What We’re Reading November 26, 2014

We hope you’re having a great day wherever you are and that the news we dig up for you this morning helps you navigate the day more efficiently!

It’s a busy world out there, and you don’t have a ton of free time to be doing Internet searches for the most important items of the day… lucky for you, we do. We drink gallons of coffee in an effort to stay awake long enough to scour the far reaches of the world wide web in an effort to bring you the most important, useful and useless information every single day.

You’re welcome.

So without further ado, here’s what we’re reading Wednesday November 26, 2014.

Trending: Muslim Religious Leader says Saying Merry Christmas is Worse than Murder

The Ferguson Grand Jury got it right – even if many of the grievances are legitimate; “justice” doesn’t exist to soothe your anger.

The stepfather of Michael Brown was heard yelling “Burn this bitch down!” in front of an angry crowd in Ferguson, MO.

Many in the crowd were similarly upset – as this CNN contributor showed.

George Stephanopoulos got the First Interview with Officer Darren Wilson.

More ABC US news | ABC World News

Speaking of Officer Wilson – the New York Times decided to publish the officer’s address for all the world to see.

President Obama may talk a “big game” about comprehensive immigration reform, but the truth is that he doesn’t actually want immigration reform.

Former CNN analyst and Mediaite founder Dan Abrams wrote a scathing analysis of the media’s coverage of the Ferguson grand jury process.

Here, the grand jury was given access to far more wide-ranging evidence. When that evidence and the supporting documents and photographs were released late Monday night, we learned that the grand jurors saw everything from the testimony of Officer Darren Wilson himself, to autopsy reports, photographs, blood and gunshot residue evidence and often conflicting eyewitness accounts. While the rules of evidence didn’t apply the way they would in a trial, there was no defense attorney present and no cross examination of witnesses, the process was far more akin to a typical trial than what ordinarily occurs in the grand jury process.

Just as important, the prosecutor didn’t ask for a specific charge as almost all prosecutors do in front of a grand jury. Some legal analysts have suggested there is something inherently insidious, untoward or even corrupt about presenting the grand jury with so much evidence and not asking for a specific charge. Yes, it’s different, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

And while McCulloch came off sounding “like an advocate for Officer Wilson rather than for the process,” Abrams concludes, “Legal analysts trying to explain the process to the world should know better than to make inflammatory statements about how the system typically works without the appropriate context.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend