Since he is a liberal Democrat it should go without saying a bastion of the liberal media like John Stewart does, too. "Agree" in this case means saying he WANTS to believe Blagojevich is just an innocent victim, since the only alternative is to believe him a "sociopath," but the evidence makes him almost indefensible. That was AFTER Blago insisted it gets better "if you listen to the whole tape," they did, and it did not.

If all you have is defenses of cops for beating Rodney King and pepper spraying sit ins, plus a dose of "hypothetical drivers at traffic stops are presumed guilty until proven innocent," my position is unchanged. Actually, that is not true; reminding me some eagerly and doggedly take the "presumed guilty" view but defend physical assaults on the defenseless if the perpetrator has a badge, I am more convinced than ever the public needs the right to film on duty cops on the street.

Even if I were not (and once again,) the alternative is believing acts committed in public have an expectation of privacy. If that is the case, a LOT of people are in prison because of illegally obtained evidence. Why is it legal for cops to record videos of suspects at traffic stops, both to protect themselves from false allegations AND AS EVIDENCE FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS, but so out of bounds for the public to record public servants performing their duties? Why is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? Is this another of those cases where you do not want the US to be a fascist police state because you prefer it be FIFTY of them instead?