[sitetest]

Dear Norman Bates,

“Of course he’s taking everything very seriously sitetest.”

One doesn’t hire one of the very top criminal defense lawyers in the nation if it’s all smoke and no fire.

“He’s talking with the NY Times, so what?”

Then why lie about it? Here’s a piece from the Breitbart on-line article that I cited previously:

---

“McCain acknowledged that his presidential campaign aides have had discussions with the newspaper regarding its inquiries.

“’I have not been in talks with The New York Times. They’ve been communicating with our staff and with us,’ McCain said.”

---

Here’s a bit from politico.com:

“But, McCain said, ‘I have not been in talks with The New York Times.’

“However, Politico has confirmed that McCain himself had one conversation with Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in which the senator urged him not to go with the story.”

---

If there’s smoke but no fire, why lie?

Perhaps Mr. McCain has shown us that he’s just insane, and not guilty, by way of a wild overreaction. Or, perhaps he’s guilty of something serious enough to warrant the services of Mr. Bennett.

Only time will tell.

sitetest

[Norman Bates]

Perhaps this is just smut peddling, sitetest. Until a story is officially released and proven this is nothing but a story about a non-story. Having the aid of an attorney and making comments that you are in discussion with a group is admittance of nothing. I have a lot of respect for you as a freeper. I pray you don't wear it thin.

[AliVeritas]

More importantly, why Bennett in particular.

[Agent Smith]

McLame, even being in the bag for the NY Slimes didn’t save you. Hire another lawyer and PUT SOME ICE ON THAT!