Posted on 02/05/2005 12:06:58 PM PST by torridjoe
Since folks here did the courtesy of reading and commenting on my analysis of Judge Bridges' rulings yesterday, I wanted to call attention to a post I've done today, looking at the changing elements of the story from different versions of the Seattle Times article. Did Judge Bridges really say Rossi needed to prove illegal votes? Did he imply it? (Did he mean it?) Constructive commentary is welcome!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.