Skip to comments.
Madam Story Keeps Mum on Clientele '20/20'Declines to Identify Those Not Already Known
Washington Post ^
| May 5, 2007
| Howard Kurtz
Posted on 05/04/2007 9:25:12 PM PDT by Cinnamon
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
me thinks there are some big fish democrat names in that list. ABC would not go to these lengths for any others from the political realm.
one name springs to mind. funny how MSM is protective of this info yet when Abu Graib happened they were championing the disclosure of every person involved, names, ranks, the people had a right to know!! in this instance they decide it won't matter whether the remaining names are disclosed...
1
posted on
05/04/2007 9:25:14 PM PDT
by
Cinnamon
To: Cinnamon
World Bank and IMF, huh?
ROFL! I should have known.
To: Cinnamon
3
posted on
05/04/2007 9:28:15 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
(I can't talk about liberals anymore because some of the words will get me sent to rehab.)
To: SirJohnBarleycorn
ABC choked big time. Couldn’t take the heat.
4
posted on
05/04/2007 9:28:55 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
(I can't talk about liberals anymore because some of the words will get me sent to rehab.)
To: Cinnamon
"
me thinks there are some big fish democrat names in that list."
Yep.
5
posted on
05/04/2007 9:29:19 PM PDT
by
VaBthang4
("He Who Watches Over Israel Will Neither Slumber Nor Sleep")
To: Cinnamon
You just know that the MSM is not going to out the Dims on that list.
To: Cinnamon
me thinks there are some big fish democrat names in that list Hillary?
7
posted on
05/04/2007 9:31:43 PM PDT
by
Nihil Obstat
(Kyrie Eleison)
To: Cinnamon
From the end of the article:
There may be another shoe yet to drop. ABC did not push to obtain Palfrey's earlier phone records, which cover a nine-year period. But Ross said she has given them to three journalists investigating the Clinton administration.
Interesting.
"Their names won't mean anything to our audience," Ross said in an interview." That may be true, but it means a LOT in D.C. I think ABC was afraid of Arkancide. But I will ask what someone else asked:
WHAT GOOD IS A FREE PRESS IF IT'S A FAKE PRESS???
9
posted on
05/04/2007 9:32:05 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
(I can't talk about liberals anymore because some of the words will get me sent to rehab.)
To: Enterprise
There may be another shoe yet to drop. ABC did not push to obtain Palfrey's earlier phone records, which cover a nine-year period. But Ross said she has given them to three journalists investigating the Clinton administration.Let me guess: The three journalists are Paul Begala, James Carville and George Stephanopoulos!
To: Cinnamon
I’m just glad my name didn’t show. What a relief!
I’m still feeling jilted at the Anna Nicole DNA test. I thought I was a shoe-in (no pun intended) with that case!
To: VaBthang4
Yep here too!
You know if it had been Republicans on the list, they would have wet themselves getting that information out to the public, regardless of how important or not those people might be. :-)
Looks like ABC got punked by the madam, LOL!
12
posted on
05/04/2007 9:33:16 PM PDT
by
pillut48
(CJ in TX --Bible Thumper and Proud! RUN, FRED, RUN!!!)
To: SirJohnBarleycorn
Nothing would surprise. I wonder what Bill O’Reilly is thinking now. Ross was on his show, and I could swear that he was telling O’Reilly that there would be some startling revelations. I hope O’Reilly lets him have it on Monday.
13
posted on
05/04/2007 9:34:04 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
(I can't talk about liberals anymore because some of the words will get me sent to rehab.)
To: pillut48
And trust me on this: Bill O’Reilly got punked by Brian Ross!
14
posted on
05/04/2007 9:35:05 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
(I can't talk about liberals anymore because some of the words will get me sent to rehab.)
To: VaBthang4
Love him or hate him, but BOR had Ross on yesterday and kept him honest. BOR concluded the interview with something to the effect of...” Ross, I hope ABC plays this one fair and balanced” Ross had a sheepish worried look on his face.
Maybe ABC blinked
15
posted on
05/04/2007 9:35:13 PM PDT
by
DAC22
To: Enterprise
Perhaps - though, I think, they behaved responsibly, if probably for the wrong reason (to cover up for Democrats).
Publishing that would have been tabloid-trash journalism at its absolute worst. There’s no news story here.
Frankly, in a world where we celebrate homosexuality on the streets, I’m just glad to know that there are still some straight Democrats out there.
16
posted on
05/04/2007 9:35:27 PM PDT
by
furquhart
(Gingrich for President)
To: pillut48
17
posted on
05/04/2007 9:35:36 PM PDT
by
Tarpon
To: DAC22
No maybe about it. They are covering demmie behinds.
18
posted on
05/04/2007 9:36:04 PM PDT
by
pillut48
(CJ in TX --Bible Thumper and Proud! RUN, FRED, RUN!!!)
To: Cinnamon
They are sorting out the Republicans, and need more time.
19
posted on
05/04/2007 9:36:33 PM PDT
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
(Elections have consequences.)
To: conservative in nyc
20
posted on
05/04/2007 9:38:05 PM PDT
by
sageb1
(This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson