An insider's view of what is really happening in the Harris County Criminal Courts
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Can't Win for Losing
On tonight's Channel 13 report, Ted Oberg is doing an article on Kelly Siegler because she doesn't have enough e-mails on her e-mail account. Thus, she must be covering something up.
You gotta be freaking kidding me.
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
why not if she is running for public office she should be scrutinized....there is nothing wrong with the media looking into that especially with all of her cavalier sound bites and her husbands offensive e-mails...
Of course they have a right to look! I think we all agree with that sentiment after what came off of Chuck's computer.
But I think it's ridiculous to make it seem sinister because Kelly DOESN'T have anything on hers.
And I think it is also a bit absurd to try to pretend that Kelly isn't a good candidate because of ONE e-mail her husband sent.
Give me a break.
I can only hope that at some point, all of this stupid muckraking will end and people will start looking at ISSUES rather than the sound bytes you mention.
How many of her husbands e-mails were deleted accidently on purpose by CR so its BS that its only one offensive e-mail. She initially said that it was her husbands problem and it was his office and she was not his boss and then she back pedaled...and apologized this is not mickraking if you agree to run for elective office then be prepared to face the scrutiny. Racism may not racism may not be important to you...but it is important to the voters....if she has nothing to hide like they like to say at the DA's office she has nothing to fear....
The reason Channel 13 is doing a sound byte piece on Kelly rather than a story on real issues is because less intelligent people rely on television news to think for them. I'm sure the news-viewing audience who accepts their stories without question are people who don't read the paper, literature, the occasional Sunday Times Book Review, and who really believe that having too few e-mails means something.
Please. Doesn't Houston have real problems about which they could report?
I agree with you completely. With other, better reasons available, it is absurd to base her unsuitability on her husband's e-mail. :)
I'll admit that I'm a little disappointed in Oberg. Kelly may be doing absolutely nothing wrong. The law requires only the preservation of certain items; it doesn't require that all e-mail items be kept, or that those kept are retained in the original electronic form. Oberg barely noted the distinction and not saying so more clearly - or perhaps using her situation as instructive of the distinction - did the public, and particularly voters, a disservice.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to look.
What I'm saying is that when they don't find anything, that they shouldn't surmise that there must have been something there in the first place. That's horse crap.
By the way, you used the term "mickraking" in your e-mail. Now, I'm sure that it was just a typo, but I think that the term "mick" is a slur against Irish people. Would you now like a protest in front of your office by the Angry Irish, demanding to know if you think it's okay to be "mickraking"? Would you like your children to hear on the news every night that you are prejudiced against the Irish?
The previous two anonymous comments suggest that there are people dumber than Chuck Rosenthal using the internet.
It's as if the Ron Paul/911 Truth Squad has turned their attention to the DA's office, citing everything they can't see as sure proof of what they think they see.
When I was with the office, I received thousands of emails. I deleted the ones that I didn't need to do my job or to stay in contact with the sender. Some of them were jokes and some of them were innocuous comments. Did I delete them because I had the same opinion as the sender and didn't want anyone to know? The answer is that they were deleted because I didn't need them. I am sure Kelly does the same thing. Boy is that horrible and she must be hiding something.
12 comments:
why not if she is running for public office she should be scrutinized....there is nothing wrong with the media looking into that especially with all of her cavalier sound bites and her husbands offensive e-mails...
Of course they have a right to look! I think we all agree with that sentiment after what came off of Chuck's computer.
But I think it's ridiculous to make it seem sinister because Kelly DOESN'T have anything on hers.
And I think it is also a bit absurd to try to pretend that Kelly isn't a good candidate because of ONE e-mail her husband sent.
Give me a break.
I can only hope that at some point, all of this stupid muckraking will end and people will start looking at ISSUES rather than the sound bytes you mention.
How many of her husbands e-mails were deleted accidently on purpose by CR so its BS that its only one offensive e-mail. She initially said that it was her husbands problem and it was his office and she was not his boss and then she back pedaled...and apologized this is not mickraking if you agree to run for elective office then be prepared to face the scrutiny. Racism may not racism may not be important to you...but it is important to the voters....if she has nothing to hide like they like to say at the DA's office she has nothing to fear....
The reason Channel 13 is doing a sound byte piece on Kelly rather than a story on real issues is because less intelligent people rely on television news to think for them. I'm sure the news-viewing audience who accepts their stories without question are people who don't read the paper, literature, the occasional Sunday Times Book Review, and who really believe that having too few e-mails means something.
Please. Doesn't Houston have real problems about which they could report?
-AFHCP
I agree with you completely. With other, better reasons available, it is absurd to base her unsuitability on her husband's e-mail. :)
I'll admit that I'm a little disappointed in Oberg. Kelly may be doing absolutely nothing wrong. The law requires only the preservation of certain items; it doesn't require that all e-mail items be kept, or that those kept are retained in the original electronic form. Oberg barely noted the distinction and not saying so more clearly - or perhaps using her situation as instructive of the distinction - did the public, and particularly voters, a disservice.
You are missing the point.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to look.
What I'm saying is that when they don't find anything, that they shouldn't surmise that there must have been something there in the first place. That's horse crap.
By the way, you used the term "mickraking" in your e-mail. Now, I'm sure that it was just a typo, but I think that the term "mick" is a slur against Irish people. Would you now like a protest in front of your office by the Angry Irish, demanding to know if you think it's okay to be "mickraking"? Would you like your children to hear on the news every night that you are prejudiced against the Irish?
Of course not.
Let's get to the issues, folks.
5 -emails in four months....give me a break...this women deserves to get a real job away from prosecuting the people of Harris County...she is a liar.
The previous two anonymous comments suggest that there are people dumber than Chuck Rosenthal using the internet.
It's as if the Ron Paul/911 Truth Squad has turned their attention to the DA's office, citing everything they can't see as sure proof of what they think they see.
Hey Previous Anon...what turnip truck did you fall out off?...what rock have you been living under lately?...
Deleting things are we now?
Yes. yes, I am. And if you wait about ten minutes, you'll see a post as to why.
When I was with the office, I received thousands of emails. I deleted the ones that I didn't need to do my job or to stay in contact with the sender. Some of them were jokes and some of them were innocuous comments. Did I delete them because I had the same opinion as the sender and didn't want anyone to know? The answer is that they were deleted because I didn't need them. I am sure Kelly does the same thing. Boy is that horrible and she must be hiding something.
Post a Comment