Media coverage so far re: Libby

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:05 pm

Seems all the major networks interrupted their daily programming...how does this compare to during the Clinton administration?

Networks Go Live For Libby, But Went to Sleep Over Clinton Cabinet Indictments

Posted by Tim Graham on October 28, 2005 - 12:54.

As ABC, CBS, and NBC all dived into live coverage today to report the indictment of Vice President Cheney's top aide Scooter Libby, this is not at all the way the networks covered indictments of cabinet officers in the Clinton years.

In September 1997, we reported in Media Watch that when former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy was indicted on 39 counts, the networks aired a single evening news story. Three of the four networks -- ABC, CNN, and NBC -- underlined that the Smaltz inquiry had so far cost $9 million. None of them noted civil penalties originating from targets of Smaltz's inquiry amounted to more than $3.5 million. The next morning, CBS's morning show, called CBS This Morning, didn't even mention Espy's indictment. Months later, I noted in a Media Reality Check that on December 11, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts for misleading the FBI about payoffs to a mistress, Linda Medlar.
NBC Nightly News filed one story; ABC's World News Tonight gave it 18 seconds. CBS Evening News didn't arrive on the story until the next night, and gave it nine seconds, a fraction of the two minutes Dan Rather gave the nightly El Nino update, about the weather "giving a gentle lift to the monarch butterfly." The morning shows were worse: NBC's Today passed on two anchor briefs, and ABC's Good Morning America and CBS This Morning ignored it.

Worse yet was the comparison with slighter stories: Since it began in July, the Bill Cosby-Autumn Jackson paternity-blackmail trial drew nine evening news stories on ABC, CBS, and NBC. The morning shows were much more devoted to the story, with 12 full news stories, 45 anchor briefs, and 11 interviews (nine of them on NBC's Today).

The news magazines weren't any better in their December 22 editions: the Cisneros indictment drew 29 words in Time, two paragraphs in U.S. News & World Report, and a hero-brought-low story on page 70 in Newsweek headlined "A Star's Fall from Grace." Remember that both Time and Newsweek had Rove-in-trouble cover stories this summer.

I wonder how this plays out now...

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:07 pm

How's that "bringing dignity to the White House" workin' out for ya?

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:10 pm

typical...

JCT · Post by **JCT** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:12 pm

DrDetroit wrote:typical...

Yeah, boring us to death. Props.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:16 pm

Don't fucking open it, 'tard.

Nothing like sticking your finger in a plug and getting shocked to hell and then trying to blame the electric company. :roll:

Thanks for you whiney input.

JCT · Post by **JCT** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:20 pm

You're a dull twat.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:22 pm

oh SNAP! We got yellow cake right here!

Love,
Mos Def

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:26 pm

I guess playing the bitter fucktard conservative victim card didn't work out too well for Detard?

Rich Fader · Post by **Rich Fader** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:30 pm

Yeah, Doc, feelin' ya. They're weenies. This is not news.

I take my pleasure where I can. The left has been sweating this thing for the last two years for one reason and one reason only. Scooter Libby wasn't it. Hoping that maybe another grand jury will deliver them Karl Rove's plump, baby-haired dome on a platter another year and a half or two down the road wasn't it. They wanted the Spike and Karl Prison Love action figures for Fitzmas. They got a rock.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:33 pm

DrDetard, just after the latest news...

Unnnn, the nasty newsh media ish being all poopie-headies again!
Waaaahhhh!

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:34 pm

Well, I see the glad-handlers are chiming in...

Nishlord · Post by **Nishlord** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:48 pm

Dr Detroit...have you ever, y'know...had a girlfriend?

You really ought to try it sometime.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:52 pm

Nishlord wrote:Dr Detroit...have you ever, y'know...had a girlfriend?

You really ought to try it sometime.

Uh, dumbshit, I'm married.

Now, lets here your tired, recycled comebacks.... :roll:

Gee, this is the best you guys have? "You're boring," "You've never had a girlfriend??"

:roll:

PL · Post by PL » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:05 pm

as a Republican, I am very dissapointed.

I know both sides are capable of being stupid fucks, but I had hoped after watching the Clinton Admin stumble and bumble in ethics, the Repubs would have learned. they didn't.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:11 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
How's that "bringing dignity to the White House" workin' out for ya?

I'm thinking they're probably wishing they could have that one back right about now.

