in such a thing? No? Then it’s a hit job, same shit different candidate.
You can call it a hit job all you want but the fact remain this case would not have had to be retried had it not been a rush to judgement as Any said in her own words --
Wallace, during an interview with Klobuchar on “Fox News Sunday,” noted that the Democratic presidential candidate has held up Burrell’s conviction as an example of how she’s been “tough on crime.”

“[AP] found police offered cash to potential witnesses and relied on testimony from jailhouse informants who got reduced sentences,” Wallace said. “Senator, did you know when you were the prosecutor about any of that and should this man’s case be reopened?”
She is complicit in a rush to judgement when there were other facts and evidence that appears to have been over looked in the name of getting a conviction and being tough on crime!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,218
14,904
136
You can call it a hit job all you want but the fact remain this case would not have had to be retried had it not been a rush to judgement as Any said in her own words --
Wallace, during an interview with Klobuchar on “Fox News Sunday,” noted that the Democratic presidential candidate has held up Burrell’s conviction as an example of how she’s been “tough on crime.”

“[AP] found police offered cash to potential witnesses and relied on testimony from jailhouse informants who got reduced sentences,” Wallace said. “Senator, did you know when you were the prosecutor about any of that and should this man’s case be reopened?”
She is complicit in a rush to judgement when there were other facts and evidence that appears to have been over looked in the name of getting a conviction and being tough on crime!

You have yet to show any facts that she was aware of this info and willfully ignored it. Do you facts to back up your claim?
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
So are some folks here claiming that the Associated Press was/is doing a 'hit' on Amy Klobuchar with an investigation that they've been working on for about a year?


 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,218
14,904
136
So are some folks here claiming that the Associated Press was/is doing a 'hit' on Amy Klobuchar with an investigation that they've been working on for about a year?




So, again, you can’t point to any evidence that says she was complicit with any wrong doing. Got it.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,091
136
So, again, you can’t point to any evidence that says she was complicit with any wrong doing. Got it.

I'm a big supporter of Amy, but this does look bad. This is not a Fox News thing. It comes from an investigation by Associated Press. Here is the full story.


So first of all, it looks like the guy who was convicted is not guilty. A guy who was convicted as a co-conspirator and given a 45 year sentence which he is currently serving has been saying for 15 years that he was the shooter and the only shooter, that the guy they convicted wasn't even there.

So far as evidence of her being "complicit in wrongdoing," it isn't entirely clear how much of this is on police versus prosecution. However, if deals were made with sketchy jailhouse snitches for reduced sentences, those deals would have been made by the prosecutor assigned to the case.

She's going to have to do a better job of explaining what happened here than she did in that interview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73