Posted on 02/08/2002 1:50:43 PM PST by dittomom
I know from past experience that the FBI almost never wants it in writing. That is not playing for an unconditional win. It is always the defense that wants it in writing. The FBI wants nothing in writing. What they want is five or six FBI agents testifying against one defendant.
So the defense lawyer says... the FBI screwed up because they didn't get it in writing. And the media reports it as if it were the truth. Some may even think it is the truth. But the editors know better. But that doesn't stop them from publishing it as if it were gospel.
It is also interesting to note that Clarity agreed with me on the matter His information comes from formal training in the law. Mine came from covering trials as a reporter.
Today there are few reporters with experience. When I was learning to cover courts I talked to Judges first, Prosecutors second and Defense lawyers third.
what I found out, is that Judges told me what the prosecution would try to pull and Judges also told me what the defense would try to pull. I was able to write stories that stood up over time.
In many cases the Prosecutors don't care about the cops (FBI) and the Defense wants to trash the cops(FBI). But if you talk to a judge not sitting in the case, you can get the real lowdown and beat the pants off your fellow reporters.
If you examine the record, you will find little of what is reported in the media stands up over time. But remember this, no reporter ever got paid for informing people accurately. Reporters get paid to draw readers, viewers and listeners. That has little to do with imparting accurate information.
I know I can line up a couple of lawyers on this, and can probably convince 2 good ones to back me, and a 3rd(who has argued the State Supremes) if I can get the funding.
This law is not worthy of being followed by me.
Exactly why this bill is so dangerous - it gives too much power to the media to inform us about the candidates.
This whole thing is a Beltway issue. All polls indicate it's not even on the voters' radar screen and most of the sheep out there don't even know the difference between 'hard' and 'soft' money anyway.
I don't think a veto of a bad bill would hurt President Bush anyway, the leftist media would scream but who would remember (or care) way out there in 2004?? The better deal would be to kill this garbage as early on in the legislative process as possible so it never gets there.
That's what we work on now!
This says it all.
Thanks for the post.
What a scary thought! Smootches, sweetheart. All my gifs are gone, and since I'm not worth-a-damn at this HTML stuff, it's gonna take some time, so Happy Valentines Day, Sandi!
Hugs-and-kisses for all you do, baby! Squeeze yer sweetie, beautiful........FRegards
Ahhh, the joys of a police state. Freedom is slavery, lies are honesty, patriotism is treason and the Constitution is a threat.
You've always been and then you got married to bad girl and now you are even badder! :)
...and it is unconstitutional [if that matters any longer...]
[How did you get this thread to 'flag' me without typing in my name? ...interesting...]
Remember that Eugene McCarthy [D] ran against the Viet Nam war. He was not supported by his party and therefore did not get a lot of press or support from his party. He has only a few donors. The current system put in place in the 70's actually silenced dissidents like Eugene McCarthy. It was all about keeping dissent out of the discussion. It worked except for a few guys like Ross Perot and Steve Forbes who used their own funds. They tried to silence them, too.
Didn't know about that site, thanks.
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.