Then again, this is really just business as usual for American politics. The last Presidency that didn't result in any indictments was the Carter Administration and that didn't really result in much of anything, other than a gas shortage and a hostage-takinig, so no big surprise there.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:12 pm

PL wrote:as a Republican, I am very dissapointed.

I know both sides are capable of being stupid fucks, but I had hoped after watching the Clinton Admin stumble and bumble in ethics, the Repubs would have learned. they didn't.

Don't blame Republicans...blame Libby for deciding he needed to lie.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:18 pm

Don't blame Democrats...blame Clinton for deciding he needed a hummer.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:21 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Don't blame Democrats...blame Clinton for deciding he needed a hummer.

Now there is a difference...

1) The Clinton WH formed a team to go after Starr and the witnesses he was calling.

2) Democrats across the board claimed that Starr was overzealous, partisan, etc.

3) Democrats continue to argue that Clinton was pursued because of BJer.

So, one, we don't see Republicans lining up behind Libby and arguing in bad faith or attacking the prosecutor and, two, we don't see Republicans treating this as a non-issue.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:22 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Don't blame Democrats...blame Clinton for deciding he needed a hummer.

Nothing wrong with getting your hog sucked by a fatty...as long as your friends don't find out. :D

Similarly, Libby and Rove most likely would have been able to bullshit their way out of this whole mess (as would Clinton), if they had just come clean in front of the grand jury.

adam-$300 · Post by **adam-$300** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:28 pm

How does this compare to Clinton?

2000 soldiers did not die over the BJ, but 2000 soldiers DID die over the WMDs that dubya lied to you about, that is the difference.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:28 pm

DrDetroit wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:Don't blame Democrats...blame Clinton for deciding he needed a hummer.
Now there is a difference...

1) The Clinton WH formed a team to go after Starr and the witnesses he was calling.

Which was a huge mistake. That just drew even more attention to what was going on.

2) Democrats across the board claimed that Starr was overzealous, partisan, etc.

He was. Authorized or not, the lengths that that guy went to were nothing short of retarded.

3) Democrats continue to argue that Clinton was pursued because of BJer.

Not smart Democrats. Only those with donkey-colored glasses.

So, one, we don't see Republicans lining up behind Libby and arguing in bad faith or attacking the prosecutor and, two, we don't see Republicans treating this as a non-issue.

Well, to a certain extent, this is apples and oranges. Starr was going after the President and Fitzgerald is going after Administration staffers. It's easy for Republicans to distance themselves from the hired help, as they aren't elected party officials. Were Bush being the one indicted, this would obviously play out much differently than it is now.

I don't think that Bush would be getting the same support from Republicans that Clinton got from Democrats. Clinton at the time was enjoying outstanding poll numbers (as well as some fatty intern's gullet), while Bush's numbers are in the toilet due to the war, Harriet Miers, etc. So it's probably more likely that you'd see a lot of Republicans jumping ship and cutting their losses, rather than defending an unpopular President.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:29 pm

DrDetroit wrote:
So, one, we don't see Republicans lining up behind Libby and arguing in bad faith or attacking the prosecutor and, two, we don't see Republicans treating this as a non-issue.

Libby isn't the President, either, dumbfuck. Or even the President's "closest advisor". More like a sacrificial goat. Ever hear of apples and oranges?

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:32 pm

adam-$300 wrote:
How does this compare to Clinton?

2000 soldiers did not die over the BJ, but 2000 soldiers DID die over the WMDs that dubya lied to you about, that is the difference.

Dude, stop getting your political opinions from the bumper of a dented, smog-spewing, quart of oil a day-burning '72 Volkswagen Beetle.

Everyone, including countrys that were against the war, such as France and Germany all believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs prior to ground forces finding otherwise. If you want to say 2000 died because of a mistake, then fine. But the "Bush lied, soldiers died" stuff is for uninformed retards.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:32 pm

Mikey wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
So, one, we don't see Republicans lining up behind Libby and arguing in bad faith or attacking the prosecutor and, two, we don't see Republicans treating this as a non-issue.
Libby isn't the President, either, dumbfuck. Or even the President's "closest advisor". More like a sacrificial goat. Ever hear of apples and oranges?

Beat you to it! :D

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:39 pm

Mikey wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
So, one, we don't see Republicans lining up behind Libby and arguing in bad faith or attacking the prosecutor and, two, we don't see Republicans treating this as a non-issue.
Libby isn't the President, either, dumbfuck. Or even the President's "closest advisor". More like a sacrificial goat. Ever hear of apples and oranges?

ignoring the context?

