I am not disagreeing with you; the evidence of Nifong's misconduct is strong enough to warrant disbarment. And the latest revelations go to the heart of any plausible deniability defense. Any expected defense from Nifong -- inadvertence, oversight, lack of knowledge, whatever -- doesn't pass the smell test for either you or me. But the bar is going to hear what the bar wants to hear. And notwithstanding the evidence, it will not disbar him.
The media leopards still have spots. This case didn't turn out the way they'd hoped. The bloggers forced them to alter their coverage to a degree. But the media leopards are satisfied to have Nifong off the case. The charges will be dismissed. The justice system worked. Let the healing begin.
"But the bar is going to hear what the bar wants to hear. And notwithstanding the evidence, it will not disbar him."
Wow; you really *are* cynical, in the full sense of the word, Mad-Margaret. :^) There is (and can be) no response to that bleak, grim view of the situation, as even hope itself has no place in such a world. I, however, have not given up hope, particularly since in North Carolina, the recommendation of the bar's disciplinary committee (the body in which Nifong has the most pull) as to punishment is only advisory and the Supreme Court exercises its own judgment.
"The media leopards still have spots. This case didn't turn out the way they'd hoped. The bloggers forced them to alter their coverage to a degree. But the media leopards are satisfied to have Nifong off the case. The charges will be dismissed. The justice system worked. Let the healing begin."
But couldn't the bloggers force the disciplinary committee to alter its view of the evidence, at least to a degree, as they did with the media? Isn't that even a possibility in your mind? And you don't really think dismissal of the charges alone would prove that the justice system "worked," do you? Shouldn't full and complete justice also include vindication of the ethical principles underlying the American system as a whole, in which "the prosecutor's role transcends that of an adversary, as he 'is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty . . . whose interest . . . in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done'"? United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 n.6 (1985) (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). And if not, can the healing ever truly begin?