Beldar rips Dorothy Rabinowitz for comparing Nifong to Patrick Fitzgerald. At the same time, he predicts that the appellate court will free Libby pending his appeal, because of the issue relating to the manner of Fitzgerald’s appointment. Both posts are worth reading in their entirety.

Not that it’s a huge shock, but Nifong has just been found guilty of lying to the judge, hiding evidence, and lying to the defense attorneys:

[T]he bar’s three member disciplinary panel unanimously found Nifong guilty of fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation; of making false statements of material fact before a judge; of making false statements of material fact before Bar investigators, and of lying about withholding exculpatory DNA evidence.

I think he will be disbarred.

UPDATE: As I have long predicted, Nifong has been disbarred.

I think it’s an attempt to avoid being disbarred.

I don’t think it should succeed.

I see he is blaming his failure to turn over exculpatory evidence on a lack of experience:

He said he had not intentionally withheld evidence in the case, though he had made mistakes. He said that some mistakes made in the case, including mishandling evidence and not turning favorable DNA tests over to defense lawyers, were based on his inexperience in handling felony cases and oversight.

Lame.

UPDATE: He has been found guilty.

The North Carolina Attorney General has not only dismissed the Duke lacrosse charges, but has issued a very strong public statement, saying the defendants are innocent, and that Nifong overreached. It is much more than he needed to say to justify dismissing charges, but it is an important step in being fair to the accused.

It is also important as an effort to restore confidence in prosecutors generally. If my commenters are any indication, a not insubstantial segment of people lost faith in thousands of prosecutors across the country largely because of the actions of a single out-of-control prosecutor in Durham. I think it’s a mistake to stereotype based on one bad apple, but people do it anyway, so I’m glad to see such a public reproval of Nifong.

Allah has video.

Nifong’s been hit with a new ethics complaint. This one’s meatier than the earlier one, as it addresses his alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence. Allah says:

I’d bet my first child that he won’t disbarred.

I really feel like teasing him about that line, somehow, but I can’t find the right phrase. I’ll just leave it at this:

Don’t be too sure, my friend. And don’t go too far out on that limb.

UPDATE: Also via Allah is this link to the complaint itself.

The New York Times reports:

The district attorney has asked the state attorney general to take over prosecution of the sexual offense and kidnapping case against three Duke University lacrosse players, an official involved in the case said today.

It’s the weasel’s way out. He can’t go forward, but he doesn’t want to step up and dismiss the charges himself.

Contemptible.

Bold prediction: if the A.G. takes over, he will dismiss all charges.

OK, it’s not so bold. But it’s probably correct.

The person most likely to emerge from this fiasco with a criminal conviction is Mr. Nifong.

UPDATE: I just noticed that the letters in “recused” can easily be rearranged to spell “rescued.” How ironic. I think I’ll alter the post title to reflect this little tidbit.

The North Carolina bar is pursuing ethics charges against Nifong.

Good. This will help drive home the point that behavior like his is not the norm for prosecutors.

(Link via David E.)

I haven’t followed the Duke rape case closely.

But I do want to take this opportunity to say: thank you, Mr. Nifong. Thanks for giving prosecutors a bad name.

Thank you for making people believe it’s standard procedure not to talk to a rape victim before filing charges. My wife has been filing rape cases for years, and she always interviews the victim first. This is standard procedure in our office — and it means a lot of cases don’t get filed, because they can’t be proved.

But thanks to you, Mr. Nifong, the public thinks prosecutors file these cases blindly. Thank you.

And thank you especially for spreading the image of prosecutors as people who withhold exculpatory evidence. We all know what it’s like to learn that bad fact — the one that takes a great case and turns it into a struggle. But we also know what we do when that happens: we make a beeline for the phone, to call the defense attorney. Because that’s what the Constitution requires. And it’s just what you do.

But thanks to you, Mr. Nifong, people think that prosecutors learn about DNA evidence that points to innocence, and then collude with the lab to hide the results from the defense.

What the thank were you thinking, you dumb thank?

Thank you. From the bottom of my heart. Thank you so very much.

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

First, there is Eric Fuller and his comments to Democracy Now.  Basically he said things like this:

“It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Eric Fuller, a former campaigner for Ariz. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, told Democracy Now. “Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled.”

But I want you to watch the original video, and listen carefully.

It’s risible in many ways, but notice what he doesn’t say.  He doesn’t say he presently blames Palin, Beck, and so on for the attack.  He is saying he did Saturday night.  And of course that was the same night that Sheriff Nifong Dupnick was making his own intemperate remarks.  So is it reasonable for the Mr. Fuller to have believed law enforcement on that issue on that night?  Of course it is.

But you never hear them ask the obvious follow up question: do you still feel this way?  And if you look at the rest of the report, created today, it is obvious that these people are completely dishonest.  They have deliberately skewed every other piece of evidence to indict the right wing, leaving out every piece of evidence that might exonerate their targets.  Why should we think they presented this man’s entire statement?  For all we know, he might have said this, “yeah, I was really mad that night at the Tea Party and all that.  And now I am angry at Dipshit Dupnick for putting out that kind of wild speculation.  I feel manipulated.”

Now that the story has gone halfway around the world, who knows how he might amend that statement?

And even if Fuller still feels this way, unless he can present facts to back up his claim, it is just his opinion, no more informed by fact than the opinion of your average 9-11 Truther (Pat Buchanan proves that even a broken clock is right two times a day, here).  Maybe he heard the killer shout something relevant as he fired, but in that interview, he didn’t mention it.  So in the absence of him being privy to some piece of evidence the rest of us are not, there is no reason to think that just because he got shot he has a special line on the killer’s motivations.

Still I am not going to beat up the man if he repeats the blood libel.  He was shot and he is allowed to be angry, even irrationally so.  But we don’t have to credit his opinion, either.

But I don’t want to leave you annoyed as you go into the weekend, so let me share this video with you as well. Pat Caddell tells us what he really thinks about Paul Krugman:

The word bleeped out is “asshole.”

Hat tip: the Daily Caller.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

Our famously humble president is “amused” by the Tea Party rallies:

President Barack Obama struck a hyperpartisan note Thursday, telling Democrats that he was “amused” by the Tax Day Tea Party rallies.

Funny how? You mean funny like I’m a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I’m here to fuckin’ amuse you?

To paraphrase Joe Pesci in the above clip: What the fuck is so funny about us?

But it gets better:

Obama, addressing a Democratic National Committee (DNC) fundraiser in Miami, did little to endear himself to the Tea Party groups protesting around the country, saying “they should be saying thank you” because of the tax cuts he has signed into law.

Oh, I’ll be happy to say “thank you,” Mr. President — as soon as we redefine the word as I have used it here before.

You motherthanker.

Where the thank do you get the nerve to say that taxpayers should be thanking grateful to you? A guy who is adding trillions and trillions of dollars to our national debt, on a scale never before seen in a single presidential administration? A guy who is crippling our children’s ability to have a sound financial future? And you expect tea partiers to be appreciative? You have to admit, that’s pretty thanked up, you stupid thank.

So yeah, Mr. Humble. Thank you. Thank you very much, you thanking stupid motherthanker.