Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category
SLUT WATCH: Veteran CBS News Anchor Bill Kurtis Says Sharon Bialek Was Former CBS Employee With a ‘Track Record’, That Roles ‘May Have Been Reversed’ in Car
And notice how fast this story is dying. Where is the documentation from the hotel proving her room was upgraded by Cain or the Restaurant Association? Whose credit card was used for that?
THE BLAZE: On his radio program Tuesday, Mark Levin aired a clip of veteran journalist and CBS anchor Bill Kurtis on WLS saying that Herman Cain’s accuser, Sharon Bialek, is a former CBS employee with a “track record.” Given her checkered past, a chuckling Kurtis posited that Bialek‘s and Cain’s roles in the alleged car-incident could even have been reversed.
Some of Kurtis’ observations on Bialek were as follows:
“She has a history.”
“There is a lot more to this story.”
“I can assure you that there will be far more to this story.”
“Let’s put Herman or Sharon in the car and say their roles may even have been reversed, given her track record here.”
Bialek worked for CBS radio station WCKG from 2006-2007.
Listen to the clip below:
Levin brings up a point worth considering: Why is this story not making its rounds in the mainstream media, and why are voices like Kurtis’ being confined to select talk radio stations? Kurtis’ segment aired on Monday and thus far, precious few news outlets are delving into Bialek’s questionable history.
AUDIO: Rush Limbaugh was brilliant on the media lynching of Herman Cain . . . and why it’s backfiring
Set aside an hour to enjoy this — Rush at his absolute best
RUSH: I am starting to sense it. I am starting to see it. When I sense it, when I see it, it is probably true. That’s been my track record. I think I detect the media heading into damage control on the Herman Cain story. A lot of media are. This day five now, and still nobody knows what he did. Not a single media outlet can report what he did! Some are even suggesting that The Politico had no business running this story. These are other journalists who are beginning to say this. … The media is also in damage control over the Occupy Oakland riots the night before last. I mean, yesterday the media was trying to pretend the Oakland protests were peaceful; the very model of a love fest, but now the truth is coming out along with some of the pictures and they’re switching over to damage control mode — and they’re doing the same thing in the Herman Cain story.
Really, folks, five days now, and nobody knows what he did. Think of all the news stories there have been, think of The Politico and how they got this ball rolling, and after five days there has yet to be a report what he did. Nobody knows still. Five days! As Wes Pruden, former editor-in-chief of the Washington Times, points out when he ran the Washington Times newsroom: If somebody like The Politico reporters would have brought this story to him, he woulda thrown ‘em down the steps — and if they survived that, he would have fired them. (paraphrased exchange) “You’re telling me you want my newspaper to publish this rotgut? What do you got? There’s nothing here! I want names, places, activities, things that happened. There’s nothing here!”
“No, we want to run this, and we want Cain to respond to it. We want him to provide the information.” A lot of even seasoned journalists don’t like this. I’ve got sound bites you can tell they’re getting edgy because they’re getting all upset at me playing the race card in reverse on these guys. The reverse race card works every time it’s tried when I play it and it’s got them all ticked off. So we’ve got that to do. Here’s Washington Post, ABC poll: “70% of Republicans say the Cain allegations don’t matter.” Can I tell you…? Folks, behind the closed doors of the mainstream media outlets, that poll (because it’s in the Washington Post) I can’t tell you how that ticks ‘em off! This was supposed to destroy Herman Cain, and I’ll tell you something else.
It was supposed to destroy every other Republican by shifting the focus to all of them in this matter; getting them to comment, to not comment, to pile on Cain or what have you. I’ll tell you what: There’s a question out there that I really think needs to be asked, because the way the media is doing their backtrack on this — the way they’re doing damage control — is the same thing as yesterday. They’re starting to focus on how “poorly” Herman Cain is handling this, which of course we (on the cutting edge) were on that aspect of the story yesterday. “He’s doing such a lousy job handling this.” How about a poll on how good a job Obama’s doing handling the economy? What do you think a poll like that would look like? Well, we already have that poll, and it’s called, “What do you think of the direction of the country: good, bad, worse, horrible, what?”
Only 16 to 30%, depending on the poll, think the country’s headed in the right direction. So on what do you want to judge a candidate or a political person’s qualifications? On how he’s handling a no-name, no-information, empty “scandal” (with quotation marks around it), or how he’s handling the US economy? As I said yesterday: I don’t care, folks. No matter what happens here, every Republican candidate for the nomination — every one of them — is so superior to Barack Obama, it’s laughable. Of course the Drive-Bys know that, and Democrats know that. But when you have the Washington Post and ABC News in their joint poll saying that 70% of Republicans don’t care about the Herman Cain allegations, what that can be translated to is the following:
“Politico, you failed. You attempted, along with others in the mainstream media, to take out the guy, and you failed. Your influence isn’t what you thought it was. Alana Goodman at Commentary magazine writes, “Basically, the entire Washington media could have collectively called in sick all week, and it wouldn’t have made a difference – at least not for 70 percent of Republicans. The latest Washington Post/ABC poll, one of the first to be taken post-scandal, reports: ‘Seven in 10 Republicans say reports that [Herman] Cain made unwanted advances toward two employees when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s — allegations which have been stiffly rebutted by Cain’s campaign — do not matter when it comes to picking a candidate.’”
Could it be…? In determining why this result is what it is, you could say, “Well, maybe people don’t care as much about sexual harassment anymore. Maybe people recognize what it’s always been: A tool for advancing liberalism,” or maybe people are just fed up with the media in its modern incarnation, particularly Republicans. We know that’s true. We know that most Republicans, even if they’re RINO Republicans, are fed up with the way the media is going about conducting business these days. Herman Cain’s manager, Mark Block, was on Fox this morning, American Newsroom. He was on there with Martha MacCallum and he said this is the last day he’s gonna talk about this. He said the media and everybody has turned Washington into a cesspool, and we are not going to swim in that cesspool anymore. We are not gonna play by the rules that the media has established.
Block said, “The fact of the matter is The Politico article if it was held up to the same standards as the code of ethics — of the code of ethics for journalism the people involved would be fired.” This is Mark Block, who is a target of the media this week as being the architect of the guy who’s “mishandling” this; who’s advising Cain poorly, making Cain look like an idiot. This Block guy, he’s the guy that puffed on a cigarette in the TV ad. They hate the guy! So he finally has awakened. He also said that the Cain campaign’s “considering its legal options and may sue Politico over the as yet unsubstantiated allegations,” and that’s what they are. Five days now, folks. Do you realize, in one day we knew what Clinton had done with Lewinsky — and we knew that Newsweek spiked the story and that the estimable Matt Drudge ran it.
We knew on day one what Clinton did, and he was advised to go out there and lie about it, and it didn’t work. Five days running, and we still don’t know what Herman Cain did and there doesn’t appear to be anybody in the media who can tell us. The media is openly begging for the women to “come forward and tell their stories.” Wait a minute, don’t you know? How could you run the story without knowing what the women were gonna say? You need the women to come forward and tell the story? Why can’t you just report it, if you know it? Why is it incumbent upon the women — who don’t want to come forward, apparently? So that’s where we are on that story.
RUSH: The Politico with another story. I’ll tell you, this bunch is the most sex obsessed people I’ve seen since I don’t know when. Imagine if Ken Starr had been this obsessed! There’s a big, long story here by Kent Vogel and Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns (three people), and I can tell you what it says in six words: More anonymous Cain details from The Politico. More anonymous details. This bunch is positively sex obsessed, and now it’s in damage control mode. “Herman Cain flatly denies the most serious allegation facing him … but POLITICO has learned new details making clear there were urgent discussions of the woman’s accusations at top levels of the National Restaurant Association within hours of when the incident was alleged to have occurred.” What’s new about that? We all knew that.
“The new details — which come from multiple sources independently familiar with the incident at a hotel during a restaurant association event in the late 1990s — put the woman’s account even more sharply at odds with Cain’s emphatic insistence in news media interviews this week that nothing inappropriate happened between the two.” What “new details”? We still don’t know what they are! I’m not kidding when I say “anonymous details.” Not anonymous sources. We’ve got anonymous details now make up the bulk of a story! If I didn’t know better I would say journalism had created a new standard. Anonymous sources has now morphed into anonymous details. “In recent days sources … have offered new details of the incident.
“The woman in question, roughly 30 years old at the time and working in the National Restaurant Association’s government affairs division,” we know all that, “told two people directly at the time that Cain made a sexual overture to her at one of the group’s events, according to the sources familiar with the incident. She was livid and lodged a verbal complaint with an NRA board member that same night, these sources said,” but still we don’t know what! Remember, the Duke lacrosse case? Seasoned reporters hounded those kids, based on no evidence — none, zero. “Seasoned reporters,” and many of the faculty at Duke signed all kinds of whatever they were, supporting the accuser, condemning the lacrosse team members; and remember how that turned out?
