- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
- Reaction score
- 619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Interesting article in the paper of record, the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/b...int&adxnnlx=1129730523-uimFDDi5zkbDVnJSUPZ1qg
Hollywood Waits to See Wiretapping Indictment
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and ALLISON HOPE WEINER
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 18 - Anthony Pellicano, the onetime private detective to the stars now finishing a 30-month sentence on federal firearms charges, expects to be indicted again in weeks, his lawyers say.
In the article it says
"Mr. Pellicano, 61, whose clients included celebrities defending their reputations and entertainment lawyers seeking to bolster their cases,"
But it left out a reference to his most famous clients who are politicians. Who?
The Clintons. Now why would they leave out any reference to them. Had he worked for Tom Delay or Gingrich do you think the NYT would have prominately referenced their names?
" The acts that Mr. Pellicano and others are expected to be accused of include wiretapping and witness tampering."
Hmmm exactly what he was accused of doing for the Clintons.
And in another instance the NYT reports that special prosecutor Fitzgerald has decided not to issue a final report. The Times reports this as evidence that he MUST be considering indictments then. But in fact Fitzgerald is prevented by law from issuing a public report.
As NewsMax reports on former federal prosecutor Joesph DiGenova's appearance on ABC's "This Week"
"Asked Sunday whether he thought the Leakgate prosecutor would issue a report on his nearly two-year-old probe, DiGenova told ABC's "This Week": "He's not legally entitled to do so. He cannot issue a public report."
Sounding disappointed, "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos insisted: "Well, [he can] if the court says he can."
Once again, DiGenova set the record straight, explaining that Fitzgerald would "have to get a very special court order which is rarely granted." Even Democratic lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste, who was also on 'This Week," said he agreed with DiGenova that Fitzgerald cannot legally issue a report."
The paper of record can't even get the law straight and totally misrepresnt, without any basis, the actions of Fitzgerald.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/b...int&adxnnlx=1129730523-uimFDDi5zkbDVnJSUPZ1qg
Hollywood Waits to See Wiretapping Indictment
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and ALLISON HOPE WEINER
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 18 - Anthony Pellicano, the onetime private detective to the stars now finishing a 30-month sentence on federal firearms charges, expects to be indicted again in weeks, his lawyers say.
In the article it says
"Mr. Pellicano, 61, whose clients included celebrities defending their reputations and entertainment lawyers seeking to bolster their cases,"
But it left out a reference to his most famous clients who are politicians. Who?
The Clintons. Now why would they leave out any reference to them. Had he worked for Tom Delay or Gingrich do you think the NYT would have prominately referenced their names?
" The acts that Mr. Pellicano and others are expected to be accused of include wiretapping and witness tampering."
Hmmm exactly what he was accused of doing for the Clintons.
And in another instance the NYT reports that special prosecutor Fitzgerald has decided not to issue a final report. The Times reports this as evidence that he MUST be considering indictments then. But in fact Fitzgerald is prevented by law from issuing a public report.
As NewsMax reports on former federal prosecutor Joesph DiGenova's appearance on ABC's "This Week"
"Asked Sunday whether he thought the Leakgate prosecutor would issue a report on his nearly two-year-old probe, DiGenova told ABC's "This Week": "He's not legally entitled to do so. He cannot issue a public report."
Sounding disappointed, "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos insisted: "Well, [he can] if the court says he can."
Once again, DiGenova set the record straight, explaining that Fitzgerald would "have to get a very special court order which is rarely granted." Even Democratic lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste, who was also on 'This Week," said he agreed with DiGenova that Fitzgerald cannot legally issue a report."
The paper of record can't even get the law straight and totally misrepresnt, without any basis, the actions of Fitzgerald.
