Another night of Sean Hannity attacking Mike Nifong

I don't know which way the Duke Rape case is going to go and I have no idea whether the case has any merit or not, but on Hannity and Colmes the tactic has been to proclaim the Lacrosse team innocent by personally smearing prosecutor Mike Nifong.

Last night the vitriol reached a level usually reserved for high profile liberal Democrats.
So vile were the comments, Colmes felt compelled to advise that instead of all the personal attack on Nifong that "maybe we should wait until the trial and see what evidence the prosecutor has in the case". Hannity and his panel of Fox News legal "experts" overuled his wild notion, then went back to snipping at Nifong himself, even resorting to name calling.

Today, I became curious why Hannity doesn't think "we should wait until the facts are in" or why "we shouldn't try this case in the media", so I went to Wikipedia:

Despite criticism of his handling of the case, Nifong won the Democratic primary on May 2, 2006, which seems likely to carry him to re-election, as no Republican candidates are running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifong

Nowwwww I understand

Nifong has totally screwed up this case. He will have a write in opponent and might well lose. If so, he deserves it. Either he totally botched a real rape case or used a phony one to get reelected. Either way Hannity has a point here.

to find myself on the same side of the issue as Sean Hannity, and of course, no one can concone his vicious personal attacks.

However, if the prosecutor has no more evidence than he's presented, he should be disbarred. Of course, you can say he shouldn't be talking about the case, and that's true. But he said too much, and having done that he's now saying to little.

He should put up or shut up. Based on the available evidence, if he's going to bring this to trial he should do so immediately so these boys can get on with their lives, if found innocent. He's either got the goods or he doesn't. The boys have a Constitutional right to a speedy trial, regardless of Nifong's political prospects.

And if the woman brought false charges, she needs to be brought to trial. that is below despicable.

What gives them precedence over those who have spent four years without a speedy trial in torture camps?

that has nothing whatever to do with it. One injustice does not justify another.

One is a state crime. One is the federal government's responsibility.

The war, gitmo, etc, are all important, but there are other important questions, too. This is one.

What's wrong with you?

a Constitutional right. You said it. Why should these "boys" be given precedence over people who have been imprisoned for four years without a trial?

around. Why shouldn't they? We've been working on Gitmo for years, with no noticeable progress. Here is a situation where we can make a difference for good. So we ignore it? Where's your sense of compassion, where's your sense of justice?

The two situations are not at all related.

Look further. One is an injustice by a hated and despised Republican. The other is an injustice (at least by all available knowledge) by a Democrat. Shouldn't we police our own ranks if we wish to criticize others for hypocrisy?

We can't solve every problem at the same time. Should we refuse to do good where we can just because we have not been successful yet at correcting injustices that we care more about? I don't think so.

So, answer me one further question, if you don't mind. How does giving support to innocent victims of a racist persecution by a corrupt prosecutor detract from the fight for the rights of the Gitmo prisoners?

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/14826913.htm


>>>>On March 31, Nifong told MSNBC that he did not know who made the call. “Do you know who it is?” asked Dan Abrams.

“I do not,” Nifong said.

“So that person has not come forward to say, ’I was the one who made the call,'” Abrams said.

“To my knowledge, no one has done that yet,” Nifong said.

Court papers: On March 22, Roberts gave police a handwritten statement saying she made the call. “I finally began leaving and the boys began yelling ’n-----’ to us. I called the police to report racial slurs.”

..he has made that are inconsistent with documents he had in his possession.

See: Alan Dershowitz on "Testilying"

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.htm

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee

December 1, 1998

My name is Alan M. Dershowitz and I have been teaching criminal law at Harvard Law School for 35 years. I have also participated in the litigation — especially at the appellate level — of hundreds of federal and state cases, many of them involving perjury and the making of false statements. I have edited a casebook on criminal law and have written 10 books and hundreds of articles dealing with subjects relating to the issues before this committee. It is an honor to have been asked to share my experience and expertise with you all here today.

For nearly a quarter century, I have been teaching, lecturing and writing about the corrosive influences of perjury in our legal system, especially when committed by those whose job it is to enforce the law, and ignored — or even legitimized — by those whose responsibilities it is to check those who enforce the law.

......if you withhold the truth and you were merely "mistaken."

CONDOMS

Nifong’s statements: On March 23, prosecutors asked a judge to order DNA samples from 46 lacrosse players: “The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack.”

Before the results were made public, Nifong told The Raleigh News & Observer, MSNBC and The Charlotte Observer that condoms might have been used during the alleged sexual assault.

“If a condom were used, then we might expect that there would not be any DNA evidence recovered from say a vaginal swab,” Nifong told MSNBC on March 31.

“I would not be surprised if condoms were used,” Nifong told The Charlotte Observer in a March interview published April 11. “Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex.”

Court papers: The accuser told a nurse March 14 “that no condoms...were used during the alleged sexual assault,” according to an affidavit by defense lawyers Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner.

It came from her boyfriend, even though she claimed she had sex with her boyfriend a week prior to the party. The DNA wouldn't last that long, so she didn't tell the truth about that either.
How can this "victim" be trusted about anything at all?

.. what "The accuser told a nurse .. no condoms ... were used .." means. Perhaps the nurse's testimony is as clear as the defense claims, or perhaps there is some verbal ambiguity there. Perhaps the nurse thought she was asking one question and the accuser was answering a different question. Perhaps the accuser said different things at different times (e.g. Q: "Did they use a condom?" A: "No, uh, I mean yes") or to different people -- which could mean that the accuser was dishonest or that the accuser was disoriented or upset or drugged. Perhaps a third party thought the nurse said the accuser said no condom was used, in which case it's all hearsay. Having been misquoted by the press myself on more than one occasion, I can't rule out the possibility that the reporter has garbled whatever the defense is actually claiming.

In short, I have no idea, based on a newspaper summary like this, exactly what the real situation is. If Nifong screwed up royally, the kids will walk; if Nifong has been diligent but reasonable doubt remains, the kids will walk.

I still can't see why you think you have any substantial evidence for this heated claim "Nifong lied," or why you imagine he would have any motive to lie about whether condoms were used, or why this point deserves such attention from the DU crowd, or why my asking you such questions qualifies me as some sort of rightwinger in your eyes ... :boring:

...sounded.

My point is, I don't cut any slack for law enforcement officers that lie to further their cause. I've read the reports and signed eyewitness statements. They're online. It's pretty clear what Nifong knew when he was making all those public statements AND SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVITS. Like I said, it's a pattern with him.


"or why this point deserves such attention from the DU crowd"

Jeez, I don't know. Why don't you ignore the thread?

.. doubt the accuracy or completeness of media reports. But questioning and comparing such reports is an important part of trying to understand what is actually known. National media flooded Durham during the city/county primary to ask voters down here the most idiotic questions about one local race: that sort of vacuous sensationalism, rather than actually informing folk, merely encourage the formation of vacuous emotional responses to soundbites.

in Raleigh and Nifong has become a bit of a joke around here.

No Prime Minister For Iraq? No Problem, Let's Talk About The Duke Lacrosse Team
Reported by Donna - April 19, 2006

Very short segment on Iraq today on Studio B with Shepard Smith. At first Rick Leventhal talked about Saddam Hussein's trial and he mentioned that Sunnis were fighting against death squads. (Comment: Is that civil war?) Finally, it was reported that Parliment will convene tomorrow without a Prime Minister. They said other positions would be filled first.

Comments: Very little time was devoted to the war in Iraq. I would have to say that most of the hour on Studio B today was spent on speculating about the Durham, North Carolina rape charges. They even brought in Judge Andrew Napolitano who just happened to have a copy of his new book 'The Constitution In Exile' with him while he spoke about the Durham, NC case. Plus we know that they searched the two indicted Lacrosse players dorm rooms, looking for a computer in one of them. We heard that the case was being tried in the media and this was the fault of both the D.A. and the client's lawyers. (Comment: But not the media's, apparently) ..

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/19/no_prime_minister_for_iraq_no_problem_lets_talk_about_the_duke_lacrosse_team.php


Once Again Duke Rape Story Dominates, Cost Of Iraq War A Side Issue
Reported by Donna - April 20, 2006

Once again most of the coverage was on that most important national event, the Duke Lacrosse Team rape story on Studio B with Shepard Smith. We heard items that were on the search warrant, we even had another segment that had a defense lawyer and a prosecutor debate the speculation.

We did get a little news on the cost of the war in Iraq.

Apparently the cost of the war in Iraq has doubled since 2003. It was 48 billion in 2003 and now it's running around 108 billion dollars a year now. In fact, when adjusted for inflation? The war in Iraq is costing us more than the war in Vietnam.

Comments: I don't get where the Duke story is more relevant than the cost of the war in Iraq. When it comes to national news, shouldn't the war in Iraq get more attention? Isn't the Duke story kind of a local one? Why does Fox insist on sensationalizing these local stories? ..

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/20/once_again_duke_rape_story_dominates_cost_of_iraq_war_a_side_issue.php


The Hannity & Colmes Crime Hour Overlooks Theft From American People
Reported by Ellen - April 20, 2006

There was lots of important news today but most of it was missing from Hannity & Colmes last night (4/19/06) in favor of wall to wall crime with a little bit of Cindy Sheehan bashing thrown in. But while the show included “new revelations” about black Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney’s run-in with a Capitol policeman, there was absolutely no mention – not on the show, not during the news break – of a crime that was committed against the American people.

The case should have had enough salaciousness to appeal to any FOX News producer. As the LA Times reports, “A contractor in Iraq has pleaded guilty to providing money, sex and designer watches to U.S. officials in exchange for more than $8 million in reconstruction contracts, federal officials announced Tuesday.” ..

Instead, the Duke lacrosse case got 15 minutes as the "top story." That was followed by Natalee Holloway and “new evidence” in the Cynthia McKinney case (more on that in my next post). That was followed by a woman who explained why she thinks Cindy Sheehan is a traitor. Then came the head of the Minute Men who have threatened to build their own fence on the border if President Bush doesn’t, then a story about a missing soldier ... http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/20/the_hannity_colmes_crime_hour_overlooks_theft_from_american_people.php


Clinton Blamed Twice In Duke Lacrosse Rape Case
Reported by Ellen - April 23, 2006

We’re sensing a pattern here. Just as I was writing up a post about FOX News Legal Analyst Peter J. Johnson’s implication of Bill Clinton in the Duke lacrosse rape case during Friday night’s (4/21/06) Hannity & Colmes, Melanie posted that he made a similar accusation during Saturday night’s (4/22/06) Heartland.

During Friday’s Hannity & Colmes, Alan Colmes asked Johnson, “USA Today (mentioned) that state and federal courts have rules that restrict attorneys from making out of court statements that can prejudice the outcome of a case. Are these defense attorneys breaking the law, possibly, or certainly the rules?”

Johnson replied, “You have to understand that a lot of these statements may or reportedly are coming from the same Clinton spin team, the same Clinton spin team that said lying about sex wasn’t a crime.” ... http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/23/clinton_blamed_twice_in_duke_lacrosse_rape_case.php


Hannity & Colmes Groundhog Day
Reported by Ellen - April 28, 2006

It’s beginning to feel like every day is Groundhog Day on Hannity & Colmes: Duke lacrosse rape case, then Aruba. I lost track of last night’s (4/27/06) “new developments” because every night seems the same. Sean Hannity declares he wants to get to the bottom of the Duke matter but spends the rest of the discussion complaining about the prosecution and alleging that there has been a "rush to judgment." ... http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/28/hannity_colmes_groundhog_day.php


RUMORS About Scary Black People Garner Headlines, FACTS About Bush are Dismissed
Reported by Melanie - April 30, 2006

During the first half hour of Heartland w/John Kasich last night (April 29, 2006), Fox aired a segment called, "More Duke Dangers?" Kasich introduced it by saying that the Black Panthers are planning a protest tomorrow in Durham, NC and "some say" the Panthers are going to carry weapons ...

During Silber's report, Fox went to a split screen and aired video of black men, dressed all in black, marching with raised fists, some carrying machine guns. All the while, a chyron, "More Duke Dangers?" appeared at the bottom of the screen.

On Fox, "some" can start a rumor about scary black people and it gets a segment all its own. On the other hand, document after document and person after person can confirm that Bush lied us into a war that has killed or injured nearly 20,000 Americans and thousands and thousands of Iraqis, and there's nary a peep.

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/30/rumors_about_scary_black_people_garner_headlines_facts_about_bush_are_dismissed.php


Fox Guest Starts Talking About The Disaster In Iraq And Hemmer Goes With A News Alert Which Isn't Even Close To A News Alert
Reported by Donna - May 15, 2006

Seems like these days the President's approval ratings are so low that the war in Iraq may be verboten on Fox these days - they've even gone so far as cutting off a Democratic guest who was speaking about the disaster that Iraq has become by inserting a Fox News Alert that wasn't anywhere near an alert ...

DH: Well, I think you do a couple of things. One, you punish employers employeeing illegals. Two, you make sure our borders are secure, whether you use (the) National Guard. This Iraq fiasco continues to drain and spend the seed corn of the country. We need to get out of Iraq. They can't put a government over there. It's a bunch of tribes that will never see democracy. (overtalk)

Hemmer: Hey, Dick, I apologize. We have some breaking news out of Durham, NC. ...

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/15/fox_guest_starts_talking_about_the_disaster_in_iraq_and_hemmer_goes_with_a_news_alert_which_isnt_even_close_to_a_news_alert.php


Impugning A Black Woman More Important To Sean Hannity Than The Fourth Amendment
Reported by Ellen - May 19, 2006

Hannity & Colmes spent a double segment (again!) on the Duke rape case last night (5/18/06) but no time on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s eight-hour hearing yesterday on Gen. Michael Hayden’s nomination as head of the CIA. The hearing, described as “contentious” by the Los Angeles Times, seemed to have no lack of drama and the issues – privacy vs. security in a post 9/11 country – couldn’t have been more compelling as the senators probed Hayden’s role in the controversial NSA surveillance program. Furthermore, there are some real questions as to whether the actions of the Bush administration are legal. But those issues have been repeatedly ignored on H&C in favor of the “latest developments” in the Duke case ... http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/19/impugning_a_black_woman_more_important_to_sean_hannity_than_the_fourth_amendment.php


Duke Rape More Important Than Enron On Hannity & Colmes
Reported by Ellen - May 26, 2006

It was a short Hannity & Colmes program last night (5/25/06), apparently due to President Bush's "news conference" with Tony Blair. After a few discussions about that, there was only time for one more discussion. Hmm, Enron verdict or Duke rape case? It must have been a toughie. Enron played a part in Dick Cheney's energy task force, it played a still murky role in the California energy crisis of 2000 and it has a long and cozy relationship with the Texas Republican party. There are also questions about Enron's possible involvement in the Tom DeLay case.

The Duke rape case, in which Sean Hannity argues passionately against the accuser and prosecutor (then proclaims his open mind) has been "debated" nearly every night (if not EVERY night) on Hannity & Colmes since the day the news broke. Nothing big seems to have happened on the Duke case yesterday ... http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/26/duke_rape_more_important_than_enron_on_hannity_colmes.php

But some think the state of our justice system is an important issue.
Imagine that.

.. you following?

The individuals charged in the alleged rape case are all out on bail, with good lawyers. If you know any reason to think they will not get a fair trial, I'd be happy to hear it -- but I see no reason to think they've been exceptionally shafted or that the system is somehow stacked against THEM.

Meanwhile, I might ask: Have you noticed that the Administration has pushed for sealed cases and secret trials in a number of instances? Or that the Administration has claimed the right to hold American citizens, arrested on American soil, without habeas corpus protections and without access to lawyers? Or that access to the courts is becoming increasingly limited and that an innocent man, whom the CIA had tortured, was not allowed to sue for damages? Have you noticed that, in addition to drafting a large bodies of legalistic papers trying to redefine "torture" (leading to abuses at Abu Ghraib, for example), the Administration has pushed at least one pro-torture judge onto a Court of Appeals bench?

to you? Discuss away.
But don't tell me what I can or can not discuss.

.. you claimed to be interested in such issues.

You think that constitutes telling you what "can or can not discuss" ... Hmmm ... Well, OK ... Have a lovely day!

a case he knew, or should have known, was wrong to get past his primary, then he should be impeached, convicted, removed and barred from future office.

if you would indulge me for a moment and see if you can find th common thread for this one show.

The Duke Rape case
Mckinney not getting indicted
2 black kids accused of beating up a white kid.

maybe i'm reading too much into it, maybe it was a coincidence but i don't think so.