Anti-Abortion Activists Indicted Over Planned Parenthood Videos

A grand jury in Houston indicted two people who are part of the group that made headlines last year with videos falsely claiming Planned Parenthood sold organs of aborted fetuses.

The Houston grand jury, which was empaneled to investigate Planned Parenthood after the Center for Medical Progress released its undercover footage last year, indicted the center's founder and another activist on Monday. The indictment was the first time anyone with the anti-abortion group has been charged criminally since the videos began surfacing last year.

Planned Parenthood was cleared of any wrongdoing. [More...]

Center for Medical Progress CEO David Daleiden and activist Sandra Merritt each face a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Daleiden also faces a misdemeanor count related to purchasing human organs.

About the videos:

The center's footage from the Planned Parenthood clinic in Houston showed people pretending to be from a company called BioMax that procures fetal tissue for research touring the facility.

Planned Parenthood has said that the fake company sent an agreement offering to pay the "astronomical amount" of $1,600 for organs from a fetus. The clinic said it never entered into the agreement and ceased contact with BioMax because it was "disturbed" by the overtures.

While the charges allege despicable conduct, like all indictments, they are merely charges, not evidence of guilt. If you are going to comment, keep in mind that these people have been charged, not convicted.

Some of you have mentioned this case in recent open threads. I know nothing about the case or the defendants. What I do know is that guilt sells in America, but not here. TalkLeft has no "court of public opinion" or "free speech" exception that allows readers to proclaim otherwise.

I'm sorry (not really) to dampen the "glee" some readers are feeling about this Indictment, but there are few principles more important than that the presumption of innocence applies to everyone, no matter how heinous the crime charged. Trials take place in courtrooms, not living rooms, and especially not on the computer keyboards of those who haven't seen all of the evidence seen by the grand jury. There are a host of sites that would welcome your pronouncements of guilt, but since this isn't one of them, please, take them there.

< Obama Ends Solitary for Juveniles in Federal Prisons | Assuming the worst: Clinton on Lincoln and Reconstruction >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well I Feel Glee... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:02:48 AM EST
    ... that the state is taking crimes related to Planned Parenthood seriously.  Maybe the charges will give the next person some hesitation before doing something so vile, because regardless if they are found guilty, it's going to be stressful and expensive.

    I only wish Texas wasn't a one party consenting state in regards to recording conversations.

    The aerial view (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    that the Grand Jury decided that an investigation cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing is of key importance.

     And, on the ground, a re-enforcement that words matter.  Baby killer and baby parts can register in homicidal actions of the often emotionally labile fanatic and extremist.

     Robert Dear, the accused in the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting that took the lives of three and injured nine, may be a prime example. As for the indicted, the grand jury has determined that there is smoke. The trial will determine if there is fire.


    I think it's hilarious (none / 0) (#2)
    by RCBadger on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    Do they have to prove intent?  That might be difficult.  

    I Believe... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:23:15 PM EST
    ...the charges are related to fake government ID's they used to get access to PP office.  The grand jury was actually looking into PP.

    Not sure it's a crime to doctor a video, and I don't believe they were indicted for anything related to the actual edited video.  That will be solved in civil court I would think.

    I wanted to mention above, that I am glad it's Houston for no other reason than we will not have to hear that the GJ or the jury is liberal biased, even though Houston is fairly liberal, I don't believe that is the perception of Texas in general.


    actually (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    I think they were indicted on the fact that they attempted to purchase "body parts" which apparently even attempting to purchase such is illegal in Texas.

    It's kind of hysterical to see the laws in Texas gobble up their own on this kind of stuff.


    David Dalaiden and Sandra Merritt ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    ... were each indicted on one count of tampering with a government record, which is a second degree felony in Texas. From what I understand, they are charged with having illegally manufactured for themselves two counterfeit state-issued driver's licenses, complete with aliases. These were presented to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast to facilitate their entry into discussions with that organization's staff, and the Planned Parenthood staff photocopied these phony documents for their own records.

    That subterfuge apparently came to the attention of the Harris County D.A.'s office when prosecutors subpoenaed those records, as part of their investigation into the activities of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which was initiated in response to the corresponding public charges leveled by Dulaiden and Merritt upon the release of that now-discredited video by their own organization, the grievously misnamed Center for Medical Progress.

