(09-16-2010, 11:39 PM)kandrathe Wrote: I'm just relaying the facts as I find them. Unless the Washington Examiner is criminally derelict in its ability to report a case, and if even 50% of the story is true, then it seems at face value to be a miscarriage of justice. There are no unbiased sources, so choose to believe nothing if you like.
No need to throw a tantrum about sources. There are sources that are reliable enough to believe. But an *editorial* from a newspaper notorious as a right-wing propaganda organ is not among them.
Quote:From what I gather...
From what you've shown us? Because that's what I'm questioning. No point in repeating it back in your own words.
Quote:Am I missing something? I don't have the trial transcripts, so I need to rely on the Washington Examiner to at least get the gist of the facts straight.
Precisely the point. Are you missing something? How would we know, from what we've looked at? Because I'm pretty damn sure you can't rely on an *editorial* in the Washington Examiner to provide you with *all* the facts. Only the ones that support its argument, at best, and a complete hash, at worst.
A jury found him guilty. His appeal was refused. That doesn't mean he isn't innocent, but it does suggest that there is more to this, at least from a legal perspective. But all we have from what you've given us is some right-wing opinion makers, and the EPA saying little more than that he was convicted.
-Jester