home

No Charges for NBC's David Gregory

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:58:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via the Washington Post: The District of Columbia has spared David Gregory. Here is the letter from the DC Attorney General to Gregory's attorney saying it was a close call, but he will not be prosecuted for displaying a 30-round ammunition magazine on Meet the Press. A key factor:

Gregory ‘s “intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States.”

The letter also states that the offense is a strict liability crime that does not require a specific intent -- ignorance or confusion about the law is no defense.

< Friday Open Thread | Saturday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    No Charges for NBC's David Gregory | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Rule of Law? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jarober on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:51:56 PM EST
    Quite the contrast with how they treated James Brinkely, or Adam Meckler.  Laws are for the little people now.

    Reportedly the AG was a family friend. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 09:22:38 AM EST
    .

    What is even worse is that Gregory and company deliberately and knowingly flouted the law. Asking the DC PD permission in advance and being denied is telling.

    This is truly shameful behavior.  Even more so as these worthies are routinely protected by the very same firearms that they would prohibit to mere mortals for the very same purpose.

    .

    Parent

    Get serious. The real crime is labeling (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 09:25:38 AM EST
    this a crime.

    This society and this legal system is sick.

    Parent

    Maybe this will happen to a journalist someday. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 09:32:10 AM EST
    I'd like to think that a journalist would realize that this sort of incident is a significant story opportunitity.

    Although it's not a major crime with a heavy penalty, if Gregory had 'fessed up and documented the trail of justice (or "justice" or injustice) from crime through punishment -- while comparing his experience with people who made similar mistakes but come from, um, different backgrounds than his -- it could have been a helluva story. And since Gregory would have been in the prime position to tell the story, he might have been able to make a few bucks off the deal.

    But that sort of thing probably isn't in Gregory's contract as a news reader.

    The right decision. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    And the stated reasons -- de minimis violation and First Amendment context -- are the correct reasons to decline prosecution.

    Thanks. Got it. (none / 0) (#10)
    by BobW on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    Ya, it was an obvious crime, but come on.  It's different when a correctly-thinking person does it.
    In what other contexts is a press pass a "get-out-of-jail" card?


    Parent
    No, you obviously don't get it (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    or for ideological reasons are pretending not to. But never mind that. To answer your final question, there are endless examples: the press routinely enters and covers disaster areas and crime scenes that are otherwise subject to keep-away and evacuation orders, for one.

    Parent
    Actually, you're right (2.00 / 2) (#14)
    by BobW on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    Now that I think about it.  

    I had resolved to myself to stop playing the, "O look!  There's a hypocrite!" game that's so common in political discourse.  Still, I did it.

    The anticipated shadenfreude of watching a proponent for a harsher version of policy X get prosecuted for violating existing policy X was too much for me.

    I now resolve to be less snarky, too.


    Parent

    Just out of curiosity (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:32:50 AM EST
    The anticipated shadenfreude of watching a proponent for a harsher version of policy X get prosecuted for violating existing policy X was too much for me.

    When has Gregory ever been a "proponent for a harsher version of policy X"?  Do you mean merely asking LaPierre whether it's possible a ban on high capacity magazines could reduce the loss of life in mass shootings makes him a proponent of such policies?

    Parent

    It's not a blanket license (none / 0) (#62)
    by unitron on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 09:37:44 PM EST
    "...the press routinely enters and covers disaster areas and crime scenes that are otherwise subject to keep-away and evacuation orders...

    but only when law enforcement allows it.

    They don't get to duck under the yellow tape and say "I'm a reporter, you can't keep me out" as they tramp all over the evidence.

    Parent

    Yes, that's so, but it is also true that the press (none / 0) (#65)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:35:59 PM EST
    gets more access, and rightly so, than Joe Q. Citizen who approaches the yellow tape and says, "I'm a local resident with First Amendment rights, I'm curious what you're up to, and I'd like to enter this restricted zone."  That's what press passes and badges are for.

    Parent
    the Pentagon Papers comes quickly to mind. (none / 0) (#19)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    In what other contexts is a press pass a "get-out-of-jail" card?


    Parent
    See my comment (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    at #21.

