Adam_Fulford wrote:
Los Angeles Times article about the vindictive persecution of whistleblower hero of American democracy Stephen Heller:[/DIV][A href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/socal/la-me-diebold22feb22,0,33600.story?coll=la-news-politics-local"]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/socal/la-me-diebold22feb22,0,33600.story?coll=la-news-politics-local[/A]__________________________________________________________________
Well this is a start. Unfortunately it also illustrates why we have to be careful of unbiased sources.
You are characterising this article as if it reveals "the vindictive persecution of whistleblower hero of American democracy Stephen Heller", as if it supports your conjecture entirely. In fact, it does no such thing.
What it does relate is a story about the prosecution of a person who is accused of stealing documents. Now if Heller did so, even in the course of being a whistleblower, then he broke the law. There is no evidence that the prosecution is malicious, and there is even a hint that convictions are rare.
Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, refused to call Heller a "whistle-blower."
"We call him a defendant," she said. "He's accused of breaking the law.... If we feel that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt in our minds that a crime has been committed, it's our job as a criminal prosecutor to file a case."
This is certainly a looooooong way from the picture of vicious, malicious bullying you paint in your posts. That in itself reveals the problem. When you choose to pepper a story with propagandic color, like "whistleblower hero of American democracy", it's painfully clear that the story your giving is highly unlikely to be an unbiased account.
You have an agenda Adam, and that's fine. You simply have to remember that not everyone shares your agenda. Not everyone shares your "mission". People like me need to see the whole story, and we realise that we're not going to get it from people who fervently believe one side with almost religious zeal. We understand that the articles you use are going to be either, written by people who are also biased, unreliable as to their authenticity, or if they are genuine, misinterpreted by you in order to support that which you simply must believe. That last case is very well illustrated by your interpretation of the LA Times article.