It’s hard out here for a bomb-thrower

Dag, man, it’s getting to the point where you can’t even marshal a bunch of circumstantial and made-up evidence to speculate that a political operative may have been involved in covering up a possible criminal action without some litigious liberal threatening to sue you, or worse (italics and zaniness from the original):

Frank’s blog post was an opinion piece, but Fletcher seems to threaten her with a libel suit, as if he does not understand that opinion is protected by the First Amendment. Frank’s writing may be a little over the top – there is, after all, no hard and direct evidence Fletcher or his firm were involved in the anonymous release of the Foley emails – but it’s still opinion, which isn’t actionable under libel, slander or defamation law […]

Perhaps Fletcher ought to first examine his own heart in the matter Whether or not he or his firm were involved in the release of the Foley emails, Fletcher’s email to Frank makes it clear that if he had come into possession of the emails, his first instinct would have been to use them as a political hammer … [n]ot, “I would have quietly turned the emails over to law enforcement authorities for a proper investigation in order to protect the pages.”

Via Instapundit.

Gavin adds: Perhaps Insty ought to first examine his own heart in the matter. Whether or not he licks earwax popsicles and rides to work on a dildo unicycle, he makes it clear that if he had come into possession of the emails, his first instinct would have been to plan multiple child murders while masturbating furiously into a pumpkin.

I mean, that’s just my opinion, but I believe the evidence, if any, speaks for itself.

 

Comments: 26

 
 
 

It was just my opinion that there was a fire in the crowded theatre. I wasn’t saying that there *was* a fire, just that in my opinion, it seemed likely given the situation, that there was a fire in the theatre.

 
 

The original post is an absolute model of wingnutty speculation.

WAS FOLEY’S DEMOCRAT POLITICAL OPPONENT THE SOURCE OF THE PAGE STORY? Probably.

No evidence at all, just “probably.”

And one of the consultants for that Democratic campaign just so happens to be an infamous “slime merchant”!

Did Bill Fletcher endanger children while waiting for just the right moment to break the story? It looks likely.

Not a single argument or piece of evidence. It just “looks likely” because, apparently, this Bill Fletcher guy is the only slimy political operative in the country. It must have been him!

And to wrap it up, this Fletcher guy says that if he had the emails, he would have used them to make a TV ad. From which they conclude that even if he’s not guilty of “endangering children for political purposes,” he’s admitting that he gladly would have “endangered children for political purposes” had the oppotunity presented itself, which is just as bad! The facts, apparently, take a back seat.

What I don’t get is how the “this was all a hoax” wingnuts exist alongside the “the children were horribly endangered by the Democrats” wingnuts.

 
 

The original post is an absolute model of wingnutty speculation.

WAS FOLEY’S DEMOCRAT POLITICAL OPPONENT THE SOURCE OF THE PAGE STORY? Probably.

No evidence at all, just “probably.”

And one of the consultants for that Democratic campaign just so happens to be an infamous “slime merchant”!

Did Bill Fletcher endanger children while waiting for just the right moment to break the story? It looks likely.

Not a single argument or piece of evidence. It just “looks likely” because, apparently, this Bill Fletcher guy is the only slimy political operative in the country. It must have been him!

And to wrap it up, this Fletcher guy says that if he had the emails, he would have used them to make a TV ad. From which they conclude that even if he’s not guilty of “endangering children for political purposes,” he’s admitting that he gladly would have “endangered children for political purposes” had the oppotunity presented itself, which is just as bad! The facts, apparently, take a back seat.

What I don’t get is how the “this was all a hoax” wingnuts exist alongside the “the children were horribly endangered by the Democrats” wingnuts.

 
 

Sorry for the double post, but in my defense, I screwed up the link the first time. Oddly, when I originally posted it I got an error message that made me think it hadn’t gone through. I blame Bill Fletcher.

 
 

Well…does he have a law suit?

 
 

All the speculation about Glenn Reynolds and sheep was only an opinion.

 
 

It is my opinion that there is overwhelming evidence that Glenn Reynolds is the largest purveyor and collector of kiddie porn in the Northern Hemisphere. It is incontrovertible that his blog is mostly a cover for his kiddie porn ring, and that the reason most of his posts are “heh-indeed”‘s of other peoples work is that he is too busy asimilating and distributing kiddie porn to do any real work on his blog.

Glenn Reynolds- Proven Child Pornographer *

* In my opinion.

 
 

Does Bill Fletcher eat the pickled livers of field mice he’s molested? I don’t know. But since dirt is his game, it is a distinct possibility and highly likely.

Update: For the record, I have no specific knowledge that Fletcher ate pickled livers from any specific molested field mice. However, my questions needed to be asked as well as answered because the facts that are known, are indeed troubling.

 
 

The right on the first ammendment:

Criticizing the Vice President: Bad, so N/A
Wanting to have a search warrant before the government can listen in on your communications: Makes you a terrorist., so again N/A
Pointing out that the War in Iraq made no sense and has very likely done the exact opposite of what was intended: Traitor, so again the constitution doesn’t apply.

Making baseless allegations with zero evidence in a desperate attempt to deflect the coming political storm: Oh, that’s opinion, so the first ammendment protects us.

 
 

opinion is protected by the First Amendment

I love it when people toss around “the First Amendment,” especially when it is clearly only for their own purposes, and when they have no clue what they are talking about. too funny.

 
 

Hey, check it out. That Terry Frank woman allows comments on her blog. I just dropped this on there:

I’m sorry. I don’t understand your point. Are you saying Foley didn’t pursue sexual dialog with teenage boys? Are you defending that behavior? Are you saying Democrats somehow MADE Foley attempt to molest young boys? Let me see if I understand this:
1. Foley engages in dangerous, troubling on-line sexual dialog with young male pages.

2. Nobody in the Congressional Leadership does anything about it due to Foley’s fundraising prowess.

3. It’s all the DEMOCRATS fault!!!

So much for the “Culture of Personal Responsibility” I heard so much about.

“We’re all just victims over here on the Right!!”

Sheesh – Grow up and take the hit. Some things you just can’t spin…

mikey

 
 

I’m still confused- is Frank STILL trying to stop Fletch from covering the beach drug story despite the fact that the crooked police chief seem to be behind the drug ring? Or is Frank upset with Fletch that the Alan Stanwyk plot line ties in a little *too* neatly with the Chief Karlin story line?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089155/

 
 

It’s my opinion that Glenn Reynolds is the worst fucking law professor on the planet, bar none. Also, I am of the opinon that someone ought to set fire to him in a crowded theater; that way, instead of possibly incurring legal problems for himself due to shouting “fire” in said theater, one could instead (safely) shout “flaming fucking asshole!”

In my opinion.

 
 

Mikey, you forgot “4: Profit!”

Make them create a logic chain. Presumably, if the Dems sat on this info, they found out or were informed of the actions of Foley. How were they informed? And how could they have been informed or discover this information before Republican leadership did? Doesn’t that suggest that the Republicans are soft on their own policing of their compatriots? Why is it that the evvvvil immoral left was able to discover this behavior before the Repubs? If we take this as written, doesn’t this make the Democrat’s heros for exposing the scandal at all, something the Republicans were clearing incapable of doing? Why aren’t you thanking the Democratic leadership for [S]doing your job[/S] helping you expose a dangerious bad-man, the kind you all so loudly denounce and hate?

 
 

Mikey, you’ve got a stronger stomach than I do, and you wrote that gasbag an excellent rebuttal.

You’re right about the Repubs’ “Culture of Personal Responsibility” bloviating… they have the same sense of ‘responsibility’ as your average spoiled 14-year-old. As in “I’m old enough to decide how I spend my birthday money, and you can’t stop me from paying the corner drunk to buy beer and M80s for me. But when the police show up, talking about a bunch of 14-year-olds blowing up mailboxes and tossing empty beer bottles on the playground, *whine*, you can’t blame me, I’m only just a kiiiid! Protect me from the nasty jackboots!!!” Seems the meaning behind ‘Compassionate Conservative’ is when you catch the conservative doing something illegal or unethical, they are overwhelmed with the inner-directed ‘compassion’ that the rest of us call self-pity.

 
 

oh Bubba, this is SN! you didn’t need to put in the IMDB link. 🙂

nice comment though.

 
 

Glenn or “Afraid of Pugs, SWF* seeks love slave to patronize, insult, browbeat, in name of non-partisanship.”

*more accurately SWHAGLTKOTMFRJ.

hoary albino guitar legend that likes to kick out twenty minute freedom rock jams.+

+non-partisan variety

 
 

Frank deleted a link to this post I left on her blog, can you believe it, a free speech advocate of the first order like her!?

 
 

“If I can somehow prove that Democrats are as vile as we are positive that Republicans are, I will feel great about being a Republican.”

 
 

If Foley had been a Democrat, how long do you think the Republican House leadership would have sat on this information?

Zero seconds.

So it’s a cover up, nuff said.

 
 

God, I haven’t laughed this hard in a week.

 
 

Well…does he have a law suit?

Let’s ask Patterico!

 
 

>>Whether or not he licks earwax popsicles and rides to work on a dildo unicycle, he makes it clear that if he had come into possession of the emails, his first instinct would have been to plan multiple child murders while masturbating furiously into a pumpkin.

Disturbing, if true.

 
 

This jackass teaches law, and he thinks that ‘opinion is protected by the 1st amendment’. Whatever the fuck that means. Apparently, he thinks that any libel case can be nullified by prefixing the offending section with “in my opinion”, eg “In my opinion, Diet Pepsi causes autism” or “In my opinion, Professor Glenn Renyolds molests children.”

(If he sues me for that second one, I am *so* countersuing for bad legal advice).

 
 

Damn, Gavin’s addition made me laugh loud enough to scare the kittens. That’s some good snark — nya’ho.

Yours — Ally

 
spaghetti happens
 

“…if he had come into possession of the emails, his first instinct would have been to plan multiple child murders while masturbating furiously into a pumpkin.”

I hope Peggy Noonan and David Broder don’t read that, at least while standing up. It’ll just convince them even further that there is no fucking decorum in left-wing blogs. (Sniffs.)

 
 

(comments are closed)