Fire this racist fuck: Federal prosecutor under fire for Obama, Trayvon rants

[cali]

He has no business being a federal prosecutor.

The U.S. Attorney in East Texas plans to review a federal prosecutor’s Facebook rants against President Barack Obama and Trayvon Martin.

John Craft, an attorney in the criminal division of the Eastern District of Texas, blamed “low-information” voters for electing the “Dalibama.”

He included a graphic that said, “Obama: Why Stupid People Shouldn’t Vote.”

In another post, Craft referenced the Martin case: “How are you fixed for Skittles and Arizona watermelon fruitcocktail (and maybe a bottle of Robitussin, too) in your neighborhood? I am fresh out of ‘purple drank.’ So, I may come by for a visit. In a rainstorm. In the middle of the night. In a hoodie. Don't get upset or anything if you see me looking in your window...kay?”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fed-prosecutor-rants-obama-trayvon-article-1.1427665#ixzz2c40ZROje

[shenmue]

1. How ignorant can he get?

Good grief.

[Blue_Tires]

2. What's his DU name?

[cali]

5. say what? are you seriously calling DUers racists?

that's sick.

[Blue_Tires]

8. I'm just saying there have been more than a few racist socks in recent months

who seem to be impossible to get banned..

[cali]

19. true enough, but mostly they do get banned sooner or later

and the vast majority of posters here aren't racists. thank god.

[JI7]

27. .

[indepat]

3. Who appointed this flaming arse?

[oberliner]

4. These comments were meant to be private

Someone took a screen shot and forwarded it to a news outlet. Do you have any problem with that?

Second question: If (in a private message) he had blamed low-information voters for electing Bush (and called him, say, The Chimp), would you have had a problem with that?

That said, I think his comments were totally deplorable (especially the one with respect Trayvon Martin).

[cali]

6. yes, I have a huge problem with it. Do we really need racists as federal prosecutors?

How many times do people need to be told that NOTHING that you post online is private. He's stupid as well as a racist pig.

As far as his comments about Obama, they're stupid. USAs serve at the pleasure of the president and AUSAs serve at the pleasure of the USAs.

[oberliner]

11. No we don't

But you know how the ACLU defends people whose opinions are despicable in certain circumstances? I just worry about the possible precedent something like this would send, with respect to privacy. Do you think you have posted anything here or in an email to a friend or in any other context that might get you fired from your job?

[cali]

15. If he weren't an AUSA I'd see your point, but he is. He's not the employee

of a private employer and he's in a position where his racism could seriously effect the justice system.

Sorry you seem unable to grasp this. It's pretty basic.

[Blue_Tires]

18. You do realize he's handed every local defense attorney

of black defendants an automatic defense, right?

[oberliner]

21. I could see him getting fired over this for sure

I'm just looking more broadly at the idea of private Facebook posts being sneakily sent to news outlets - just rubs me the wrong way.

[Blue_Tires]

25. Yeah, it's the world we live in now...

You don't dare make a fool of yourself in public or online these days because everyone has smartphones and it gets instantly put on youtube or instagram or tumblr or shared on FB or retweeted 100,000 times and all of a sudden you're this week's viral celebrity for all the wrong reasons...and yes, sometimes the uploader is even your own spouse/parent/family member/co-worker/neighbor, etc...

But like I said this guy is in a public office representing this nation's law and order and the rules are different...For the person who ratted him out, it doesn't matter if it was a private message, it comes down to a simple matter of "I have information with potentially far-reaching implications that the public has a right to know about..." (almost like a certain former NSA paper-pusher?)

[Blue_Tires]

10. He should still lose his job, since his ability to prosecute cases fairly is in question...

[oberliner]

12. Scary precedent though

Just feels a little too "thought police".

[Blue_Tires]

14. He works in a public office serving citizens of all races...Goes with the territory...

[cali]

16. not even a teeny bit. not a scary precedent.

I think it's disturbing that you're more worried about that than about how his racism could pervert the justice system.

[oberliner]

20. Yes, actually a lot

Especially for those in public service.

If his racism "perverts the justice system" then he should be fired for that.

I am disturbed that you think there is "not even a teeny bit" of concern here.

What is to stop a Breitbard-acolyte from creating a list of state prosecutors who are liberal and try to find some private remark they made against Bush or Zimmerman or what have you?

It is bizarre that you can't recognize a potential problem here.

[cali]

22. don't post stupid shit online. there is no such thing as privacy on Facebook. period.

I'm much more concerned about the real problems of racism in the justice system which have been documented repeatedly.

How on earth is this any different from all those repubs who have been called out for forwarding (or making) racist jokes about the president? True the comments about the President weren't overtly racist- though combined with the comments about Martin, they form a pattern.

Why does this case bother you more than those?

[oberliner]

28. I don't think it was posted online

I think it was a private message sent via Facebook. I could be wrong on that though - some of the articles appear vague and contradictory on this point.

With respect to the Obama comment, I can see myself saying something similar about Bush. And I've definitely seen much much much worse comments about Bush and other Republicans on here - and from people who I think would still be able to do their job without letting those views interfere.

I know absolutely nothing about this person beyond these leaked items. Maybe someone asked him to write a parody. Maybe he has an online personae that is different from who he is in real life. I don't know. Everybody has bad thoughts now and then. I think there ought to be some healthy outlets for them to be released so they don't manifest themselves in unhealthy ways.

I'm not sure how I feel about all this - my gut tells me this guy is probably just a flat out racist and should not be holding the job he is holding. I just don't like the idea of people sending screenshots of ostensibly private messages to news outlets.

[Bunnahabhain]

32. You raise all the correct questions

So we read this idiot's posts and think, "He's a racist fuck and has compromised himself as a prosecutor." I am 100% sure, that somewhere on the Web-nets, is a liberal prosecutor talking about "Repukes" and "Rethuglicans" and the like. Most this person now be recused from all cases involving the prosecution of all registered Repubs? (We also can be sure it's far more than one liberal prosecutor, i.e. people awarding government contracts, regulators and inspectors, etc.)

Your comment about thought police was completely on target. None of us are 100% pure, none of us are without biases, none of us have not said, written, posted something that could be construed as biased against one group or another. People are far too quick to condemn others not realizing they might get hoisted on their own petards.

***Insert obligatory statement here: this guy in question is an idiot***

[Blue_Tires]

33. It's not "thought policing" at all to investigate whether

the personal views of a public official with the power to imprison you for life (or to death row) might *slightly* affect the way he runs his office, or prosecutes black defendants differently than white ones...

Have we all at one time or another said something online or in a private conversation that could make life hell if it was ever outed? Sure...Do we all have the professional legal powers of a federal prosecutor? No...

[Bunnahabhain]

34. Of course we are not all fedearl prosecutors

And as I pointed out this should not impact just federal prosecutors.

But it is certainly thought policing to remove this man from his job unless his actions are found to be questionable. And btw, prosecutors do not imprison people at all, let alone for life. They simply bring charges and argue a case. Those people in black robes and the other ones that sit in the box and listen to evidence and witnesses, those are the ones the decide to imprison people or not.

[Blue_Tires]

35. It is *NOT* thought policing to fire him

He has called the credibility of his entire office (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) into doubt....Because now I'm wondering who else in that office is a racist if Craft is lovingly tolerated...Not to mention it makes the Justice Deptment as a whole look bad...

He has brought doubt on any past/pending cases he was actively involved in...

If he has any influence on hiring/promotion decisions, they now need to be reviewed...

You know what I fucking mean when I say he has "power" -- Does he sentence? No...Does he decide how many charges to bring up and how harsh of a sentence to push for versus making a deal? Yes...

Lest you forget, the state of Texas doesn't have the best record of objective jurisprudence when it comes to peoples of a "certain color" (go look up Tulia and get back to me)...

[Bunnahabhain]

38. I'm not going to argue

but I'm not jumping on the bandwagon either. Until the guy DOES something wrong it is thought crime to fire him for his...thoughts. As I put forth, and you have yet to respond to, I can assure you the same logic could be used against liberal officials. Do you want someone in a position of power posing on DU, using the terms "Repukes," "Pukes," or "Rethugs" losing their job as the claim will be made they cannot treat a registered Republican fairly? It's a slippery slope ya'll are on.

[HangOnKids]

39. Slippery Slope We Are On?

Really? Keep posting Bunna, not that I have to remind you to do that.

[Bunnahabhain]

42. I explained the slippery slope

Keep up!

[HangOnKids]

43. Of course you did.

Keep up!

[Bunnahabhain]

44. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Thank you for the compliment.

[HangOnKids]

46. Gee you are confused

I realize this is hard. I hope things get better.

[Bunnahabhain]

48. Thank you for the kind wishes

And for I am sure what you feel is straightening me out. It's appreciated.

[noiretextatique]

49. he DID something wrong

he revealed a bais that could affect his ability to do his job without allowing his personal prejudices to influence his decisions. zero tolerance for racists.

