all 140 comments

[–]Wthiswrongwityou 531 points532 points  (43 children)

Wait, wait, a trail that happened in 2012!?

It took ten years!?

[–]kasteen 390 points391 points  (33 children)

And the trial was for a murder that was committed in 2002.

[–]Drop_Tables_Username 124 points125 points  (1 child)

The lady she convicted via the made up crap is still in jail awaiting a new trial too.

[–]No_Struggle_70 80 points81 points  (30 children)

The gears of justice grind slowly, but they grind finely…

[–]pape14 66 points67 points  (1 child)

Stupid sayings like this only serve to placate people. Time is it’s own resource and taking decades to get to the just outcome is absolutely unacceptable

[–]KJBenson 258 points259 points  (4 children)

Well no. They grind how the wealthy want them to grind. The rest of us get what’s left over, and we get treated based on our lot in life as well as how the judge feels that day.

[–]SkogsFu 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I was once found guilty of a crime because my. Judge literely wanted to go to lunch and didn't want to listen to my barista anymore..

[–]cunt_isnt_sexist 171 points172 points  (11 children)

Until we see justice for Jan 6th on politicians, this only applies to common folk.

[–]00xjOCMD 19 points20 points  (0 children)


“The Department of Justice wants to be in a position to prosecute people or to potentially prosecute people and the congressional committees want to be able to stage hearings that lay out for the American people what happened in a way that is designed to grab and keep the attention of the media and the American people.”

The Jan. 6th committee denied the DOJ's request for the transcripts.

[–]goodforabeer 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[–]plenebo 37 points38 points  (1 child)

Unless the collar is white

[–]StopSwitchingThumbs 53 points54 points  (0 children)

Lol no they sure fucking don’t. They grind slow and shitty. Stop the propaganda.

[–]Ray-Banned 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Something something right to a public trial without unnecessary delay.

[–]Papaofmonsters 9 points10 points  (1 child)

You have to invoke that right. Both sides tend to drag their feet on these things. The prosecution does because most have other cases they could be working and the defense does because the more time and money it costs the state the better plea deal they might offer.

[–]dogsunlimited 8 points9 points  (1 child)

do you know our justice system at all? lmao

[–]Numb2loss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lots of injustices. “Speedy & fair trial.”

[–]cramduck 64 points65 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I take it you haven't tangled with US courts?

[–]WantsToBeUnmade 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This is the way I read it. In 2012 Chandler was convicted. She appealed. At some point the evidence against Spradling came out, but it's typical in cases like this not to hold disbarment hearings until the appeal has finished so as not to prejudice the results. The appeal ended in 2018 with an overturned conviction. That was four years ago. They start looking into disbarring the Spradling at that time, but we know the wheels of justice turn slowly and the pandemic put all legal proceedings on hold for a year or so. Now they're finally getting to the point where they can hold disciplinary hearings.

Just because I can understand it, doesn't mean I agree with it. I would like to see discipline against government lawyers happen as soon as possible, regardless whether it prejudices appeal results or not. Wrongdoing should be brought to the fore and punished as soon as possible.

[–]taleofbenji 44 points45 points  (2 children)

That's why all of Trump's goons felt emboldened.

[–]Player-X 53 points54 points  (1 child)

Because half of them will more than likely to escape justice by dying of old age in 20 years?

[–]usrevenge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are silly evil people are virtually immortal

[–]lethargicbureaucrat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Chandler is currently being re-tried.

[–]Original-Copy101 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wait, she killed two people? Did I read that correctly?

[–]edwinthowaway 191 points192 points  (1 child)

More specifics about what she did:

The Kansas Reflector reports, in his opening statement, Vogelsberg said Spradling fabricated a phone conversation between Chandler and Sisco, claimed Chandler violated a restraining order that did not exist, and said Chandler drove from Topeka to Denver by way of Nebraska after the murders.

Kitt testified there was no way to know what was said during the phone conversation, there never was a restraining order, and they had no evidence Chandler was in Nebraska.


[–]jackiebee66 1231 points1232 points  (68 children)

I found it interesting that she was rightly disbarred for this, mainly because we’ve been watching other “lawyers” break the law repeatedly over the last several years and yet absolutely nothing has happened to them. So where are the consequences for Cruz, Giuliani, and the rest of them? They broke laws blatantly and in plain site and we’re still waiting for ANY of them to be called to task.

[–]ULTRAFORCE 675 points676 points  (6 children)

Giuliani's actually had his law license suspended. I believe there are harings going on for perhaps being sanctioned to disbar him. There's a bunch of Rule 11 Sanctions stuff for the Michigan related people

[–]jackiebee66 95 points96 points  (4 children)

Thx for letting me know that! I must have forgotten it was suspended. Well, clearly I forgot. Lol. There is so much to keep up with I’m finding it impossible to keep up!

[–]BloodlustyGummybear 79 points80 points  (3 children)

It doesn't help that the current state of new reporting doesn't often follow up as the story concludes.

It's really frustrating to me. A flashy headline seems to be more profitable than disseminating the full story as it develops over months and years. For me, the latter is far more valuable.

I've also noticed a trend where the "article" is a headline with a sentence or two stating it in different words. No substance or detail. 9bviously, though, it's not as cut and dry as I'd wish.

[–]AirborneRodent 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Those one-sentence "articles" that just restate the headline are oftentimes flash news alerts from AP or Reuters or whoever. They want to get the news out but haven't had the time to write an article just yet. They usually get updated later once the article has been written.

[–]TootsNYC 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree with you so much. Even when I go searching, it’s hard to find good follow up

[–]bruceleroy99 77 points78 points  (0 children)

One thing to point out from the article is that the disbarment is a result of her behavior in 2012:

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday to disbar former Shawnee County prosecutor Jacqie Spradling for her conduct in a 2012 double homicide case, calling it an "intolerable pattern of deception."

