BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
This OP is not about a conspiracy theory so I don't want to discuss any conspiracy theory … just facts. For that reason I've posted it here.
It's about dishonesty in the mainstream media … the media that democrats on this forum and around the country rely on for their beliefs.
This OP shows how the Washington Post has been dishonest in it's presentation of the events surrounding the life and death of Ron Brown.
Here's what the Washington Post reported late last month:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...-sons-own-path/2011/03/26/AFD3Fh5B_story.html
The article later even say this ...
Now all one can do is laugh at such a blatant attempt by the left to rewrite it's history. And laugh at the gullibility of any liberal who might still believe the Washington Post is a *credible* source of news after reading such an article. Because it would appear, based on this article, that the Washington Post has completely forgotten that at the time of his death, Ron Brown was about to be indicted by a special prosecutor (Daniel Pearson) for a list of crimes as long as his arm. A list of crimes that would have put him in jail for life. The article doesn't even mention that fact, yet that would seem appropriate to mention in any article about Brown's "legacy" or his being *Presidential material*.
The documented fact is that Pearson had plenty of hard evidence and testimony on over a dozen serious crimes (like ending the trade embargo against North Vietnam for $700,000 dollars in bribes). The charges were so serious that Brown had retained a $750 an hour attorney. They were so serious that Brown spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal and the situation was only getting worse. Only days before his death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed focusing on Brown's dealings. It seems that an Oklahoma gas company called Dynamic Energy Resources (DER) gave Brown's son Michael $500,000 in stock, a $160,000 cash payment, and exclusive country club memberships. Former DER president Stewart Price told a Tulsa grand jury that the money was to be routed to Ron Brown, who was expected to "fix" a big lawsuit for DER.
So, contrary to what the Washington Post would have it's readers believe, it turns out that Michael was almost as big a crook as his dad. But did the Washington Post mention that? No. Not one word in their article. Apparently, the Washington Post has forgotten that both Brown's wife and his son Michael had already been indicted by the special prosecutor on related charges before Brown's death. One would think that would be worthy of mention. And the only reason charges were dropped against the mom and Michael received a slap on the wrist was Ron's death.
And here's the way the Washington Post chose to report that death:
That is nothing less than lying, folks. It was a special prosecutor (not just "critics") who accused Brown of illegally using Commerce Department trade missions to reward democrat businessmen who had contributed to the democratic party. And there was plenty of hard evidence to support that charge. And as already noted there was plenty of evidence that he was involved in a mountain of other criminality. And there was sworn testimony that Brown had offered to turn state's evidence against the Clinton administration on the trade mission illegalities in exchange for leniency for himself and his family. There was sworn testimony that he'd told Clinton shortly before his death that he was going to turn state's evidence. There was sworn testimony that he'd told Clinton's top aides that if he went down, he was taking them all down. This is not CT, these are demonstrable facts. Facts that the Washington Post chose not to even mention in it's glowing article on Ron Brown and his crooked son.
Regarding the allegations of foul play in his death, the Washington Post used the same dishonest tactics. It *reported* that
This is also a form of lying because the article doesn't mention that it was highly regarded military and civilian forensic pathologists who said Brown had what appeared to be a bullet wound in his head and that he should have been autopsied but wasn't because of orders from the Whitehouse. Some of those accusations were even made under oath. In fact, the WP is so dishonest that it never, ever told it's readers that top military and forensic pathologists had made such an accusation. It's never told them a fraction of the real story. Hence, the point of this OP is to ask why anyone can believe anything that the Washington Post writes? Why is the Washington Post, just to take one example of the Mainstream Media, any more reliable or credible than say … World Net Daily or NewsMax? As least they reported all these well documented facts to their readers.
It's about dishonesty in the mainstream media … the media that democrats on this forum and around the country rely on for their beliefs.
This OP shows how the Washington Post has been dishonest in it's presentation of the events surrounding the life and death of Ron Brown.
Here's what the Washington Post reported late last month:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...-sons-own-path/2011/03/26/AFD3Fh5B_story.html
The article later even say this ...
Now all one can do is laugh at such a blatant attempt by the left to rewrite it's history. And laugh at the gullibility of any liberal who might still believe the Washington Post is a *credible* source of news after reading such an article. Because it would appear, based on this article, that the Washington Post has completely forgotten that at the time of his death, Ron Brown was about to be indicted by a special prosecutor (Daniel Pearson) for a list of crimes as long as his arm. A list of crimes that would have put him in jail for life. The article doesn't even mention that fact, yet that would seem appropriate to mention in any article about Brown's "legacy" or his being *Presidential material*.
The documented fact is that Pearson had plenty of hard evidence and testimony on over a dozen serious crimes (like ending the trade embargo against North Vietnam for $700,000 dollars in bribes). The charges were so serious that Brown had retained a $750 an hour attorney. They were so serious that Brown spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal and the situation was only getting worse. Only days before his death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed focusing on Brown's dealings. It seems that an Oklahoma gas company called Dynamic Energy Resources (DER) gave Brown's son Michael $500,000 in stock, a $160,000 cash payment, and exclusive country club memberships. Former DER president Stewart Price told a Tulsa grand jury that the money was to be routed to Ron Brown, who was expected to "fix" a big lawsuit for DER.
So, contrary to what the Washington Post would have it's readers believe, it turns out that Michael was almost as big a crook as his dad. But did the Washington Post mention that? No. Not one word in their article. Apparently, the Washington Post has forgotten that both Brown's wife and his son Michael had already been indicted by the special prosecutor on related charges before Brown's death. One would think that would be worthy of mention. And the only reason charges were dropped against the mom and Michael received a slap on the wrist was Ron's death.
And here's the way the Washington Post chose to report that death:
That is nothing less than lying, folks. It was a special prosecutor (not just "critics") who accused Brown of illegally using Commerce Department trade missions to reward democrat businessmen who had contributed to the democratic party. And there was plenty of hard evidence to support that charge. And as already noted there was plenty of evidence that he was involved in a mountain of other criminality. And there was sworn testimony that Brown had offered to turn state's evidence against the Clinton administration on the trade mission illegalities in exchange for leniency for himself and his family. There was sworn testimony that he'd told Clinton shortly before his death that he was going to turn state's evidence. There was sworn testimony that he'd told Clinton's top aides that if he went down, he was taking them all down. This is not CT, these are demonstrable facts. Facts that the Washington Post chose not to even mention in it's glowing article on Ron Brown and his crooked son.
Regarding the allegations of foul play in his death, the Washington Post used the same dishonest tactics. It *reported* that
This is also a form of lying because the article doesn't mention that it was highly regarded military and civilian forensic pathologists who said Brown had what appeared to be a bullet wound in his head and that he should have been autopsied but wasn't because of orders from the Whitehouse. Some of those accusations were even made under oath. In fact, the WP is so dishonest that it never, ever told it's readers that top military and forensic pathologists had made such an accusation. It's never told them a fraction of the real story. Hence, the point of this OP is to ask why anyone can believe anything that the Washington Post writes? Why is the Washington Post, just to take one example of the Mainstream Media, any more reliable or credible than say … World Net Daily or NewsMax? As least they reported all these well documented facts to their readers.
