Sometimes You’ve Just Got to Wonder
February 21st, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |what journalists learned, if anything, in civics class in school or if they just snoozed right through all that pro-America nonsense. Andy Sullivan of Reuters writes:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney will have a last chance to convince a jury he is not guilty of perjury on Tuesday as a trial that has exposed the inner workings of the White House draws to a close.
Perhaps Andy grew up and was educated in Stalin’s Russia but here in America, defendants don’t require chances to convince juries that they are NOT guilty; prosecutors are required to convince juries that defendants ARE guilty. But that’s been the MSM’s assessment all along, dadgummit, that not only is Libby guilty but so is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and probably the Bush family dog, too.
Then there’s that headline, which, to be honest, probably wasn’t written or suggested by Sullivan but the brain-child of some headline writer:
Last chance for Libby to beat perjury charge
Now correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t a phrase including the words “beat” and “charge” with an intervening crime word thrown in imply that the person is factually guilty of the crime and “beating” the charge means to get off scott-free for some crime that one has done?
It’s almost as if in the MSM world, Republicans are guilty. Period. They are grudgingly given opportunities to convince juries that they’re not but even if they succeed, they’re only beating the rap, not actually, you know, not guilty. I mean, they’re Republicans, right. How could they NOT be guilty.
Legal analysts say Libby’s lawyers focused less on creating a coherent defense than undermining the government’s case.
Well, it would be really nice to have a coherent defense but, really, undermining the government’s case is really all one needs in the USA — as opposed to the USSR — where prosecutors are supposed to have to prove defendants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Heck, in this country, it isn’t necessary to even put on a defense at all, coherent or not in order to win. Punch enough holes in the prosecution’s case and the same man that was presumed innocent before and during the trial is still presumed innocent if the prosecution fails to prove his case.
Or, well, that’s the way it’s supposed to work…if you’re not a journalist for the MSM.
While that strategy probably won’t win a clean acquittal, it could prevent the jury from reaching a unanimous decision and force a mistrial, they said.
Now the straight news story becomes an opinion piece by the inclusion of those nebulous, unnamed yet omniscient “they”, that is, the unnamed legal analysts previously mentioned. First of all, was that ALL legal analysts, most legal analysts, or all the anti-Bush legal analysts that Andy boy contacted for this editorial, er, sorry, “straight news” story? My guess is, the latter.
Finally:
“Everyone thinks the government has the edge, but we had some good points scored by the defense,” said Scott Fredricksen, a former government lawyer. “This is not in the bank by any means.”
Really? EVERYONE thinks that? Even Libby’s lawyers? Hell, even Libby, himself, thinks that the government has the edge? I really, really doubt that, but there it is. Reuters wouldn’t lie to its readers. Of course, that everyone thinks the government has the edge is only one man’s opinion, one Scott Fredricksen…but Andy didn’t manage to scare up anyone whose opinion counters that. In fact, there’s not a single voice given to anyone who questions a single “hang that SOB high” point made in this editorial…darn, I keep forgetting that this is a straight news piece.
You see…this is what I mean when I talk about bias in the media. Andy’s probably never met a single person in his world who doesn’t just instinctively know that Libby’s guilty so, therefore, it must be true.
34 Responses to “Sometimes You’ve Just Got to Wonder”
By Dusty on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Reminds me of the conservatives argument that all individuals at Gitmo are terrorists.
You have no links to these quotes or the articles where you culled them from.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Craig, you’ve stuck it in your mouth twice recently with your attacks on the press. When are you going to learn? The jist of what people are saying about Libby’s prediciment is that 9 - count ‘em, NINE - reliable sources have disputed his accounts, or lack thereof, on as many occasions, while Libby has virtually no way to dispute them, other than to say that a man who’s powers of recollection are vital to his stature and career mysteriously forgot 9 occasions during a tumultuous period in the administration.
Yes, at this point, the onus is on Libby, and if he doesn’t manage it, he’s going to get nailed.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
Read my last comment on your Gitmo detainee post. The premise is that due process, in a time of war, is covered under different standards for foreign non-uniformed enemy combatants captured on enemy soil.
Jersey,
Ignoring the reason for this case, it is still up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not for Libby to prove innocence. The fact that the MSM has tried to paint this whole farce in such a way as to presume that 1) a crime was committed when Plame’s name was leaked (the only “crime” being alleged is that Libby committed perjury in an investigation, not for leaking Plame’s name; that “honor” goes to Richard Armitage, who wasn’t charged); and 2) Libby is guilty, shows that Craig is right when he said:
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
Sorry, I did originally put it up without a link. I’ve corrected that now. I included a link in the first blockquote. All the quotes are from the same article.
Jersey,
Um, no. Until Libby is, you know, found guilty, he is presumed innocent…a concept that you seem to have difficulty with when it’s Republicans involved. Perhaps you slept through the same civics classes as the author. I also dispute your claims. Actually on several of the counts, there is exactly one witness testimony each: “he said, he said”. If the jury comes down with a conviction, then the onus shifts to Libby. Until then, it’s all on Fitzgerald.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Craig, um, the media is not the court. You cant go to NYT prison. As for “one witness testimony each,” yes. At least one credible witness per event that had a conversation with Libby proving that he lied to the prosecutors. NINE OF THEM.
SteveIL, your starry-eyed sheepish belief that the Bush White House did not intentionally leak the classified name of a CIA agent to the press aside, Libby’s been buried in this trial.
I don’t know what’s more fun - watching Libby squirm, or watching you cons jump hoops trying to make this look like just some media cabal. The selazy cons in the WH have been once again shown to be the sleazy cons that they are. You guys just can’t face that your guys have been so thoroughly proven to be so thoroughly sleazy.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
No one has proven anything. Libby testified. Others testified. All to conversations that are now almost three years old. People are not tape recorders. People’s memories fade, warp over time, their perceptions of what was said are rarely word-for-word perfect even a few moments after a conversation has been had, let alone years later. That’s the whole point. What would be proof? If someone had videotaped both ends of all the conversations. Nobody had the foresight to do that.
It would be nice if we knew that no one on the jury ever sees or reads or hears the opinion pieces that are purveyed as news in the MSM but those jurors read and heard and watched the news before being chosen and this shit’s been going on for years. That’s the shit that’s sleazy, Jersey…not standing up for the bedrock principles of presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proof. It’s this article that’s sleazy.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Okay, that’s enough semantics now, gang. Yeah, yeah, proof schmoof. We shall all see soon enough. From what I’ve read about this so far, Libby is in big trouble and has basically resorted to the Chewbacca Defense to confuse the jury, rather than vainly attempt to negate the evidence before them. The press is simply pointing out just how deep the doo doo is. They hear the same stuff the jury does.
If you think that’s sleazy, then fine. I call it “press.” Sleazy is what the scum sleazy sleazy sleazy sleazy GOP con pols have been up to the past dozen years.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Jersey:
Fact #1: Richard Armitage told Bob Novak that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA.
Fact #2: Bob Novak was the first person to report publicly that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA.
Fact #3: DoJ found out Richard Armitage was the person who leaked Valerie Plame’s name in Oct. 2003.
Fact #4: Fitzgerald, who is part of DoJ, was assigned as special prosecutor in Dec. 2003, knew Armitage was the leaker, and decided not to prosecute Armitage since the leak wasn’t done with malice (as required by statute).
Fact #5: Armitage waited three years to tell the public that he was the leaker, saying Fitzgerald told him not to discuss it that whole time.
Now, where in all that is Libby? Or Cheney? Or Bush? Or Powell (Armitage’s boss)? Or Rove? Or anybody else in the administration for that matter? Or the fact that nobody was charged for a crime in relation to the actual leak? It isn’t a crime to defend oneself against a public liar like Joe Wilson, and he has been shown to have been the real liar in this whole sorry affair. I know you don’t believe it, but that’s how it has come about.
By Paul Watson on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL,
So why did Libby lie to the investigation? As there was nothing illegal done, why did he try to cover up? Or, to be 100% accurate as he hasn’t been found guilty of anything at this stage, why did he do things that persuaded the special prosecutor that he was covering up, resulting in the current trial?
By Dusty on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Craig, Libby DID NOT testify. His recorded grand jury testimony was played in court. He never took the stand in his own defense.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, do you have anything relevent to the Libby trial to offer?
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
What was heard in court was Libby testifying…like eight or twelve hours of testimony under questioning by the prosecutor.
Jersey,
Semantics are important. Words have meanings, they convey thoughts. As a reader, I have nothing to go by but your words.
Clearly, Libby is in jeopardy and he may well be convicted. I do not approve of perjury and making false statements to investigators, no matter who does that. I don’t intend to condone or defend these actions. However, that does not, in my opinion, justify the total reversal of presumption from innocence to guilt and burden from prosecution to defense.