It was a total, fabricated, made-up story that was believed simply because it fit stereotypes of the left, it fit the narrative, it fit a template — and then there’s this. This is back to The Politico, from Jonathan Martin. This scandal now, folks, really intensifies. “Joel Bennett, the attorney for one of the women who complained about Herman Cain at the National Restaurant Association said Friday that his client’s settlement was dated in September of 1999 and signed by the trade group’s general counsel but not Cain. Cain had already left the organization by then, before his three-year term was up…” So when was the settlement signed? 9-9-9! September of ’99!
What will the media make of this? The settlement date, September of 1999, equals “9-9-9,” the same name of Herman Cain’s economic plan. Somebody needs to call the dethroned Dutch sociologist and have him make something of this for us. To the audio sound bites we go, and we are… What did I tell you, start number five? Starting at number five, last night on PMSNBC Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson was on to discuss the Americans for Herman Cain ad. And he was asked, “Okay, obviously that was Limbaugh’s voice, and they’re calling it ‘a high-tech lynching.’ They’re playing the race card on this. What do you think of this, Gene?”
ROBINSON: It’s interesting that people like Limbaugh who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card (chortling) when I write about racism and its continuing presence in American society are awfully quick to play that same card, duh, when they think it’s to their advantage. Uh, I assume that means that Rush is now gonna change his position on affirmative action, on a whole lot of other things in this race that’s involved. I guess not. I guess probably not.
RUSH: What is he babbling about? Does somebody want to translate that for me? They can’t handle it when their own technique is thrown back at ‘em, when their own technique is turned on ‘em, they just can’t stand it. “It’s interesting that people like Limbaugh who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card when I write about racism are awfully quick to play that same card when they think it’s to their advantage.” I’m doing nothing based on any advantage whatsoever. I’m simply describing what I see, and there’s no question that this is being done to a black conservative and that the left doesn’t like black conservatives. The left doesn’t like Hispanic conservatives. The left doesn’t like minorities who are conservative, who show an ability to rise to the top of any organization they’re in.
The left doesn’t like it. (interruption) Well, that’s right. I have crossed a line because the charge of racism is theirs exclusively to make. No one’s allowed to make that charge, and here I come making the charge, and they can’t deal with it. It hits ‘em right upside the face and they don’t know what to do, except call foul. “You can’t do that! That’s what we do. You’re not allowed to do that! You can’t call us racists! You’re the racists! You can’t do that especially now ’cause it’s true. You can’t call us out like that. You’re gonna blow up our whole game if you keep doing this. You gotta shut up! We’re gonna start trying to make fun of you and now maybe say you’re in favor of affirmative action!” What an odd connection to make there, but it didn’t stop. Different show, MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell talking to a Politico writer (sigh), Maggie Haberman about me.
The question: “Rush Limbaugh’s out there saying these women are lying.”
I have not said that. Has somebody produced to me where I’ve said that? I have never said the women are lying. All I’ve said is, “We don’t know what happened,” and on day five we don’t know what happened because the accusers in the media have not told us what happened. I did say, “What if there’s another version of this?” I have pointed out instances where women have lied about this, but I didn’t accuse these women of it. So, anyway, the premise of the question is flawed, but nevertheless the question was asked. “Rush Limbaugh’s out there saying these women are lying. Rush Limbaugh — who doesn’t know who they are, who believed every single word of every
female accusation ever sent the direction of Bill Clinton or any Democrat for that matter but especially Clinton — firmly believes these unnamed women are lying.”
HABERMAN: In terms of the Rush Limbaugh piece of it, I think that you’re seeing, you know, generally a lot of rallying in the conservative media around Herman Cain. There has been a lot of criticism about the fact that this was reported on; uhhh, a lot of defense of Herman Cain, a lot of insistence that it couldn’t be true. Some of his loudest support has come from that direction.
RUSH: It’s not support of Herman Cain, by the way, although I can see where the media might think that. It is not support of Herman Cain so much as it is we’ve all had it with your tactics in the media. We’ve had it with the double standard. We’ve had it with people like you elevating Bill Clinton to superstar status. We’ve had it with you looking the other way during the Tawana Brawley lies. We’ve had it with you in the Duke lacrosse story. We’ve had it with you trying to cover up for John Edwards! We’ve had it with you lionizing Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd, of “waitress sandwich” fame at La Brasserie in Washington. We’ve had it with you holding up as national heroes reprobates like this, and we’ve had it with you trying to take out our people on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever.
