Did Anyone Else Catch This?

I was watching one of the CSPAN channels last week when a member of the ACLU said, straight faced (and there were no chuckles from the audience nor did he crack a smile or give much of a pause), that more rich white people should be falsely indicted (a la the Duke case) to help expose prosecutorial misconduct. I was pretty stunned, but everyone on stage with the guy didn't seem phased at all.

Getting crapped on by the government sucks for all involved. If prosecutorial misconduct is given greater scruitiny as a result of the Duke case, I'm very glad such a silver lining exists, but yikes, man. I don't even wish that kind of stuff on Scott Scheule.

I tried googling to find out the name of the ACLU employee, but there is so much with Duke case and ALCU I didn't get far.

Share this

Dogmatic, inflexible

I don't even wish that kind of stuff on Scott Scheule.

Just keep in mind that ideological rigidity is one of the least attractive qualities of libertarians.

Could there be a more

Could there be a more dramatic example of treating people as a means instead of an ends?

Speaking of using peoples' ends, your flirtation with me is becoming embarassingly obvious, Kyle.

The guy who said this needs to be exposed

Granted, there probably won't be repercussions, but we can certainly try.


Get a Tivo (or other DVR). Hit "record" the next time you see something like that. The machine is constantly recording (and deleting old stuff), so with luck you'll retroactively catch everything back to the beginning of the show.

Having the actual video would be a huge help in this sort of thing. So, get a Tivo/DVR.

I think C-SPAN makes all of

I think C-SPAN makes all of their programming available for free online, but I'm not sure if it is live or how far back it is archived.


So then all we need is a day and a time.

Looking at CSPAN's website,

Looking at CSPAN's website, but not being able to access the video here at work (having problems with my connection at home), I think it was this:


Yes, that's surely it

They have a text search, which gives you clickable transcript fragments (clicking them sends you to the corresponding section of video, and I'm going to try not to seem too stunned by this full-text full indexing of video moment by moment). Search for "white" and you get this section of transcript (reconstructed from adjacent bits grabbed through repeated searches):

... Well, everybody has heard about the Duke lacrosse case and the prosecutor who lost his license because of what he tried to do to rich white people at Duke. Well, that prosecutor was the beneficiary of the fact that we couldn't do anything about the prosecutors in Darryl's case because of the statute of limitations. So I guess the lesson is, if we're going to teach lessons to the people in power, then we're going to have to charge more rich white people so that the rest of the white people, the privileged classes, can see what it's all about. But we have tried to go after prosecutors in numerous of our cases in North Carolina. ...

Original transcript was all-caps. Speaker is Mark Rabil, "Former Defense Attorney for Darryl Hunt." (Names taken from video. Links not from CSPAN, I found these two links via Google searches)

Just to clarify something, while I would need to watch more video to make sure, I think that the prosecutor referred to in the phrase "that prosecutor was the beneficiary" is a different prosecutor from the Duke Lacrosse prosecutor (Nifong); it is presumably the prosecutor who prosecuted Darryl Hunt 2 decades ago, whoever that was. The text fragment doesn't make this clear.

Ah, thanks. So not one of

Ah, thanks. So not one of the ACLU people on that panel.

We've heard this argument

We've heard this argument from Charlie Rangel before, when he said we should bring back the draft so that the rich would feel the burden of the war too.