Outside of court, anyone is entitled to have whatever opinion they wish to have regarding Libby’s guilt or innocence, regarding the weight of the evidence and the comparative credibility of the various witnesses. However, Jersey, the jury is still out. You say, that the journalists hear what the jury hears. Yes. True but you assume that the jury thinks him as guilty as the journalists do. You don’t know that. You can’t unless you are some sort of mind reader. To presume that Libby has been proven guilty and that the closing remarks are his last chance to convince the jury that he’s innocent and to “beat” the rap is bias, pure and simple. To give opinions such as “Everyone” thinks the government’s got the edge as though there is no doubt in anyone’s mind is mind-bogglingly biased. There’s not a single dissenting voice heard in the entire article. This is the text-bood definition of bias in journalism. This isn’t an editorial or a column, where the author is expected to take a point of view and defend it. This is supposed to be a news article. The author is supposed to be objective to the extent that that’s possible. To the extent that it’s not possible, he’s supposed to take affirmative steps to seek out various points of view and to give them a fair hearing.
Paul W.,
There it is: the presumption that he lied. He says he misremembered the order of events. You ever misremember conversations that you had months or years after the conversations took place? My guess is that you have. I know I have. Misremembering isn’t lying. How does one prove that Libby’s testimony wasn’t a case of misremembering rather than lying? I don’t know, I’m asking.
Again, I don’t know whether Libby lied or misremembered. If he lied, he deserves to be found guilty and to do a prison stretch.
As Jersey said, we’ll soon see.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Eh, not a lot of meat there, Ceraig.
JMJ
By Paul Watson on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
Plenty of times. But, if that’s all the prosecutor has, that the defendant can’t remember word for word, then the case shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. Obviously, I’m not as failiar with the detail as you guys as this is not getting any coverage over here. But as I say, if that is all the prosecution has, then Libby will, deservedly, walk free at the end of the trial.
As to the lying comment. You’re right. I thought I’d removed all the comments like that except for the one that I then covered. I missed it. My bad.
And an alternative explanation is that “acquited” doesn’t sound nearly as dramatic as “beat the charge”. The journalists could just be guilty of doing what journalists have done since the dawn of time, used sexed up language to make their article demand more attention. It could be bias, but journalistic hyperbole is also a fairly likely explanation
By Dusty on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
What was heard in court was Libby’s grand jury testimony from a year earlier. Libby never took the stand in his own defense and because of that, the judge ruled the defense attorney could not raise certain issues in his closing argument Craig. Did you listen to his grand jury testimony? Its available online. it was submitted as evidence, not as Scooter testifying in his own behalf.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
Yes, you are right. Libby never took the stand in his own defense. I concede that. However, I never said that he did. When I said that Libby testified, I was referring to his GJ testimony, which was offered, as you said, as evidence at his trial. It was, however, still testimony that was given earlier at the GJ and heard as evidence at trial. Hence, perhaps I should have made it clear that, when I said that Libby testified, I meant, he testified to the GJ. I hereby correct that omission.
Jersey,
Just take it as a light snack then. I wouldn’t want to spoil your supper.
Paul W.,
Fair enough, but when you’ve read enough journalistic hyperbole and it all points in the same direction, towards the presumption of guilt, I’d say it’s bias communicated through journalistic hyperbole.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Dusty, no I haven’t listened to the GJ testimony. I’m on a dial-up and to listen to anything longer than a short clip is a pain in the rear unless it’s streamed at low quality and, even then, my connection is often quite precarious. For me to try to listen to 8-12 hours of stuff is just more pain than my rear end is built to suffer through.
By Dusty on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Craig, thank you for your clarification on Libby’s GJ testimony vs. incourt testimony in his own defense.. If you want, I can dig up the PDF transcript link for you.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Dusty, I’d appreciate that a lot. Thanks.
By Dusty on Feb 21, 2007 | Reply
Here and Here Craig. They are PDF files..so they take time to load as well.
By tammara on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
uh craig, are you aware that the little people go to court every day and are presumed guilty before they even hit the floor? why should libby be any different?
By SteveIL on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
Paul Watson said:
…why did he do things that persuaded the special prosecutor that he was covering up, resulting in the current trial?
I don’t know. I keep wondering why there was an investigation after October, 2003. I keep wondering why Fitzgerald was made a special prosecutor in December, 2003. I keep wondering why Fitzgerald continued the investigation after the summer of 2004 when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had already proven that much of what Joe Wilson said the previous year was a lie, including in testimony he gave to the committee (for which he was never charged).
Fitzgerald is the major U.S. District Attorney here in Chicago, and he has gone after a bunch of corrupt politicians in the city and state. However, he never goes after the big guns (Blagojevich and Daley), at least not while they are in office and can continue to do the most damage (he did get Republican George Ryan, but not until he was out of office). So, I don’t know what he’s doing with the “no-leak” non-scandal, and don’t why it’s even going on.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
Tammara,
If you say so. Look, if the presumption of innocence has been so eroded that what you say is true then it is precisely because the attitude displayed in this article has become ubiquitous and must be fought, tooth and nail, wherever it is found. For the masses to have this attitude is bad enough. When the elite news guys are infected, what hope has justice?
Fight for justice, Tammara. Give in to this and all is lost.
But I simply do not accept your premise. Read any newspaper article on any crime and you will find the word “alleged” everywhere. Why? Because the press will fight tooth and nail to preserve the presumption of innocence for most defendants. It’s only for the wealthy, as for example the Lacrosse “it wasn’t a rape” team scandal. The only scandal was the prosecutors frequent, unethical and, in some cases, illegal actions, like declaring them guilty without the inconvenience of trying them in court. For them, because they were wealthy kids and the “victim” was a poor black woman, the presumption of guilt kicked in. Not only for the prosecutor
but for many of the faculty of the school. Never mind that there was never any evidence of rape. Never mind that what evidence there was contradicted the accuser’s story at every turn. Never mind that the accuser changed her story repeatedly to try to fit the evidence. Never mind the whole justice shtick.
If we, in this country have any hope of preserving justice, it must begin with preserving the presumption of innocence for ALL defendants. Justice must keep that blindfold on at all times. No tipping the scales or no one will be able to find justice.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
But Craig, there is no such issue here with “preserving the presumption of innocence for ALL defendants.” The presumption is there - in the courtroom. As long as someone does not directly say that someone is guilty of a crime, and said person is found - in a court - to be not guilty of that crime, then no harm, legally, has been done. That’s the difference between libel and simply asserting something. Here you have neither; just a reporter giving his opinion (one that is broadly shared, by the way) that it looks like Libby is going to be found guilty.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
Jersey, you just proved Craig’s point:
This is supposed to be a “news” report, not an editorial. That’s what editorials and opinion pages are for. That’s where subjectivity is supposed to be. News reports are objective, and are not at all supposed to including the reporter’s opinion as that isn’t the point of a “news” report.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
Precisimundo. Save the editorializing for the editorials and columns. I don’t give a shit about the reporter’s opinion.
Also the harm is in eroding the concepts of presumption of innocence and burden of proof. You don’t think that reading such poorly worded (if indeed the reporter intended to maintain a sense of objectivity and just failed) or blatantly subjective opinion in a news piece harms society because it leads to precisely the phenomenon that Tammara pointed to: that “the little people go to court every day and are presumed guilty before they even hit the floor? why should libby be any different?” Where do you think people get the idea that defendants, by virtue of having been arrested, ARE guilty. The solution, of course, is not to presume Libby guilty, too, for the sake of fairness but to reinforce once again, the concept of presumption of innocence and its flip-side, the burden of proof being that of the prosecution for ALL defendants, for the sake of justice. If the rich/powerful can’t get justice in our courts or the court of public opinion, no one stands a chance.
Semantics, the way in which one says things, matters, Jersey, to all of us.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
You say the presumption is there, in the courtroom. Really? Jurors are people, Jersey, just like you. Which is precisely my point: if you, an intelligent, well read, concerned citizen think nothing of the erosion of the presumption of innocence, what makes you think that there’s any in that court-room? Because people were asked: “Can you consider the defendant innocent until the evidence and testimony is all in and you have been instructed on the law and have had a chance to deliberate carefully on all of this?” and they answered “Sure!”? I hope they can but articles like this and your defense of it don’t instill a lot of hope in me.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
Craig and SteveIL - it IS news that Libby’s case is a train wreck. It is perfectly responsible of the reporter to point that out. The reporter DI NOT edictorialize his personal opinion, but rather rather just the obvious - Libby’s case isn’t going well. That IS news, and people need to know it. People want to know it. If you think your fellow Americans are so stupid that you think a jury is incapable of making up their own minds based on the facts of the case, then move to the Dominican Republic and you won’t have to worry about that anymore. The claims of inference you two are making are petty and ridiculous.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Of course he editorialized his own opinion. He just used other people, mostly unnamed, to do it. An irresponsible reporter does this by loading his article with opinions all in the direction of his own opinion, i. e., none contradicting his opinion. “Everyone” thinks thus and so is about as blatant a line of bullshit as one will find in a news article. As I asked in the post, is that true? Of course not. He hasn’t asked everyone. It’s hyperbolic bullshit. The fact that no one, named or unnamed, gets a contrary word is the clincher. You can pass this over, if you want but that just makes you part of the problem rather than the solution. Pretty sad.
