Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« FEC Settles On GC | Main | The Morning Wrap »

May 09, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e200d83506553753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference D.C. Bar Counsel v. Paul Howes: Day 3:

Comments

brus

You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it.u

asdf

Thank you very much.l

Fair and Balanced

Not only has LT failed to cover this story in an unbiased manner (for several years, not just on this blog), you don't get the purpose of the proceeding. You've said nothing about the exhibits offered by Mr. Howes; nothing about his witnesses (his former supervisors, two highly-respected former Federal Judges, detectives who worked on the Newton Street and Card investigations); and acted as if all of these allegations have already been proven by clear and convincing evidence (which is highly disputed). You've ignored the facts and testimony that the Justice Dept. never had a policy on vouchers; never trained on vouchers; still doesn't have a policy and still doesn't train on vouchers. The way Legal Times has covered this, you would think the Justice Dept has some huge training program with Mr. Howes's picture with a giant X over it screaming "Don't be Paul Howes!" Well, they don't. This proceeding is a perfect example why there should be such a thing as a Statute of Limitations. Count me as a former subscriber.

Ridiculous!

Why are you bothering to cover this story at all? Your work on this story to date leaves me with the impression that all LT Reporters are "lowly". You don't even attempt to report both sides to the controversy. In the 90 minutes of testimony from Howes, the only quote you got down was "I did not do a good job."?? "Stayed Tuned" says it all. This is not a cliff hanger or a soap opera. These are serious charges brought against an attorney with an excellent reputation. He hasn't practiced here in years, but when he did, he did well. He was well-respected in his office and in the District. Either do a little research or add a sound track. This is shoddy reporting and rather more than obviously biased. Is Ms. Herman a relative, Attila? Or are you just hoping to garner favor with her office? Maybe then you could just ask for her notes and you wouldn't have to attend all these dull hearings. What is the point if you aren't going to report both sides of the story?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements