Larisa Alexandrovna: Fox News - An Ethics Free Zone (Siegelman/Stevens)

[Hissyspit]

http://www.atlargely.com/2009/04/fox-news-an-ethics-free-zone.html

April 11, 2009

Fox News: An ethics free zone...

Fox News has an interesting little piece of ethically challenged reportage up on the US Attorney scandal. See if you can spot the ethical problem:

"Good government activists are warning that the dropping of all charges against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and the tossing of his seven felony convictions could give U.S. prosecutors cold feet in going after other politicians who are suspected of crimes.

Already the lawyer for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, who was convicted of bribery and mail fraud, has urged Attorney General Eric Holder to dismiss all charges against his client, citing accusations of "far ranging misconduct" in the case.

These developments alarm activists who fear prosecutors will be tempted to hold back when it comes to cases that have not yet gone to trial.

"It has a chilling effect," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

He said the dismissal of corruption charges against Stevens, and the subsequent opening of an investigation into the prosecutors in the case, sends a signal to U.S. attorneys that "it's not worth it going after big-name politicians."

"So who benefits? Rod Blagojevich, people associated with him," Fitton said, referring to the former Illinois governor recently indicted on a slew of corruption charges."

How about a disclaimer at the very front of this so called "article" - perhaps one that reads as follows:

Political pundit Karl Rove, who works for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal - Fox's sister company - is heavily implicated in the Don Siegelman case as is the US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, whose husband is a close friend of Rove's. So we are very much compromised in our reporting on the Siegelman case and on anything relating to US Attorney Leura Canary. We apologize if we seem slanted, but we are because Karl works with us.

Yes, Fox News is the official propaganda outlet of the RNC. And here I thought domestic propaganda was illegal and that reporting standards have so been violated by this organization that they would have been run out of town by now.

Oh, one more thing, there is a world of difference between a US Attorney who stays within the bounds of the law in order to secure a conviction - like Patrick Fitzgerald - and the prosecutors who violate the law in order to secure a conviction, like Leura Canary.

The US Attorney scandal is not about who is guilty and who is innocent, because we never got to that point. That argument was lost as soon as the prosecutors on the Siegelman case, and the cases of Paul Minor and others decided that they could step outside of legal boundaries. We don't know if Minor and Siegelman, as well as others, were really guilty of anything. I don't know because the prosecutors violated the public trust and violated legal standards they are bound to. The rest is moot. Everyone, every person no matter what you may think of their guilt or innocence, deserves a fair trial.

Ted Stevens, in my opinion, is one of the most corrupt politicians to have soiled the halls of Congress - and I have met plenty. He is, in my opinion and based on the evidence, guilty as sin. But, his right to a fair trial was thrown out the window when his prosecutors decided to play outside of the law. No matter my personal feelings on Stevens and my wish to see him do some hard time for his crimes, all charges had to be dropped in the light of the prosecutorial misconduct in the case.

Put whatever feelings you have on Stevens and Minor and Siegelman, et al aside. No matter what you think of their guilt or innocence. That is not the issue, not because I don't want it to be the issue, but because that argument has already been denied us through the corruption of the process by unethical prosecutors.

Fox Noise cannot fathom the difference between a US Attorney who secures an indictment while following the law and a US Attorney who secures an indictment by violating the law.

But I assure you, if Karl Rove was indicted by a corrupt prosecutor who violated his rights, I would defend him as staunchly as I have defended Siegelman and Minor not because I know any of these people. No, in fact, I never talked to or met Mr. Siegelman until well after my articles had been published and after he was released on bond. The same applies to Paul Minor, who contacted me ONLY AFTER I wrote my articles on his case. I don't defend these people because of a shared political ideology or a shared vision of how to remake the American political landscape. I don't defend these people because I am certain of their innocence either. That argument cannot be had because the process was so tainted. That argument is no longer relevant. No, I defend these people simply out of my belief that the the Constitution is far more important than any other difference that may divide us from one another.

MORE

[slay]

1. Great post Hissyspit

Thanks. They are indeed a truly ethics-free zone. I'd say bad-ethics zone even.

[rhett o rick]

2. Second. nm

[bluesmail]

3. It's a simple concept. It's called the rule of law.

All are (in theory) treated as equals.

[Hissyspit]

4. .