You’re spinning a conspiracy theory about whether a judge really asked a defendant if he knew how much time he might be facing. I don’t think you need to pretend you’re ignorant.
Not a conspiracy theory. I wondered if anyone actually verified the facts of the story as presented in the dailykos. As it turns out, nobody did. Shocking, aint’ it.
God, I hope not. It would mean I have some suspender-wearing Gordon Gekko douchebag alternate Mr. Hyde personality that I don’t know about.
When I go back to it now, it shows a snippet of the article and the subscription prompt. Guess it gave me a freebie view the first time.
*
Whew. *Personality crisis averted.
I’ve never subscribed to the WSJ and it worked for me. It never occurred to me that it might be paywalled.
Yes, other than finding four confirming sources, nobody verified the facts of the story. It’s awful.
Cut-and-paste stories only confirm that media outlets can cut-and-paste. Tom wrote something on the internet, Dick’s website repeated what Tom wrote, Harry swore it was true because so many people on the internet were repeating it. Any statement by some Tom, Dick, or Harry is considered internet gold.
Sure, but that’s not how it works. Before you can dismiss the reports, you have to show that they might be inaccurate. You haven’t done that. You’ve shown, at best, that they might have come from another publication.
Of course, this is all rather beside the point. What the judge told the defendant is not really relevant to anything under discussion.
I have not dismissed the reported stories. I don’t trust the dailykos’s alleged reporters, but I questioned where the judge’s Q&A originally came from. The dailykos cut-and-pasted their Q&A quote from the NYP.
What the judge tells Matanov, aka the defendant, is relevant. Especially since Matanov has plead guilty to violating Sarbanes-Oxley, which is the name mentioned in the title of this thread.
Relevant to what? Do you even know what you’re arguing about? Can you think of a single reason why the Daily Kos would lie about what the judge told the defendant?
Relevant to a conversation about whether Sarbanes-Oxley can be used to charge a private citizen with a federal crime?
I was curious as to whether anyone had bothered to verify the information in the dailykos or NYP articles. That question has been answered. People read it online, sooooo it must be true. :smack:
I still have absolutely no idea if the dailykos lied about the Q&A between the defendant and the judge. Which makes it all the more amusing when you keep asking why I think the dailykos lied about the Q&A between the defendant and the judge.
Huh?
What part of the DailyKos article quotes a Q&A between the judge and the defendant?
And what does that have to do with whether Sarbanes-Oxley contains private criminal prohibitions (which it obviously does, as 2 seconds on Google would confirm for you)?
My mistake. I was referring to the Q&A mentioned in The Daily Beast article linked in post 20. Thanks for noticing, and giving me a chance to correct the error.
I see.
Yeah, not much you can do to fact-check here. I checked the docket and the transcript of the plea colloquy has not be produced.
I would be pretty unusual for a reporter to be caught fabricating the quotes of a federal judge though. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of such a thing happening.
That’s the key issue here. Because it happens to conform to his own ideological commitment, doorhinge in this case hears hoof-beats and is determined to find zebras rather than horses.
I assume, based on his position in this thread, that doorhinge rejects every article where the journalist provides information that he or she gained through first-hand observation or interviews. No wonder he doesn’t subscribe to any actual media outlets.
Hahahaha. While I have a healthy suspicion of most things I read on the internet, or hear from lame stream, cut-and-paste, media outlets, I most certainly would never subscribe to a website of yours.
What does a website of mine have to do with it?
I’m talking about actual, reputable, even conservative media outlets like the Wall Street Journal here. While the WSJ typically fills its Op-Ed pages with some of the most hardcore conservative assholes available, the paper has always had a reputation for producing excellent reportage. The Op-Ed pages are filled with distortions and half-truths and ideological screeds, but the basic journalism is generally of very high quality.
The fact that you apparently can’t even distinguish between media outlets tells us pretty much all we need to know regarding your analytical abilities.
For historical reference -
I was referring to your credibility.
You may have noticed that Richard Parker mentioned that the transcript of the plea hadn’t been made available yet. So where, or how, did these media outlets actually verify the Q&A between the criminal pleading guilty, and the judge? Are they all operating under the impression that they read it on the internet so it must be true?