We still don’t know what you think Cain did — and until you can tell us, as journalists, with incontrovertible proof, we’re gonna doubt you because you have given us every reason in the world to not trust your reporting, because it is biased against us and our side and our people. That is inarguable! That is as obvious and honest as the sun comes up. Even Clinton has given up trying to deny the accusations against him. Clinton doesn’t even deny them anymore. He knows he doesn’t have to. You’ve made him a hero, and you continue to make him a hero by telling us that Cain is not handling this the right way, and we know who you think did handle it the right way: Slick Willie!
Bimbo eruption teams! Send Carville and whoever else out to destroy Ken Starr as a sex pervert, to destroy Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey as nothing but a bunch of trailer park trash. You supposed feminists in the media loooved Bill Clinton and wished he would come to your bedroom at night as he trashes these women who made these true allegations about him; and you come along with innuendo and five days of smears, and we don’t even know what he’s guilty of! We’re standing up for our side. We are standing up for each other. We’re circling the wagons around us. If you people were trying this against any of the candidates with the same lack of information that you’ve got, it would be the same thing.
I sit here and I wonder — you heard her sound bite — is she really this closed off and insulated from what this is all about? Does she really think this is just the conservative media defending Cain because he’s a conservative? Does she really think that even if Cain did it, we’d still be treating this the way we’re treating it? Sometimes I wonder. I see evidence every day that leads me to believe these people are closed off and walled off in a little small area that they’ve called their own reality, and it’s as distant from the real world as anyplace you could get. So it could well be that Ms. Haberman is clueless, genuinely clueless about what this is all about — which is to our advantage, by the way.
RUSH: I even remember one time even defended Janet Reno, and Bill Clinton (hero to the left) told a joke at the White House Correspondents Dinner and said (impression), “Hey, did you hear? Huh huh. Did you hear Rush defended Janet Reno on his program the other night? It’s only because she was being attacked by a black guy.” The media in the room did two things. There was a (gasp!) and then wild laughter as the president of the United States went racist. They applauded it. Ms. Haberman, we don’t know the details of this story because you refuse to publish the details, and I’m beginning to think the details of the story might get in the way of the rest of your agenda. So the details are gonna remain anonymous in the Herman Cain story. Here is a montage of the Drive-By Media going full bore on Cain’s real problem.
PIERS MORGAN: Is Herman Cain handling this very badly?
JONATHAN KARL: …Cain handled this so badly.
CHUCK TODD: (outdoor noise) This is a campaign that is falling apart. Not ready to handle this at all.
LARRY O’DONNELL: How to handle one of these stories?
CLARANCE PAGE: Not the way to handle this kind of situation.
J.C. WATTS: He didn’t handle it right.
JOHN KING: (outdoor noise) …how a candidate and his team handle pressure, handle crisis.
ERIC BOLLING: It’s no way to handle this.
RICHARD STENGEL: Voters are looking at how candidates handle matters.
DANA PERINO: You have ten days to get ready for something like this; this is how you handle it?
RUSH: That’s Dana Perino, by the way, joining in from the Bush team, jumping all over Herman Cain. I wonder how many of these journalists could take 30 seconds of what they dish out? It’s happened now and then and they all start crying wolf. “Wait a minute, you can’t do it! Who I am doesn’t matter! I’m not the story! I’m the journalist, I’m the reporter. You — you can’t — you can’t delve into my life and find out how many affairs I’ve had and whether I’ve smoked dope, You can’t do it!”
Oh, we can’t? Well, we’re gonna do that.
“You can’t! I’m the journalist! You can’t! It doesn’t matter! I’m not the story!”
They can’t handle 30 seconds of what they dish out. Jan Crawford, Early Show, CBS today, is stunned that Cain continues to do well.
CRAWFORD: People are really sticking behind Herman Cain, his supporters are. That’s reflected in a lot of the reporting that we’ve been doing, talking to voters, particularly out in Iowa; where supporters of Cain say they just think this is going to fade away. They think these charges are, quote, “sketchy,” one person told us, and it’s just not really that pertinent; and, interestingly, the campaign is still — still! — raising lots of money. And then, finally, I think look at talk radio. I mean you know that is very important with conservative voters. The conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, they are really rallying to his defense, and that could end up being a huge help to him if they stay with him.
