To: Anti-Bubba182
My theory: the WaPo's source is MD4Bush's lawyer. A lawyer could give authority on behalf of his or her client. And a lawyer wouldn't have to reveal his client's identity to the newspaper for the newspaper to think they have authority.
Of course, this is just an educated guess. I have no proof.
To: All
128 posted on
11/05/2005 6:07:38 PM PST by
AliVeritas
(Weldon Ops, Earle Fatwa Team, Pork Jihadi, MOOSEMUSS, Stick Brigade, Go Steele)
To: conservative in nyc
But as a major newspaper of record how do you know the lawyer is an authetic source without knowing the client? You can't run articles based on the say-so of a random lawyer (or even a known lawyer) who might've posted something online in a dirty tricks campaign. How did the Post discover and verify the true identify of NCPAC?
From my perspective, they have to know the identity of MD4Bush to verifty the chain of custody of this "information" and the veracity of MD4Bush's claims. It would seem they should have to know who NCPAC is so it's not a crank. You can't simply take MD4Bush's say-so interpretation on the freepmail exchange.
This isn't just any newspaper: it's the Washington Post. They took down a GOP president. They also sued FR.
161 posted on
11/05/2005 6:40:53 PM PST by
newzjunkey
(CA: YES on Prop 73-77! Unions goons are spending $118 million to stop the reform agenda!)
To: conservative in nyc
Yes, but if WaPo doesn't know who MD4BUSH is, how do they know their intermediary was MD4BUSH's lawyer? Attorney for an unknown person?
232 posted on
11/05/2005 11:58:26 PM PST by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson