Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sam Hill
Why are you dredging up in this no-longer even slightly relevant material from last February?""

Since fully one-seventh of Tatel's opinion was redacted, presumably because it discussed secret evidence -- evidence that neither you, bucko, nor I have seen -- you're in no position to say that it's not "revelant" - since YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, or to whom it might point.

It really irritating having to respond to taunts from somebody, like you, who shoots "knows it all" when he doesn't know jack.

28 posted on 10/22/2005 7:47:47 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: churchillbuff

LOL.

You're just doing what most of the DNC/MSM and their mouthpieces on the internet are doing: trying to make it look like some huge crime was committed that is going to be swept under the rug when Fitzgerald doesn't indict anyone.

Fitzgerald has commented about what this was about. It was that he needed Miller's testimony to wrap this whole thing up. Since he was charged to investigate the leak of Plame's name and the only law that would apply to that is the IIPA of 1982, we are safe in assuming that that is what this was all about.

You can jump up and down and go Larry Crazy O'Donnel, but there's all there is to it.

So sorry it didn't work out for you. Better luck next "crime."


33 posted on 10/22/2005 7:51:38 PM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson