Following the Republican be-rilement over Senator Tim Johnson's vote to confirm rejected Obama assistant AG nominee Debo Adegbile, I served up a question about whether hiring a lawyer who represents scum should have any impact on our assessment of the candidates seeking to replace Johnson.
Today I ask how Republicans feel if a candidate himself represents scum.
Last fall, Scott Krantz of Sioux City pled guilty to possessing and transporting child pornography (note to perverts: if you have to have child porn, don't move it! you'll save yourself an extra charge). He tried to contend that the court should let him walk around free pending sentencing because he'd served in the military. The U.S. Eighth Circuit said no, military service is not an "exceptional reason" to excuse bad guys from jail.
Helping Krantz make this unsuccessful argument: soldier, lawyer,and Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jason Ravnsborg.
A nice Republican candidate spends his work day trying to keep a child porn user out of jail—frankly, I don't get too bent out of shape over that, because Ravnsborg's a lawyer, and he has an important if at times unpleasant job to do. Everyone deserves legal counsel, even scum.
But I don't have to vote in the GOP primary. Republicans do. And Republicans shouted an awful lot about how it was unacceptable for our current U.S. Senator to even vote for a decent lawyer who has defended a disreputable individual. Can they now vote for a decent Republican who has himself represented a disreputable individual?
Or does Ravnsborg get a pass because he, unlike Tim Johnson and Debo Adegbile, is a soldier?
Looks like from some of the articles, you linked to and others I then read that his law partner , miss swoopy signature :) might have actually handled the case.
if his name was listed as co_council he should at least explain himself...
Ravnsborg gets a pass because he is a republican, Tim Johnson is not.
When you hear the constant drumbeat against lawyers by wingnuts at the national level,one wonders why any wingnut would ever lower themselves to become lawyers. I'm confident they mean no disrespect to their brethren,only Lib lawyers(especially trial lawyer varmints).
Oh Oh!!
As the Daily Show's Jon Stewart is showing again this week with his analysis of Sean Hannity (and FOX News), so much hack partisanship reasoning is inconsistent with other positions taken in the past when it was their guy doing what they are criticizing now.
Tim has it right, it IS the hack partisanship that is the narrative and umbrella for all snipes and attacks. That is the only consistency of position at play here.
Core values don't underline the position - making the opposition look bad is what underlies the position.
I must be open minded but I've never gotten worked up by who a lawyer's clients are. In our system every defendant deserves council, there are some countries where that isn't true and those are places no one wants to live.
You are correct Nick Nemec. No matter what or whom, we all deserve representation, that is the very foundation of our law and our country. The problem is that republicans are not to keen on reading that little folder they sometimes carry on their person, the pesky Constitution.
Good point and rightful comparison. The problem with most lawyers? Their principles are for sale. I am not a fan of them being in office as they have a conflict of being an officer of the court and supposed to act as a check on the judicial system that holds sway over them through the BAR.
No one should ever equate the character of an attorney with the clients s/he represents. Same goes for all professionals. Imagine if doctors were subject to being called on the carpet for every person they treat. No different with lawyers.
6th Amendment to the Constitution (see especially the last sentence):
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Nailed it, Bill. We should always start with the constitution which most did and then of course, your analogy to a doctor paints the picture. Right to the point.
For some reason Willie Horton came to mind as I read this thread, Dukakis had no direct involvement in the release of Horton when he committed his crimes, yet he was blamed for it and subsequently lost an election because Republicans made it a political issue.
I agree that a lawyer should not be stigmatized by who he represents, but the reality of our political world it is apparently fair game.
The real test of integrity will be how the other candidates handle this.
Defense attorneys have a tougher row to hoe as prosecutors have shown, time and again,they are not above blatant rule breaking to get convictions. Since DAs and AGs have to run for office partisanship can play a large role in how justice is pursued.
No I think its absolutely frigging wonderful that a lawyer who defends child pornography smugglers is running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate. In fact, I hope Ted Bundy rises from the dead and enters the race as an Independent.
{~?€,€}<&$)(!!
Hello kettle, meet pot.
In the last election cycle, you endorsed a candidate (his name escapes me) who was convicted and did time for stealing from the elderly. Now you have a problem with a lawyer doing his job?
I'm not sure who you're talking to, but do you seriously think the vast majority of crimes in this country, including stealing from the elderly (whoop dee doo dah) in anyway compares to the disgusting evil that is child pornography??
Tim, not much of a comment without a name to reference.
Um, Bree. I think stealing from elderly folks is a pretty big deal. I'm guessing you didn't intend to diminish the suffering of an 85 year old, but to indicate that, among heinous crimes, child porn is worse. Agree? Disagree?
Mr. Higgins, read again: I said I don't have a problem with a lawyer doing his job. I'm asking the Republican primary electorate if they do.
Yes Deb, I am DIMINISHING the "suffering" of an old guy having some MATERIAL ITEM taken from him compared to THE HORROR OF RAPING CHILDREN.
Seriously Deb I know you didn't just say stealing from old people and child porn were both "heinous crimes" but child porn is just "worse." Unbelievable.
Stealing material items from the elderly is a minor infraction. Raping children is a horrific evil. They are in no way comparable, equivalent, or related.
i dont have a problem with him doing his job, but i do have a problem with them seeking bail based solely on his exceptional military service. If anything, that should be even more of a reason to remand him. He needs to explain himself on this matter.
The thread didn't say anything about the perp being a child rapist, it said he viewed child porn.
I'm sorry, Roger, was this a cartoon?? Maybe it was CGI???
And he wasn't just viewing child pornography, he was transporting it. Which he means he was likely in the business. You do realize they plea these things down, right.
Well, it only took me a few minutes to find out he hangs out with fine art and photography students. And one of his buddies mentioned in an article with him is a filmmaker. So he pleads guilty to transporting child porn and his friends are film makers. Yeah, nothing to see here. Too bad he didn't get in trouble for stealing from the elderly, probably get a longer sentence.
Bree,
CGI? What's that?
I just mentioned what I read in the thread and it didn't say anything about the guy being a child rapist, where did that come from?
A child was raped in order to make the film he watched. Do you comprehend that, Roger.
Bree who is Tim Higgins referring to regarding the candidate that was convicted and served time for stealing from the elderly?
I have no idea - a Democrat I assume since I'm pretty sure he was talking to Cory.
Well maybe Tim Higgins will let us know. That's interesting.
Bree, you seem to be releasing some pent up rage at anyone who dares disagree with you, ask you a question, seek clarification, etc. What is going on? We are not your enemies. Can you respond without demeaning, denigrating, etc? We're not after you. This is simple discussion.
Now, scamming the elderly is not simply a loss of a few possessions. When people who no longer have the capacity to work for money, get wiped out, there are serious life and death consequences. Perhaps it is more visible in a large metro area. They become homeless, lose all but basic health care, nutrition suffers, etc. It's real suffering.
Stealing from the elderly, does that include the trillions of dollars lost in the financial collapse a few years ago, or the Housing collapse in the 1980s?
Or how about Joe Bottom ruling that already retired Morrell workers, whose contract when they retired had health insurance for life, but then he took it away from them and of course they could not then go buy insurance because they had pre existing conditions?
There are all kinds of theft. Some is done with a gun, some is done with slight of hand by "well respected" citizens. The former go to jail if caught, the latter do not.
Gee Bree,
Why are getting so testy with me, I simply asked a question to which I had no knowledge.
From what I read it stated he viewed and manufactured porn and did not mention whether or not he was the child rapist. Obviously one is as repugnant as the other.
When vulnerable people, of any age, are physically or mentality abused or have their lives in ruin because they were ripped off, it shouldn't be necessary to label one more heinous than the other.
