Posted on 02/18/2005 6:28:03 AM PST by kristinn
His lawyer told him to shut up.
Now why would he do that?
He was in front of the cameras defending himself, on Wolf Blitzer's show, and the moonbats suddenly 'found' supposed pics.
How many times have you heard of someone being told to keep their trap shut pending legal action?
It's happened before.
Really.
You followed a link to the supposed Gannono escort sites?
I get the whole, the enemy of my enemy is my friend deal....and I know JG was a part of FR. He was not attacked for any of that. As I can see it two things happened.
(1) His bona fides as a journalist were called into question. Good...let's find out what criteria is being used. He had every right to be there...as does any other journalist. However, he was never removed from the press corp...He removed himself
(2) After people started asking about his journalistic background . . . his gay/escort/prostition past came to light.
I am not sure what I am fighting for if I were protesting for Gannon?
Gannon's just an appetizer for the libloggers. McClelland and then the President are the real targets.
That's not the law. If there are charges against you, you are entitled to deny them.
Most lawyers advise clients under criminal investigation not to talk too much, but that's purely for tactical reasons: if the client denies the charges and says something that's later proven false, that false denial may be admissible in evidence; and if the client has some strong evidence that the prosecutor doesn't know about, the lawyer may want to surprise the prosecutor at trial. But it is very common to say, at least, something like "I deny these accusations and look forward to clearing my name at trial."
Find us one - just one - instance prior to Americablog posting the photos where Gannon DENIED being involved with the male escort cites. He WASN'T "defending himself." He was deflecting the allegations, not denying them. He has never denied them.
I didn't say it was the law now, did I?
Find me proof that you can trust the veracity of Daily Kos, American Blog and DU.
You said, in post #147, "Unless there's charges being brought against somebody, in which case he cannot say anything even in his own defense." I wanted to point out that (a) he can, and (b) most people usually do.
You're still sure you followed one of the links?
Read this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1345967/posts?page=128#128
And before that I said his lawyer told him to shut his trap.
Otehrs said before that his lawyer told him to shut his trap.
Now, where did THEY say it was the law?
You don't have to trust them, either. All you have to do is let go of your presumption. There is no doubt - none - that if he were a liberal reporter in the Clinton White House in the same situation, you'd already have him convicted.
Actually web.archive has the old sites....caution adult link.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011104104331/www.usmcpt.com/photogallery.html
Really? See this post by bad company. He'd like the url: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1345967/posts?page=128#128
Um, what are you talking about, this fabled "favorable treatment in questioning the President".
LOL
And no, please don't make some inane leaps and bounds tanget. I am specifically addressing this ludicrous allegation of yours, nothing more, nothing less.
But you do understand my skepticism.
The only place I've heard this stuff mentioned is places like Kos.
The moonbats at DU are going bananas over this and saying such insane stuff as "this will take down the bush regime", which shows their real agenda behind it.
Honestly, it doesn't matter to them if anything is factual or not, they'll use it.
Just like the 'fake but accurate' Dan Rather memos.
I will personally wait until I hear why his lawyer told him to shut up.
And honestly, I think his lawyer's an idiot for that.
So you believe DU, Daily Kos and americanblog. I've watched this from the begining and it's been incremental. If one thing doesn't work, try something else. And if the pics were so easy to find, why didn't DU find them when using cache search engines and Google? I find this all very curious and, as I've said, I'll wait until I hear it from someone reputable.
We have no idea if that's true.
Sooooooo, you're saying he was there because of his background? Oh, who was his lover...are you going with McClellan or straight to the top DUmmie dream come true of GWB? Do tell us how you come to this learned thought.
Good grief.
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that his past was completely unknown to anyone in the adminstration.
I've been involved in 2 cases that were covered by the press and both times I was told to say "No Comment". I was told NEVER to defend in the press, the place to do it is in court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.