Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
I don't see the word illegal in Adak's post ( far be it from me to defend him though)
I think if you look a bit BigV, you will find plenty of people from both sides of the aisle who are not at all happy with the way this looks.
|
He says illegal right in the title.
As for the optics, they're TERRIBLE. How it looks? It looks like shit. I think Adak is mixing up two stories (wouldn't be the first time). *From what I have read*, the hearing he spoke of had to do with Holder's appearance regarding the wiretaps at the Associated Press. But the Fox reporter "wiretap" was different.
Both were crap in my opinion, but my complaints about each one is very different. The AP one is wrong because it was an overreach, too far, too fast. The Fox one is a problem because it reflects a legal use of a SERIOUSLY out of date law, the same one that was used to gather Petraeus' years of correspondence.
Not the same case, not the same facts not the same subpoenas, not the same. All I found to support Adak's claim was a clip of Karl Rove saying it first.
...
Riiiiiight.
I'm not gonna defend Adak either, I just want to hear his side of it, beyond parroting Karl Rove.