RUSH: You know, folks, I apologize. That bite I did not read the entire transcript. I did not know I was also mentioned in that bite. I don’t… (interruption) Well, I know it’s my show, but I’m not playing these sound bites just ’cause they mention my name. I just didn’t read the transcript far enough to know that she did. Where are the calls for the Restaurant Association to release the results of their investigation, which Cain says cleared him? You know, the media will not even mention that? The media won’t even join this call for the NRA to release the results of the investigation. They just want the women to come forward and the women don’t want to. I wonder what’s up with that.
Tucker simply reported Mike Tyson’s vile comment about Sarah Palin. Tucker showed what an animal Tyson really is.
Most newsworthy was the laughter by the radio show hosts when Tyson made his comments. If a conservative had made these comments about Hillary Clinton, surely this would have been front page news in the New York Times. That was Tucker’s point.
BEN SAYS: The only fault I see, maybe, with what Tucker did is that it raised the level of publicity for this scurrillous book by that creep Joe McGuinness who was stalking Sarah Palin. It probably would have been best to ignore Tyson and the creepy book. McGuinness has produced no evidence for his claim that NBA player Glenn Rice had some kind of relationship with Sarah Palin in 1987 (before she married Todd). He claims Sarah was a basketball groupie back in those days. He also claims she’s a racist. Tough to reconcile those two contradictory claims. McGuiness has an irrational hatred of Sarah. Who knows why?
McGinness just repeats hearsay and rumor throughout his book. Even liberal news organizations give his book zero credibility. So perhaps Tucker should have just ignored Tyson, who has nothing of value to say and is a pathetic creature deserving more of pity than scorn. It’s a close call — defensible either way. Greta got herself overly worked up, bringing yet even more undeserved publicity to McGinness’ disgusting book.
JEFFREY LORD-AMERICAN SPECTATOR: In case you missed it, Fox News colleagues and 20-year friends Greta Van Susteren and Tucker Carlson have been going at it — in front of the cameras. The cause: a decision by Carlson’s website the Daily Caller to report some outrageously disgusting comments on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made by ex-boxing great Mike Tyson.
Here’s the Daily Caller story that launched the ruckus, with an editorial note added after the story ran. The actual recording of Tyson, made in an interview with the ESPN Las Vegas affiliate KWWN, is heard by scrolling a bit to the video screen at the bottom. Here’s the Greta-Tucker smack down as seen by Fox viewers.
While putting this on camera invited the rest of us into this, and since we’re big Greta fans in this corner — she is one of today’s peerless journalists who consistently is getting the story of the moment, getting it right and getting it in detail — this is painful to say.
Greta Van Susteren is wrong. Mystifyingly so.
Illegal? And on how many levels? Sony Pictures to release ‘Death of Osama bin Laden’ movie right before election
Should this be considered a campaign contribution to Obama under federal election law? Was there coordination on this between Sony and the White House? Has classified info been compromised? Rep. Peter King calls for investigation.
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Rep. Pete King knocked President Obama over reports he green-lighted unprecedented access of the Navy SEALs crew who killed Osama bin Laden to Hollywood filmmakers.
Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, who made 2008′s Iraq war drama “The Hurt Locker,” are behind the planned picture of the risky May raid.
The movie is scheduled for release on Oct. 12, 2012, less than a month before next year’s general election – an October surprise blown this week by the New York Times.
King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has demanded that Pentagon and CIA inspectors general investigate their access. He cited reports that Boal was on hand for a closed-door intel agency ceremony honoring the Bin Laden team, raising eyebrows in the room.
The schmoozing could risk lives and imperil the fight against an Al Qaeda that’s on the ropes, King wrote in a letter to the watchdogs.
The “alleged collaboration belies a desire for transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history,” King wrote.
Nancy Grace will likely get sued for her unprofessional crusade to deny Casey Anthony a fair trial, put her to death, and gin up public hatred against her
Looks like Nancy Grace is about to make Casey Anthony very rich via a slander and libel suit that’s about to be filed against her by the Anthony legal team.
And in a world that includes Geraldo Rivera, that’s saying something.
Though, in this case, I agree with Gerlado.
The prosecution’s case fell apart by overcharging Casey Anthony and trying to put her to death.
Had they charged her with manslaughter or some lesser murder charge, they might well have gotten a conviction. The prosecution made a strong circumstantial case that Casey Anthony had something to do with the death of her daughter.
But the death penalty is supposed to be reserved for serial killers, mass-murderers and the worst of the worst — people like John Wayne Gasey, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy.
This prosecution tried to put this girl to death even though they had . . .
- no proof of what actually killed Caylee (just a theory)
- no witnesses to the crime
- no DNA evidence
- no direct evidence connecting Casey to the crime
- no evidence of how Caylee got to the swamp or who put Caylee there
Trying to put a mom to death with this evidence (or lack thereof) is the height of prosecutorial abuse.
Yet, for three years, Nancy Grace has abused her position on CNN Headline News to lead a crusade every night of the week to convict Casey Anthony and deny her right to a fair trial.
She would cut off any guest who would disagree even one iota with her about the case. She would scream, rant and sob. And she would mock anyone who thought there were some holes in the state’s case.
Nancy Grace appointed herself prosecutor, judge and jury; and engaged in a relentless and bloodthirsty vigilante campaign of vengeance against Casey Anthony, without regard to Casey’s right to due process, without regard even to her unanimous acquittal on the murder charges by 12 jurors.
Nancy Grace was actually making her living for three years (earning lots of money) by trying to send Casey Anthony to her death . . . before a jury was even chosen, before the evidence had even been presented.
If anyone was exploiting this case for personal gain, it was Nancy Grace.
What’s she going to talk about now that this trial is over?
I’m a death penalty skeptic to begin with. The government doesn’t do such a good job at delivering the mail or running car companies. Why would I think the government will always get it right when it comes to the death penalty?
This case shows how easy it is for the government to put someone to death with almost no evidence.
What if Casey had had a public defender instead of a world-class legal team who volunteered most of their time?
She’d be on death row by now.
Most people can’t afford world-class lawyers for $500 or $1,000 per hour. They have to settle for the public defender.
Now that a jury has rendered its verdict, Nancy Grace says: “Somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight.”
She then goes on to attack the jury.
The fact is the prosecution could not prove first degree murder “beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude.”
The defense came up with other plausible scenarios. I can imagine other plausible scenarios that the defense did not put on.
That’s all the defense had to do.
By the way, who has ever committed a murder with duct tape?
Try typing “duct tape murder” into Google and see how many you come up with. Zero.
If Casey had wanted to murder the child, it would have been far easier just to put a plastic bag over Caylee’s head.
Casey Anthony’s behavior during the 31 days after the death of her child was certainly bizarre and unseemly — inexplicable. She clearly is one disturbed woman.
But disturbing behavior is not proof of first degree murder.
What I suspect actually happened is Casey Anthony used the duct tape and chloroform to keep the child quiet in the trunk of the car while she partied. She came back to the car later and found Caylee dead, accidentally.
She then disposed of the body, tried to come up with various stories as to where Caylee was, and pretended nothing was wrong. She was in panic mode (hence all the lies), but tried to put on a good game face (hence the continued partying, to pretend nothing was wrong).
At least, that’s my theory. It seems more plausible than the theory the prosecution came up with.
Whether my theory is true or not is anyone’s guess.
But negligent homicide (which is what I think this was) wasn’t the case put on by the prosecution. The prosecution insanely went full bore for capital murder and the death penalty.
The motive for the murder put forward by the prosecution was also absurd.
If Casey wanted to party and hang out with her boyfriend, she could just drop Caylee off with her parents. She could even run away and leave Caylee with Casey’s parents, who were happy to have Caylee around.
Casey could have just told her parents: “I’m too young to be a mom. I give up. You take over.”
She could have written this in a note, left the baby at the Anthony house, and run away. And that would be it. Caylee would then have been raised by George and Cindy Anthony.
Casey did not have to kill Caylee to have her freedom.
This is a great example of how prosecutors can twist their facts and theories to suit whatever outcome they are aiming for. And, unless you have a good legal team, capable of unraveling the prosecution’s narrative (lies), you’ll end up convicted.
These prosecutors were really not interested in the truth. They just wanted their death penalty conviction against a very unpopular defendant — which is a bigger feather in their cap than a boring negligent homicide conviction.
These prosecutors should have their law licenses revoked. They are supposed to be officers of the court and interested in finding the truth.
They are supposed to be interested in justice that’s proportionate to the crime.
