Posted on 07/21/2005 8:24:53 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
I rarely ad to the title any longer, too much bitching about it not being in the article
Seeing "Time" as the source is usually enough for fair warning.
Yeah, but this is in the projectile vomit category.
I move for a rules change: Barf Alerts should be mandatory for anything from Time, NYT, LAT, WP, AP, Reuters - okay, I get the point. Never mind...
and by "serious" they have to have first hand knowledge of the case.
Those with first hand knowledge of the case are participants (witnesses, prosecutors, grand jury members, etc.) and the overwhelming majority of those with first hand knowledge are not speaking. Those who are not participants, but observe what the participants are doing, are observers. There are serious observers and partisan observers. Even many partisan observers (including Democratic Senators) have backed off the crime meme.
I see the leftist moonbats are still flogging the "covert operative" meme.
The Journalists who have read and witnessed some of the court proceedings, are very convinced of the seriousness of the crimes..in fact so are the judges.
I don't think there have been any journalists who have witnessed any of the grand jury proceedings (unless they were witnesses themselves, and Matt Cooper says he doesn't know where the prosecuter is doing). Who are the to which you refer?
There is very obviously a crime being investigated by the grand jury. Why else would Judith Miller be in jail? But serious observers (including 38 major media organizations through their lawyers) do not believe that Karl Rove committed a crime. I support Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. He should prosecute anyone he believes committed a crime when the evidence warrants it. I just don't know who that is.
Who are the jouralists to which you refer (the ones who have witnessed some of the grand jury proceedings)?
I said "court proceedings", not "grand jury proceedings" there is a difference.
The Journalist who have witnessed court proceedings that I have heard talk on the matter are Michael Isikoff and Lawrence O'Donnell. Furthermore the phrase "the plot against Joe Wilson" was used by one of the Judges in open court in reference to the seriousness of the crime being investigated.
The Journalist who have witnessed court proceedings that I have heard talk on the matter are Michael Isikoff and Lawrence O'Donnell.
The media companies that employ these people have made a legal assertion that Rove committed no crime. I'm sure the attorneys of the media companies are much more serious in their analysis than a couple of individual reporters who may or may not have biases.
Furthermore the phrase "the plot against Joe Wilson" was used by one of the Judges in open court in reference to the seriousness of the crime being investigated.
As I have said, there is obviously a crime being investigated. What it is or who did it, I don't know. But serious observers don't think it is Rove. I support the prosecutor and hope he indicts whomever the evidence leads to.
Do you support the prosecutor? Or do you support a predetermined desired outcome?
First off, in what context did the media companys assert Rove didnt commit a crime???????? why would media companies file a brief. I dont know the context..but Im guessing they did it in an attempt to keep Judy Miller out of jail. And if my guess is right, well its obvious the judges dont agree with there assertion since they decided to jail Judy Miller.
That is not obvious. The judges could agree wholeheartedly with the media's legal assertion. But what if the crime the prosecutor is investigating has nothing to do with Rove, so the amicus brief is irrelevant to Miller's contempt.
I support the prosecutor no matter where the evidence leads him. Do you support the prosecutor or do you support some predetermined outcome you find desirable?
Of course I support the prosecutor following the evidence.
But I ask you..so what was the reason the media filed an amicus brief then? what was the medias goal for such a brief?
Of course I support the prosecutor following the evidence.
But I ask you..so what was the reason the media filed an amicus brief then? what was the medias goal for such a brief?
Shouldn't this be the Joe Wilson/David Corn Problem?
The journalists in the media companies had encouraged the assignment of the special prosecutor to investigate wrongdoing by Rove. When Miller and Cooper were threatened with jail, the grown-ups took over and insisted Rove did nothing wrong. But after Fitzgerald got his assignment, he had uncovered evidence of a crime (what and committed by whom, I don't know). The media lawyers mistakenly thought it was Rove, so they submitted their accurate, but irrelevant, brief.
Maybe I'm wrong, and the prosecutor is going after Rove. I don't care. I want justice. If it is Rove, so be it. Would you support an indictment of Wilson, Plame or Miller if that's where the evidence leads?
Yeah if evidence shows they commited a crime that would normally be prosecuted of course, then of course it should be prosecuted.
By the way, you do know it was the CIA that asked the justice department to start the investigation. (Not the media, i dont know if u were suggesting it was the media)
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.