Saturday, July 17, 2004
THE TRIAL OF MICHAEL MOORE: DAY SIX
The Verdict
JUDGE
Please be seated. Court is now in session. Today is the final day of this trial; Republicans vs. Michael Moore. I have listened intently to all testimony and heard all evidence submitted. After studying everything in my chambers over the past several days, I have come to a decision. I will read that decision now.
As it pertains to count one, that Michael Moore’s film is one-sided, I have decided to throw it out. Offering a one-sided argument against war and the foreign policy of the President is not a crime and is not worthy of being argued in open court. The witness, Mr. Sean Hannity, was unable to convince me that Mr. Moore was offering anything more than a reaction to the events that have transpired over the past year and a half in our country. There is no evidence that Michael Moore ever marketed his film as anything other than said reaction. Therefore, this was an easy decision to throw the claim out.
Count two is legitimate. Mr. Limbaugh and the prosecution stated that Michael Moore is a liar and that his film was full of lies about the Bush administration and its reasons for the Iraq War. The testimony and evidence submitted was very interesting, however, the prosecution did nothing to convince me that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a single lie in it. You cannot simply utter this claim without having supporting evidence. You may not like Mr. Moore, his opinions, or his film...but it is immoral to call him a liar without backing it up. On the other hand, over the course of this trial, the defense was able to clearly show me that Michael Moore’s film is factual in nature. Since the prosecution was not able to prove otherwise, I simply must render a not guilty verdict for this charge.
Finally, count three, that Michael Moore is anti-American was argued. This I studied closely. Surely, calling someone anti-American is a bit subjective and open to interpretation. Because someone criticizes the President, does this make him un-American? I feel strongly that it does not, though clearly the answer depends on the eye of the beholder. However, I had to look at this purely from a legal standpoint. Was Michael Moore treasonous by criticizing the President, his policies and his justifications for war? According to our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, a person being charged with treason must either confess to it or have two witnesses to the act come forth. In this case, neither has occurred. The defense has not met the burden of proof that Mr. Moore was levying war against the United States or offering aid and comfort to its enemies. Therefore, once again, I must find Michael Moore not guilty.
In conclusion, the defense has failed to meet its burden and has not convinced me of any of their arguments. Michael Moore is free to go. Court is adjourned.
The Verdict
JUDGE
Please be seated. Court is now in session. Today is the final day of this trial; Republicans vs. Michael Moore. I have listened intently to all testimony and heard all evidence submitted. After studying everything in my chambers over the past several days, I have come to a decision. I will read that decision now.
As it pertains to count one, that Michael Moore’s film is one-sided, I have decided to throw it out. Offering a one-sided argument against war and the foreign policy of the President is not a crime and is not worthy of being argued in open court. The witness, Mr. Sean Hannity, was unable to convince me that Mr. Moore was offering anything more than a reaction to the events that have transpired over the past year and a half in our country. There is no evidence that Michael Moore ever marketed his film as anything other than said reaction. Therefore, this was an easy decision to throw the claim out.
Count two is legitimate. Mr. Limbaugh and the prosecution stated that Michael Moore is a liar and that his film was full of lies about the Bush administration and its reasons for the Iraq War. The testimony and evidence submitted was very interesting, however, the prosecution did nothing to convince me that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a single lie in it. You cannot simply utter this claim without having supporting evidence. You may not like Mr. Moore, his opinions, or his film...but it is immoral to call him a liar without backing it up. On the other hand, over the course of this trial, the defense was able to clearly show me that Michael Moore’s film is factual in nature. Since the prosecution was not able to prove otherwise, I simply must render a not guilty verdict for this charge.
Finally, count three, that Michael Moore is anti-American was argued. This I studied closely. Surely, calling someone anti-American is a bit subjective and open to interpretation. Because someone criticizes the President, does this make him un-American? I feel strongly that it does not, though clearly the answer depends on the eye of the beholder. However, I had to look at this purely from a legal standpoint. Was Michael Moore treasonous by criticizing the President, his policies and his justifications for war? According to our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, a person being charged with treason must either confess to it or have two witnesses to the act come forth. In this case, neither has occurred. The defense has not met the burden of proof that Mr. Moore was levying war against the United States or offering aid and comfort to its enemies. Therefore, once again, I must find Michael Moore not guilty.
In conclusion, the defense has failed to meet its burden and has not convinced me of any of their arguments. Michael Moore is free to go. Court is adjourned.
Comments:
Post a Comment