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:41 pm

Variable:

He was. Authorized or not, the lengths that that guy went to were nothing short of retarded.

He was doing his job.

Not smart Democrats. Only those with donkey-colored glasses.

Nearly every Democrat here runs that line. Most mainstream democrats continue to run that it was about sex.

Well, to a certain extent, this is apples and oranges. Starr was going after the President and Fitzgerald is going after Administration staffers. It's easy for Republicans to distance themselves from the hired help, as they aren't elected party officials. Were Bush being the one indicted, this would obviously play out much differently than it is now.

Um, it was someone else who invoked the Clinton administration, i.e., Republicans should have learned something or another from them re: ethics. I just noted that that was a little premature in the sense that there has been little Republican reaction to this.

Secondly, we all kow that the main point in all of this for the Democrats was to get Bush and Cheney.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:52 pm

mvscal wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:Don't blame Democrats...blame Clinton for deciding he needed a hummer.
I understand that you're laboring under some crippling intellectual limitations being an Aggie and all, by why don't you go ahead explain how "a hummer" results in 14 felony convictions.

I'll take your answer off the air.

I was just baitin', wetty.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:54 pm

DrDetroit wrote:3) Democrats continue to argue that Clinton was pursued because of BJer.

He was persued re: the blowjob because his lie about the blowjob was the ONLY thing they could make stick even a little bit.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:00 pm

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:3) Democrats continue to argue that Clinton was pursued because of BJer.
He was persued re: the blowjob because his lie about the blowjob was the ONLY thing they could make stick even a little bit.

Dumbass says what?

Clinton helped Monica Lewinsky write a false affidavit denying sexual relations with him; he intended the false affidavit to be used during his deposition, and in fact his lawyer did use the false affidavit to try to convince the judge overseeing the deposition (Susan Wright) to limit questions to Clinton during the deposition; Clinton himself confirmed the accuracy of the false Lewinsky affidavit during his deposition; and Clinton lied repeatedly during the sworn deposition about his relationship with Lewinsky.

Um, that's perjury you fool.

Complain to Janet Reno you stupid fuck.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:05 pm

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:3) Democrats continue to argue that Clinton was pursued because of BJer.
He was persued re: the blowjob because his lie about the blowjob was the ONLY thing they could make stick even a little bit.
Dumbass says what?

Clinton helped Monica Lewinsky write a false affidavit denying sexual relations with him; he intended the false affidavit to be used during his deposition, and in fact his lawyer did use the false affidavit to try to convince the judge overseeing the deposition (Susan Wright) to limit questions to Clinton during the deposition; Clinton himself confirmed the accuracy of the false Lewinsky affidavit during his deposition; and Clinton lied repeatedly during the sworn deposition about his relationship with Lewinsky.

Um, that's perjury you fool.

Complain to Janet Reno you stupid fuck.

Why should I? I don't fucking care if Clinton banged the entire cast of Baywatch in the Oval Office and then spent the rest of his Presidency denying it. The next result is that the Starr investigation couldn't turn up jack shit linking either Bill or Hillary Clinton to any criminal conduct relating to Whitewater. So, they went after him for the one weakness they thought they could still exploit, namely his history of philandering.

Show me one married guy who says he wouldn't have done the same thing if he had been in Clinton's shoes before that grand jury and I'll show you a REAL liar.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:07 pm

Like I said, blast Janet Reno...she approved the expansion of the investigation in that direction.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:22 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:oh SNAP! We got yellow cake right here!

Love,
Mos Def

"DON'T DROP THAT SHIT! Pray to god you don't drop that shit." -- some black dude

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:23 pm

BSmack wrote: Show me one married guy who says he wouldn't have done the same thing if he had been in Clinton's shoes before that grand jury and I'll show you a REAL liar.

You can't make a blanket statement like that. If a guy is happily married, he wouldn't have jammed his hog down some fat skank's gullet in the first place. Not only that, he wouldn't be dragged before a grand jury to answer for it.

What I don't get about what Clinton did, is if he was married to an old battle axe, who knew he was a cheater in the first place, what the fuck does he care if anyone finds out he was getting blowies from a fat skank? Sure it's embarassing, but it beats the hell out of impeachment.

Were I in his shoes, I would have told the truth. His wife already knew he was a dog and he already knew how overzealous they were with the entire investigation up to that point, so I think it was naive on his part to assume they wouldn't figure out the truth regarding his relationship with Lewinsky.

Is it not far more embarassing to be the second President in US History to be impeached than to have to acknowledge infidelity? The former will stick a HELL of a lot longer than the latter.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:36 pm

Variable wrote:You can't make a blanket statement like that. If a guy is happily married, he wouldn't have jammed his hog down some fat skank's gullet in the first place. Not only that, he wouldn't be dragged before a grand jury to answer for it.

My statement presupposes that the hog has already been jammed.

[Hulk Hogan voice]The question now is whatcha gonna do when Ken Starr and 10,000 dittoheads COME AFTER YOU.[/Hulk Hogan voice]

You can't tell me that there is one married guy out there who wouldn't have done what Clinton did in front of that grand jury. Not after the deed had already been done. You've heard the stories about Hillary. She's not exactly one to take bad news well.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:49 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Variable wrote:You can't make a blanket statement like that. If a guy is happily married, he wouldn't have jammed his hog down some fat skank's gullet in the first place. Not only that, he wouldn't be dragged before a grand jury to answer for it.
My statement presupposes that the hog has already been jammed.

[Hulk Hogan voice]The question now is whatcha gonna do when Ken Starr and 10,000 dittoheads COME AFTER YOU.[/Hulk Hogan voice]

You can't tell me that there is one married guy out there who wouldn't have done what Clinton did in front of that grand jury. Not after the deed had already been done. You've heard the stories about Hillary. She's not exactly one to take bad news well.
Is that supposed to be an excuse?

And a pathetic one at that. So you're saying that Clinton had zero fucking sack?

If you're in a dead, sexless marriage, who the fu*ck cares what your OL thinks about you going outside the marriage for sex? The relationship is essentially over at that point anyway, right? Not to mention the fact that this is a guy who had been busted tens of times for cheating in the past. It ain't like he was busting his infidelity cherry with Monica L.

Bottom line, the dude lied because he stupidly thought he could get away with it. He should have gone with the worst case scenario and assumed that they already knew or would end up finding out about his relationship.

Anyway, you've made it very obvious who wears the pants in the Mr. and Mrs. Smack household. BWAHAHHAHAAHA.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:53 pm

Variable wrote: [The last Presidency that didn't result in any indictments was the Carter Administration and that didn't really result in much of anything, other than a gas shortage and a hostage-takinig, so no big surprise there.

Don't forget the 20+% home loan interest rates--I know there's a shitload of Americans that won't soon forget.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:14 pm

Variable wrote:
Mikey wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
So, one, we don't see Republicans lining up behind Libby and arguing in bad faith or attacking the prosecutor and, two, we don't see Republicans treating this as a non-issue.
Libby isn't the President, either, dumbfuck. Or even the President's "closest advisor". More like a sacrificial goat. Ever hear of apples and oranges?
Beat you to it! :D

I'm a little slow today.

:wink:

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:33 am

Variable wrote:
mvscal wrote:Is that supposed to be an excuse?
And a pathetic one at that. So you're saying that Clinton had zero fucking sack?

No, the blue dress out front should have told you he had SOME sack.

His problem was he let his penis think for him. Then he got busted. Would I want him dating MY daughter? Hell no. But that is between he, Hillary and God. This should have never been a subject of a federal case.

But, since it was, I totally get why he didn't want to come clean. Would YOU seriously want to answer questions about your extramarital affairs posed by Ken Starr? And let us assume for the sake of argument that you didn't want to leave your wife.

As for him dumping Hillary, what can I say? They are either cold and calculating as ice about their personal affairs, or they really want to work it out. Whatever, it is none of my business.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:08 pm

This should have never been a subject of a federal case.

Then criticize Janet Reno, fool.

I totally get why he didn't want to come clean

You mean you understand why he chose to perjure himself...

Would YOU seriously want to answer questions about your extramarital affairs posed by Ken Starr?

Yeah, you do want to truthfully answer questions when testifying before a grand jury.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:25 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:This should have never been a subject of a federal case.

Tough shit, faggot.

Which administration made sexual harrassment a civil rights issue? Which adminstration successfully prosecuted a drill sergeant for rape after consenual sex with a private?

Rape and consentual sex do not go in the same sentence. But by all means keep flailing away.