Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (53306)	4/5/2006 7:56:24 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

House rules are for other people, not her. They have to stop picking on her for being black in Congress.

To: sandintoes who wrote (53306)	4/5/2006 10:22:37 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 59480

McKinney will win this one. The people in her district deserve better representation. The fact that even Nancy Pelosi shuns her says it all. ...I am impressed by the way she has skillfully raised the stakes. It would be hard enough for federal prosecutors to take on a member of Congress in any circumstances, but they are now on notice that they stand to be publicly branded racists--and perhaps face a civil rights lawsuit--if they file charges against McKinney. Under that sort of pressure, no one would blame them for backing off. McKinney vs. Capitol Police: Who'll blink first? By Steve Lubet Published April 5, 2006 If Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) ever gets tired of politics, she ought to consider a career in poker. She obviously is skilled in the art of the bluff. Rather than apologize for hitting a Capitol Police security officer, McKinney has launched a caustic campaign to discredit the officer and characterize herself as the victim of police brutality. Her claims are extreme, but of course that's the point. The more aggressive the bluff, the more likely it is to work. On March 29, McKinney was involved in a scuffle with a Capitol Police officer, when she tried to bypass the metal detector at the entrance to a government building. While members of Congress are allowed to bypass the metal detectors, McKinney was not wearing her identifying lapel pin at the time. According to one account, the officer repeatedly asked her to stop as she walked around the security station. When she continued walking, the officer tried to stop her, and she struck him. The Capitol Police have not released additional details, but it has been reported that they have asked federal prosecutors to issue an arrest warrant for McKinney. The congresswoman responded by lambasting the officer for failing to recognize her. "This whole incident was instigated," she said at a press conference, "by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me--a female, black congresswoman." McKinney's lawyer announced that she is considering filing a criminal complaint or civil lawsuit against the officer alleging racial profiling. "Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black," he said. We don't yet have all the facts, so it is hard to tell whether McKinney has a good case. How many times did the officer call on her to stop? How much force did he use in restraining her? Have white congressmen been routinely allowed to breeze through security without their lapel pins? McKinney will have to provide at least a few favorable answers in order to support her claims. On the other hand, even McKinney's lawyers have conceded that the congresswoman was not wearing her lapel pin as she blew through the checkpoint. Nor has she denied that she kept going when the officer called on her to stop. Nonetheless, McKinney and her lawyers insist it was the officer's job to recognize her. "The pin is not the issue," she said at the press conference. "The issue is face recognition." Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems dangerous to base Capitol Hill security on the assumption that every officer will be instantly able to recognize all 535 members of Congress. Was he supposed to let someone rush past him without going through the metal detector because she might be a congresswoman? Or was it more reasonable to ask her to stop for a moment so he could check her identification? And when she ignored his repeated requests, what choice did he have but to stop her? You might expect McKinney to answer those questions, but that is not how a good bluff works. Bluffing depends on uncertainty. Do the Capitol Police really have a history of discrimination? Did the officer use excessive force? Does McKinney have solid evidence to back up her claims? And how much are the Capitol Police willing to pay--in the currency of reputation and credibility--to find out? I don't know for sure whether McKinney is right or wrong, but I am impressed by the way she has skillfully raised the stakes. It would be hard enough for federal prosecutors to take on a member of Congress in any circumstances, but they are now on notice that they stand to be publicly branded racists--and perhaps face a civil rights lawsuit--if they file charges against McKinney. Under that sort of pressure, no one would blame them for backing off. And that is what makes it a consummate bluff. Just ask any poker player. By putting enough chips on the table, you make the game too expensive for the other players. Even if they believe they are holding winning cards, a massive raise can succeed in intimidating them into folding their hands, because they have to wonder whether you've got an ace in the hole. In that regard, Cynthia McKinney has shown that she knows exactly how the game--whether it is politics or poker--is played. ---------- Steven Lubet is a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of "Lawyers' Poker: 52 Lessons that Lawyers Can Learn from Card Players." Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune chicagotribune.com