This is much more than pointing out that Libby is in trouble. This is inferring flat out guilt as if there’s no question about it.
I didn’t, of course, say that juries can’t be responsible or that they are incapable of making up their own minds. They are. The problem is this attitude that both you and the author display here: presumption of guilt and placing the burden on the wrong team of lawyers. Thinking that it’s the Defence’s job to prove innocence is exactly backwards. I’m not saying that if journalists put it backwards, the people will. I’m saying that this journalist and you are evidence that people are getting it wrong. Tammara is evidence that people, Liberal people, are noticing and are so resigned to the fact that they question why everyone should not be treated that way.
If you have no problem with that, and the journalists of this country have no problem with that, why should the jurors? That’s what I expect in Cuba and China, not in the US.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
Vraig, you keep brow-beating the media, and all you come up with is trivialities and semantics. This is exactly like the ridiculous assaults on Jimmy Carter’s new book. You don’t like the press. We know that. Gotcha. And you talk about China and Cuba? The kinds of media rules you want are EXACTLY what they have there.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
You keep deep-sixing semantics. Semantics is important. In jounalism, there is nothing more important than semantics. Semantics is what conveys meaning, Jersey.
And there’s nothing trivial about the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof belonging with the prosecution. The fact that you consider them trivial is all the proof of my complaint that I or anyone else should need that I’m right.
I don’t want rules, Jersey. I want journalists to stick to the rules of ethical conduct that they themselves set for their profession. Either play it straight or go back to the 19th century norm of being blatantly partisan without any pretense of objectivity but as long as they pretend to be objective, yes, I expect them to be objective and when they aren’t, I’ll bitch about it.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 24, 2007 | Reply
Semantics is/are (sp?) important. Semantics convey / is/are / what / meaning.
The semantic argument says, ‘I don’t have an argument against the point. I just don’t happen to like the point.’
Presumption of innocence is just that - presumptive. Actually ruling on someone’s fate is another thing. I think your average twelve good Americans can figure that out.
Look, I can think of plenty of times when I thought a court did something stupid, and I can think of plenty of times when the media over-did it, but this ain’t one of those times. What the hell would we do without a press that gave us information? What the hell can we do if we can’t trust each other to disseminate the media? Are you saying that there are things about this trial that we shouldn’t know? What? Does Libby know something bad? Please. If anyone is up to no good, it’s those with soomething to hide - not those reporting it.
It’s all well and fine to bitch about it - just don’t read too much into it!
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 24, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Minor point, but Semantics is a field of study, so I think the singular, “is”, is correct.
No. The semantic argument says, “Words have meaning and so the words that one uses and the way one uses them will deeply impact the understanding of what is being said. Use the wrong word or even the right word in the wrong context and the very meaning of what you are saying is changed entirely.”
Jersey, the problem with:
is this: they are two different things and they are required to do the second — ruling on someone’s fate — beginning from the first — presuming innocence. Ruling on someone’s fate presuming guilt places the burden on the defendant and is exactly the wrong way to do it. In both cases, the jury is ruling on a person’s fate but in the second, the defendant has far less of a chance of being found not guilty.
I’m not trying to deprive you, or anyone else of a press to inform us. I’m striving for a press that isn’t civilly ignorant of so basic and fundamental principles as presumption of innocence and the burden of proof being on the prosecutor, not on the defense.
I haven’t called for anything in the trial not to be known. I’ve called for the press to inform us as though the trial were taking place in the United States of America, not stalinist Russia.
I don’t think I have read too much into it, or, indeed, that I’ve read anything into it at all. I’ve interpreted a text according to standard interpretive principles. I think that you are the one who’s placing far too little importance on the erosion of indispensable principles of our American justice system evidenced throughout this article.
Anyway, I’m repeating myself, in various ways, it’s true but repeating myself nonetheless so I’ll stop now.
Take care, Jersey, my friend and gadfly (used in only the most positive sense of the word).
By Jersey McJones on Feb 25, 2007 | Reply
LOL!
You too, Bro.
JMJ