[kcvl]

The don't think that the President of the United States testifying before the 9/11 Commission set a precedent? That didn't seem to bother them. They were screaming for it because the PEOPLE had a "right to know". What's the difference?

[Elkiejg]

For way too long, so called journalists have gotten away with "first amendment rights" and "protect my sources". It doesn't wash anymore - especially since they've shown their true hate-America colors. 97% of the journalists today are not honorable, they lie, they have agendas, etc., etc. - hence, they are no longer protected. They have and continue to work against America and like any other citizen should be hauled into court.

[Happy2BMe]

"The don't think that the President of the United States testifying before the 9/11 Commission set a precedent?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

You're right, if the President of the United States is ordered to divulge national secrets to al Qaeda on prime time television, the liberal media should be held accountable for their sources as well.

[Just mythoughts]

""This is an area fraught with danger for journalists and their ability to protect confidential information and sources, as well as non-confidential material," he said."


Interesting isn't it, these who claim original protection under the Constitution, don't give a rats behind about the whole document. They promote the document as a living document and willingly ignore the "freedom of religion" and "right to bear arms".

Hey "Deep Throat" come out of hiding we the PEOPLE have a right to know!!!!!