[Bunnahabhain]

41. We will have to agree to disagree

I think it is thought policing.

And no, I did not know what you fucking meant but I do know what you said. What you said was wrong.

[LanternWaste]

45. It then begs the question: what is the relevant and precise definition of "thought police"?

It then begs the question: what is the relevant and precise definition of "thought police"?

[Bunnahabhain]

47. That's not question begging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Pet peeve on how that's misused.

Either way, what's your relevant and precise definition?

Also, FWIW, I am not the only one that thinks this smacks of thought policing. In fact, I merely agreed with a prior poster (who seems to indicate he is an attorney employed by the feds but I could be misreading that).

[LanternWaste]

59. I rarely define bumper-stickers

"Either way, what's your relevant and precise definition? .."

I rarely define bumper-stickers as they are ambiguous enough to mean only what the speaker wants them to mean... However, it seem facile and absurd (at best) to make an indictment for which there is no clear definition.



"FWIW, I am not the only one that thinks this smacks of thought policing..."

I imagine many people believe that more popular a fallacy is, the more valid that fallacy actually is.

[noiretextatique]

50. thought police, pc, feminazi...and now, peace purist

all are terms that express the outrage of the dying dominant white male cultural paradigm. how dare some uppity other tell me what is acceptable in civil society!

[HangOnKids]

29. The Privacy Comments About Facebook Are Jaw Dropping

There are people out there that think Facebook is their bedroom diary? For fuck sake. Really?

[oberliner]

30. There are private Facebook messages that are like emails

As opposed to say public postings that anyone who view the page can see.

[HangOnKids]

31. Of course there are

Did the article say private messages were uncovered? Or just facebook postings? Having a private facebook page does not make things private. People are reading these postings.

[Blue_Tires]

36. Even in private e-mails I'd think everyone knows by now

Once you send it out, you lose any ownership/control of the information...

[Katashi_itto]

23. I guess he should have considered that, as a public servant in a postion of high trust

and then posting that in the internet.

[joeybee12]

13. +1

[HERVEPA]

51. Total Bullshit.

You post it, it's public. The proscecuter is clearly a racist out of control ass and he should be nowhere near any justice system.
Not the first non-Democratic post by any means from this poster, who should be long gone by now.

[IdaBriggs]

52. Suggestion from a juror: Please edit. It was 3-3 and hiding costs big now.

Friendly suggestion to promote civility.

At Thu Sep 26, 2013, 11:43 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Total Bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3732682

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"this poster, who should be long gone by now." - personal attack

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Sep 26, 2013, 11:57 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Accusing another DUer of being a troll adds nothing to a civil or productive conversation. The post would have been fine without that addition - with it, it's disruptive.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I am extremely sensitive to personal attacks; I do not think this is one. I also understand why the poster has this opinion, as the post being responded to was defending racism by high level justice department officials posted on "Facebook" by pretending there was an "expectation of privacy" - huh? It is freaking FACEBOOK. Enough said there - and added bonus of "defending racism by high ranking members of the justice department" is sickening. With the high price of hides, I am voting to leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[HERVEPA]

55. Thanks Ida, but I'm going to leave it

I'm just way too tired of a lot the BS I see on FB and here.
I think I've had maybe 3 posts hiddenin my 9 or 10 year DU life, so I'm not too worried about he new rules.

[IdaBriggs]

56. Up to you. FYI...

I was juror #3.

[HERVEPA]

57. Thank you Ida

[oberliner]

53. "...this poster, who should be long gone by now."

Excuse me?

[HERVEPA]

54. You're excused.

[oberliner]

58. Thank you

I must have misunderstood what you meant. I appreciate your clarification.

No hard feelings

[brooklynite]

7. Well, at least he didn't call the President a "Domestic Terrorist"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3467060

[cali]

17. that poster is a, well, never mind

and not an AUSA, I assume.

[reflection]

9. I can't decide

if Facebook is evil for destroying so many lives/careers or wonderful because it brings all these idiots out in the open. How can someone that high up the food chain not know by now that even on a private page, it will eventually get out?

One thing's for sure though. I have never regretted eschewing Facebook. One the best decisions I ever made.

[Katashi_itto]

24. That why you always view facebook as a "brand" you are building of yourself.

Never post anything on it you don't want to haunt you forever.

View it as an advertisement of yourself. I generate more business that way.

[Isoldeblue]

26. The right sure know how

to keep it classy..............

[mstinamotorcity2]

40. he is a RIP!!!!!!

A Ridiculously Ignorant Person.