The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dandi on October 23, 2010, 09:53:08 PM
-
No biggie, right? As long as the more important story comes out.
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 07:32 PM
Original message
So, CNN "journalist" Atika Rupert tried to turn the document release into a smear of Assange.
If you haven't already, go see the YouTube video of this "interview" and leave a comment.
For people who can't stream, instead of asking him about the WikiLeak release, she asked him only about himself, about a rumor she got from an ex employee and about the investigation in Sweden. Julian warns her and finally, ends the interview.
Good for him. There he is, trying to get information out and instead of covering the story, Rupert goes right for the rumors and smears.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyPIc8ZmZbM
And, here is CNN's feedback form:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?47
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9375470
To me, it's not a smear if it's true.
Chan790 (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sorry, "Sweden" is part of his story.
He can't hide from it and no journalist who wants to be taken seriously as a journalist is going to avoid it or soft-foot about it. You see an attack on Assange, I see a journalist doing their job...and behavior and body-language from Assange that furthers my suspicion that he's guilty of the allegations.
He doesn't get to set the agenda anymore than any other newsmaker walking into an interview...gotcha is the name of the game. It's not about what he wants to talk about, it's about the news. After all the griping here about the media failing to do its' job, nobody has the right to complain about a member of the media doing their job.
for Ms. Rupert...it's good to know investigative journalism and aggressively pursuing the actual news story isn't dead.
Something tells me Charlie Chan isn't going to be getting a lot of DUmp Valentines come February.
mike_c (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. -1 for right wing talking points....
"Smear the messenger" isn't part of any "actual news story" I'm interested in. Not in the least. What Wikileaks is doing is monumental and important. Julian Assange's personal life? Not so much.
Also sprach der Bug****er. Sexual assault is no big deal.
Chan790 (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. LOL.
I know you've got to bend over backwards to defend the guy, but it doesn't actually require you to stick your head up your own ass or Julian Assange's. Sexual assault allegations are not an assertably-private part of anybody's personal life. Sorry, you just failed on that one.
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Baloney.
Another pithy and profound remark from ELamborghini. Has this woman ever said anything intelligent in her entire life?
Chan790 (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Then you and mike_c and mix...
Edited on Sat Oct-23-10 08:04 PM by Chan790
have no right to ever ask or expect anybody to ambush-question any member of the Bush administration about the war in Iraq or 9/11 or any other subject but the ones they want to talk about.
I'm not going to play that game...unlike Assange I actually believe in revelation of the truth. Assange should answer the questions, same as evil Dick and the boy-king. Or he should concede he's got an agenda too. If lying and obfuscation are wrong (and I think they are), then they're wrong for everybody.
Assange doesn't get a pass because he's some sort of "hero".
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Thanks for kicking my thread.
Chan790 (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. No problem on that...
I'd say on logic points, I'm owning you though.
Nobody yet has even attempted to justify the double-standards intrinsic in defending Assange over actual liberal ideals (like defending the rights of women against unwanted sexual advances and acts...which is what he is accused of, lest you forget) or even the very ideals (transparency of motives and relentless pursuit of the truth) Julian Assange advocates.
If you're seriously expecting any of that, you've got to know by now you're in the wrong place.
Oh, and truthfully, "owning" EMaserati isn't that great a task, is it? :-)
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. See above. n/t
Erudition practically flows from EKoenigsegg like a wellspring. You tell 'em, Mizz Thang!
Chan790 (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Don't care.
Edited on Sat Oct-23-10 08:23 PM by Chan790
Still winning. Continued inability to rebut me makes you look like you can't. I'll gladly keep kicking that.
Further proof that DUmmies will climb into bed with any slime, forgive any transgression, make common cause with anyone, even sworn enemies of their own country, to score their political points. Sick wastes.
-
Another pithy and profound remark from ELamborghini. Has this woman ever said anything intelligent in her entire life?
Short answer.
No.
