Andrew Cohen of the Washington Post asks his blog readers to consider what they would do if they were Judge Titus. In the course of this very misleading work of fiction, Mr. Cohen blatantly misinforms his readers that Judge Titus issued his 3.6 order several months ago. Cohen writes:
"Several months ago, you gently told the lawyers in the case to keep their mouths shut..."Did he really just make that up? Does "gently" suddenly mean "never" in DC? Several months ago Titus was not even presiding over the case. At the very least, if you're going to manipulate us, Mr. Cohen, try to be a bit more creative about it. Had you inserted Judge Stephens, who was presiding over the case prior to July 1, into your invention perhaps you might have found someone willing to grab their ankles for you. In fact the order was issued only a few weeks ago when Judge Titus began presiding over the administrative settings.
Apparently, Mr. Cohen is either so poorly informed regarding this case that he did not know his lie was so transparent or he is blatantly attempting to manipulate his readers without regard to truth or transparency. He goes on to further perpetuate his fraud by claiming that the order issued at the last hearing was Titus’s second, more formal, statement on the matter.
"So on Monday, at a hearing in the case, you a little more formally and a little more forcefully reiterate your interest in having the attorneys shut up outside of court."We have to ask why would Cohen invent such fiction? Why is it so important to Mr. Cohen that he manipulate the public at the expense of his own pretense of credibility?
He makes an argument for reprimanding the defense attorneys, based on these inventions, and bolsters his argument with more deception by not admitting that the objects of his deception were speaking to undo the damage done by Mr. Nifong’s prior 70+ interviews and the countless number of extrajudicial statements contained within those campaign-minded interviews. By neglecting to disclose that the attorneys were merely exercising the rights afforded them and their clients by rule 3.6 to counteract the damage done by Mr. Nifong, Mr. Cohen perpetrates a fraud on everyone who reads his words. We find it outrageous that Mr. Cohen takes such an overt path to deception. He just comes right out and issues a blatantly false statement and then proceeds to build an entire argument on his own fiction.
Equally outrageous is the more devious deception created by not addressing Mr. Nifong’s extra judicial statements. We are absolutely amazed that any discussion of rule 3.6 and the Duke case would pretend to ignore Mr. Nifong’s role in this part of the drama. Mr. Cohen’s discussion remains woefully incomplete and deceptive by means of this omission.
One might expect that the Post would be more concerned with seeking confirmation of the exact number of 3.6 AND 3.8 complaints filed with the North Carolina State Bar in regard to Mr. Nifong, the exact number of those complaints against Mr. Nifong that are currently being investigated and the faulty rationale behind Mr. Nifong’s defense of some of those complaints by attempting to make a distinction between pre and post indictment. While Mr. Cohen asks, "What will Titus do?" We prefer to ask, "What is the State Bar doing?"
Click here to tell Mr. Cohen his pants are on fire.