Or at least pretend to. Of course, when you check the original source you may find that it says something very different from what Ann claims it does, such as in this case.
Are you really that out of it you think you've proved something?
Coulter's sentence about the Seattle Times is true.
She then went on to sum up the previous 17 pages of argumentation.
Your ability to differentiate fact from fantasy is displayed in your thinking that she is talking about a reviewer that nobody has ever heard of for the last two paragraphs of that chapter.
Indeed, your claim that the Coplon case was "entirely circumstantial" shows your utter confusion. She had the frigging Soviet cables in her purse.
She was convicted. The conviction was overturned on a technicality. The FBI had searched her purse without "probable cause."
Go back to Soros and tell him to give you better quotes. And more dope!