After reading these comments, I'm asking myself . . .
Who are some of you people after, Sharpton or Obama?
As for the New York Times, there are a number of good reasons to take everything they report . . . and divide by four. In other words, their credibility has lost some luster over the past few years so I'm hard pressed to take their reporting as 100% factual and agenda free.
This habit of connecting dots from one person . . to another person . . to another person who might, maybe or could be, or knows somebody who is, part of Obama's team of advisors, even if they are legitimate, doesn't mean that the President incorporates their advice into his policy decisions. It only means that he listens to all sides, even the ones with obvious agendas. I trust that the President, who is always the smartest guy in the room, is astute enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
As for Al Sharp ton ~ he's much like Jesse Jackson . . . a self promoter who sticks his nose into a lot of things that are none of his business. He has an audience. Every rebel-rouser has an audience. Sarah Plain has an audience. Bill O'Reilly has an audience. Glen Beck has an audience. Their job is to keep the adrenaline pumping.
Sharpton's legal problems, if they exist, are between him and the government. Some of you think that Obama (and MSNBC) should kick Sharpton to the curb based on allegations. There are channels to go through which will eventually being it all to light.
Let's let the system work like it's supposed to and put your execution squad (shoot first, aim later) on hold until after all the facts are known.