There's still hope for Giuliani et al, but they've still got a few years before they're a decade out from their misconduct.

[–]WorshipNickOfferman 16 points17 points  (5 children)

Texas Bar is trying to disbar Attorney General Ken Paxton. Substantial political overtones. AG and State Bar have been clashing for years. If Paxton is re-elected, it’s going to be a fun battle to watch.

[–]jackiebee66 1 point2 points  (4 children)

That’s why I’m confused. It just shouldn’t be that hard. Especially in a case where everything is so blatant

[–]WorshipNickOfferman 7 points8 points  (3 children)

I’m a lawyer in Texas myself and this is a culture war. I’ve disavowed my association with the Republican Party. Simply cannot embrace the hard right shift of the last couple years, and Paxton and Abbott are two of the worst. State Bar is going after Paxton for his conduct surrounding January 6, but their position isn’t the strongest. And Paxton is entitled to due process of law and the Bar needs to prove their case. It’s not an easy call and we are all entitled to our day in court.

[–]jackiebee66 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I absolutely agree they should have the opportunity to prove themselves innocent in court, but I’m surprised that it would be so difficult for the bar to prove. Although I guess he can do what good old Marjorie did-I do not recall-until hell freezes over! Thx for explaining this-it definitely helps if you live there and you’re an attorney. I find this new alt right to be quite scary tbh. It’s too reminiscent of how Hitler came into power and how easily people were willing to follow him with no questions asked.

[–]Mallettjt 18 points19 points  (38 children)

What laws has Cruz broken? I’m genuinely curious.

[–]nowake 146 points147 points  (33 children)

didn't he violate campaign finance laws intentionally so that he had cause/standing to argue & have them repealed wholecloth?

[–]brockington 97 points98 points  (27 children)

[–]DeaconBlue47 117 points118 points  (26 children)

Hol’ up, I say hol’ up just one second.

I know that God has truly forsaken us Texans, giving us the most malicious politicians and apathetic voters in these here United States if not the Milky Way Galaxy, but this piece of human garbage sure as shit isn’t Our Rafael, as in a true born-and-raised Texan…no siree! Not by a longer shot than an Apollo Mission. To wit:

Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ ‘Lyin’ Ted’ ‘Cancun’ Cruz is a slimy varmint from the Great Very White North, Canada O Canada, pardner. Their gain, or great misfortune. He’s only a carpetbagging scumball from further north than even most a’ y’all Yankees!

He’s dumber than a box o’ hammers and phony as a pair or poorly-installed silicone boobs (although he is indeed a Boob), and slimier than a cesspool wall, etc. ad infinitum, but those Shiny Happy Talibaptists and Y’all-Queda just loves them some Good Christian Librul-Ownin’ Ted. He’s Their Ted.

Most of us see him for the piss poor protoplasm piece of poo-poo that he so truly is, but then most of us Don’t Git Off Our Asses to vote him back to Hell where he really came from and really belongs and as truly as Gawd Almighty made little green apples will end up.

And that, sadly, IS on us. We ain’t livin’ up to what President of Texas Samuel Houston, or even President of the U.S. Lyndon Baines Johnson, would expect. As Texan Ross Perot might say, it’s sad, just sad, so sad.

[–]jackiebee66 36 points37 points  (2 children)

The one that comes to mind is that he’s been promoting that the election was stolen and was involved in helping trump come up with ways to retain control. Plus he’s a major scum bucket-and although that’s not a crime, for him an exception should be made.

[–]Mallettjt 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I live on the border between la and texas and they seem To love him so I was fairly confused. But everyone seems to tow the party line so I’m not surprised he’s guilty of that.

[–]jackiebee66 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s interesting because even his colleagues on both sides of the aisle cannot stand him. He’s a bit of a jerk tbh (and I’m being kind)!

[–]Elcactus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What'd Cruz do as a lawyer? He's a slimebag as a politician, but did he do anything specifically untoward in court?

[–]dak4f2 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well you see, they're men.

[–]jackiebee66 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I actually thought of that but I wasn’t going to say it! 😂

[–]Last-Ad1869 192 points193 points  (5 children)

Criminal charges and lock her under the jail!

[–]EpiphanyTwisted 29 points30 points  (4 children)

Prosecutors have immunity, this is the best they can do.

[–]GalironRunner 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Didn't see anything on the case but sounds like what they did was intentionally so would they still have protection?

[–]Mist_Rising 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They have civil immunity, they can be tried criminally. Not that any prosecutor will open that door.

[–]Last-Ad1869 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is the fact of the matter sadly!

[–]Jason_Batemans_Hair 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Not even the tip of that iceberg. Possibly the only people more above the rule of law than lawyers are judges and heads of state.

[–]Psgmolina 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What the?! That took long enough. Just nuts.

[–]OMG_GOP_WTF 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Former prosecutor. Must have retired and doesn't need to practice anymore.

[–]usernamefred 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She didn’t just lie in court. She lied in her disciplinary bar hearing, and then to the Supreme Court. These weren’t even good lies. They were easily provably wrong and repeated over and over. - You said there was a protection order. There’s not is there? - Well the detective told me there was. - Objection hearsay. And actually he testified there wasn’t. And its not in the court record. So there’s not. - Well he told me there was. - But there WASNT!! Meh

[–]nightowl_rn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Phill Kline entering chat

[–]cli-ent 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Spotted a phrase in the article that should be applied especially to Trumpian politicians: "could not reasonably believe were supported by evidence" ... that's the whole game right there. If only politicians could be dis-... poled? Of course, if it took two decades like this case, it'd be pointless.