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

[ivwshane]

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.

Amy Klobuchar helped jail teen for life, but case was flawed

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — It was a prime-time moment for Amy Klobuchar. Standing in the glare of television lights at a Democratic presidential debate last fall, she was asked about her years as a top Minnesota prosecutor and allegations she was not committed to racial justice.

apnews.com

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.

So again, nothing to show amy was complicit.

It is only bad for Amy if she was complicit and no one, not even the AP reporter, has proven that amy was.

Was this a bad case? Sure sounds like it but that’s entirely different than claiming amy was complicit in this bad case.

FYI I’m not an amy fan, she ranks pretty low on my list.

 

[woolfe9998]

So again, nothing to show amy was complicit.

It is only bad for Amy if she was complicit and no one, not even the AP reporter, has proven that amy was.

Was this a bad case? Sure sounds like it but that’s entirely different than claiming amy was complicit in this bad case.

FYI I’m not an amy fan, she ranks pretty low on my list.

Amy was the prosecutor on a case where an innocent person was convicted, based on evidence presented by her at trial. Those sketchy jailhouse witnesses which were presented as the primary evidence in a case with no eye-witnesses or physical evidence had to have been obtained by her. The deals they got were offered and approved by her.

Unlike you, she's high on my list for the primary, and I think this looks pretty bad. It looks like she and the police both cut some corners here because it was a high profile case and there was a lot of pressure to get convictions.

 

[ivwshane]

Amy was the prosecutor on a case where an innocent person was convicted, based on evidence presented by her at trial. Those sketchy jailhouse witnesses which were presented as the primary evidence in a case with no eye-witnesses or physical evidence had to have been obtained by her. The deals they got were offered and approved by her.

Unlike you, she's high on my list for the primary, and I think this looks pretty bad. It looks like she and the police both cut some corners here because it was a high profile case and there was a lot of pressure to get convictions.

I’ll ask one more time: what evidence do you have she was complicit?

 

[woolfe9998]

I’ll ask one more time: what evidence do you have she was complicit?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. She was the lead prosecutor on a case where an innocent person was convicted, and she was directly responsible for the bogus evidence that was used to obtain said wrongful conviction. Did you not read the posts that you responded to?

If this isn't "evidence," then I have no idea what you're looking for.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. She was the lead prosecutor on a case where an innocent person was convicted, and she was directly responsible for the bogus evidence that was used to obtain said wrongful conviction. Did you not read the posts that you responded to?

If this isn't "evidence," then I have no idea what you're looking for.

The part you haven’t been able to answer and the part that the reporter used innuendo was the part about the bogus evidence being known to Amy.

We agree the evidence appears to be bogus. We agree that the case appears to be bad. Where we disagree is the evidence that shows amy was complicit in using the bogus evidence, that is you believe that Amy knew the evidence was bogus where as I only see people saying she should have known. That’s a pretty big fucking difference for such an incredible claim.

 

[woolfe9998]

The part you haven’t been able to answer and the part that the reporter used innuendo was the part about the bogus evidence being known to Amy.

We agree the evidence appears to be bogus. We agree that the case appears to be bad. Where we disagree is the evidence that shows amy was complicit in using the bogus evidence, that is you believe that Amy knew the evidence was bogus where as I only see people saying she should have known. That’s a pretty big fucking difference for such an incredible claim.

I have answered it though. Deals with jailhouse snitches for reduced sentences can only be made by the prosecutor on the case. Period. The police cannot make deals for reduced sentences.

I do hope there is another explanation, but it's hard to see one. Even if another prosecutor interviewed the witnesses and made the deals because she was out sick that week, she still used them at trial.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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

So, again, are some folks here (like yourself) claiming that the Associated Press spent a year working on a 'hit' piece intended to attack/defame a minor Democratic presidential candidate who declared, as I understand, after the investigation had been started by the AP?

 

[ivwshane]

So, again, are some folks here (like yourself) claiming that the Associated Press spent a year working on a 'hit' piece intended to attack/defame a minor Democratic presidential candidate who declared, as I understand, after the investigation had been started by the AP?

Shoddy reporting is shoddy.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So, again, are some folks here (like yourself) claiming that the Associated Press spent a year working on a 'hit' piece intended to attack/defame a minor Democratic presidential candidate who declared, as I understand, after the investigation had been started by the AP?

btw, does this sound like a press 'hit woman'

Robin McDowell

Robin McDowell is an Investigative Reporter of the Associated Press. In 2016, along with Esther Htusan, Margie Mason and Martha Mendoza, she won the Pulitzer Prize in Public Service for their investigation into labor abuses in Southeast Asia’s fishing industry. Their reporting successfully freed over 2,000 slave laborers, brought perpetrators to justice and inspired reforms in the industry. Their work has also won them other journalism awards, including the George Polk Award for Foreign Reporting and the Barlett and Steele Award for Investigative Business Journalism.

McDowell is currently based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. But she spent much of the last two decades in Southeast Asia. She worked in Cambodia as chief correspondent for the Associated Press in the mid-1990s, covering a bloody coup and the final days of the Khmer Rouge, the name given to the followers of the Communist Party of Kampuchea in Cambodia. She also helped to set up the agency's regional editing desk in Thailand. Later, she spent six years as bureau chief in Indonesia. Most recently she was a correspondent in Associated Press office in Myanmar.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Shoddy reporting is shoddy.

ROFL. (and you still haven't answered the original question or are you simply writing it all off as shoddy reporting and poor investigation by the AP that they did for shits and giggles)

 

[ivwshane]

ROFL. (and you still haven't answered the original question or are you simply writing it all off as shoddy reporting and poor investigation by the AP that they did for shits and giggles)

Quote the part where they state as a fact that Amy was complicit.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Quote the part where they state as a fact that Amy was complicit.

Not gonna answer the question?

 

[ivwshane]

Not gonna answer the question?

You go first

 

[Zorba]

Let's hurry, we might be able to disqualify all of our candidates by the time of the convention.

I'm sure every prosecutor has some similar cases in their background. Their job, wrongly, is to convict people, not the often quoted trope of making sure no innocent people go to jail. I don't see a point in disqualifying every previous prosecutor, especially because it'll then open the door to disqualify ever lawyer because they've all done something shady or defended a bad person.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let's hurry, we might be able to disqualify all of our candidates by the time of the convention.

I'm sure every prosecutor has some similar cases in their background. Their job, wrongly, is to convict people, not the often quoted trope of making sure no innocent people go to jail. I don't see a point in disqualifying every previous prosecutor, especially because it'll then open the door to disqualify ever lawyer because they've all done something shady or defended a bad person.

Really, it’s that easy for you to turn a blind eye? woolfe and VG see the same issues as I do and that they are unsettling. Seems to me you are asking, I will speak for myself, me to be like a Trump supporter. She’s a democrat so I have to support her. I’m not ivwshane who say because Ukraine got the money no crime was committed. I don’t need evidence where the implications of guilt can’t be denied. That is what one kind of evidence is and it I see also no motive as to a politically inspired hit piece, just a piece that lands a hard blow.

l will hope she either does not get the nomination or has better answers for it.

Building a career on evidence where an innocent man may have spent much of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit, and knowing that evidence was tainted or questionable reveals a lack of moral character. What’s worse would be to use it years later as a selling point in a run for President.

 

[ivwshane]

Really, it’s that easy for you to turn a blind eye? woolfe and VG see the same issues as I do and that they are unsettling. Seems to me you are asking, I will speak for myself, me to be like a Trump supporter. She’s a democrat so I have to support her. I’m not ivwshane who say because Ukraine got the money no crime was committed. I don’t need evidence where the implications of guilt can’t be denied. That is what one kind of evidence is and it I see also no motive as to a politically inspired hit piece, just a piece that lands a hard blow.

l will hope she either does not get the nomination or has better answers for it.

Building a career on evidence where an innocent man may have spent much of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit, and knowing that evidence was tainted or questionable reveals a lack of moral character. What’s worse would be to use it years later as a selling point in a run for President.

Well I hope people take your actions that you thought were good and point out the flaws in those actions and hold you accountable to something they say you should have been aware of. What’s that? You have no idea what I’m talking about? Well that’s what guilty people would say.

What’s it like being a piece of shit for something you are accused of where the evidence is implied guilt?