-
Good for him. There he is, trying to get information out and instead of covering the story, Rupert goes right for the rumors and smears.
Isn't that what NPR is doing?
-
mike_c (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. -1 for right wing talking points....
"Smear the messenger" isn't part of any "actual news story" I'm interested in. Not in the least. What Wikileaks is doing is monumental and important. Julian Assange's personal life? Not so much.
Funny how you assholes were playing a different tune about the release of "classified" material when it came to the self-outing Plame dealie.
-
And yet they still want Thomas impeached over the wholly unfounded Anita Hill bullshit which at its worse was little more than ribald humor.
-
How do you measure a "little rape"?
Is it measured in inches? ....or the number of strokes times the length equaling a certain distance? ....is time a factor?
If all the above are factors, then Assange must be a short dicked premature ejaculator.....and so insecure about it that he has to reveal top secret information in order to make himself feel more masculine.
-
Yep, they want Thomas' head because an ex-girlfriend came out of nowhere and calls something "sexual harassment":
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct-24-10 12:07 AM
Original message
"It is now obvious that Thomas committed perjury" by Robert Parry Updated at 1:44 AM
Edited on Sun Oct-24-10 12:18 AM by kpete
A Perjurer on the US Supreme Court
By Robert Parry
October 23, 2010
In late 1998, when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about a sexual affair, many on the Right insisted that the issue wasn’t the sex but the perjury. They are now confronted with a parallel case in which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas quite clearly perjured himself to get his seat on the bench.
On Friday, former federal prosecutor Lillian McEwen, one of Thomas’s girlfriends in the 1980s, broke a long silence and confirmed that Thomas did engage in sexual harassment of women at work and did discuss pornography in the way that Anita Hill and other women described to the Senate during Thomas’s confirmation hearings in 1991.
...
However, it is now obvious that Thomas committed perjury as a necessary element of gaining his seat as one of nine justices on the Supreme Court – and only its second African-American. Though perjury before Congress is a felony, the Right appears to have suddenly lost its enthusiasm for demanding impeachment as the proper remedy for high officials caught lying under oath.
[Robert Parrot Parry writes for AlterNet; DUmbass forgot to link his article. --MSB
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9375600
which apparently is different than:
howard112211 (834 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct-24-10 11:44 AM
Original message
K&R if you think all the anti-Wikileaks boo hoo by different sources is horseshit.
The truth is coming out and this is a good thing. The people who are trying to smear these noble efforts are pathetic losers and an embarresment to humankind.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9377118
-
If Thomas committed perjury and the the democrats have the necessary proof, then they should start impeachment proceedings. They have the numbers in the house and senate to run his ass right on out of town on a rail....quickly.
What's stopping them? ...I'll tell ya, they might lose some votes. It's never about right and wrong or justice with them...it's all about power and control.
-
the only reason they want Thomas impeached is they see it as a shortcut to an Obama appointed replacement. If they actually cared about rape and crimes against women, they wouldn't back several Democrats.
-
mike_c (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-23-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. -1 for right wing talking points....
"Smear the messenger" isn't part of any "actual news story" I'm interested in. Not in the least. What Wikileaks is doing is monumental and important. Julian Assange's personal life? Not so much.
(self edit)
-
the only reason they want Thomas impeached is they see it as a shortcut to an Obama appointed replacement. If they actually cared about rape and crimes against women, they wouldn't back several ANY Democrats.
Fixed! :-)
-
the only reason they want Thomas impeached is they see it as a shortcut to an Obama appointed replacement. If they actually cared about rape and crimes against women, they wouldn't back several Democrats.
Yep, they could give a damn about anything but tilting things in their favor.
-
the only reason they want Thomas impeached is they see it as a shortcut to an Obama appointed replacement. If they actually cared about rape and crimes against women, they wouldn't back several Democrats.
I think you're on to something there Miskie.
Do not the mooselims rape and treat their wives like dogs and the libs/DUmmies seem to support them pretty much the same.