Tim Russert's On Air Abuse of Media Power!

[Bonnie]

Tim Russert Joins Prosecution Team Against Former Cheney Aide Libby
October 31, 2005

http://www.aim.org/press_release/4131_0_19_0_C/

WASHINGTON -- Despite his role as a likely prosecution witness in the criminal trial of former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, NBC's Tim Russert orchestrated a discussion of the controversial case on the network's Meet the Press show on Sunday that could have the effect of tainting the potential jury pool and undermining the process of assuring Libby a fair trial.

"This is unprecedented and outrageous conduct," declared Accuracy in Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid. "Russert has completely abandoned basic standards of journalistic fairness and has already joined the prosecution team."

While lip service was given to the idea that he is innocent until proven guilty and that Libby will one day present his side of the story, Russert and his associates convicted Libby of the charges on national television.

Russert brought Washington Post columnist David Broder on to say that Libby's lawyers "have a heavy burden to disprove these charges." Former CNN journalist Judy Woodruff told Russert that "…I think it's going to be very difficult for Scooter Libby [to] defend himself."

Libby says that he will be exonerated in a court of law. But Kincaid said that, "Russert has already found Libby guilty of the charges in the court of public opinion, a court in which Russert is abusing his power in the media by playing the role of judge and jury. We repeat our demand that he step aside from the network's coverage of the case."

Confirming Russert's explosive role in the case, Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff declared on Sunday's CNN Reliable Sources show that Russert is "the central witness" in the case and "could end up being the guy who puts Libby in jail."

"Perhaps this explains Russert's abuse of media power," said Kincaid. "A fair trial, which now looks extremely unlikely at this point because of the biased coverage, could exonerate Libby and damage the credibility of Russert and other journalists."

 

[insein]

You know whats fucking wrong with this country.

Russert brought Washington Post columnist David Broder on to say that Libby's lawyers "have a heavy burden to disprove these charges." Former CNN journalist Judy Woodruff told Russert that "…I think it's going to be very difficult for Scooter Libby [to] defend himself."

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

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.........

 

[Annie]

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.........

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

 

[sagegirl]

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.

 

[musicman]

I dont like to hold a grudge but Kenneth Starr exploited his fifteen minutes of fame

So, "tit for tat" is an acceptable way to conduct the nation's business?

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.

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

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.

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

there was a predetermination to engage Iraq (the Downing st memos).

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.

I dont think most of us consider our situation as a target of terrorism has greatly improved.

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.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

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.

 

[007]

Tim Russert Joins Prosecution Team Against Former Cheney Aide Libby
October 31, 2005

http://www.aim.org/press_release/4131_0_19_0_C/

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.

 

[Bonnie]

Pale Rider..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.

Me too!! :chains:

 

[sagegirl]

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.

I dont think that either side wants the same rules to apply to them.....special prosecutor, investigations, etc. I do think the issue of national security is a greater part of the current administrations problem than it was with clinton.
I think it is a long long stretch to talk about "actual assassinations," (if you're referring to the suicide of the personal friend/ attorney of the clinton's). There was no compelling evidence to even investigate such an allegation and once again I have to say that to use this as a defense/arguement against the current appearance of the use of "character assassination" is an absurd distortion.
Obviously, I favored restraint rather than marching into Iraq.......I would have to cite the numerous regimes that we have either actually supported or ignored who have commited atrocities as horrible as sadam, to question the motivation that this adminstration had for attacking Iraq. I understood the "need for revenge" that pulled us into Afghanistan, but we havent resolved much there either. I totally believe our tactics and our misguided sense of making the world safe for democracy and freedom are creating more contempt for the US than protecting us.

 

[sagegirl]

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.

Speaking of bias......the rules should apply equally to both sides.....you have an attitude that supports and quotes the polls when they agree with you, that justifies a presumption of guilt towards those you disagree with, that really assumes your opinions speak for the majority, and your rhetoric is more just repeating what you have heard than anything that resembles original thinking.. I suggest that you take a deep breath and just allow yourself a little tinsy bit of skepticism. It is okay and actually a concept of our founding fathers to question authority. Think outside that little box and you will find alternatives that are more productive than your current thinking.

 

[musicman]

I do think the issue of national security is a greater part of the current administrations problem than it was with clinton.

I disagree, sagegirl. I think it's more a question of awareness. Would that the Clinton Administration had considered national security "part of ITS problem".

I think it is a long long stretch to talk about "actual assassinations,"... I have to say that to use this as a defense/arguement against the current appearance of the use of "character assassination" is an absurd distortion.

Again, I disagree. I think the former is a shorter, more reasonable "stretch" than is the current parade of empty, preposterous, politically-motivated indictments.

Obviously, I favored restraint rather than marching into Iraq.......I would have to cite the numerous regimes that we have either actually supported or ignored who have commited atrocities as horrible as sadam, to question the motivation that this adminstration had for attacking Iraq.

Let's talk about that...

I totally believe our tactics and our misguided sense of making the world safe for democracy and freedom are creating more contempt for the US than protecting us.

I submit that - when it comes to our tactics in the War on Terror - many Americans - staring at this tree or that - have lost sight of the forest. Our enemies could scarcely hold us in any more contempt than they've felt since the Clinton Administration convinced them we were a nation of weak degenerates.

And, the fact that the Iraqi people actually have a shot at freedom is wonderful. However, it is quite incidental to our true purpose for having invaded. Iraq is an ideal strategic base of operations from which to conduct what's going to be a long, agonizing struggle. Our enemies are intractable. They're never going to love us. We can't bargain with them. They are sworn to destroy us. They transcend borders, nationalities, and rationality. Our only hope is to smash them.

At this point, America cannot lose a war militarily. We can only be defeated at home. Our enemies - foreign and home-grown - understand this all too well.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Speaking of bias......the rules should apply equally to both sides.....you have an attitude that supports and quotes the polls when they agree with you, .

I quoted polls?

that justifies a presumption of guilt towards those you disagree with, that really assumes your opinions speak for the majority, and your rhetoric is more just repeating what you have heard than anything that resembles original thinking.. I suggest that you take a deep breath and just allow yourself a little tinsy bit of skepticism. It is okay and actually a concept of our founding fathers to question authority. Think outside that little box and you will find alternatives that are more productive than your current thinking.

As soon as you come up with something original, I will come outside my box

Sooooooooooo, you are Looooooooooooooooooong on opinion, but werent able to respond to a single one of the FACTS I presented. Hmmm, so is that "thinking outside the box"? Proving arguements without facts to back it up? Hmmm, psssss, it isnt thinking outside the box, libs have been doing it for quite some time now.