I would look to the rest of your life’s work for evidence of you being a real piece of shit but instead I think I’ll focus on this one horrible action of yours that I believe you had to be aware of and because I know it to be true I’ll attribute all the rest of your actions to be of corrupt motive.

How does that feel, you corrupt piece of shit?


For someone who claims to be woke and aware of others true feelings and who has a real understanding of people you seem to be completely unaware of your own biases even though you claim to be aware of them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I hope people take your actions that you thought were good and point out the flaws in those actions and hold you accountable to something they say you should have been aware of. What’s that? You have no idea what I’m talking about? Well that’s what guilty people would say.

What’s it like being a piece of shit for something you are accused of where the evidence is implied guilt?

I would look to the rest of your life’s work for evidence of you being a real piece of shit but instead I think I’ll focus on this one horrible action of yours that I believe you had to be aware of and because I know it to be true I’ll attribute all the rest of your actions to be of corrupt motive.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


For someone who claims to be woke and aware of others true feelings and who has a real understanding of people you seem to be completely unaware of your own biases even though you claim to be aware of them.

Don't get yourself an infraction over me. None of this is about me. A number of others have suggested to you the same point of view that I have. None of this for me is about anything but the charges made and the lack of adequate response. Who it's about, Klobuchar, is completely accidental. woofe clearly made the case as to why a prosecutor in the situation she finds herself raises serious questions and ones she her answers raise more questions than they answer. You are clearly emotionally defensive that somebody is trying to invent charges for which there is no proof of guilt. I see charges made for which the proof of innocence has been to dodge away from answering. That to any unbiased observer is not a good sign.

 

[ivwshane]

Don't get yourself an infraction over me. None of this is about me. A number of others have suggested to you the same point of view that I have. None of this for me is about anything but the charges made and the lack of adequate response. Who it's about, Klobuchar, is completely accidental. woofe clearly made the case as to why a prosecutor in the situation she finds herself raises serious questions and ones she her answers raise more questions than they answer. You are clearly emotionally defensive that somebody is trying to invent charges for which there is no proof of guilt. I see charges made for which the proof of innocence has been to dodge away from answering. That to any unbiased observer is not a good sign.

If you thought my post was about you, then not only was my point lost on you but your ego is bigger than I thought.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you thought my post was about you, then not only was my point lost on you but your ego is bigger than I thought.

What this is about is the fact that you have made a thinking mistake and taken an irrational point of view as a result and that of the people who have pointed that out to you, you chose me to make your denial. Sorry you feel it's egotistical to take issue with your irrational state, so clearly laid out to you by rationally driven liberals.

 

[ivwshane]

What this is about is the fact that you have made a thinking mistake and taken an irrational point of view as a result and that of the people who have pointed that out to you, you chose me to make your denial. Sorry you feel it's egotistical to take issue with your irrational state, so clearly laid out to you by rationally driven liberals.

So rational that they can't even point out where in the articles such a claim is made definitively and not implied.

 

[Moonbeam]

So rational that they can't even point out where in the articles such a claim is made definitively and not implied.

Reason makes no such requirement. Your point has nothing to do with anything except it's where you got stuck in rationalization.

 

[ivwshane]

Reason makes no such requirement. Your point has nothing to do with anything except it's where you got stuck in rationalization.

Lol silly me for relying on an actual claim to be made and not innuendo. What a fucking moron I am for wanting more than implied guilt in order to condemn a politician running for president in an election year.


I guess when it was pointed out to you several years ago that you were not only wrapped up in a disinformation campaign but you were complicit in spreading such disinformation, that you learned nothing from that experience.

 

[Moonbeam]

Lol silly me for relying on an actual claim to be made and not innuendo. What a fucking moron I am for wanting more than implied guilt in order to condemn a politician running for president in an election year.


I guess when it was pointed out to you several years ago that you were not only wrapped up in a disinformation campaign but you were complicit in spreading such disinformation, that you learned nothing from that experience.

That was your imagination, the story you tell yourself as much as this, but nice to see that something that has nothing to do with me brings out your imagined history of me. Were you not blind you might note you’re pretty transparent. I’m done with people who have sense spoke to them from multiple directions and front defensiveness. One thing about old egotistical me is that you are of no more importance than I am and that is none at all.

It will be interesting to see if this story has legs.