Posted on 03/17/2006 5:37:29 AM PST by NewMediaJournal
To many Americans, Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff are the faces of corruption in politics today. Sadly, if the media had done its job the past five and half years, the picture of campaign finance fraud would be a poorly dressed blond woman from Arkansas that used to be the First Lady, but never became the junior senator from New York.
Few truly objective observers of politics on either side of the aisle would disagree with the premise that the Clintons have consistently drawn an excessive amount of media attention since their meteoric rise onto the national scene in the early ’90s. One could likely find a consensus even among Democrats when there wasn’t a microphone or camera around that the bulk of such coverage has almost always been quite favorable even when the facts didn’t warrant it.
On the flipside of this media fascination is a hypocritical compulsion by the press to shelter the Clintons from negative scrutiny whenever possible. Examples of this are so numerous and apparent they need no reiteration. However, one event involving likely the largest case of campaign finance fraud in American history has been so obfuscated by the media that many of the players involved will be unfamiliar to even the most savvy political observers.
(Excerpt) Read more at newmediajournal.us ...
O'Reilly was caught spinning last evening but said there was no proof about Hillary doing anything. He even 'says' he doesn't believe she knew about Monica! Doesn't she have two active law suits against her now? The Factor is truly remiss – let the man hear from you.
How do they deal with the fact that Rosen was aquitted when he was tried for his role in this? My view is the prosecution was horribly botched, maybe intentionally.
O'Really is a lib (posing as a moderate).
Bet you 10-to-1 he voted for his buddy, Kerry.
Here is the big question. Why isn't the Justice Department indicting Andrew Grossman?
Another great story. Where is John Spencer on this? Where is the New York media? Where is the Bush Justice Department?
Ping the list.
bump
What I can't understand is how there could be a legitimate explanation for the prosecution to go so far into the tank as to argue that Hillary didn't benefit from the transactions. After all, that very benefit was Rosen's motive for doing what he did. Without that motive, there was no basis for arguing there was a crime. Also, after the judge's egregious initial remarks, why didn't the prosecution move for recusal?
thanx yoe :)
Want proof that the Left Wing Media can't think ahead?
It doesn't seem to occur to them that if their heroine, Hillary Rodham, wins the presidential election, there will be daily pressure on them to absorb the punches from public inquiries (F.R., etc.) into the habitual risky and America-hating behavior of Rodham and Clinton.
I'm saying that the media doesn't seem to realize that Hillary appears to have much to hide already. And if elected president, she will have no compunction about adding to the skeletons in her closet, basement, attic, and Fort Marcy Park.
I suspect that Hillary expects the media to run point for her, and to sacrifice what's left of media credibility. The media doesn't seem to anticipate damage to THEM from a Hillary presidency. (Think more Dan Rather-like falls from grace, here.)
Furthermore, if the media expect any gratitude from Hillary, they are kidding themselves.
This isn't just "taking one for the team", it's more like volunteering for a 4 (or 8-) year sentence life on the media "plantation", (if you know what I mean).
.
Now you see what people get away with in courtrooms. Nice that the jury is allowed to nap during testimony.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.