You said ...
You then quote closing arguments from the King lawyer!!! His analysis of the "facts" hardly qualifies as veracious, representing his and the King family's view of "evidence," which, as I said, is non-existent.
"You said", hardly qualifies as an authoritative analysis. Especially when what "you said" is based on one NYT article.
I'm still reading the transcripts. AKA looking at all the evidence instead of just taking the word of a NYT "journalist" who in all probably was compromised or controlled by the CIA.
You ever hear of
Operation Mockingbird?
The New York Times has a long history of acting subserviently to the powers that be, rather than holding them to account.
Only last week we
reported on the fact that the Times demonstratively scrubbed a passage in an article which revealed that the CIA was helping funnel arms to rebel groups that have aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria.
Just last month, it was
revealed that the Times, as a matter of course, allows the Obama administration control over quotes from public officials that it can and cannot publish.
It was
The New York Times that was at the forefront of the dissemination of what turned out to be completely false intelligence pertaining to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Reporting that contributed to almost a decade of war and the deaths of thousands, if not millions of innocent Iraqi people.
It was the New York Times that first learned of the NSA’s illegal wiretapping program aimed at innocent Americans in 2004. The paper
sat on the story for a year after it was instructed to do so by the White House, in order not to affect the outcome of the election.
The Times routinely
allows the CIA to vet the details it plans to publish from Wikileaks’ obtained material.
The Times obediently followed orders to
conceal the identity of CIA spy Raymond Davis, when he was arrested by Pakistan. When Obama lied to the nation and described Davis as a US diplomat, the NYT printed his words as the truth, without question.
Glenn Greenwald again:
And that’s all independent of the
chronic practice of the NYT to permit government officials to
hide behind anonymity in order to
disseminate government propaganda – or even to
smear journalists as al-Qaida sympathizers for reporting critically on government actions – even when granting such anonymity
violates its own publicly announced policies.
What all of this behavior from the NYT has in common is clear: it demonstrates the extent to which it institutionally collaborates with and serves the interests of the nation’s most powerful factions, rather than act as an adversarial check on them. When he talks to the CIA spokesperson, Mazzetti sounds as if he’s talking to a close colleague working together on a joint project.
It sounds that way because that’s what it is.
CONTINUE . . .
So bottom line here is you are basing your "analysis" on newspaper "evidence" that in all probably was a NYT article that was either written directly by the CIA or a Times "journalist" working with the CIA to put out a false narrative to cover up government complicity in MLK's assassination.
