Comments

  1. anon says

    This is known as a “don’t make me angry!” prosecution, where the degree of effort is proportional to the lack of compliance by the defense. Judges hate it when prosecutor do these things, but that won’t necessarily help the defendant.

  2. says

    it’s wholly vindictive. like Manning, Choi visibly and defiantly gave a face to how appallingly wrong the government’s stance was. and remains.

    as for the cowardly commenters who will call Choi a fame/attention-whore – just remember, you’re only calling him that because he did what you dont’ have the spine to do, yourself.

    Choi was/is an outspoken and visible presence – a highly intelligent and skilled patriot whose skills and intelligence were tossed away because of his sexual orientation.

    shame on those who call him a famewhore. putting a face to the affront that was DADT was needed, and is still needed.

  3. Zlick says

    I haven’t been following Choi’s case as closely as perhaps I should … but am I reading this story right in that the Writ of Mandamus was granted such that there can be no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or vindictive prosecution? WTF?

  4. voet says

    Adam Kokesh is a horrible interviewer. He keeps interrupting and injecting his own comments. A good interviewer could have gotten the same information from Choi in half the time.

  5. Ex AF says

    I think Dan is all about promoting Dan. Imagine what would happen if all charges were dropped. I’m sure Dan would create another situation to continue hs martyrdom.

  6. brad says

    This is Obama’s DOJ that is carrying this out. This is why I don’t think Obama is all that LGBT friendly. This is the administration that had to be dragged into the DADT repeal debate and forced against their will to make a decision. I’m not at all surprised they are being vindictive. I hope the national media shed more light on this nasty bit of revenge.

  7. Profe Sancho says

    From Wiki: “In the context of mandamus from a United States Court of Appeals to a United States District Court, the Supreme Court has ruled that the appellate courts have discretion to issue mandamus to control an abuse of discretion by the lower court in unusual circumstances.”

    Here the trial judge has been directed by the mandamus to rule out selective prosecution as a defense – a defense the judge was obviously inclined to allow. Now he simply cannot allow it or any testimony related to it, and Choi’s lawyers have to use another defense.

  8. says

    DOJ holds people w no criminal charge, no bail hearing and no evidentiary hearing for months at a time and they do so because of what documents people file in federal court. Judge John D. Bates has ruled that this is legal.

  9. says

    DOJ holds people w no criminal charge, no bail hearing and no evidentiary hearing for months at a time and they do so because of what documents people file in federal court. Judge John D. Bates has ruled that this is legal.

Leave A Reply