Quote:
Originally Posted by Super U. Bob
Eh, seems like he's playing Devil's Advocate more so than anything else. He certainly admits that Freeh may be right rather than the Kool-Aid drinkers who immediately denounce him and stand by JoePa.
Dissenting opinion pieces on something so one-sided will always draw attention and most importantly, web page hits. Nice way to get your name out there. That's how Armond White makes his living reviewing movies and how Skip Bayless retains his job at ESPN as a sportswriter.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph, but not the 1st. He's pretty adamantly attacking the integrity of the entire Freeh report.
I read the entire column and even went to the length of cross-checking his references to the Freeh report.
Even though I'll admit some bias, the entire editorial is absolute garbage. Some arguments he completely fabricates, others he ignores things on the VERY SAME cited Freeh report page and finally he has 0 understanding of what hearsay is and how it was handled in the trial.
It's just a disgustingly gross misrepresentation of the facts to get hits on the page, but it's 1 article the cultists can somehow cling to and smugly say "SEE WE'RE UNDER ATTACK HERE."
It's a joke. It's so horrible that I want to write a counter-piece, but I'm pretty sure that'd be a waste of my time.