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

To: Jrabbit
If the LE won't say that the NE article was false{it was attributed to a leak from them}then why should it be claimed to be false?

Because they have already STATED that the fundamental premise in the NE article is incorrect.

They stated about a week ago, that they had searched the family's computers and found nothing.

The NE article is a lie, pure and simple, just as all the lies they've printed over the years (I listed about a dozen people that have sued NE and won--with one exception, John Ramsey, which I think is interesting because he has no clout. The judge simply said "I see no evidence that NE KNOWINGLY published false information with malicious intent.")

Hey, the Smarts may even LOSE their lawsuit! Looks like NE knows who they can push around, and who they can't.

REPEATING: THE NE STORY IS WHOLLY WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT. (Except they may have spelled some words right).

495 posted on 06/25/2002 6:04:10 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies ]


To: Illbay
Correction! The police searched the Smarts' computers and found nothing ILLEGAL. You left out the word ILLEGAL. Homosexual pornography depicting adults is not ILLEGAL. Therefore, we can assume that the NE article may possibly be correct in stating that there was homo-porn on Tom and Ed's computers.
508 posted on 06/25/2002 11:00:24 AM PDT by Palladin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | 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