The indictment and conviction of David Prosser by the media

The media has long abandoned all pretenses of being an agency solely with the intention of reporting the news. They interpret the news for you according to their wishes and choose what and how to report based on its conformation to the leftist ideology.

The media has taken on a new role in addition to all that; not satisfied that they can’t control all politicians and decisions in this country, they’ve appointed themselves as prosecutors, lawyers, witnesses, jurors, and judges all in one who place judgment on individuals facing charges before facing trial.

The media’s actions and reactions to Judge Bradley’s claim about Judge David Prosser are a disgrace and blemish to journalism. Sadly, this is not a one-time occurrence. As a New Yorker, the following two stories highlight the media’s judgmental stance.

Forty four people were arrested in a sting operation across New York and New Jersey two summers ago including politicians, mayors, Rabbis, and regular citizens with charges of assorted white-collar crimes including money laundering, accepting bribery, and accepting illegal campaign contributions amongst others. The only relation between the arrestees that they all were connived into the illegal activity by the same individual, an F.B.I. informant who had swindled out of a bank millions of dollars and was promised a lighter sentence through acting as an informer.

The morning following the arrest, the media in the entire tri-state area and beyond launched nasty attacks against those arrested before they were been found guilty of any crime. The fact that they’ve been duped by an informed was irrelevant and mentioned in passing.

In a separate incident in Riverdale, New York two months before the above arrests, four Muslims were arrested and charged for plotting to blow up synagogues and military aircraft in Riverdale, New York. Their contact, whom they believed to be from Al Qaeda, and helped them with the planning the terrorist attacks and the procuring of proper weapons, was an F.B.I. plant. They had planted the bombs near the synagogues and were heading with a stinger to shoot down a military aircraft (all of which unknown to them were fakes) when the F.B.I. closed down on them and arrested them

The media reacted by reporting the story as an “alleged plot” in which they questioned the arrests because the arrestees were ensnared into the entire plot by the instigator. Even after they had been found guilty by jury and judge, the media continued to fight to absolve them from any wrongdoing and attacked the F.B.I. for its use of an infiltrator as seen here, here, here, here, and here.

I was shocked at the media’s callous attitude towards the four radicals and my outrage grew to greater extremes when their reactions two months later after the New Jersey arrests were entirely different. These three Muslim men were ready to blow up and kill innocent civilians, yet the media was careful to refer to the “alleged plot and  harped on the F.B.I. agent’s role while at the next story, didn’t find it necessary to give any of the arrestees the benefit of doubt or focus on the informer’s role.  If an Al Qaeda cell in the U.S. would’ve contacted these three Muslims, as they thought was the case, and provided them with the proper aid, the result would’ve been horrific. Despite all this, they were on the receiving end of sympathy from the media.

On the other hand, the charges against the forty four individuals were for money laundering, accepting bribes, organ trafficking, corruption etc. — white collar criminal charges of different levels which the people too have convinced into committing by a former criminal, and some of which were later acquitted or thrown out. Even those found guilty never came close to harming another individual, but the media felt it as their duty to pronounce them guilty while defending those persuaded to cause death and destruction.

These are not isolated incidents, but occur daily. The media’s response to the radicals mirrored their reaction to the three brothers who were accused and sentenced for plotting a killing spree at Fort Dix, a military base located in New Jersey.

I’m not defending any crime, violent or otherwise. The fact that the media plays judge is in itself astonishing. Their skewed judgment is the shock upon the astonishment. Their verdicts are seen daily in newspapers to the point that many no longer realize how un-journalistic it is and that it goes against the belief of innocent until proven guilty.

It’s interesting to note that often after the court has passed judgment on an individual, the media has no qualms coming to the defense of criminals who have been proven guilty of murder or other crimes after lengthy court cases in which witnesses and/or other sufficient evidence has been provided that earn the criminal the death penalty. Suddenly the media’s hearts bleed with compassion for the “poor” killer and criticize the judgment of the judicial system.

How can the media at times pounce upon an individual or group of people accused of crime, oftentimes petty, and declare them guilty without a proper trial or evidence, and at other instances criticize the sentence of a jury or judge which is based on hard facts as too harsh or as accusing someone who’s innocent?

The above incidents which highlight the media’s conflicting reactions to criminal accusations explain the media’s treatment of the accusations against Strauss-Kahn and Prosser.

