Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's Newfound Support for Reporter Shield Law Meant to Distract From War on Information (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  sweetie, perhaps you've not noticed, but my "shop" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    I love OCD

    has had the same five items since december of last year... nothing new - nothing added - nothing "promoted".


    sorry - forgot, you're a raddack fan, so i guess you're not much into reality based comments.

    credible?  raddack?

    you're kidding me, right?  from a woman who turned sealed court documents from a case she was not part of over to a news reporter for self aggrandization?  credible?

    from someone who resigned before being brought up on ethics violations?  credible?

    you really need to read the definition of "credible" before you start aiming wild-eyed accusations about self-promotion toward me and then take a look at the person who has self-published a book proclaiming her own gradiose behavior (even if it WAS in violation of her code of ethics as a lawyer.

    my sig line - is it true, is it kind, is it necessary - absolutely does apply here:

    is it true? - what raddack says?  no.  it's not.

    is it kind? - this, applied to someone with a biased political agenda does not apply.  there is no "requirement" to be "kind" to someone who deliberately distorts a situation for her own self-promotion.  i, personally, have no "dog" in this fight - i challenge the veracity of the diarist and her stated "views".

    is it necessary? - to combat those who mislead, misrepresent, mislead? absolutely - for to remain silent endorses the mistruths, misrepresentations, misleading statements.  raddack does NOT represent "whistleblowers" - she represents herself in an attempt to justifiy her own highly questionable decision and her own attempt to cover that bad/unethical action with the term "whistleblower".

    raddack didn't "blow" anything with the information she turned over to a reporter - the information was already a part of the court case and deemed by the judge as material to remain under seal - something of which she had no knowledge since she was NOT part of the prosecution in that case.  she DECIDED she knew more than the participants in that case and chose to release information while ignorant of the true facts of the case.  she undermined the judicial process.  she violated her oath as a member of the court (lawyer).  then, when she was exposed as having behaved unethically (turned the material over to a reporter instead of the judge in the case - who already had ruled on the exact same information while the case was before him), she showed her inexperience, her ineptness and her lack of ethics to the dept of justice and all within and without the legal profession.

    raddack has absolutely NO credibility because of her own actions - and her continual attempts to garner support on this site and elsewhere to somehow ameliorate her own poor judgement do not justify her behavior.

    she can write books until the cows come home - she can self-publish and promote herself as much as she likes but that won't change the FACTS of her behavior.

    any further questions?

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:34:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site