To: mathluv
Let's keep in mind that Hannity was practically begging to be subpoenaed, while dropping the most thinly veiled hints possible that it wasn't a Republican that leaked that memo to him. My guess is this guy has been suspended for a completely different incident.
24 posted on
11/25/2003 4:10:39 PM PST by
Timesink
(I'm not a big fan of electronic stuff, you know? Beeps ... beeps freak me out. They're bad.)
To: Timesink
Wouldn't Hatch's employee's leak only be of the Judiciary Committee memos, though?
I don't think this person's got anything to do with the Intelligence Committee leak to Hannity.
28 posted on
11/25/2003 4:14:02 PM PST by
EllaMinnow
(I miss Chancellor Palpatine. Heck, I even miss Illbay.)
To: Timesink
This is a different committee, but I agree. I really think Sean was trying to say it was NOT a staffer, too.
I still want to see the emphasis on content, not on how they leaked. Of course, this may help get the attention of what is in the memos. That kind of attention can not be had if the memos are not in the news. The lamestream media will talk about a pubbie leaker.
30 posted on
11/25/2003 4:14:49 PM PST by
mathluv
To: Timesink
wrong memos. this is the judiciary committee -- the memos were fat teddy describing how the democrats were opening up veto power to any dimwitted leftist cell that had a checkbook. it is not the intelligence committee memo that was leaked to sean.
43 posted on
11/25/2003 4:23:59 PM PST by
dep
(Ense Petit Placidam Sub Libertate Qvietem)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson