Posted on 06/24/2008 2:08:36 PM PDT by xzins
His lawyers would disagree with you, sayong the interview did a lot of good in the court of public opinion. Maybe, but most other lawyers are strongly with you.
If you’re wrong, then that makes two of us (at the very least).
Laughing under my breath.
I’m not sure what the judge’s “specific court order to ensure seating in the gallery for media representatives” was about, brit. That is quite curious.
There are a lot of interesting points made in Judge Folsom’s ruling. I don’t have time to really dig into it right now.....hoping others will. Without rereading the whole thing, my impression was that Colonel Ewers was the “go to guy” for Gen. Mattis. After returning to Camp Pendleton, he was at more meetings, in person, than any other legal advisers. After Col. Ewers performed the initial interviews with officers, attended all those meetings, discussed his testimony with prosecutors, and spoke out publicly about the incident....Gen. Mattis denial that there was any appearance of UCI was just that. Denial.
Short version, SSgt. Wuterich didn’t have any right at stake in the litigation between the US and CBS. In order to suppress evidence, the party has to show it to be irrelevant or wrongfully obtained in such a way the party’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
We’re going to have a new scoop here in a little bit. Man, I love this stuff!
Bring it on! :)
Reds a tough customer, not only a fine journalist but a great investigator. Kinda reminds me of agent 86, his lips are sealed. ;-)
Thanks for being so plain.I really believe you are correct.
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.