Getting different points of view

[Isaac]

This story about how Sarcone wasn't appointed by a panel of judges is a prime example of why I don't 100% trust any news organization - including Fox/conservative ones - and I try to read thoroughly from both 'sides' each day.

This article is a softball report that makes it sound like the Sarcone decision was made in a vacuum and without explanation or reason:

Federal judges refuse to permanently appoint interim US attorney in NY

A panel of federal judges declined to permanently appoint John Sarcone, who recently claimed he was attacked by an illegal immigrant in Albany, New York.

www.foxnews.com

This article delves much more honestly and deeply into the 'why' (or likely why) and shows you that the Sarcone guy is a bit of an insane crackpot

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/14/nyregion/sarcone-us-attorney-ndny.html

I may not like a lot of NY Times content, but I'm glad I read its story in this case! I'd say the judges made the right decision, Sarcone is an idiot who can't be trusted.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The Times article is behind a paywall and I wouldn't pay a dime to read that rag. So, perhaps you'd like to summarize the Time's version and tell us why you think their version is True and the testimony of Sarcone is a lie. The written article is mostly about the appointment but the video is about the attack.

There seems to be two stories in play and I can't tell which you are referring to.
1. Why Sarcone's appointment wasn't made permanent (unclear from the article)
2. The verbal assault and threat from the crazy with the knife.

PS, I stopped watching FoxNews during the first Trump administration once I realized how anti-Trump their news reporters all were.

 

[moke123]

PS, I stopped watching FoxNews during the first Trump administration once I realized how anti-Trump their news reporters all were.

That explains a lot. You only watch Pro-trump news.