Strauss-Kahn was arrested about two months ago because a hotel maid accused him of rape. The media pounced upon the claim and passed their verdict of guilty accepting the point of view of the hotel maid against his. He’s a socialist who I disagree with on every issue, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why is the media so desperate to destroy people before a verdict has been passed? Recently it has been reported that the prosecutors are dropping the case because of conflicting reports from the hotel maid, according to police investigators.

The other accusation is against a Conservative Supreme Court judge who recently ran for reelection against the entire liberal machine who was desperate to unseat him because of his support for Governor Walker’s union reforms which the left were trying to block. The left viciously attacked him with false smears and ads such as that he’s supported sex offenders rather than rape victims, a claim which the rape victim denounced as false and twisted. After a tough battle in which he fought against many hateful lies, he overcame the left and the media, and won the reelection.

Several weeks ago the bill that stripped the collective bargaining rights from unions was ruled as constitutional and legal by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin thanks to the conservative vote of the aforementioned victorious judge, Judge David Prosser.

About a week later, one of the liberal judges went to the press and accused him of holding her in a “choke-hold,” and the media pounced upon their former prey with a new passion.

Here’s an excerpt of Schneider on NRO which provides details of the incident:

The week before the legislature was set to re-pass the collective-bargaining provision, three of the four conservative justices were ready to issue a ruling reinstating the union law as originally passed. Prosser, on the other hand, wanted to wait longer, to avoid the appearance that the court was rushing their decision through. Prosser thought he had an agreement with liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to delay release of the opinion until Tuesday of the following week.

As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.

According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”

During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.

“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.

Althouse had a prudent point about Bradley’s response:

Indeed, if we believe Bradley said “That’s only because you broke us apart” when someone pulled her back from behind, it would seem that the “pressure” that would have occurred but didn’t would have been the result of her forward movement toward Prosser. That’s the evidence a criminal defense lawyer would milk if there were an actual trial here.

Bradley didn’t end up pressing charges and instead turned to the media the following week. The media scooped up her story and portrayed Prosser as a bully with an uncontrollable temper and not deserving of his judicial seat even though it appears Bradley’s made contradictory statements. They all sided with Bradley’s version of being held in a “chokehold” rather than reporting both sides of the story and allowing the public to form their own opinion.

About a week later, a Fox news reporter (which the media claims is a rightwing network when all they have is a few right commentators and a majority of mainstream reporters) ran after David Prosser repeatedly badgering him with questions until Prosser and pushing the mike in Prosser’s face. Prosser attempted to push it aside and when the reporter persisted, he took the mike out of the reporter’s hand and then handed it back. Of course, when the video hit the blogosphere, the left condemned him and used it as “proof” and “hard evidence” of his “violence” in the courthouse. Most conservatives continued to defend him but questioned his judgment for pulling out the mike which gave him a terrible PR at a time when he’s being blamed for attacking a fellow judge.

I don’t know if I lost my mind, or it’s others that lost their mind, but why do people have such a hard time understanding another human being? Here’s a person who’s being blamed for choking someone, which if found guilty can land him time in jail, and although it’s her word against his, the entire media has declared him guilty. This same individual has just finished his reelection campaign in which the media and the left falsely accused him of supporting rape acts amongst other hateful in an attempt to destroy him only because of his belief that a certain law is constitutional and legal. After winning the election and passing judgment on the law, the left is set to destroy him no matter what. No one but these judges know what truly occurred, but if Bradley said by the reenactment that there was no pressure because they were broken apart, and the police officer was there as witness, then this seems very likely as simply another attempt to tarnish a man’s reputation and destroy his career.

Is it so difficult to understand the emotions and pressure of an individual who’s been branded guilty by the entire media without any evidence, that his reaction to the press was the refusal to answer questions and the removal of a mike? Why should he trust the media?

When a college student questioned Bob Etheridge, the former Democrat congressman from North Carolina, whether he supports Obama’s policies, Etheridge attacked and choked the student, as captured on video. The media’s reaction was to sweep the video under the carpet and not even show it to the public! Suddenly, the media is disturbed by claims of choking?

The media is a hypocritical institution which has long abandoned the original principles of journalism and became an extended arm of the Democratic political machine. Rather than reporting the news, they choose to skip some, stress others, indict the right, and acquit the left. It’s time for the media to take upon themselves one more change, a change of name.

Abie Rubin blogs at TheThinkingVoter.blogspot.com and can be followed on twitter.