    Parent
    Would the same 1st Amendment protection... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    cover some guy who made a similar Youtube video and wasn't protected by a team of corporate lawyers and friendly with the DA?  I seriously doubt it.

    Different rules, different fools strikes again.  I'm glad DC ain't wasting time with such a bullsh*t persecution but I'd really like the same courtesy extended to everyone.  

    I for one (at least) woud say yes, Kdog (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    the same First Amendment principles would indeed protect the individual who made a video of the same nature, and posted it to YouTube. I am pretty sure the ACLU would agree with that, too, and would put its money where its mouth was.

    Parent
    I don't doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:30:10 AM EST
    the fine folks at the ACLU would take such a case, but I'm confident such a case would be prosecuted, and that would reek of selective prosecution and inequality under the law.

    And whether the ACLU and their client would be acquitted is far from assured.  The DC law sounds an awful lot like more unthinking zero tolerance.

    Parent

    I realized the... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    rule of law was a crock of sh*t before I finished puberty.  

    I replaced any belief in the rule of law with a belief in the basic goodness of people, goodness for goodness sake, not by threat, and my conscience and the belief most people have one too.

    The law, as we've come to use it anyway, represents another hassle to be overcome in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.  A deterrent, not an aid.

    i am sorry you have to be kidding (none / 0) (#29)
    by nyjets on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:01:00 PM EST
    'a belief in the basic goodness of people, goodness for goodness sake, not by threat, and my conscience and the belief most people have one too.
    '
    If history has taught us anything, people are inheritly selfish and evil. The only thing that keeps people in check is the law. History is full of examples of people choosingn to do evil. The only thing that stops peoplle from doing evil is the law and a worry that they will be caught. Not because of any inherit goodness.

    Parent
    Is it safe to assume you're a big believer in (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:15:59 PM EST
    "original sin" as well?

    Parent
    'original sin' is a religous concept (none / 0) (#42)
    by nyjets on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:18:54 AM EST
    I am not talking about religion. I am talking about basic human nature.

    Parent
    And where do you get your (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:22:07 PM EST
    theory about human nature from? Science?

    Parent
    2 sources (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nyjets on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:37:12 PM EST
    1. Human history. History is full of examples of humans acting in a selfish manner.
    2. Nature of life. The primary purpose of life is to pass on your genes to the next generation. As long as you reproduce, you are a success. Worrying about others, unless the others are part of your genetic family, is not an asset for passing on your genes to the next generation.


    Parent
    You made a blanket statement (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:48:28 PM EST
    Your statement was that human nature is inherently selfish and evil. "Human nature" includes everyone. Really? Everyone is inherently evil?? That has nothing to do with history. That's religion. History is filled with examples of good people doing good things.

    This discussion is so stupid I can't even believe I'm having it with another adult.

    Discussion ended. I've got social events to get to.

    Parent

    You articulate the conservative (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    belief that people are inherently evil and but for threats would kill each other.   The Lord of the Flies view of life.

    I think you are wrong. Compassion or worrying about others is a fundamental human trait.  People are inherently social beings....we need and rely on each other.  That is how society is built and how anything gets done.

    Sure people can be selfish.  But people can be generous too.  I have never seen anyone be compassionate because they feared prosecution under the law.  It is the opposite, as fear can overcome a desire to be compassionate.

    I do agree conservatives live in a world of fear and threats.   Too bad they live such stunted lives...FDR had it right about fear.  

    Parent

    So the only reason... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:26:45 AM EST
    you ain't out robbing, raping, and killing is because it is illegal, and you fear arrest and punishment?  I don't believe it.  I think it is your conscience and basic goodness.

    Ever wonder if the rule of law feeds evil?

    "All it takes to harden a man's heart is a system of justice."

    - G.D. Roberts  

    Parent

    I agree with this, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    Our own moral compasses are what keep us from committing bad acts against others. Those who don't have the compass, the conscience, or the good upbringing behave in a different way. But it has never been proven that people refrain from committing bad acts because they are afraid of getting caught and punished. If that were true, the death penalty would have made acts of murder simply disappear from all societies that implement it as a punishment.

