In a surprising act of journalism, the Washington Post (WaPo) actually reports on Virginia Governor McAuliffe's flustercuck of a clemency order on June 2, 2016 as follows:

McAuliffe’s clemency order comes under scrutiny [full story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffes-clemency-order-comes-under-scrutiny/2016/06/02/af5eba22-28e1-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html]

RICHMOND — Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) mistakenly restored the right to vote to several violent felons currently in prison or on supervised probation, as part of his sweeping clemency order, records show.

Among the 206,000 felons who were awarded voting rights are some high-profile killers whose crimes shocked their small communities.

Ronald R. Cloud, 68, was in prison in West Virginia for sexual assaults involving a child when he pleaded guilty in 2014 to the murder of a Fauquier County man in a three-decade-old cold case.

Daniel Harmon-Wright, 36, was a Culpeper police officer when he shot a Sunday school teacher in her Jeep as the vehicle drove away.

When McAuliffe restored their rights . . .

[snip portion]

The administration said only felons who had served their time and completed parole would win back the right to vote and be permitted to resume other aspects of civic life, such as serving on a jury or running for public office.

He was immediately criticized by Republicans and some law enforcement officials, who said the wholesale restoration of civil rights was too rushed and warned that mistakes would result.

McAuliffe’s spokesman, Brian Coy, attributed the errors to flaws in a system officials devised to identify convicted felons in Virginia.

But officials did not check for felons living outside Virginia [snip portion]

[click here for the full article https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffes-clemency-order-comes-under-scrutiny/2016/06/02/af5eba22-28e1-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html]

-------------------
The WaPo, a thinly-disguised semi-official house organ of the Democratic Party, is applauded for this random act of journalism. However, a better headline would be "McAuliffe's Mass Clemency Order Includes Current Prisoners, Probationers." In other words, the key is not that those rascally Republicans are critical of the order. The GOP criticisms of the order are factually correct, but that's a minor side issue compared to the actual scope of McAuliffe's order. The key to the story is the lead paragraph: McAuliffe's order includes those (i.e., prisoners and probationers) who he said were not included.

If you read the rest of the story, some other key facts are given.

Some people given clemency by McAuliffe are still in Virginia prisons. At least one is involuntarily in a mental institution after being found not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding by reason of insanity.

(The article doesn't make it clear whether those individuals can demand to be released by arguing that the Governor has restored their rights. Seems unlikely that those current prisoners would prevail, but the McAuliffe order seems so broadly incompetent that one has to wonder.)

McAuliffe's spokesman says that now that Governor is aware of the erroneous inclusion of some individuals on the list, he will amend the list. Is it legal for a governor to give a clemency to someone and then say "never mind?"

The Governor's spokesman calls on Virginia prosecutors to help weed out the names erroneously on McAuliffe's list, but McAuliffe's administration refuses to release the list of those granted this arguably illegal clemency. That makes it hard for Commonwealth Attorneys or others such as crime victims to help in weeding out the erroneous names on McA's list.

BONUS FUN FACT FROM ARTICLE: McA's spokesman wants those who are still in prison or supervised probation to immediately contact McA administration officials so those people can be removed from the list.

I am not making that up. McA's people think felons erroneously given the McA clemency should contact McA so that benefit can be taken away from them.

IF McAULIFFE WAS A REPUBLICAN AND SUPPORTING A GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, this scandal would get ten times the coverage, much more national coverage, an anti-GOP edge to the coverage emphasizing that it's a real scandal, and the scandal would be tied around the tail of the GOP presidential nominee. Yet, it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton will be seriously questioned about the snafu order issued to help Hillary by McA, her long-time backer and friend.

If this mess was caused by a GOP Governor supporting Trump every other question to Trump would be along the lines of:

Your good friend and long-time supporter Governor Fumblebuck has granted clemency to 200,000 felons including killers and sex criminals, some still in prison, in order to help your campaign . Why do you think killers and sex criminals in prison will be voting for you?

==========
==========

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. - John Cassis on manners

Ignoring juvenile attacks and remarks on the internet for over two decades.

Arguing by deflection or name-calling is an admission that you don't have a rational argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2016 10:28AM by Dog Walker1.

Terry McAuliffe is a liberal douchebag.

This is not some magnanimous gesture to restore the civil rights of good people who were the victims of an unjust judicial system....... It's sole purpose to put another 200,000 Democratic voters out there on the street.

If anything, it is McAuliffe's irresponsible, thinly veiled and politically motivated behavior that is criminal.

We have to get rid of this asshole!

> The administration said only felons who had served their time and completed parole would win back the right to vote and be permitted to resume other aspects of civic life, such as serving on a jury or running for public office.

> He was immediately criticized by some officials, who said the wholesale restoration of civil rights was too rushed and warned that mistakes would result.

absolutely not. code de civis. when one "does their time" they have full rights to be a citizen

the problem here is government is assumed to be partly or wholey wrong in a conviction. for example: a man steals bread to survive. is it his fault he cannot get work to eat? or the gov's fault for counterfeiting so heavily people cannot even eat?

the problem here is false conviction - the government claiming a person is red handed when they never did show evidence and were proven wrong later

the problem here is gov has motives to "get a man" charge allot of taxes to get him but spend it all on luxury (not do allot of the real work)

there is also the issue of forgiveness. though i think that should be a one time even (for proven murder) is my personal thought.

