Taking a Bat to Ann Coulter 
"It probably goes without saying that it is extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. For the judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means he concluded that -- even if the jury finds everything Ronnie Earle alleges to be true -- no crime was committed."
Wow, Ann... now we know why you're so horrifically thin: You're constantly overreaching -- and burning-off way too many calories stretching the truth. The conspiracy charge wasn't thrown out because it was baseless, it was thrown out on a technicality:
...DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin argued that one of the charges -- conspiracy to violate the Texas election code -- did not even take effect until September 2003, a year after the alleged offenses occurred."Obviously, this was a huge victory for DeLay..."Prosecutors, however, said the crime of conspiracy was already on the books and could be applied to the election code even though such uses were not explicitly in state law at the time.
Sure, it's a HUGE victory ... if you discount the fact that one charge was thrown out on a technicality while the more serious charge of money laundering stands, and the fact that the still-indicted DeLay is unable to return to his House post, and the fact that his party is looking to replace him, and the fact that he has to spend time and money to defend himself against criminal charges, and the fact that the latest legal development reminded voters that he's in trouble.
What are you waiting for, Annie? Break out the champagne!
Okay, now I'm confused. Your little missive is defending DeLay, right? But you have a problem with Schneider saying that "it would have been even better" if DeLay had gotten to walk that day scott-free?
Let me guess: You skipped that Ritz cracker that usually constitutes your lunch and went straight to the keyboard; this piece of yours is more scattered than the cheap tripe you usually write.
"...And they think Fox News has twice CNN's ratings just because it's fair and balanced..."
Oh, sweetie... FOX can have it's higher ratings; CNN still has more viewers. And FNC is about as balanced, journalistically, as you are mentally. Which is to say, not at all.
"In the past few years, all TV news has become less biased due to the salubrious influence of Fox News..."
I'm sorry, you'll have to excuse me for a moment.
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA- HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA- HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
Ahem.
"Watching Schneider is like entering a time machine and seeing how news was reported in the '80s..."
And reading you is like entering a time machine and seeing how the news was reported in WWII Germany: Light on the facts, heavy on the hate-filled propaganda. You're a female Joseph Goebbels.
Now, what was the point of your latest hatefest, again?
"...Earle's baseless charges against Hutchison -- like the remaining charges against DeLay -- were not dismissed before trial. What happened was, the trial date came and Earle had no evidence. The judge ordered the jury to acquit."
Oh that's right, you're trying to defend DeLay by trashing Ronnie Earle.
Are you sure you aren't a Communist masquerading as a right-wing extremist? You just practiced some good old-fashioned Soviet-style historical revisionism that would have put Stalin in a state of red-faced envy.
Ronnie Earle's case against Kay Bailey Hutchison was scuttled by a Republican judge, John Onion, Jr., on a technicality:
As the trial neared, [Hutchison's attorney Dick] DeGuerin challenged the legality of the seizures in the June 10 raid -- which technically included the "pizza-box tapes." The D.A.'s office had obtained the tapes and much of the other physical evidence in the case with a grand-jury "forthwith" subpoena, instead of a search warrant."...Earle claims his case against Hutchison was watertight, but because the judge ruled against him, he was prevented from presenting his "evidence" to the jury. Remember that when liberals call Bill O'Reilly a "liar" because he won a Polk award, but one time he got confused and called it a Peabody award."The prosecutors considered the tapes -- and the testimony about how Hutchison had ordered the documents they contained purged -- the linchpin of their case. But Judge Onion refused to rule before trial on whether he would allow the tapes into evidence, prompting the sequence of events that led to Hutchison's dramatic acquittal.
Ronnie Earle subsequently dropped the charges against Barron and Criss, saying it would be unfair to prosecute Hutchison's former subordinates while their boss walked.
"Confused?" No, O'Reilly bin Ladin wasn't "confused" when he claimed once in August of 1999, twice in May 2000, and again in February 2001 that "Inside Edition" won a Peabody. That's not "confused," that's lying.
And when the Washington Post exposed the lie in March of 2001, O'Reilly wasn't confused when he denied ever making the claim, the claim he'd made in public speeches and on his radio show.
The Internet is a wonderful tool, Ann, for debunking the propaganda of right-wing extremists. Remember that the next time you want to peddle your garbage as "political punditry."
KEYWORDS: Ann Coulter, propaganda, Tom DeLay, Ronnie Earle, Kay Bailey Hutchison
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
| < Torture Denials: Baloney | Lincoln 1860 revisited -- Why we are different than the GOP. > |