    Additionally, Dalaiden has been charged with one count of violating the state's prohibition on the trafficking of human organs, which is a misdemeanor. He appeared on that doctored video offering to purchase fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood -- an offer which the organization refused -- and thus hoisted himself on his own petard. That he likely made this offer disingenuously, as part of an unauthorized "sting," doesn't matter.

    But the key point here, which all of us really can't stress enough, is that the Harris County grand jury has completely cleared the good folks at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast of any and all allegations of wrongdoing on their part regarding this miserable and sorry affair.

    I'm emphasizing that because some GOP personalities such as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former VA Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli are still issuing public statements to the media implying otherwise, and Abbott further insists that Planned Parenthood is still under state investigation over this matter.

    It's therefore important for all of us to push back hard against such misinformation when we hear it. So, please don't be afraid to correct those people who are, to put it politely, "terribly misinformed."

    Per the pending legal fate of Mr. Dalaiden and Ms. Merritt, that's entirely their problem and really none of my concern. By their own repeated attempts to defame and frame Planned Parenthood, they are wholly responsible for the events which have since transpired as a direct result of their actions.

    Indirectly and further, three innocent and defenseless people were subsequently killed at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, because some crackpot saw Daleiden's phony video and was allegedly inspired to cause mayhem, reportedly telling authorities "No more baby parts!" as they took him into custody following his armed assault on the facility.

    David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt have made their bed; let them now lie in it. And that's not glee, Jeralyn. Rather, I prefer to characterize it as some well-deserved Schadenfreude.



    Harris Co. DA: "The law is the law." (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 03:25:24 PM EST
    District Attorney Devon Anderson, who convened the grand jury investigation into alleged activities of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast that instead culminated with the indictment of that organization's accusers, took to the airwaves to answers her critics:

    "The inconvenient truth of a criminal investigation is that it doesn't always lead to where you want to go. Anyone who pays attention knows that I'm pro-life. I believe that abortion is wrong, But my personal belief does not relieve me of my obligation to follow the law.

    "First, at a press conference today, the defense attorneys asked me to re-present the investigation to another grand jury. I am not going to do that. We have a longstanding policy against grand jury 'shopping.' That means when a grand jury comes back with a decision we don't like, we don't go and find another one to get the result we want. That violates the integrity of the whole system. The only time we re-present is if new evidence comes to light. Twelve Harris County citizens have spoken, and I respect their decision even if it conflicts with my personal beliefs.

    "The defense attorneys also said today that the tampering with governmental records cases should not have been charged as felonies, since young people who are caught with fake IDs typically face misdemeanor charges here. But under Texas law, if a person uses a fake ID from another state, it is a felony charge. That's the law."

    Good for her.  

    Well said J... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    as scummy as these characters maybe, I can't get down with the prosecutorial tactics...a f*ckin' fake id charge? Let's indict every college freshman in American while we're at it.

    I dunno (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by CST on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    If a college student was stupid enough to use a fake ID to get into a bar and then attempted to bring criminal charges against the bar due to them receiving alcohol (or whatever) - I think they reap what they sow in that one.

    No one is going to waste time hunting down college kids, but if you deliberately bring it to their attention - that's kind of on you.


    I Got Caught With a Fake Military ID... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:17:03 PM EST
    ...the problem is they are so easy to fake.

    They don't play, I had no idea what was in my pocket and the hell it would bring down.  I just wanted to go to the clubs with my friends.

    The four charges revolved around altering government documents, no mention of military or ID, in them.

    Luckily for me they had a lot of compassion since I never used it for anything other than drinking.  The punishment, while pretty funny, is not for this thread, but it was the only time in my adult life I hit 6% body fat.


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    they reap what they sow...these are not nice people.  But the law also reaps what it sows...never been fond of the "show me the criminal, I'll find you the crime" style of prosecution.  

    Vindication for PP and conviction of the perps in the court of public opinion is good enough for me.


    yea (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:03:47 PM EST
    I'm not looking for a long prison sentence either.  But I dunno, some community service might just do the trick.

    For laws like this one - they are there for a reason.  And an understandable one, identity theft, for example, can do a lot of harm.  So I don't really see eliminating this law.  And if it exists for a reason, and someone publicly flaunts it, there should be some kind of consequence.  It doesn't mean you throw the book at them just because, but hold them accountable at least.


