Even worse was his description of Bryant Gumball as his all time hero!! Wow, I used to really like the guy a well,(Tiki)no more.
I'm betting Tiki's jump to NBC was a straight money decision. NBC probably offered him a lot more than Fox was willing to, and they do have a larger audience and bigger sponsors that Fox which gives him more and more lucrative outside possibilities.
And Bryant is a great role model. After all, look how many millions Bryant raked in and for how long with absolutely no talent whatsoever.
Ot. Phsst, I appreciate the honorable mention for Feb 11th thread, however, I need to make a correction in my post #453.
The false affidavit Russert submitted to Judge Hogan was not to squelch a subpoena to testify at the Libby trial. It was to keep Russert from testifying before the Grand Jury --- WITHOUT HIS ATTORNEYS.
Instead, Russert was "interviewed" by the FBI for about twenty minutes, WITH THE NBC LAWYERS PRESENT.
Am not sure if either of the NBC lawyers was the one at the Libby trial who interrupted Judge Walton to state why Andrea Mitchell would not have to testify.
More from http:www.justoneminute.typepad.com:
"In this trial full of oddities, I don't think anything is more shocking than Walton accepting the one-line stipulation MM mentioned above, of the NBC lawyer for Andrea Mitchell, "I stipulate that my client (Mitchell) will testify to the fact that she did not receive any 'rumors' regarding Wilson's wife."
The judge accepted that, no further questioning whatsoever. He's either the most naive judge I've ever heard of, a moron, or a party to the fix. It's sad but clear in his rulings that he constantly bent over backwards to favor "the government." Posted by PaulL
The other Tom responds:
"I agree with you, and among other things, I didn't know why it's being referred to as a "stipulation," which is a legal term of art meaning that both parties [defense and prosecution] have agreed to the fact or facts.
The defense didn't agree to this ["stipulation"] at all. What the judge [Walton] accepted was unsworn testimony that the defense was not permitted to cross [examine]. It is genuinely baffling."
Posted by: The Other Tom Feb 17 2007 at 7:02PM