This piece, titled "Obama Speech Undercuts Federal Charge For Judges Murder," contradicts itself:
“Judge Roll was recommended for the federal bench by John McCain 20 years ago, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and rose to become Arizona’s chief federal judge,” Obama told the crowd at the University of Arizona. Roll’s “colleagues described him as the hardest-working judge within the Ninth Circuit. He was on his way back from attending mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say, Hi,’ to his representative.”
In the complaint supporting Loughner’s arrest, federal prosecutors argue that Roll wasn’t simply seeking to pay a social call on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) when he showed up at the community outreach event where the shooting spree took place Saturday. Prosecutors and the FBI insist that Roll “was engaged in official duties” because he wanted to talk to Giffords and her staffers about problems with a surging caseload in federal courts in Arizona, particularly along the Mexican border.
A paragraph from later in the same piece:
As a legal matter, Obama's view (which tracks with the public narrative offered by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik) may be irrelevant, but it probably doesn't help to have the President of the United States emphasizing the social aspect of Roll's stop to see Giffords on Saturday, rather than the reason prosecutors claim drew him there.
But if it's irrelevant as a legal matter, then it's... well, you get the picture. Basically it's an article that's worthless to everyone except Politico, which managed to bait Drudge and Instapundit into linking by offering up the only headline about the Obama speech that casts the president in a negative light. There's also the weird disregard for the truth here. Shouldn't the president give the most truthful, accurate narrative possible, the strategy of prosecutors be damned?
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.