Casey’s behavior was abhorrent. But she deserved a fair trial — not to be over-charged with capital murder by an over-zealous prosecution . . . and not to be electronically lynched every night for three years by Nancy Grace and her stupid cable show on CNN.
This was prosecution by vilification.
Don’t be surprised if some Nancy Grace vigilante type now decides to take justice into his/her own hands and attack Casey because of the lynch-mob frenzy of hatred Nancy Grace ginned up against Casey.
Casey Anthony’s defense attorney J. Cheney Mason criticized the three-year media coverage of the Casey Anthony trial, calling it “media assassination” by “incompetent talking heads.”
He also said some of these media commentators would likely soon be hearing from him and Casey Anthoney’s lead defense attorney Jose Baez. No doubt, he was talking about Nancy Grace — who never even entertained the possibility that the prosecution’s case against Casey had some serious holes.
The fact is: This was not a hung jury. Casey was acquitted of the major charges unanimously by this 12-member jury.
The reason she was acquitted was the prosecution could not prove guilt of pre-meditated first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, to the exclusion of all other reasonable scenarios.
Remember what this verdict means. It does not mean Casey Anthony is innocent. It just means the prosecution did not prove its case “beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude.”
America’s term for this verdict is “Not Guilty”. In England, the term is “Not Proven.”
“Not Proven” is certainly a more accurate description. But what makes America’s system of justice unique is the presumption of innocence.
You are presumed innocent until the state proves its case on the principle that it’s “better to let 100 guilty people go free than to wrongly convict one innocent person” — especially in a death penalty case.
The fact is: no one really knows what happened.
I expected the jury to find Casey Anthony guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Had the prosecution simply charged her with manslaughter, they probably would have had their conviction.
But the prosecution spent almost no time on the manslaughter or negligent homicide possibility. They wanted the death penalty.
As is so often the case with prosecutions these days, the government almost always over-charges.
This is how prosecutors force defendants (sometimes innocent defendants) to plea to lesser charges in order to avoid the possibility that they will be sent away for decades, or life . . . or in this case death.
This is how prosecutors get their 99% conviction rates — by terrorizing defendants into accepting a plea bargain conviction on a lesser crime (even if they did not do it).
Over-charging is an all-too-common tactic prosecutors engage in to boost their conviction rates and make their resumes look good.
A 99% conviction rate looks good when a prosecutor wants to make the switch into private practice.
It’s the difference between being able to charge $150 per hour and $500 or $1,000 per hour.
I’ve asked defense attorneys what percentage of their clients are guilty.
They all say near 100% of their criminal defendant clients are guilty . . . of something. But it’s usually not the crime they are being over-charged with. They are usually guilty of a lesser crime, and the prosecution knows it.
But the prosecution almost always over-charges as a tactic to terrorize the defendant into just accepting guilt to the lesser charge in order not to go through the expense and risk of a full-blown trial.
This practice by prosecutors of routinely and knowingly over-charging defendants is a disgrace and should be outlawed.
But, for whatever reason, these prosecutors could not terrorize Casey Anthony into accepting a plea bargain deal — possibly because she really might not have done it.
Perhaps she was protecting someone else. Perhaps she was protecting her father George Anthony.
I do think George Anthony knew more than what he was telling us in this trial. He was lying almost as much as Casey was.
Who commits suicide because of the death of a granddaughter?
Guilty people sometimes commit suicide. People commit suicide if they think some horrible secret is about to come to light.
But who commits suicide because of the death of a granddaughter?
People lose loved ones all the time. My mother died last month.
This does not cause me to want to commit suicide. And what a lame suicide attempt that was.
Something is just not right there. A lot fishy.
This trial produced few answers and just raised more questions.
Certainly, Casey Anthony did something and was hiding something because: Why all these lies?
All we really know at this point is that 12 jurors agreed that the prosecution did not prove first degree murder to the exclusion of all other possible reasonable scenarios.
We also know that Nancy Grace is a true disgrace.
As a journalist, her job is to search for truth, to ask questions, to look into all reasonable possibilities and scenarios — not lead a lynch mob.
Does Nancy Grace not understand the difference between thinking someone is guilty and being able to prove guilt in a court of law with hard evidence and indisputable facts?
Does Nancy Grace think we should put people to death because we suspect they’re guilty — you know, like 95% sure?
It’s hard to believe she has any legal training, though she says she was a prosecutor.
Is Nancy Grace’s coverage of this trial indicative of how she handled her criminal cases as a prosecutor?
Was she hurling wild accusations all over the place?
