HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Watching Rachael....Help.

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:22 PM

Watching Rachael....Help.

She is breaking down the Bridge story so concisely tonight.. Great job..

BUT: Could the prosecution of all these bastards be hindered by claiming the Rachael Maddow Show
caused damage to any potential defense of their clients...

Not worded well, but Iím off to work.. Iím sure you get my point.
Thanks for your patience..

14 replies, 1372 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply Watching Rachael....Help. (Original post)
busterbrown Jan 2014 OP
GP6971 Jan 2014 #1
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2014 #8
GP6971 Jan 2014 #10
DURHAM D Jan 2014 #2
warrior1 Jan 2014 #3
Kurovski Jan 2014 #9
arthritisR_US Jan 2014 #4
Warpy Jan 2014 #5
Spazito Jan 2014 #6
busterbrown Jan 2014 #7
longship Jan 2014 #11
busterbrown Jan 2014 #13
lpbk2713 Jan 2014 #12
Gothmog Jan 2014 #14

Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:23 PM

1. Good question

I think it's all going to depend how many "lawyer up"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GP6971 (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:35 PM

8. Christie Lawyered up already....

 

he knows...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:58 PM

10. I saw that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:25 PM

2. No. She is not the President or a Judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:25 PM

3. No

First Amendment freedom of speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrior1 (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:57 PM

9. But isn't that kind of thing just for Duck Dynasty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:28 PM

4. No because in a court of law their lawyer would present their defence or arguments

against various facts presented and the jury/judge decides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:28 PM

5. She's just trying to build a popular consensus for a trial at most

and people realizing Christie is a prize putz at the very least.

All of what she's said is already public record. In any case, a TV program that is watched by disproportionately few people is not going to muddy any trial waters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:30 PM

6. She is simply reading from the subpoenas, which have been made public...

reading from the texts also having been made public and informing her viewers who the people on the list, again having been made public, are, what they do professionally and what ties they have to Christie and his office. All is public, she is just explaining it. No legal issue at hand here at all, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 17, 2014, 10:33 PM

7. Thanks and my intuition is that you are correct..

But still these guys seem always to find a way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:33 AM

11. The case will be tried on the evidence presented in court.

The only consideration about Rachel will be whether the jurors watched coverage of the events.

That's what voir dire is for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 18, 2014, 02:16 AM

13. You gotta worry about people who arenít aware of the situation.

Not informed types,( I feel) are more likely to fall for the Defense bullshit.

My opinion only..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:40 AM

12. The "convicted in the media" defense has been used many times before.




And many times it has been used without success.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Sat Jan 18, 2014, 09:28 AM

14. No

Rachel's reporting will not poison the jury pool. It is very difficult to make this type of claim

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread