Tim Russert's On Air Abuse of Media Power!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bonnie, Nov 2, 2005.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Tim Russert Joins Prosecution Team Against Former Cheney Aide Libby
    October 31, 2005

    http://www.aim.org/press_release/4131_0_19_0_C/
     
  2. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    You know whats fucking wrong with this country.

    Its a prosecutors job to prove that he's GUILTY! Its not a defense's job to prove that he's innocent. Everyone in our justice system has become guilty until proven innocent anymore. Even when people manage to prove their innocence they are labeled as getting away with it or justice not being served. It was the prosecutors job to prove that the defendant committed the crime.

    Its why i think of OJ differently now then i did before. The prosecution didnt prove that he committed the crime. They just showed up, thought he was guilty and assumed that the jury would see that as well. You have to work to prove someones guilt.

    Im tired of these liberal a-holes in the media and otherwise having people tried, convicted and executed before the trial even begins.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    I agree, but it's worse when they are personally involved in the case, for the prosecution, then come out and basically try the guy on the air. Not news, not fair, I'd venture a guess that it may be unconstitutional. Seems a basis for arguing against a fair trial.
     
  4. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Absolutely, and Im HOPING that this was caught by Libby's attorneys. This really takes the cake, a journalist who is a key posecution witness is proclaiming the guilt of the person he is testifying against on the air before there is even a trial.........
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I don't see how they could miss it, it's all over the main bloggers and has been for several days. Even before Libby was indicted.

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26294&highlight=russert

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26302&page=1&pp=15
     
  6. sagegirl
    Offline

    sagegirl Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    515
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +42
    If you listened to the news briefing that the speical prosecutor gave just after announcing the charges he filed against Libby, he carefully explained the issues of contention that investigators had to sort out. He mentioned dates, names, topics of discussion, and even to some extent the exact contradiction. I dont think there is really any doubt that some dirty tricks went on and the usual.... I dont recall, I dont remember..........defense in digging in. Libby, who I must assume is a intelligent and capable advisor, is showing weakness when he argues that his recollections may be inaccurate. Tim Russert only spoke to the issue ..... he confirmed a conversation took place, his recollection of what was said and what he did about it. I have a problem with the fact that he says the network fought the subpoena. I thought Fitzgerald presented his case professionally and clearly. I found his demeanor well suited to the issues he is investigating.
    I dont like to hold a grudge but Kenneth Starr exploited his fifteen minutes of fame .....there were lots of leaks and lots of personality in his service as sp.
    Since the right politicized the poor judgement and lack of character in the scandal of sex and denial against Clinton, I think it is only fair to turn it back to them on this issue, which of course is another example of poor judgment and lack of character.....and denial, all thats missing is the sex. However this case does have serious policy implications,(national security????) and therefore demands our scrutiny.
    An administration the resorts to character assassination to discredit those who disagree with their policies should be held accountable. Dissent is not anti-american, but punishing it is.
    Especially now, when the war in Iraq is more than most americans thought they we getting into (the polls says a majority think it has not proved worth the cost in money and lives) the general attitude is that the info prior to the war was slanted and misrepresented, and there was a predetermination to engage Iraq (the Downing st memos). I dont think most of us consider our situation as a target of terrorism has greatly improved. We maybe have better tactics to detect some terrorist acts but that the threat has not been abated. We may actually be more at riisk due to a number of factors
    We all lose. Another administration bogged down in political survival rather than serving the people.
     
  7. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    So, "tit for tat" is an acceptable way to conduct the nation's business?

    Well, there was the small matter of PERJURY BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

    One could make a pretty good case that the Clinton Administration rid itself of inconvenient persons through ACTUAL assassination.

    The Downing St. Memos were long ago exposed as agenda-driven media hysteria, as this horseshit will be. Personally, I hope they continue unceasingly along this same path. It's like the boy who cried, "Wolf!". Soon, people will just stop hearing them.

    Most of WHOM? President Bush has most assuredly taken the War on Terror to the terrorists - on THEIR turf. I don't see how a reasonable person could argue otherwise.
     
  8. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    My, my, my, you certainly have proven how unbiased you are !

    ITs just extremely inappropriate, if not downright illegal for Russert to be carrying on the way he is, and to exploit the situation.

    K. Starr didnt have any choice but to carry out his investigation. It was the Dems who voted against the Republicans, and to keep the special prosecutors office in place.


    so, it was the right that went on tv and wagged their finger at the American public and declared, "I did not have sex with that women"?

    and you too have already convicted him, declaring this case has everything the Clinton case had, save sex. And national security implications???
    PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE, enough has been written on that to fill the capitol building, proving it wasnt any such thing on many different levels, including the FACT that she didnt hold any operative posisition, her employment in the CIA wasnt secret, even many of the press were aware of it.

    Character assasination? Yea, the Clintons were never guilty of that, were they? (its a vast right wing conspiracy!)

    and punishing dissent is very American, just go ask any liberal professor at any University how they react to Conservatives who try to speak thier opinion.

    ALL wars wind up being more than the public thinks it will be. And those polls may very welll be skewed, as shown in another post, that more dems were polled, and an over represented age group 18-34 , a group that voted more for Kerry than Bush, was used.

    The info prior to the war was slanted and distorted? Yep, by the Clintons, Kerry, Kennedy, and all the major Dems have been shown to provide the same info, and same conclusion. EVEN PRIOR to Bush, Bill Clinton said saddam was a threat, and they changed their policy to REGIME CHANGE.

    You dont think most of us consider ourselves safer from terrorism. Well, the numbers PROVE you wrong. Plain and simple. You, as usual, from the left, do not represent or speak for anything near the majority of Americans.

    The threat has not been abated? Maybe, maybe not, but it is in the process, how else to abate it than to kill them?

    and if the Bush administration is bogged down in survival, its only because of the, oh, and here comes your favorite thing to criticize for, "character assasination" by the left, and the complacency of the MSM.
     
  9. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,545
    Thanks Received:
    7,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,127
    Ya know... sometimes... all I'm left able to think is, "russert needs his ass kicked".

    It pisses me off and it's disheartening knowing that this is the ONLY place you'll ever hear any outrage over it. The liberal MSM will give him a COMPLETE pass. In fact, they're probably patting him on the back for a job well done.

    It's MADDENING to watch this sort of shit day after day, and they just keep getting away with it. I LIVE for the day conservatives take the gloves off.
     
  10. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Me too!! :chains:
     

Share This Page