[JohnGalt]

I think Justin did a fine a job laying out the story behind the story which no one seems interested in telling. Of course, he tells it with the end already in mine, but most of the country's tabs ran with this story with almost zero documentation to back it up.

The Merrit story was run as a pure propoganda piece. You seem less the fascinated that a two week old story was considered front fold material.

We'll keep tabs on it. If the story has no legs, I will chalk it up as bunk.

[AHerald]

The Merrit story was run as a pure propoganda piece. You seem less the fascinated that a two week old story was considered front fold material.

And you seem more fascinated with the timing of the story than the content. As already described, the Merritt story broke in a small paper and was somehow ignored by the larger media until Instapundit published a link to it. This is no great mystery.

But the two week old publication date is less important than the fact that there are contemporaneous news accounts of the List of Honor story which were published last year, long before Judge Merritt or the Weekly Standard stories. These stories independently support Merritt's claim about the list's publication. That is a hard fact to ignore.