(infact many who claim to be citizens are not working for the community but against it - and these people are rich and not challeged to go to prison for doing it)

civility is working with people not against them - and there is no expectation of "perfection" (regulations yes - but fines are not supposed to be crippling events)

a free man should be able to attmpt to be civil

if that fails they are back in prison

some should never be allowed that privelage (a privelage they took from others let's say more than once) and be put to death - however one problem is government tends to say someone "is red handed" when infact they were proven to have not done it later

Virginia code can be used by polititians to create murderers out of those who did their time: here's how

VA code says it can deny all aid (ie foodstamps they give to criminal immigrants from mexico!) to any convicted felon.

this felon, assuming he's not so bright, must then fight or flight to live: and depending on how much they procrastinate - might very well try to kill to eat or kill to get transportation out of VA

a prison system that is profittable who needs it's "renter" back, you can say

you are all confused

a prisoner is serviing time

this article is talking about free men who were accused and did their time who are NOT IN PRISON

past articles about prisoners voting

litterally meant men inside the prisons TOLD to vote (and likely penalized if not voting they way the warden asked) and democrats at prisons handling the counting of the votes

infact in fx co gov area - i was threatened with job loss and "retribution" if i did not vote democrat

it was a union job, yes, that's all i'll say

personally i think republicans are healthier for unions - and government workers pretenting their pay is due to union bargaining should all be in jail

continually people are posting articles on ffu that cover up what was really happening or what is really going on

jews like to call it "dumming down the viewers" or like to call it "not giving air time to it"

but really: the wash post here is LYING OUT THEIR ASS - falsely educating people that after serving time one cannot vote while also falsely educating people that the issue wasnt' about democrats using prisoners STILL IN PRISON to vote while they were tossing ACTIVE MILITARY votes into the sea

(and leaving voting polls in black areas open for days, btw)

(1) someone who's been accused and served time should have a clean slate except the public record of there having been an incident

(2) I WILL MANDAMUS, A MUST, THAT IF VOTING RIGHTS ARE REMOVED AFTER TIME SERVED, IT BE SAID SO ON THE SENTENCING

i'm not kidding: if it's not on the sentencing paper IT IS ABSOLUTELY INVALID

Dog Walker1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RICHMOND — Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) mistakenly
> restored the right to vote to several violent
> felons currently in prison or on supervised
> probation, as part of his sweeping clemency order,
> records show.

Mistakes happen. Move along.

Attachments:

but i'll agree not everythign mc'au'lift has done is wrong - this is right

but i caution they are presenting these things to appear to be doing good - while meanwhile ALLOT OF MONEY is dissapearing (ie, tobacco money)

(writing a law that penalizes everyone convicted and isn't on the sentencing sheet and "magically applies to everyone sentenced to jail" is called a 'bill of attainder' - and it's illegal - and says so in the USA Constitution, Article I, section 7. it's always been illegal infact since the first 50 years of written law so long ago in Rome, laws sleep but never die - it was re-mentioned as mandatory in the code de civis signed by napolean)

a judge decides law, a jury fact

must the jury decide if the judge is cheating on sentencing?

there is no discourse on the because: it's fucking assumed the judge can be trusted not to do what is EXPRESSELY illegal for him/her to do

Can we get a coherent comment on this thread? After reading through it all I feel like my 13 yr old just explained the situation to me.

Make sense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can we get a coherent comment on this thread?
> After reading through it all I feel like my 13 yr
> old just explained the situation to me.

It seems that after FreeShippingBack and before your comment, only the Okay guy made a coherent comment.

(Of course, Okay just said he's OK with McAuliffe giving clemency erroneously to seriously evil criminals. No real reasons other than "mistakes happen," which I guess means that he considers it a small mistake. Most people would likely consider an erroneously premature clemency for evil criminals a quite serious mistake. Indeed, most would likely consider each premature clemency of a serious criminal as a serious mistake and McA likely made hundreds of those mistakes.)

With all due respect to the other posters, I wonder if the cause is over-consumption of adult beverages or a desire to confuse a discussion on the merits of McAuliffe's misdeeds in service of Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party, both likely to benefit from felons voting.

This McA snafu clemency order is part of a national Democrat/Obama push to give criminals a pass once they get out of prison, even as Obama frees numerous felons early from federal prisons. Obama administration is trying to ban landlords, colleges, and most employers from asking prospective renters/students/employees about criminal records.

To the same end, Obama's officials are pushing to end the use of the terms criminal, felon, convict, and offender. Instead, the new Obamaspeak expressions are “justice-involved individual,” "person who committed a crime" or "individual who was incarcerated."

The Orwellian Obama redefinition of terms is maddening and is designed to thwart clear discussion of criminal activity.

A person who's thrown in a jail for drunk in public and spends a night there before pleading guilty and paying a fine the next day is accurately described as a “justice-involved individual,” a "person who committed a crime" or an "individual who was incarcerated." Yet, no sane person would characterize someone with a spotless criminal record, except the single drunk in public event, as a criminal, felon, or convict. Maybe one might call this person an offender in connection with the drunk in public, but one is unlikely to call the person an offender without mentioning the minor misdemeanor that he committed.

Of course, the whole point of Obama and the Dems is to obscure the reality of what a convict had done. If a rapist, armed robber, or murderer is described as a “justice-involved individual,” a "person who committed a crime" or an "individual who was incarcerated," that rapist, armed robber, or murderer fits in the same category as the drunk in public guy.

Here is a related post of mine on the related thread dealing with the Obama administration efforts to change language in order to obscure the difference between the drunk in public guy as opposed to rapists, armed robbers, murderers, and serious criminals: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/2196155/2196745.html#msg-2196745

==========
==========

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. - John Cassis on manners

Ignoring juvenile attacks and remarks on the internet for over two decades.

Arguing by deflection or name-calling is an admission that you don't have a rational argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2016 01:10AM by Dog Walker1.