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

To: CharlesWayneCT
The story is probably true, that is why the DNC is reacting this way.

The DNC’s motivation here is to discover the source of the leak. Since it was a private conversation, it has to be someone in the office of one of the two present at the time of the conversation, or, the conversation was illegally recorded.

The problem is Quinn says he source does not want to be outed. Quinn has to out the person, who will probably deny it, or he will be called a liar and sued. If it was a recording, someone is going to jail.

The DNC wins either way. This is going to be a problem for Quinn and the radio station.

513 posted on 05/11/2007 11:53:09 AM PDT by Bob J (nks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies ]


To: Bob J

I find it hard to believe is it accurate, given that not only did Dean and Selebius deny it, but also Sam Brownback.

So the only person we have involved in either conversation that says the conversation took place is some anonymous but “trusted” source. If Brownback had said a conversation did take place, I might still believe it even though the other two parties denied it. But I can’t imagine Brownback denying a conversation took place at all, if there was a conversation.


518 posted on 05/11/2007 11:56:24 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies ]

To: Bob J

In fact, I thought for a moment that, with the push for the fairness doctrine, this could well have been a planted story just to stir up more calls in the media for “control over what is said on the airwaves” because false stuff gets around so quickly.


519 posted on 05/11/2007 11:57:15 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies ]

To: Bob J

Here’s the basic issue, over and above the ‘public figure’ limitation on slander suits, the individual involved has to prove they’ve been damaged in some way. Given the history of Dean and the DNC, how could they possibly prove their reputation for veracity has been impinged? And, given the history and tendencies of the DNC, how could being claimed to be the purveyor of untruths possibly harm Dean’s occupational prospects with them?

No damage, no lawsuit. This is a SLAPP action, pure and simple.


530 posted on 05/11/2007 12:03:35 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies ]

To: Bob J

I disagree. If the DNC outs the leaker, then it will prove the story to be true. A Special Counsel will be appointed, Dean will resign, and the Governor of Kansas will issue an apology and cling to her office with bleeding fingers. I think this one is going somewhere, this time. Because the other side of that coin is the GOP filing cease and desist orders by the thousands each day to counter the DNC Propaganda machine


546 posted on 05/11/2007 12:25:33 PM PDT by 1957chevy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies ]

To: Bob J

“Unnamed sources” are often used by the Left.


549 posted on 05/11/2007 12:27:14 PM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | 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