    Parent
    There are degrees (none / 0) (#43)
    by nyjets on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:27:28 AM EST
    Certain laws, I will grant you should not be on the books. I will not disagree with that concept.
    However, In general the rule of laws protect us from ourselves.
    There are a few people out there that might be basically good. BUt on balance, most people do not do bad things because they are afraid of getting caught. Or, I should add, they simply do not have the nerve to do it. Or they have been conditioned by the law not to do something.
    Without the law, human society would be reduced to an us verses them mentality.


    Parent
    Yes, a system of laws if necessary but (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    not for the reason you claim. This:

    If history has taught us anything, people are inheritly selfish and evil.

    is a silly statement. (By the way, the word is "inherently.")

    Parent

    Not to be too much of a law-nerd here, but (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    the Pentagon Papers case did not go that far, cp.  The Court held only that the First Amendment prevented the government from getting a "prior restraint" (pre-publication banning order) against the NY Times and Washington Post, not that they couldn't be prosecuted after publishing.  However, the fact is, that the newspapers -- quite properly -- weren't prosecuted afterwards.  And the attempt to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and a friend for disclosing the Papers to the papers failed on the basis of multifaceted Watergate-related misconduct by the Nixon White House.

    Peter I deleted (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    that commenter's comments. Unsupported smear.

    Parent
    He should've been arrested.. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    for subjecting the public to what he thinks is "dancing."

    Op-ed worth a read (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:44:36 PM EST
    Charles Blow lays it out pretty darn well. The disgustingness of these people using MLK's birthday for their purposes is beyond offensive.

    I have no quarrel with the decision (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:27:49 AM EST
     and frankly don't think he was likely treated any differently than would have been a "nobody" who violated the law in the same fashion.

      We will never know but I  suspect that if a student from, say, American U TV or an unknown reporter on a local indy station had done the same thing charges would not be pursued either.

      Prosecutors are given discretion and here you have a situation where the "alleged" violation was not of the type that presents the harm or risk of harm the ordinance contemplated and was imarguably related to furthering discussion of an issue of public import. If anything, I think the pressure to pursue the case is greater because Gregory is high profile.

     

    No surprise (4.67 / 3) (#8)
    by scribe on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:01:16 AM EST
    The minute Obama came on MTP the following week, it was done that Gregory would never be charged.

    Besides, he's white, well-to-do, knows people, and was beating up on the NRA.  

    If, OTOH, he was some poor black kid who found it lying in the street in Southeast or Anacostia and called the cops to report it, he'd be in Lorton now and for a long time to come.

    Utterly ridiculous (3.67 / 3) (#11)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    "If, OTOH, he was some poor black kid who found it lying in the street in Southeast or Anacostia and called the cops to report it, he'd be in Lorton now and for a long time to come."
     I'll be the first to agree that the criminal justice system does not operate fairly and evenhandedly against the poor and powerless, but that particular comment is just absurd. I seriously doubt that you can point to any such (or comparable) actual case.

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#25)
    by dead dancer on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    white

    Parent
    this doesn't even qualify as stupid, it has a long (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:20:29 AM EST
    way to go, to even get that far.

    If, OTOH, he was some poor black kid who found it lying in the street in Southeast or Anacostia and called the cops to report it, he'd be in Lorton now and for a long time to come.

    finding something, and calling the cops to report it, doesn't qualify as "possessing" it. i assume you know that. i haven't been up 123 in a while, but the last i checked, lorton hasn't been there for at least 20 years, if not longer. the property was sold to a private developer, the prison torn down and relocated, inside the city proper.

    the criminal justice system is bad enough, all by its lonesome, especially if you're a poor, inner-city minority kid, it doesn't need exaggeration.

    Parent

    Sadly, when I said the above (none / 0) (#49)
    by scribe on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:32:36 PM EST
    about some poor black kid finding it in the street and winding up in prison for a long time, I was rehearsing the fact pattern of a Third Circuit case from a few years back.  After a couple hours looking for the case, I gave up because my dog got sick and I had to take her to the vet.

    In short, in that case, a guy (black, poor) in Philadelphia found a gun lying in the street.  He called police to report it and stood over it to keep kids from grabbing it and making worse trouble.  The cops promptly busted him for "possessing" the gun and, because he had a record and the feds decided to prosecute and because of the mandatory minimums involved, he wound up getting 25 years in the federal prison system.  his conviction and sentence were upheld despite the public purpose behind his actions.

    Going to another case, a couple years ago a man ("A") in Southeastern Pennsylvania legally shot a deer during deer season.  "A" called his family on his cell phone to report his good fortune.  Shortly after concluding his call, another man "B" also hunting in the area shot at what he claimed was a deer, using a rifle (illegal for hunting in that area because it's relatively populated).  "B" hit and killed the first hunter, "A", who was found by his relatives.  "B" had a criminal record, having nearly beaten a man to death back in the 1980s.  "B" was a lawyer and son of another lawyer "C" who had been the county district attorney.  Prior to becoming district attorney, "C" had been a criminal defense attorney who had defended his son "B" in the beating case.  According to news reports, "B" had accumulated about 2 dozen guns, receiving them as gifts or using straw purchasers among whom may well have been "C".  "C" also appeared to have helped "B" hide the guns post-shooting.  "B" had the world land on him (rightly).

    AFAIK, "C" has not been charged with anything.  Well-to-do, white, and connected - no surprise.

    Parent

    On your other counter-case (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    where you are referring to US v Dodd (2000), in fact the convicted felon in question, arrested on the street with a gun in his pocket, testified at trial that he had just moments before found the gun lying in the street and had picked it, and put it in his pocket to protect nearby children from hurting themselves if they found it.  He said he was walking to his house with the intention of immediately calling the police to report it, when two police investigating some other incident stopped him and found the gun.  The issue on appeal was whether the defendant had the burden to prove this story was true (in which case it would constitute a defense) or the government had to disprove it.  The court of appeals (a 3-judge panel including both liberal-leaning Judge Rendell and conservative judge (later Justice) Alito) unanimously agreed with the trial judge that the burden to establish justification fell on the defendant.  In claiming that the defendant's actions (as described by him) did not justify his possession, the prosecutor specifically argued that he could have stood over the gun while a friend called the police, and that doing so would not have been a form of possession.  So the case says more of less the opposite of what you remembered.  (The sentence was the mandatory minimum of 15 yrs, by the way, because of the violent nature of the defendant's prior offenses, not 25, although the 15-yr MM is also excessive and unjust, as you suggest.)

    Parent
    One case at a time (none / 0) (#51)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    Responding to your second counter-case, "B" (David Manilla, nephew of former Montgomery County DA Michael Marino) -- white, wealthy, well-connected -- was sentenced in Bucks County court on July 8, 2011, for this accidental but fatal shooting to serve 10-25 years in state prison.  That sentence was affirmed on appeal.  I don't know what evidence you have (not the suspicions you allude to) that the uncle committed any crime.

    Parent
    As I recall the coverage at the time (none / 0) (#57)
    by scribe on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:41:45 PM EST
    the former DA/uncle (who had represented Manilla in the attempted murder case and therefore knew about his felony record) was implicated in Manilla's getting guns, keeping guns, and/or facilitating his possession and use of guns.

    Knowingly furnishing a gun to someone not entitled to have one (e.g., by reason of felony conviction) is a crime under both federal and state law, as is filling out a background check form (4473) saying you're going to be the owner of the gun when in reality you're being a straw purchaser for someone who wouldn't pass the background check.  The latter bears a sentence of up to 10 years on the federal side and whatever state law provides for creating a false business record.

    Last time I checked, knowingly furnishing ammunition to someone not entitled to have a gun (e.g., by reason of felony conviction) is also a crime.

    A careful examination of that case would reveal a case against the uncle that was not pursued.

    Parent

    As many of us have said many times (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:54:21 PM EST
    on this site, it is dangerous to form opinions about anyone's guilt from "facts" leaked to the press by police.

    Parent
    gregory wasn't prosecuted because (4.00 / 4) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:10:59 AM EST
    of the first amendment, no more or less. the DA knew that he'd get shredded in court, by the network attorneys, and chose, wisely, to spare himself that shredding. no sense intentionally making yourself look like an idiot.

    gregory has lots of worthwhile reasons to be loathed, this isn't one of them.

    It is a wet dreary day down here (3.75 / 4) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:40:56 PM EST
    in the southern part of fly over country.

    Really, really boring.

    So I would like to thank everyone who has jumped in to defend the DA's hypocritical actions in letting a well known talking head get away with very publicly breaking the law.

    Laughter is good for the soul.

    You keep using that word (4.20 / 5) (#30)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    "Hypocritical".

    In the enduring words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

    Parent

    But, you gotta admit (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 08:22:24 PM EST
    when reading a Jim post,

    "laughter is good for the soul"

    lol

    Parent

    Glad to know (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    you have shown us another situation in which you don't dare think on your own.

    Parent
    Who's this "us" (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:49:26 PM EST
    you keep referring to?

    Is this like the Biblical "my name is legion"?

    Parent

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#1)
    by BobW on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:35:07 PM EST
    I find this interesting.  It's certainly true that his display of an illegal item was no threat to anyone.  Still, if he'd been a non-celebrity who made a mistake, I expect that he'd be facing jail time.  

    Is the lack of prosecution because of good judgment by the DA, or because he was well-connected?

    I'm sure I'll see people arguing both positions.

    The only ignorance I can see (none / 0) (#13)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    is on the part of the District of Columbia. That they would even entertain the idea of charges was just too stupid.

    A discretionary declination to prosecute (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    is not a "precedent," Louise.  Each case has its own unique set of facts and circumstances.  Provide a link or description of the "soldiers" cases you're referring to, and I'll try to offer a reasoned opinion about whether the circumstances (momentary possession; clear First Amendment purpose) were equivalent.

    In my view, the decision (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    not to bring charges against NBC and Gregory was the correct, if not sane one.  The opposite decision would trivialize and undermine the intent and purpose of the District's efforts in this area.

    If Gregory was found with a magazine on the streets of D.C and charges were not filed, this would be a different case.  However, the letter of Attorney General Nathan to Lee Levine, attorney for Gregory and NBC, was curious, especially, the last paragraph in which Nathan admonishes that "NBC should be made aware that OAG's decision not to press charges in this matter was a very close decision and not one that came lightly or easily. ...And if not in "full compliance" with this law or any other, in the future, look out.  

    This paragraph seems gratuitous and intimidating-- I would expect that a decision to prosecute or not, would be taken seriously; and the argument to decline prosecution did not rest on an assessment of full or partial compliance of this law, or involve any other  D.C. law.   Moreover, prosecutorial decisions should not be publicly reported as being , in a sense, as cleared plus, or cleared minus.   Cleared suffices.  If not, prosecute.

    Correct? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:28:48 PM EST

    Gregory and company deliberately and with foreknowledge needlessly broke the law for personal gain.  

    They did not need to use a studio situated in DC, but they chose to do so any way.  

    Going after a high profile VIP who is politically correct on the gun control issue would send a powerful message to the public about how serious they are about enforcing this law.  

    The message they sent instead is one of favorable treatment for friends of the regime.  Third world justice at its best.  Shameful.

    Parent

    Yes, correct. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    with a period, not a question mark.  

    Parent
    Who says Gregory is ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 05:35:12 PM EST
    ... "politically correct" on the issue of gun control?

    Parent
    Obama would not be giving him an exclusive (none / 0) (#50)
    by scribe on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:36:15 PM EST
    interview for MTP a week later, if Gregory was not a reliable mouthpiece for Obama's policies.

    I don't see Obama giving much of anything to Fox.

    Parent

    This says nothing ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    ... about Gregory's position on gun control.

    I'm no fan of Gregory, but the fact that he interviewed Obama means nothing as it relates to his position on gun control.  Obama's done interviews with Bill O'Reilly, Brett Baier, and Chris Wallace - not that I would blame him for skipping pretty much any Fox News program.  I have no idea whether these hosts support gun control, either.

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#58)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:52:02 PM EST
    Again.  Good morning, Turkey!

    why are these site violators (none / 0) (#60)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:10:33 PM EST
    mostly from Turkey.  Zorba what's up with this?

    Parent
    Oh, I don't know (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:38:39 PM EST
    Maybe it's just because they can.  A few spammers latch on to certain websites, and perhaps pass those websites to others in their location.
    I remember when a great deal of spam seemed to be coming out of Russia and other Eastern European countries.
    I guess it's Turkey's turn.        ;-)

    Parent
    No Charges for NBC's David Gregory | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment