Obama’s Speech in AZ May Have Botched Federal Charge for Judge Roll’s Murder
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on January 13, 2011
Judge John Roll was murdered in Tucson by gunman Jared Loughner - Obama's speech in Arizona on Wednesday may have undercut federal charge
Why is this not surprising? Careless talk from POTUS is becoming the norm.
From Politico, Obama speech undercuts federal charge for judge’s murder:
It may have been inadvertent, but a passage in President Barack Obama’s speech to a memorial service in Tucson Wednesday night could undercut a criminal charge federal prosecutors have leveled at suspect Jared Loughner for the death of U.S. District Court Judge John Roll in a shooting rampage Saturday.
“Judge Roll was recommended for the federal bench by John McCain 20 years ago, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and rose to become Arizona’s chief federal judge,” Obama told the crowd at the University of Arizona. Roll’s “colleagues described him as the hardest-working judge within the Ninth Circuit. He was on his way back from attending mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say, ‘Hi,’ to his representative.”
In the complaint supporting Loughner’s arrest, federal prosecutors argue that Roll wasn’t simply seeking to pay a social call on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) when he showed up at the community outreach event where the shooting spree took place Saturday. Prosecutors and the FBI insist that Roll “was engaged in official duties” because he wanted to talk to Giffords and her staffers about problems with a surging caseload in federal courts in Arizona, particularly along the Mexican border.
Loughner’s alleged killing of Roll may only be a crime under federal law if Roll was on business and not merely stopping by to say hi to a friend. The death penalty is likely available to the feds anyway, because of the death of Giffords’s aide Gabriel Zimmerman. However, multiple murders are an additional aggravating factor that could lead to the death penalty under federal law, as is the killing of a federal judge when carrying out his official duties.
As a legal matter, Obama’s view (which tracks with the public narrative offered by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik) may be irrelevant, but it probably doesn’t help to have the President of the United States emphasizing the social aspect of Roll’s stop to see Giffords on Saturday, rather than the reason prosecutors claim drew him there.
It should be noted that Roll’s killing is clearly prosecutable under Arizona law. The issue of the strength of the federal charge for his murder mainly affects the dynamic between the state and federal governments over which should go first in prosecuting Loughner. For now, the feds are asserting their right to press forward before the state does.
Compilation of previous posts on the Arizona shooting:
Tucson Tragedy and the Liberals’ “Don’t You Dare Blame the Murderer!” Game
About the author
There is no way anything that was said at the very moving tribute that would in any way have an impact on the case against Jared Laughner. How could President Obama have any knowledge of what Judge Roll was planning when he stopped at Congresswoman Giffords’ meet and great? Only you would be so asinine and nit picky. At least the Faux News talking heads were as moved as the rest of us warm blooded humans, only commenting on the speech’s length. Big deal. It moved me to tears and gave me hope for our poor battered country.
Why have I seen no blog concerning Sarah Palin’s “blood libel” foot in mouth comment? Oh, I forgot, you only report on gaffes (real and made up) attributed to the evil left.
Speechwriters had access to ALL that information on why Rolls was there, sweetheart. I’ve not had time to comment/critique on the speech itself (and there are myriad sources that have), only the careless, incorrect information that POTUS released – I doubt he WROTE the speech, since presidents don’t do that, but they offer input. And as far as being “nitpicky,” gosh, the left-leaning Politico is the original source for this information. Important to note since Loughner’s attorneys are sitting back, taking notes, determining how to get the death penalty off the table for this murderer. Anything coming from the president’s mouth had better be FACTUAL. But since Obama usually steps in something when he speaks, this isn’t unusual. And his comment could indeed undercut the federal murder charge on the judge.
I’m not writing ENOUGH on this tragedy for you, Janet? Wow, you liberals are mighty tough to please.
What “made up” gaffes are you referring to? All sources in ALL posts are linked multiple times, buttercup. And many have videos documenting the EVIL LEFT, as you call them. Very accurate description for many of them, so good for you to begrudgingly acknowledge it. I’ve already linked to the “blood libel” statement in previous posts… here it is since you’re obviously not interested in (or are a tad bit too lazy) checking out the links I’ve already provided:
You obviously disagree with Palin and consider this written statement of Palin’s “foot in the mouth” – therefore, I must conclude that you believe that journalists and pundits SHOULD indeed manufacture a blood libel to incite hatred and violence.
Well, you got your wish, Janet, because they have already.
Other sources have used the same term this week, Janet, not just Palin, including left-wing writer at New York Times Paul Krugman, who wrote about placing “the blood libel of blame for the Tucson murders squarely on the shoulders of the crowds at the McCain-Palin rallies and right-wing extremism.”
Oops – a bit hypocritical of you, Janet. Guess in your book, Palin’s reference is “foot in mouth” when she says journalists shouldn’t do it, but it is acceptable and A-OK when the term is in the New York Times when placing blame. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.
I haven’t heard any liberals freaking out and slamming Krugman over his blood libel assertion, either. Washington Examiner, however, took him to task for it.
OK, Babydoll, also from Politico, 1/09/11:
“The actions and motivations of U.S. District Court Judge John Roll just before he was shot dead at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s campaign event in Tucson on Saturday are important for the public narrative about the tragedy, but they’re also vital to the federal criminal charge for his murder.
The criminal complaint federal prosecutors filed Sunday against the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, goes to some lengths to demonstrate that Roll didn’t show up at the Giffords event just to say hello to the congresswoman, or on some whim after attending mass, as reports Saturday suggested. That storyline was fueled by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who said “because [Roll] knows Gabrielle very well, [he] came around the corner to say hi. Unfortunately he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
By contrast, FBI agent Tony Taylor argues that Roll was at the event to talk to Giffords about ongoing problems related to a surge in the federal judicial caseload in Arizona–a problem which the judge has attributed to a boost in the number of federal agents sent to the area to address immigration and border-related crime.
Under federal law, the murder or attempted murder of a U.S. official, such as a judge, is only considered a federal crime if committed “while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.” In other words, if Roll simply stopped by the event to greet Giffords, who he’s said to have been friendly with, or due to idle curiosity about what was happening there, his killing probably wouldn’t be a federal offense.
Prosecutors are so intent on showing that Roll was on official business that they rely on triple-hearsay to make the case in their complaint. Taylor says Giffords aide Ron Barber, who was seriously wounded in the attack, gave details about Roll’s attendance at the event to Giffords’s chief of staff Pia Carusone, who in turn told U.S. Marshal David Gonzales, who shared the info with Taylor. (Such hearsay probably wouldn’t be permitted at a trial, but is fairly common in an agent’s sworn decalation like the one filed Sunday.)
“Judge Roll attended the event and sought to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, and spoke with Mr. Barber about issues about the volume of federal cases in the District of Arizona; Judge Roll expressed his appreciation to Mr. Barber for the help and support Congresswoman Giffords had given,” Taylor wrote, citing the triple-hearsay account. It’s not clear if Roll ever talked to Giffords at the event Saturday.
Taylor also says Roll was told of the Giffords event by phone on Friday, knocking down the idea that he saw a sign or otherwise stumbled on the event on Saturday. And the FBI agent says video shows Roll “speaking for several minutes with Mr. Barber,” which tends to suggest that the judge’s visit wasn’t purely social.
Of course, Roll’s murder, like that of anyone killed at the event on Saturday, can also be prosecuted under state law. But it looks for now like the local prosecutors will take a back seat while the federal prosecution goes forward. The state can pursue its case after the feds are done. That is especially likely if the federal case were to end in a way some might consider unsatisfactory, such as an acquittal by reason of insanity or a sentence of life rather than the death penalty.
The presence or absence of the charge against Roll in the federal case probably won’t make much difference in the punishment for Loughner stemming from the fedral case. The killing of Giffords aide Gabriel Zimmerman would appear to make the federal case death penalty eligible, even if prosecutors have trouble proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Roll was “engaged in…official duties” at the time of his killing.”
Got it Sugar Pie? Heresay, Not admissable. Besides, the killing of Gabe Zimmerman and the notes found in his family’s safe should be enough to put him away for a long, long time.
I wiill give the benefit of the doubt that you accidently missed the words which started the article: “It may have been inadvertent…”
Sweet Cheeks, the condescending, cutsy names are totally unecessary. It makes you look smug and is insulting to us both. I am a professional, middle aged woman, as I think you are. But I can give as well as I get. I don’t take kindly to being talked down to. Got it, Honeybunch?
I didn’t imply you aren’t writing enough, I am just curious why your hero Sarah hasn’t been called out for her (possible, but I doubt it) inadvertant statement about “blood libel” which, to me, is an insult to Giffords, who is Jewish. No defense? No poor little Sarah? While I agree she probably had nothing to do with Laughner’s actions, her actions and words leave a lot to be desired. Rifle crosshairs? Don’t retreat, reload? You don’t need to waste your time citing all of the similar quotes from the Democrats’ side. Heard them all already.
Janet, are you not reading any posts besides this one? I’ve responded to the “blood libel” in links in several previous posts and also in a new post. And in the response here that I posted the last time you wrote – what the media was doing WAS a blood libel and Obama’s slip-up was not from several days ago, but in a piece on Politico today on his speech from last night. I’m not sure what your point is, but you’re belaboring it and you can believe what you want, but he DID put into jeopardy federal charges against Loughner for the murder of Judge Rolls with what he said in his speech last night. And the president has misspoken or offended many other times before (i.e., Cambridge police, Ground Zero mosque, attacks on conservatives and American voters who don’t agree with him). Unless Politico was incorrect in its reporting of the federal charges, which then, I’ll concede.
What Palin wrote about blood libel was NOT inadvertent, but accurate and spot-on true about the media. I’m not calling her out on using the term since I agree with her and her usage, the left-wing media had also used the term a few times against conservatives, so why the question a second time, Janet?
No “foot in mouth,” as you wrote about Palin. She was decrying the deplorable crap and lack of journalistic integrity demonstrated by liberal pundits, bloggers, & journalists who don’t like being called on the carpet for what they were doing. They were indeed guilty as charged. Also, there have been those who believe, and it was reported, that Loughner could indeed harbor anti-Semitic feelings towards Giffords (which I’ve written about several times already). To suggest that “blood libel” can ONLY apply in a literal sense to Jews is amazingly silly. Sounds like chuckleheaded, warped logic from on MSNBC, being parroted as political correctness. And your “concern” for insulting Giffords while she fights for her life is a cheap ploy and is trying to take Palin’s words out of context.
Based on your “blood libel” logic being offensive to Giffords, we can’t use metaphors or allusions or historical references unless the speaker is of that same religion, industry, race, creed, etc. Per your summary, saying someone “hit it out of the ballpark” would be an insult to ball players, “he was paid his 30 pieces of silver” and “he was a Judas” and “they crucified him” would be insulting to Christians, and “it was like a bloody holocaust” would be an insult to Jews who died under Hitler’s regime. “It was a hurried Exodus” would insult Jews’ history, “a pound of flesh” referred to Jews in Shakespeare’s “Merchants of Venice.” The list of metaphorical references is endless, including countless Yiddish words and expressions that have been assimilated into the English language. Don’t you see the ludicrous, groundless argument you’re trying to make here with being upset with the term “blood libel” when it was being used as a metaphor? Since you don’t know Rep. Giffords, taking a stand to keep her from being “insulted” by the term is bogus – and a bit hypocritically theatrical on your part. When Palin is called a whore or worse, or any woman is called these things or are wished by others to be killed, have you EVER worried about them being offended or frightened by the threats? So don’t jump on the popular “blood libel” nonsense now just because the left-wing pundits tell you to.
Media liberals (and you) are suggesting that using religious metaphors, like the parting of the Red Sea, or splitting a child in half, or maybe even eating the forbidden fruit, should be forbidden (unless a leftist used a biblical term or reference to slam Christians or conservatives, of course – then it would be acceptable). Dumbfounding and sad that you’d jump on the sheeple’s bandwagon on this non-issue to suggest Giffords would be insulted by the term “blood libel.” Especially since Palin used the term correctly and drew historically accurate parallels/connections.
You wrote this: “While I agree she probably had nothing to do with Laughner’s actions, her actions and words leave a lot to be desired. Rifle crosshairs? Don’t retreat, reload? You don’t need to waste your time citing all of the similar quotes from the Democrats’ side. Heard them all already.”
“Probably”???? You actually wrote “probably she probably had nothing to do with Laughner’s actions.” Too rich. You’re not “sure” that she had nothing to do with the violent murder of six people? By qualifying your statement with the word “probably,” this shows you’re still buying into the deceit of the media to blame Palin, are so wrapped up in your leftist ideology you won’t allow yourself to apply a scant ounce of common sense to this. If Palin is “probably” to blame for Laughner’s action because of her political map with targets on it (and there is no evidence that Jared had ever been to her website – he’s been proven to be a liberal), why aren’t you attacking the violent movies and TV shows that he enjoyed? Or the violent video games he loved to play? Or the violent videos he made and posted on YouTube? Or the Satanic shrine he erected at his home or the anti-Jewish/anti-free market books he loved to read? If Palin is even in this equation of blame for his murderous actions, why aren’t ANY of these other profoundly disturbing and influencing factors even being mentioned by the left or by liberals like yourself? This is beyond dishonest, and you know it. One political map posted a year ago vs. playing violent video games several times a week, watching violent movies, having run-ins with police, having a drug problem, being kicked out of college for behavioral problems, etc. Which influence(s) or behaviors seem(s) most plausible to you to have triggered his assassination attack?
I won’t quote any of the Democrats’ attacks here, since I’ve already written about them several times, as have other bloggers, but if you’ve “heard them all already” as you state, but STILL don’t know if Palin in Alaska is guilty of prompting Jared in Arizona to plan and commit multiple murders while trying to assassinate Rep. Giffords, you need to do some serious soul searching.
“Rifle crosshairs” – metaphorical targets, on a map, a symbol used often by BOTH sides of the political fence. Unlike the crosshairs put on the FOREHEADS of Republicans by Democrats in political ads (including that of Democrat Rep. Harry Mitchell, EX-congressman in District 5 in AZ). Probably not a good idea by either side to use, but to attack Palin only for using it and to try to make a case of “probable complicity” in the Tucson murders is disgusting and disingenuous.
“Don’t retreat, reload” – a rallying cry to soldiers/infantry, which I believe is a tactical/military reference used for ages. Not sure when it was first used, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Palin’s brainchild.
Thank you for the “Sweet Cheeks” and “Sugar Pie” tags – loved them. Took me back in time to a previous boyfriend and a long-ago, previous time in my life (when I was a registered Democrat, actually) and my hubby doesn’t address me by either nickname… BTW, it’s spelled “cutesy,” not “cutsy.” I’ll refrain from calling you “buttercup.” But please, I like being called “Sugar Pie”, so don’t stop, OK? Calling me “Sweet Cheeks” is a little strange for a woman to say to another woman, but I’ll let it slide. Thanks for the grins.
And with that, as the illustrious blog mistress, I must direct you to the rules posted here, that have been posted here for ages. No attacks on Palin are permitted here, but I felt compelled to bend the rules for you because I felt I obviously had not addressed some of your questions thoroughly enough in all the other posts I’ve written on this tragedy in Tucson and how we all are suffering here in AZ.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree, Janet. And now, this discussion is put to bed. Good discussion – enjoyed it.
Vicki, I only occassionally visit your blog, which I happened to stumble across while looking for some more ways to save money. Therefore I have only read a smattering of your posts.
As to whether Palin had anything to do with the horrific tragedy in Arizona, there is no evidence whatsoever that Laughner was influenced by her “target map.” I sincerely hope not. I am convinced that he was just an unhinged whacko. No information has come forth whether he was or was not aware of the Facebook page or even of Palin herself. I have simply left open the “what if.” No one at this point except Jared has a clue as to his motives. “Probably” simply means that until proven otherwise there is still a chance he was influenced by Palin’s graphics and words. Simply a chance.
I agree, we will never see eye to eye, however I do enjoy hearing your side.
Fair enough, Janet – your explanation is sound, as are your reasons.
Have a fab night – did enjoy the debate immensely.