    With all due respect, kdog, ... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    ... we're not talking about a couple of 19-year-olds who were detained by bouncers while trying to sneak into Moose McGillicuddy's on Ladies' Night.

    With the release of their Bullschitt videos last summer, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt deliberately set into motion an appalling chain of events which:

    • Unfairly maligned Planned Parenthood, a respected and much-needed health care organization;
    • Placed that organization under undue legal scrutiny by the State of Texas and the Harris County D.A.'s office; and
    • Allowed opportunistic Republican congressional leaders, who were themselves long seeking any excuse to do Planned Parenthood harm, to site that organization in their crosshairs.

    Further, those videos apparently and indirectly led to the tragic shooting deaths of three people at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, allegedly at the hands of some nutball who believed the false charges to be true and then acted accordingly.

    At the very least, Daleiden and Merritt got themselves ensnared in a "sting" of their own making, and are hardly the victims here.

    To equate their actions with underage college kids trying to score some booze is really unfair to that couple's own victims, which is every woman in America who depends upon Planned Parenthood for her health care and reproductive needs, as well as those providers who've paid a steep price -- and in some instances, the ultimate price -- for trying to deliver that care.

    I do appreciate your having subsequently noted to CST that Daleiden and Merritt "are not nice people," even if that's somewhat of an understatement in my opinion. But let's please retain some proper perspective here regarding what has actually transpired in this case, and not try to reframe it into something it's clearly not.



    Can you please use (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    her first name or full name when referring to her -- as opposed to soley her last name? I don't like that she has the same last name as me, and I don't want it showing up on google any more than necessary. (Obviously she's no relation to me.) It's jarring to see her referred to solely by her last name. I can't do anything about the rest of the internet but I can at least ask readers here to refer to her by both her first and last name or else as Sandra M or Ms Sandra M. Thanks.

    I find it jarring, too (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:18:25 AM EST
    that Daleiden was the name of my wonderful OB-GYN for years, delivered my children -- and was a staunch supporter of women's reproductive rights.

    I suspect that my now-retired doc, wherever he is, shares your reaction to his (sur)name in headlines.


    I'm sorry, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 02:10:52 AM EST
    Of course I will. I wasn't even thinking about that. I should've known better. My apologies.

    I don't think I reframed anything... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    A fake ID charge is a fake ID charge...seems petty to me, but our criminal justice system is generally pretty petty so it's nothing out of the ordinary.

    I'm well aware of what these bastards tried to do...and they failed miserably.  All's well that ends well...why make martyrs of the legal system out of them when they've already been shamed and discredited?  


    it is not (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nyjets on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    Fake ID charge is not petty. Especially when  you use the fake id to do some bad things. Like what was allegedly done in this case.

    Did they fail? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    I'm not so sure about that.

    They've probably succeeded in planting some seeds of doubt and suspicion about PP in a few places where they didn't exist before..

    And some prominent voices on the Reich are far from backing off and issuing public apologies about this.

    This is somewhat like win-at-all-costs, take-no-prisoners wingnut modus operandi that gave us the ACORN video and the Shirley Sherrod debacle..

    The main goal is to, as dubya's people said, "catapult the propaganda" and then issue the tepid page three retractions and equivocations weeks later, if they're absolutely forced to..


    I'm betting... (none / 0) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    the families of the people who were killed at the Colorado Springs PP office don't feel much like they won anything.  

    unfortunately (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    until they were indicted people were taking their garbage seriously. I wish that were not true but it is.

    I'd bet those same people... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    will still believe what they want to believe during and after this prosecution, same as before the prosecution...now it can be a vaster conspiracy with living martyrs which is even more exciting for the anti-choice crowd! lol

    So I still fail to see the point.  


    It's Certainly... (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:44:08 PM EST
    ... a deterrent, they are looking at 20 years, which probably means in the future they won't alter ID's in their non-sense, which in this case, would have meant no entry adn no video.

    I have a very hard time understanding how a doctored video is covered under free speech, half the 'speech' was of someone who didn't know they were being recorded.  But that is the real crime here, they defrauded the public of the truth by cooking up a video.


    Come to think of it... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:58:14 PM EST
    why isn't a doctored drivers license considered free speech like a doctored video?

    It might be fun to go hit the bars as McLovin.


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    Half seriously... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    It could be argued it's a free speech/free press right to print a 2" x 3 1/4" card with whatever letters and numbers you want on it.

    It could be argued, yes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    But it's an argument that holds no water.

    Your government-issued ID technically belongs to the government - they have the power to revoke it and the right to decide who gets to make it.

    So do you see why you don't have the right to make your own?


    What if I don't use my... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 03:17:11 PM EST
    McLovin driver license to drive, then is it ok?  I'll even put in microscopic print "for entertainment purposes only" on there, just for you.  

    You can use whatever you want (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    If you are pulled over, or use it when asked to provide ID (like for TSA or to open a checking account), then you might have a problem.

    Getting serious... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:25:02 PM EST
    I could see Planned Parenthood as a place where one might want to use an alias. Not because you're a sandbag artist on an entrapment crusade, but  because you're a scared young woman who may be under duress from your family or partner about your reproductive decision.

    Do all patients have to produce identification? I don't remember, it's been so long since I've been to a PP.


    I have (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    to show my driver's license at the doctor's office. So yeah, everybody probably has to show one especially if they are using insurance. I don't know if they're paying cash if they would have to though.

    Oh, for heaven's sake, kdog! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 04:21:37 PM EST
    kdog: "Do all patients have to produce identification? I don't remember, it's been so long since I've been to a PP."

    This isn't some back-alley, fly-by-night operation we're talking about here. Planned Parenthood clinics are licensed outpatient medical facilities that are required to follow the laws and protocols of the respective state in which they're located -- perhaps even more so than other outpatient facilities such as community health centers, given the obvious and extreme public scrutiny under which Planned Parenthood is presently operating.

    So of course, a patient is going to have to present some form of identification in order to receive treatment. Further, a physician could have his or her license suspended or even revoked for violating the law by, say, prescribing birth control pills to a 13-year-old without prior permission or concurrence of her parent or legal guardian. And whatever treatment / care that patient does receive at a Planned Parenthood clinic falls under the protections afforded by the legal concept of patient-doctor privilege.

    Please don't be so flippant about this issue. Because Planned Parenthood clinics provide much more than reproductive services to their patients / clientele, it's terribly demeaning to those women who use these facilities as their primary access portal for their health care.



    Or... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    .... Nick Pappageorgio from Yuma.

    The problem (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    is the people who weren't whole hog into the videos or rather the people who were advocating for them in ignorance. Those people have quit. For the hardcore no, it's nothing to change but it's certainly ended the GOP promoting those tapes hasn't it?

    Different day, same result. (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:01:53 AM EST
    For those who, at least, finished high school the P.P. video scam was perceived for what it was, just another attempt by the Ridiculous Right to degrade their cognitively-challenged followers, and, their ability to correctly process events taking place.

    For these hapless followers, this indictment will have the same affect that Trump's verbal garbage has with his followers. In their tormented minds this will just be more proof that "everyone's lying," and, add fuel and urgency to the necessity of "taking back our country."

    Trump doesn't even have to be involved, and, his poll #'s will go up another 2-3 points. (Remember, up is down, left is right, and right is wrong.) In a normal world this turn of events would elicit a feeling of schadenfreude. But, like with Kim Davis, criminal indictments will be rewarded with praise and martyrdom.

    I have (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:52:16 AM EST
    seen exactly what you are talking about on Facebook. The right wing accuses everybody else of lying instead of the actual people that were doing it.

    Just a small point (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    I went to Factcheck:

    At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: "Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They're looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line."


    So an unedited version was released.

    Now those opposed to PP will argue that the editing did no harm and the pro PP folks will scream otherwise.

    But we should get past that and understand that the two indicted were investigating what they and millions of others see as something evil. That they used fake ID to avoid being ID'd in PP's database is a given and necessary.

    Now the question.

    Should we charge all journalist/investigators who take aggressive actions during the process??

    Do we really want a chilling effect on people we want to be looking over the shoulders of our politicians, corporations and other public institutions?

    If I had been on that Grand Jury there is no way I would have been a party to charging anyone in PP with a crime. But I also confess that I would have told the DA that to charge the two investigators was a political act and I would have nothing to do with it.

    Interesting.. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:10:10 PM EST
    those "opposed to PP" argue things (calmly and rationally, we must assume), while the supporters of PP only "scream"..

    Don't look now, but it may be that another cheerleader for the Robert Dears of the world is showing his bias..

    Now for your answer.

    If under the intentionally vague rubric of "aggressive actions"  you're including patently fraudulent and illegal actions bankrolled by parties skulking in the shadows, then it's obvious that you need a refresher course in the meaning of the word "journalism" as it's best exemplars have always practiced and taught it here.


    Well, I see that you are firmly (1.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    in the camp of those who want investigative journalism controlled. What's next for you? A demand that the gov quits FOIA's and your local government doesn't have to let anyone in their zoning meetings?

    As for "screaming..."

    Scott feels glee...RC thinks its hilarious...GA finds it hysterical...Donald sees it as well-deserved Schadenfreude.....


    People sneaking around at the (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:13:07 PM EST
    behest of folks who want stir up the conservative religious Republican base in an election year are not real "investigative journalists" -- they're fumbling, ham-handed political operatives.

    Which is an obvious fact that only you and a handful of hysterical talk radio hosts are unaware of.

    But, by all means keep digging that hole you're standing in.


    It is amusing to see (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:31:35 PM EST
    people who shouted "Speak truth to power" defend the power structure they agree with.

    And what specific "truth" is it (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:35:50 PM EST
    that you're standing up for this week?

    I never knew what it was (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:28:36 AM EST
    when I first heard the Left yelling it.

    So you'll have to ask others.


    Give Me q Break... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    ... I feel glee for Texas investigating crimes related to PP.  It's right there, not sure why you spin words that are right there in print above yours.

    Using you ridiculous notion, a journalist should not be accountable for any crimes, need some 'facts' just torture a dude in the name of journalism, after all Jim says that is nothing more than an aggressive action.

    Maybe you should apply your standards to Snowden, and see if your processor comes up with a different answer.  Of did you mean aggressive actions(crimes) taken by conservatives shouldn't get prosecuted.

    But to answer your question:

    Should we charge all journalist/investigators who take aggressive actions during the process??

    No, we should investigate and prosecute crimes no matter who commits them.  If you want to change the meaning of crime to something like 'aggressive action' to make some silly point, that is your choice, but they are accused of committing crimes, not of committing aggressive actions.

    That comment is exactly what is wrong with the republican party, when they do it, it's not bad.  When everyone else does it, bad.  If you don't feel that using a altered ID is wrong, then state that, but don't try and push the notion that when republicans use fake ID's, it is not a crime, it is.  And if they did it, they should be prosecuted like anyone else who uses a fake ID to gain access to someplace they should not be.

    Also, they tried to purchase human organs, is that an aggressive action or a crime ?

    Whether they came clean after pressured to do so is irrelevant.


    Yes, the First Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    protects against government censorship or control of the press.  However, it does not provide blanket protection in journalism. For example, there is freedom to publish, but not freedom from liable.

     Or, freedom from intrusion claims such as invasion of privacy, trespassing, or installing secret cameras to monitor a subject.

     The Supreme Court has indicated that holding for criminal liable is not unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Intent is a critical component in journalism and, say, committing a crime to obtain a story is risky business. Journalists are expected to be responsible and ethical in pursuit of their objectives so as not to run afoul of Constitutional protections.


    Bully for you, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 03:51:52 PM EST
    But please be advised that grand juries do not necessarily have to be unanimous in their decision making. A simply majority can either bring forth an indictment, or decline to charge. In this instance, it's likely that you'd be outvoted.

    And what exactly do you mean, that indicting these two bozos on felony charges is "a political act"? Look at the evidence here. They clearly used phony California driver's licenses to gain access to Planned Parenthood executives and per Texas law, use of a fake ID from another state constitutes a second degree felony. Therefore, it would be your own pointed refusal to even consider their indictment under that law which would constitute a political act, not vice versa.

    Deal with it -- and while at it, lose the double standard. Because methinks it's very highly doubtful that you'd be feeling the same way, were David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt from "Democracy Now" rather than the Center for Medical Progress, and they were convincing Aamon and Cliven Bundy en camera to traffic in automatic weaponry with members of the Michigan Militia and Sinaloa Cartel.



    Our hostess Jeralyn Merritt (none / 0) (#44)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    is not only a top notch criminal defense lawyer, she is the nations leading expert on invasion of property, secret cameras, and wire taps.  She spoke to a room full of lawyers about how to confront these issues online.  She usually speaks once a year in Key West, so you might want to attend the next one KeysDan.   You have good restaurants down there too.