I truly wonder at your moral compass, Deb. Let me explain it to you. Children are born with an instinct to trust. They are naive and loving and want to believe the world is good, that people are good. A child who is raped has that faith in people destroyed. Their ability to trust is damaged, especially if they are attacked by a father figure. Their ability to comprehend parental love is severely damaged. They are mentally and psychologically damaged, their ability to trust other people and believe that they can be loved is severely hindered.
An old person who has some material goods stolen from him suffers only on a material level. That person has lived and gained wisdom, he expects selfish behavior and evil from people. The loss of these material items causes this person no great shock and no psychological damage. Even if he should have every single item he owns stolen and should end up homeless (a ridiculous storyline Deb based on the information at hand) and even if he should die a slow death of starvation (even more ridiculous but you seem to want to up the ante), this loss does not damage him psychologically the way that rape damages a young, trusting child. He has lived a full life, loving and loved, and no material loss can take that away.
The fact that you should even attempt this argument comparing child rape to theft from the elderly completely disgusts me.
Yes, Roger, child rape is unequivocally more heinous than being "ripped off." Ugh. That I should even have to argue this point is utterly amazing.
Yup, no conversations with Bree. But plenty of judgment, ragefulness, assumed superiority, and diminishment. Oh well. Guess I'll talk with others here so we can learn new things.
Elder abuse is real. They do suffer dearly and their deaths are hastened and their suffering is extreme. Whether Bree believes these facts or not does not make them any less factual.
With few exceptions, elder abuse punishment is minimal. Mistreatment by care givers and family members is generally a misdemeanor. This current legislative session MN has raised penalties following public pressure. Recent crimes like elders left without care resulted in bone deep bed sores, suppurating wounds, covered in fecal matter, etc., were considered heinous crimes by enough of the public and legislature that penalties enhanced to felony level passed without a quibble. The suffering endured by these elders was sickening.
The second focus of the legislature regarding elders was the scams that robbed elders of their economic resources and put them in those vulnerable situations.
I agree with you Roger. All of these crimes against vulnerable human beings are horrible and it's not necessary to measure them one against the other. It doesn't matter if the individuals are vulnerable because of their youth, developmental disabilities, or age. All these crimes are always despicable.
Apparently Deb doesn't give a crap about raped children.
Please do go on about elder abuse and their extreme suffering.
But you can blow all the smoke you want about my "ragefulness" and "diminishment." No level of "elder abuse" (I thought we were talking about theft but whatever) can ever compare to the horrific evil of sexually assaulting innocent young children.
I repeat Deb the obvious truth. The rape of children is a horrible evil. Stealing from the elderly is a minor infraction.
Bree, next time you have breakfast with the Grudz, see if you can snag me his grandad's watch and fob.
Lynn, Bree, Tim refers to Clark Schmidtke, District 8 Senate candidate in 2010. In my zeal to unseat crony capitalist Russ Olson, I maintained my endorsement of Schmidtke, even after he admitted he had convicted of forging checks in the names of elderly folks for whom he was caring. Russ Olson had his own rap sheet. I invite your comparisons.
This conversation has taken what to me is a strange and unsettling turn. Initially we were talking about A candidate, who in his job as an attorney, has or had a client who was accused of possession of child porn. No one is defending or diminishing the evil that is child porn. But I will defend the right of the accused child pornographer to have an attorney represent him in court. That attorney, even if his client is eventually convicted, is in no way also guilty of the crimes of his client. The right to council, it's a pretty simple concept and is enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
I agree with what Nick and Bill Fleming have stated.
Ditto Lynn. I need to stop trying to get clarification from Bree about what she says. She's proven that to be futile. Enough of thread hijacking.
So yes, everyone deserves Good legal representation, whether I want them to be severely punished or not. Too many innocent people are imprisoned, or receive outsized sentences. I think that number is low, but each one is still too many.
I'm also wondering if Ravnsborg chose that particular defendant, or if he was next one up, or assigned by the court. Does anyone know?
At any rate, I think we need to let this go and look at his positions on issues.