He takes issue that the case was dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct. He blames John Mitchell, the Attorney General under Nixon for the misconduct, and the FBI director at the time, W. Mark Felt.

Again this is laughable Now Obama is saying he thought Ayers was rehabilitated not that he did not know he was a terrorist.

Ayers was a responsible citizen and a 'Unrepentant terrorist at... the same time

No wonder Obama was an arm  candy lawyer that never tried a case in a real  court of law

-- Modified on 10/11/2008 2:46:05 PM

Good distraction but regardless of the source of the misconduct (in the prosecutorial chain), it no way lets Ayers off the hook. Just because he warrants a 'get out of jail free' card, does not make him any less a slime ball of monumental proportions.

-- Modified on 10/11/2008 3:24:05 PM

Assuming this gentleman is telling the truth, it is the same thing.  

As you correctly note, Mitchell was the AG under Nixon.  If there was misconduct by Mitchell, it would be classified as "prosecutorial misconduct," even if he was not the named prosecutor at trial at the time.  "Prosecutorial misconduct" covers not only the trial prosecutor but anyone involved in the prosecutorial aspect of the case.

More importantly,  there are three types of conclusions to a criminal trial: 1) guilty, 2) not guilty - not to be confused with innocence, and 3) a dismissal from some other legal imperfection.

None of the things in the third class have any relation to innocence.  There was a case a while ago where the case was ultimately dismissed rather than re-try it because the defendant was denied his right to represent himself at the trial.  That didn't mean he didn't molest the 9 boys.  

Several years before, that same defendant had gotten another conviction for molesting 5 boys reversed because he was tried in jail house clothes.  

Often the thing that gets the defendant's case dismissed may be the actual proof of guilt. In a 4th Amendment suppression case, to use one example, if the drugs are suppressed, the case may be dismissed.  However, the very fact of the drugs being there - a fact that will never come out at trial, proves in the non-legal world the defendant is guilty.

In this case, although the case was dismissed, the defendant (Ayers) admits he did it.

If you like legal technicalities, cause to clebrate.

Ayers pled guilty in 1980 to possession of explosives and served no time.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/fac...on_attacks.php

Ask anyone in criminal law.  When someone enters a plea to one crime, it probably is the case that he committed the greater offense but there are problems with proof or procedure.

Again, this does not mean he is innocent of the greater.  90% of the people in criminal law, defense and prosecutors both, will tell you that when a defendant excepts a plea to one charge, the overwhelming odds are that he committed the more serious offense, but the D.A. is willing to deal because of procedural issues not related to guilt.

Gosh, the big question in Ayers case is why did he have all those explosives.  Maybe he was going to start a diamond mine or build a road through a mountain.

Could be. Or maybe try and kill someone. What do you think?



-- Modified on 10/11/2008 4:12:38 PM

Did Ayers commit terror bombings? He definitely did demolition bombings like blowing up a statue. There was only one anti-personal bomb, and that's one that killed his Diana Oughton, Ayers' GF. He says he believes she died trying to stop it from being deployed.  

Either way, he says he's constrained from telling the story because of other people he would  implicate.

In all truth, the Weather Underground has ceased. Ayers is no longer trying to overthrow the government, and it seems that sentiment has calmed since the end of the Vietnam War, and hasn't revived with the Iraqi War.

I'm not at all convinced he's a terrorist. I'd rather that he served his time, and if I thought he hadn't gone straight, I'd say he should be locked up and charged.  

-- Modified on 10/11/2008 6:19:10 PM

Mark Felt was only assistant FBI director (not Director) but more importantly, he was DEEP THROAT.

First, he did not just blow up a statute. He was involved in in the bombings of N.Y. Police Headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972,

Second, the prosecutor does not know Ayers anymore, so he doesn't know what Ayers is things or feeling.

Third, he not only has not renounced his ideas, he has expressed regret that he didn't do more.

Indeed, this is the most upsetting thing about Obama's association with him in the early part of Obama's career.  If he had been associating with a repentant terrorist who has renounced his past, most of the people who are upset would not be.  Christians are big into repenting and forgiveness. BUT first you have to repent.

Fourth,if he were repentant, he would tell the story.  The fact that he refrains from doing so because he does not want to implicate people means that he does not want those people implicated for the wrongs they did.  It is a version of "the names have been changed to protect the guilty."

Sixth, the fact that the organization no longer exists is irrelevant.  It is his past ideas and actions.  Not the shell of the group.

Finally, in over 20 years of criminal law I have heard a lot of funny excuses.  "Gosh, I build bombs, but I was just trying to stop it from going off" is the lamest.

Just pointing out Ayers has a conviction

Thought you were downplaying it. Sorry. misunderstood.