WE NOW GO TO FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST, LIONEL HUTZ

I was over at the Horse, and they were talking about the O'Reilly Factor's attempts to get the lawyers for convicted child-killer David Westerfield in trouble for, you know, doing their jobs. One sentence got me thinking, though:

The Westerfield attorneys were well within ethical boundaries to suggest scenarios consistent with the facts of the case regardless of what they knew, and that is what they did. It was the jury's job to decide how plausible those scenarios were based on the facts, and that is what they did (Westerfield was convicted).

A "Fox Senior Judicial Analyst" agreed with Bill, however (perhaps the same lawyer urged O'Crybaby to file the Franken suit). (emphasis mine)

Possible? Maybe, it passes the laugh test well enough. But it does bring up a more important point for us cable news nuts: After lawyers for Fox both approve of and actualy file a lawsuit like this against Al Franken, how can anyone ever trust a "Fox News Legal/Judicial Analyst" again? And the next time someone at Fox refers to John Edwards in a derogative manner as a "trial lawyer", will they get away with it given the stupid lawsuits the network's lawyers are oh so happy to clog our federal court system with? Well, of course, Fox has no shame, so nothing will really change.

PS since I mentioned him, have a pic


"I move for a bad court thingy"