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

To: wjersey

The St Pete Times had the emails in August 2005 , too, and did nothing presumably for the same reason no oneon the Hill did--the emails are a bit creepy but not illegal and the biy's[arents wanted nothing done about it.

OTOH the IM's are over the line. Those were released by CREW, the "public interest" group fronting Wilson/Plame's laughable civil suit against Cheney et al. When did they get them? Did they share them with anyone? Why did they wait until now to make them public?


Don't let yourself be played yet again by these masters of deceit.


17 posted on 09/30/2006 3:19:46 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: the Real fifi

OTOH the IM's are over the line. Those were released by CREW, the "public interest" group fronting Wilson/Plame's laughable civil suit against Cheney et al. When did they get them? Did they share them with anyone? Why did they wait until now to make them public?


Don't let yourself be played yet again by these masters of deceit."







BINGO!


59 posted on 09/30/2006 3:45:06 PM PDT by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: the Real fifi
Exactamundo!

The front group reminds me of the hapless, witless old couple that supposedly intercepted Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, etc. on that celebrated scanner in the front seat of the family station wagon. The old couple held a press conference that was carried on CSPAN - and in none of their remarks did they convey any sense of knowing anything about scanning, the technology or the jargon used by scanning enthusiasts. Methinks the Democrats had private investigators shadowing Gingrich for many moons and got the recording then handed it off to these convenient "cut-outs" for release.

Likewise in this situation - if the behavior was egregious (and I think it was) then those who knew and held onto the information for a strategic release date have to bear some responsibility for putting children/minors in danger for that holding period. If it's good for Hastert, it's good for the folks that held this and for the newspapers.

This is example # 9,456,219 that we do not need a federal journalist shield law - which would, if enacted, simply make the profession the universally preferred "cut out" for this kind of political career assassination. Not that he didn't deserve it - just that it's time for some journalist who is not asleep at the switch to examine the backstory on this...
160 posted on 09/30/2006 4:51:35 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | 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