10 Comments

• 1. Diana Powe  |  December 6th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

  If the U.S. Attorney can make the case on him then I’m totally for it! Hey, has anyone seen that copy of the transcript of Bill O’Reilly talking about “things to do in the shower” with Andrea Mackris?

• 2. Gozer the Carpathian  |  December 6th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

  Umm… who’s this guy again? No seriously, he’s got a “Wide Audiance” with a “Wide Reach?” Give me a break. I’m sorry if someone was trying to silence him or “scapegoat” someone Child Porn seems to be an odd charge to bring him up on.

  Now, I will give this lady credit, she does stand beside the dude and believes he’s innocent. It’s good to see someone standing up for a friend, on the other hand all she says to defend him doesn’t really matter if indeed the person is into child porn. There are lots of “normal Seeming” persons out there who’ve done wrong or are into things like Child Porn.

  Since I have no clue who this guy is I have no clue if he’s guilty or not. We shall see.

• 3. Ricorun  |  December 6th, 2007 at 8:17 pm

  Matt: And true to liberal form, Ward’s lawyer blames Bush!

  That’s not how I heard it. Exactly what did you hear, Matt? And is the woman Bernie’s agent or his lawyer?

• 4. rubbersoul  |  December 6th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

  He’s using the Pete Townsend defense, which incidently worked for Pete Townsend.

  God Bless the Who!

• 5. Kahn  |  December 7th, 2007 at 1:58 am

  Rico - Drudge has an MP3 of the agent blaming Bush posted top left on his page.

  http://podcast.kcbs.com/kcbs/788881.mp3

  Personally - I never heard of the guy before.

• 6. Hates Cows--Male  |  December 7th, 2007 at 6:42 am

  Hey, has anyone seen that copy of the transcript of Bill O’Reilly talking about “things to do in the shower” with Andrea Mackris?

  More of the same–”I know you are but what am I”–rhetoric.

  The reason we hear so little about lefties getting caught up in this type of behaviour, is that this is considered “mainstream” behaviour in libgressive circles, especially in San Fransicko…

• 7. plainjane  |  December 7th, 2007 at 8:00 am

  Sounded like to me she may have been his agent and not his lawyer. The interviewer was trying to bait her into making the connection between his new book on Bush and the charges. She stated she had no knowledge of a connection. Maybe if she gave the statement after a good old fashion waterboarding Matt would have been convinced she did not know if Bush was involved.

  Don’t know this person or specific charges. Let justice be served.

• 8. Kahn  |  December 7th, 2007 at 10:57 am

  jane, yes I think thats his agent.

  Have YOU ever heard of this guy?

• 9. navydad  |  December 7th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

  So far, only crickets at the anti-Fox media outlets.

• 10. Almiranta  |  December 7th, 2007 at 9:44 pm

  Anyone who delves into illegal areas for the purposes of “researching a book” and fails to provide strong, supportable, contemporary proof of his intent is a fool. Everyone knows that child porn is not only illegal, it is a career-breaker (even, evidently, in San Fran) so failing to establish credentials with law enforcement agencies and so on before embarking on this kind of “research” is pretty hard to understand—that is, if “research” is really the motive.

  I’ll wait and see, believing (unlike Jack Murtha) that in this country you really ARE innocent till proven guilty. But it sounds fishy, and I am more interested in the Lefty excuses that are being made for him than in whether or not he is just another perv.