Did she win her convictions by persuading juries with evidence? Or did she try to gin up hatred for the defendant by vilifiying the defendant’s character flaws that had little to do with whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime in question?
Did she make a habit of trashing juries that came back with verdicts she did not like?
Did she engage in character assassination campaigns against the defense counsel?
Did she weep and cry and scream while she was making her presentations in court?
Did judges put up with these kinds of antics by her in court?
Casey Anthony certainly appears to be deeply disturbed, even mentally ill. Nancy Grace appears to be no more sane.
NBC apologized in the wake of an avalanche of protest phone calls, emails, tweets and Facebook posts, saying it was an accidental omission.
But, seriously, how can it be accidental if you are editing something out?
I can understand forgetting to include or add something in — like forgetting to add surgar to the cake you’re making or forgetting to thank someone when you are on stage accepting your Oscar.
But to edit something out requires an affirmative act. You have to do it. That’s very different than forgetting to do something.
TOBY HARNDEN-U.K. TELEGRAPH: The trove of more than 13,000 emails detailing almost every aspect of Sarah Palin’s governorship of Alaska, released late on Friday, paints a picture of her as an idealistic, conscientious, humorous and humane woman slightly bemused by the world of politics.
One can only assume that the Left-leaning editors who dispatched teams of reporters to remote Juneau, the Alaskan capital, to pore over the emails in the hope of digging up a scandal are now viewing the result as a rather poor return on their considerable investment.
If anything, Mrs Palin seems likely to emerge from the scrutiny of the 24,000 pages, contained in six boxes and weighing 275 pounds, with her reputation considerably enhanced. As a blogger at Powerline noted, the whole saga might come to be viewed as “an embarrassment for legacy media”.
Mrs Palin, who suddenly resigned as Alaska governor in July 2009, is no longer a public official. She holds no position in the Republican party. Despite the media hubbub that surrounds her every move, she is unlikely to be a candidate for the White House in 2012.
So why do a poll at all? Why not just make up the numbers and save money?
JIM GERAGHTY-NATIONAL REVIEW: Wow! The AP poll has Obama’s approval rating hitting 60 percent! And 53 percent say he deserves to be reelected!
And on the economy, 52 percent approve of the way Obama’s handling it, and only 47 percent disapprove! He’s up 54–46 on approval of how he’s handling health care! On unemployment, 52 percent approval, 47 percent disapproval! 57 percent approval on handling Libya! Even on the deficit, he’s at 47 percent approval, 52 percent disapproval!
It is a poll of adults, which isn’t surprising; as I mentioned yesterday, you don’t have to be a registered or likely voter to have an opinion on the president.
But then you get to the party ID: 46 percent identify as Democrat or leaning Democrat, 29 percent identify as Republican or leaning Republican, 4 percent identify as purely independent leaning towards neither party, and 20 percent answered, “I don’t know.”
For contrast, the AP’s immediate preceding poll was 45 percent Democrat, 33 percent Republican; the likely-voter pool in October 2010 was 43 percent Democrat, 48 percent Republican. The poll’s total sample in October 2010 split 43 percent Democrat, 40 percent Republican.
“Racer.” I like this new word Katz has invented. It’s descriptive.
I like this new phrase syndicated talk show host Tony Katz has come up with – “Racer.” A “Racer” is someone who constantly uses the “racist” charge to label those with whom they disagree.
So Birthers are “racist,” according to Contessa Brewer. But Brewer is a “racer” for assuming those who question the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate are “racist.” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are America’s top two “racers.”
McChrystal’s reputation restored after investigation reveals Rolling Stone story that got him sacked was false
BEN SAYS: The questions now are: When will Obama apologize to General McChrystal for believing Rolling Stone’s false article without first conducting an investigation, or even a review of the allegations? When will Rolling Stone issue an apology to McChrystal. When will the reporter and editor responsible for this garbage be fired? When will McChrystal file his lawsuit against Rolling Stone, and for how much?
NEW YORK POST: Nearly a year after being fired by President Obama as the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been cleared of wrongdoing by the Pentagon, as has his staff.
It’s about time.
McChrystal had served his country with distinction for decades, a special-forces officer known for a Spartan personal ethic, intense loyalty to the troops he led and single-minded dedication carrying out the orders at hand.
But he was abruptly relieved of command last June after Rolling Stone quoted some of his top military and civilian aides making disparaging remarks about administration figures, including Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones.