Gag order issued on Flathead Lake Boat Crash

Ah yes...the old "gag order" (0.00 / 0)

isn't the Republican answer to everything "transparency"?  If you did nothing wrong why do you need a "gag order"?

---

by: bigsage @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 14:44:04 PM UTC

It DOES have to do with........... (0.00 / 0)

national security, according to my teabagger friend who CLAIMS he used to work for the black ops section of the Army.  You see, according to him, all the people on the boat were supposed to DIE! (and by all rights, they should have, no?  I mean, ten feet either way and Dopey would be St. Dopey!) It was some sort of govt. black ops operation. For some unknown reason, the govt. wanted Doped dead. So, I suspect that ms. judge curtis is doing this out of national security!  The govt. messed up when it tried to smoke Dopey, and now they've gotta cover it up so that the public never finds out!  And when you think about it, this is about the ONLY legitimate reason for a gag order!  Believe it or not.  (p.s. Maybe O'Bama ORDERED it!)  How's that for a conspiracy?

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 14:50:39 PM UTC

*** (0.00 / 0)

how is this preferential treatment?  

if he is subject to a potential court case involving a congress member, i don't see how trying to protect his right to a fair trial is preferential treatment.  

maybe if you spent half as much time hem and hawing over your own party's inability to pay their taxes and provide transparency as some vague notion of rehberg's BAC, judges wouldn't have to seal these cases to assure citizens can get fair trials.

---

by: tadamsmt @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 15:36:30 PM UTC

You think that the judge (0.00 / 0)

sealed the case because bloggers were writing about it?

How ludicrous! And to top it off, you want to censor Jay for even wanting to talk about it. How neo-American of you to try and censor him.

But the really stupid thing you said was that a gag order protects Barkus' right to a fair trial. What trial? What crime has he committed? How will we ever know that a crime was committed? Or trust the County Attorney, who is a self-avowed friend of Barkus?

And then you assert that because the potential crime involves a member of Congress, that Barku's right to protection is elevated! Would he have received the same deference in your mind if the Congressman was a democrat?  

---

by: JC @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 16:48:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

*** (0.00 / 0)

Maybe you can point to the part where I was trying to censor someone...???  

It's obvious to anyone with any legal background that a)they are probably looking into charges against him, and b)the more that leaks out to the press for you to go apoplectic about, the less he would have a fair trial and could petition as such.  What would you rather have, the judge seal the trial and be able to convict him or him go free on any charges because it was determined jurors were potentially biased by slanted news coverage of the event?

Ummm... yeah, I think he would.  In fact, I don't think they'd bring any charges, since half of Obama's czars and cabinet members can't pay their taxes and the head of the House Ways and Means Committee which writes tax laws hides assets from taxation.  But instead of focussing on that, you've rather play Nancy Drew about Rehberg's BAC when he wasn't driving the boat.  

---

by: tadamsmt @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 18:50:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Telling Jay what he should (0.00 / 0)

or shouldn't write about is a really bad attempt at censorship. As if he would listen to your value judgments about what is important or not. I could do the same to you, like this: stop writing stupid shit.

Didn't work, did it?

Fair trial? There are dozens of District Courts around Montana that could take this case without a tainted jury pool. They could take it out of state if they had to--happened before, it'll happen again. Most Montana counties don't have a clue who Barkus is. No different than any other high profile, or media-hyped case. The only difference is that Barkus' buddies control the process.

I don't give a rat's ass about Rehberg's BAC. I care that he, a U.S. Congressman who admitted he had been drinking, and his staff were in an  accident involving alcohol. People almost died. Several have been critically injured.

Denny's character is what I have a problem with. And so do thousands of other Montanans. If he was man enough to take some responsibility, as a boss and maybe friend of his injured staff, then he could say that he had the power to prevent such an incident. At a minimum, he could have not taken any drinks, and driven his staff safely home. That is the least that any of us parents would have asked of our own kids, if they were in the same position.

Denny exhibited what I, as a parent, would call bad judgement, and it resulted in the near deaths of public servants. I guess Denny doesn't believe in designated drivers. And it appears that many of his political supporters are OK with that.

As to Barkus, he may or may not be held accountable for his actions. And the people holding the keys to that possibility are his close political supporters, so I don't hold out that justice will be done.

As to your obsession with Obama, and his admin, I have an article for you.

---

by: JC @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 19:58:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

JC, you are way off (0.00 / 0)

First,  Dustin Frost's family and Dustin himself don't seem to hold either Rehberg or Barcus at fault. They called it an accident as per various news accounts.  For you to prioritize your "concern" over the Frost family wishes is politics at its worst,and it is complete bullshit. That is if you even care about them at all, which I doubt at this point. If you care, RESPECT their wishes.

Second, for you to equate criticism of Obama, his politics, and his policies as mere racism is even more transparent bullshit.  How low will you go?  He is our president.  And as Hillary said:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

IF it is necessary to cocoon Obama from such criticism, then you should examine your own motives. Your reliance on a label to malign just criticism further demonstrates your own insidious bigotry towards others you don't know or understand.

By the way, like Obama, I think Jay has demonstrated he is more than capable of speaking for himself without your help.

Let's try to constructively engage one another here and not rely on cheap rhetorical labels.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 20:50:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear (0.00 / 0)

If I understand your position, Craig, it goes something like this:

It would be unfair for law enforcement to prejudice a potential jury through the press by releasing information about a crime.

It's not a crime, because Dennis Rehberg and his staffer's family have already told the press that it was an accident, using the press.

Am I missing something?

---

by: dpogreba @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 22:45:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Completely (0.00 / 0)

My comment to JC had nothing to do with law enforcement, and has no relation to your understanding.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 23:02:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So why then? (0.00 / 0)

Make an argument that this case so uniquely demanded a gag order that a judge did it without even being asked. Make a reasonable case for that. Please.

---

by: dpogreba @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 23:13:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pogie, you have me baffled (0.00 / 0)

This is what I wrote to JC about the "case":

"First,  Dustin Frost's family and Dustin himself don't seem to hold either Rehberg or Barcus at fault. They called it an accident as per various news accounts.  For you to prioritize your "concern" over the Frost family wishes is politics at its worst,and it is complete bullshit. That is if you even care about them at all, which I doubt at this point. If you care, RESPECT their wishes."

You wrote: "So why then? Make an argument that this case so uniquely demanded a gag order that a judge did it without even being asked. Make a reasonable case for that. Please."

Did you even read my comment to JC that you attack with this spurious stuff about law enforcement and gag orders ???????????????????????????

---

by: Craig Moore @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 00:38:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps a question you could answer, Craig (0.00 / 0)

Why on Earth should Mr. Frost and his family's opinion have more sway over the American justice system than any single citizen on this board?  (hint:  they shouldn't.)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 00:59:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree. (0.00 / 0)

The conversation has been anything but that to this point over many columns and forums.  Focusing on Barkus is one thing. Continually referencing Rehberg as legally responsible is pure politics and not about the legality.  Using "concern" for his injured staff is the worst form of political opportunism.  

I'm giving myself a time out here at LiTW as I am unable to constructively engage others as mad as I am over this crap and at JC's racist tripe all rolled together in one big hairball.  You guys have fun.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:13:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How is anything I said racist? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think you really understand what a racist is.

A white man calling another white man out for being a racist is not racism.

---

by: JC @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 03:28:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You don't think a congressman's constituents (0.00 / 0)

have the right to demand accountability? Or that you can define accountability?

I hear nothing but a cry for the elite to rule the day, Craig, however they want.

---

by: JC @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 00:31:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just don't crutch your concern (0.00 / 0)

on the suffering of the Frosts when they have expressed contrary wishes. To do otherwise, as you have done, is total bullshit even you should be able to see. Don't use these people for your POLITICAL purposes.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 00:41:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who's using whom here? (4.00 / 1)

I've only referred to Rehberg and Barkus in this diary.

You seem to be the one using the injured parties to your advantage by invoking them in order to ward off demands for accountability.

---

by: JC @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 00:57:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]