persist in

Braden 2022-03-25 09:01:15

Begin to write about a reporter who touches a minefield in order to win the Pulitzer Prize. It seems very selfish. I see half of it completely on her side. For her persistence, for the protection of the secret provider, she endured the pain of the detention center and endured her husband. betrayed and endured the loneliness of not seeing his son. Shocked when the whistleblower was finally revealed. The specific content will not be spoiled.
In the middle of the interview, the reporter answered quite wonderfully. Another paragraph was a statement from the lawyer to the Supreme Court justice, "As the years pass, the power of gm becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power," he said, "whatever their politics want only to perpetuate it and the people are the victims.".
In the end, I just want to say that the US emperor is too dark

View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews

Extended Reading
  • Susie 2022-03-26 09:01:10

    she's a traitor indeed.... those talks about professional ethics are ALL BS

  • Marguerite 2022-03-27 09:01:14

    Seeing all kinds of distressed Kate. However, the final paragraph shakes the previously constructed thinking a bit. All in all, this is the strongest performance I've seen so far.

Nothing But the Truth quotes

  • Ray Armstrong: [staring at his wife's new story] You made the top page!

  • Alan Burnside: [In front of the Supreme Court] In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes this Court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the Government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a 5-4 decision, close. In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, power of Government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Mrs. Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the Government; she could've abandoned her promise of confidentiality; she could've simply gone home to her family. But to do so, would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again. And then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a President has covered up crimes or if an army officer has condoned torture? We as a nation will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of Government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shudder at the thought. Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries; that's for countries who fear their citizens - not countries that cherish and protect them. Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.