Vicki Iseman files $27 million lawsuit against NYT over McCain hit piece

posted at 7:18 pm on December 30, 2008 by Allahpundit

Remember that one? It blew up in the middle of the primaries, alleging that McCain staffers were convinced he’d had a “romantic” relationship with her in 2000 and that he’d admitted to acting “inappropriately,” then burned white hot for two days before it fizzled from the fact that even the left was embarrassed by how shoddy it was. Now, 10 months later, safe from any campaign consequences, it’s payback time.

The good news? Given their revenue trend, they might be judgment-proof by now.

The 36-page complaint charges that the story implies an “unprofessional relationship” between Iseman and McCain.

Both Iseman and McCain denied any improper relationship. However, the public viewed the story as being about an affair, according to the suit, which cites the post-publication remarks of 10 different commentators across the political spectrum. In each case, their comments about the story assumed it was about an alleged affair, the lawyers noted…

The suit claims that Iseman suffered damage to her mental, emotional and physical health. The lawyers noted that she continues to work as a lobbyist in Washington, for a firm based in Arlington. They said they anticipate developing their case on damages as the matter moves forward.

Here’s the complaint, the most interesting part of which starts around paragraph 50 with the argument about “actual malice,” i.e. reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the material. She probably doesn’t even have to prove recklessness — for First Amendment purposes, assuming she’s regarded as a “private figure,” all she’d have to show is negligence — but since the story involves a matter of supreme public importance like the election, courts will be loath to hold the paper liable for bad reporting unless it was really, really bad. Was this really, really bad? Well, (a) other journalists looked into the charges and found nothing there; (b) not only McCain and Iseman but John Weaver, a central figure in the story, adamantly denied the perception of a romantic relationship; (c) the Times itself wavered on whether to publish it and didn’t pull the trigger until TNR pressured them into it with a behind-the-scenes story on the paper’s dithering; and (d) most damning, the paper’s own ombudsman dumped all over the piece. The crux of the NYT’s defense, then and now, is that it never asserted that the two had had an affair, merely that their relationship as Senator and lobbyist was inappropriately “close” and that some McCain staffers were worried that it might have turned romantic. Here’s Clark Hoyt rolling his eyes at that a few days after the story ran:

The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap…

I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

Indeed, although that won’t stop them from standing by the story, of course. Exit question: Think Maverick’s excited at the prospect of reliving this chapter of his life on the stand, if need be?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

good bring it all out, how they endorsed McCain while sitting on what they believed was unethical if not illegal behaviour.

rob verdi on December 30, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Sweet. That was nothing close to journalism.

Spirit of 1776 on December 30, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Take ‘em for every penny they’ve got imo.

beachgirlusa on December 30, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Good luck, the first amendment is so well protected, that even shoddy reporting, immoral reporting is protected.
But I would love to see the NYT take a hit for this.

right2bright on December 30, 2008 at 7:21 PM

I hope this tips the NYT into bankruptcy. Good riddance.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2008 at 7:25 PM

This is probably a tough case, but I am glad Vicky is taking on these bastardos.

Mr. Joe on December 30, 2008 at 7:27 PM

Go for it. I generally don’t care for kicking someone when they’re down, but the NYTimes deserves it.

rbj on December 30, 2008 at 7:27 PM

The prominent defamation case in this Country is a case called Sullivn v. The New York Times. This is the case, I believe, that created the “public figure” standard. It would be interesting to see if this case ends up back at the Supreme Court to determine whether a person who is falsely injected into a story about a public figure has to meet the higher “public figure” test. To put it another way, the women in this case wasn’t a public figure until the New York Times made the slanderous statements in a front page story: why should the New York Times get the benefit of a higher standard based on thier bad behavior. It should be interesting…

RedSoxNation on December 30, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Why did she wait till AFTER the election?

TexasDude on December 30, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Why wasn’t this suit filed like in August or September? Huh?

HotAirJosef on December 30, 2008 at 7:29 PM

I wish Cindy could sue for the hit piece they did on HER!

paustin110 on December 30, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Can’t the NYT claim that their credibility was already so shot, no one could possibly have taken the story seriously?

Iseman could win the case, but be awarded $0.01 in damages.

CK MacLeod on December 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM

I wish Cindy could sue for the hit piece they did on HER!

paustin110 on December 30, 2008 at 7:29 PM

They weren’t even close. Iseman will probably lose, but good for her for striking back.

The Race Card on December 30, 2008 at 7:32 PM

This could be a long, drawn-out case. A commenter over at Ace says she has a good lawyer who probably sees some money to be made, rather than publicity to be had. I hope he takes it to the Times. On the the exit question: No, I don’t think Mac (or Cindy) is going to be happy about this news at all.

meltenn on December 30, 2008 at 7:34 PM

NICE!

upinak on December 30, 2008 at 7:39 PM

I figured it was GOOD for McCain. At least SOMEONE actually liked him.

HornetSting on December 30, 2008 at 7:40 PM

I believe that in order to stop the media madness, once a false story is out there, the targets (99.999999% Republicans) must provide facts, evidence through a press conference and announce right then and there that they will file lawsuits ASAP. This will send a clear message to journalism and MSM to take it back and report facts, and both sides of the story.

Can’t let stuff like this sit for weeks, months b/c then people believe it is the plain truth. Have to counter-attack while it is fresh and falls on the people’s laps, TV’s, cell phones, radios and PC screens.

That is how the ppl in Hollywood stop the papparazzis and papers out there from invading their privacy, or so they claim.

ProudPalinFan on December 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM

Exit question: Think Maverick’s excited at the prospect of reliving this chapter of his life on the stand, if need be?

That depends… Is there an opportunity in here somewhere, no matter how flimsy or unlikely, for McCain to “bipartisanly” toss a Republican ally under the bus?

Lehosh on December 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM

McCain on the stand!!

Boy,that sight would remind me of the

movie,’The Caine Mutiny’,where Capt’n

Queeg was in on the stand,spinning those

two steel balls,and,oh crap,McCain wasn’t

paranoid,never-mind!!!!!A hem.

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM

I hear it’s hard to prove defamation in court. But even if she loses at the very least she is making a public statement you can’t attempt to defame someone and not expect to face some consequences.

terryannonline on December 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Must make your little heads spin when a seedy PI trial attorney — the likes of which you people love to deride at every opportunity — does something you deem politically favorable.

benny shakar on December 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Contrast McCain/Iseman to the Edwards/Hunter.

In one case they fabricated vague innuendo out of thin air to damage McCain (and all these months later, still no story).

In the other they refused to report or investigate to protect Edwards (even though there was plenty of story there).

kooly on December 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Nice!

upinak on Dec 30,2008 at 7:39PM.

upinak:Nice!–haha,Hey(-50,keep warm):)

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 7:49 PM

upinak:Nice!–haha,Hey(-50,keep warm):)

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 7:49 PM

They don’t call me the ice queen for nothing. ;)

upinak on December 30, 2008 at 7:50 PM

I think the Republican candidates in the 2012 election should jointly declare that — since it’s well-known that the New York Times will automatically endorse the Democratic nominee for President and will use unethical means to handicap the Republican nominee — they collectively reject a priori any endorsement by the Times prior to the Republican convention.

aunursa on December 30, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Must make your little heads spin…

benny shakar on Dec 30,2008 at 7:46PM.

benny shakar: Oh come on benny,think of the good times
when the media,

savaged,

Kennith Star,oh that must bring back good
memories,eh,shakar!

Now,don’t that little head of yours explode
on us,eh!!!

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 7:54 PM

McCain on the stand!!

Boy,that sight would remind me of the

movie,’The Caine Mutiny’,

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM

:)

FloatingRock on December 30, 2008 at 7:55 PM

they collectively reject a priori any endorsement by the Times prior to the Republican convention.

Does the New York Times usually endorse during the primaries? I thought this year was an usual case because the media wanted Obama to win and Hillary was still not done yet. That’s why they endorsed.

Anyways, if they do endorse in 2012… it would uber-cool if the Republican candidate they do endorse publicly laughed when asked about the NY Times endorsement. I would absolutely vote for the person.

terryannonline on December 30, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Sweet!

SouthernGent on December 30, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Must make your little heads spin when a seedy PI trial attorney — the likes of which you people love to deride at every opportunity — does something you deem politically favorable.

benny shakar on December 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Yep. We’ve learned well. Your point?

hawkdriver on December 30, 2008 at 7:57 PM

terryannonline on December 30, 2008 at 7:56 PM

I just remembered NY Times endorsed Hillary. But still all the other newspapers and news magazines were endorsing Obama so NY Times had to make a public endorsement.

terryannonline on December 30, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Why only $27Large? Why not $270Large or $2.7Billion?

sabbott on December 30, 2008 at 8:11 PM

UM, SUCK IT. Let the assault on the crooked MSM begin!!!!!!

marklmail on December 30, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Must make your little heads spin when a seedy PI trial attorney — the likes of which you people love to deride at every opportunity — does something you deem politically favorable.

benny shakar on December 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM

How’s this ‘politically favorable’ Mr. Potato Head??

It would seem to me more along the lines of ‘Just Deserts’.

Do you ever really have a point? Other than the one your hat covers up I mean.

BigWyo on December 30, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Well if the NYT ends up getting corn-holed by the court over this then serves them right for being a rabid pack partisan hacks.

Although I don’t like how litigious our society has become I cant help thinking this is exactly what needs to happen to the MSM on a regular basis when they misbehave. Maybe it would get them to pull their heads in and realise that they too are answerable for their actions and not just the people they are reporting on.

Dreadnought223 on December 30, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Don’t we have to root for her lose? I mean, we’re probably all going to be pitching in to bail out the print media in a couple of months.

myrenovations on December 30, 2008 at 8:18 PM

If the NYT subscription to its own existence lapses, I really hope that Will Shortz lands on his feet before the next weekend. That is the sum of all I’m concerned about. The Sunday Crossword is my drug of choice, not too strong and not too weak, but just enough to let my mind go on vacation for a couple two three hours each Sunday.

ericdijon on December 30, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Must make your little heads spin when a seedy PI trial attorney — the likes of which you people love to deride at every opportunity — does something you deem politically favorable.

A trial lawyer taking on a defamation case? I don’t think so.

terryannonline on December 30, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Finally! News we can cheer. Man when I saw this first reported I was a bit taken aback by my own personal joy, about how much I hate the times and the Washington Post.

heh

Dritanian on December 30, 2008 at 8:30 PM

YES!!!
This loathsome garbage of a newspaper deserves to go under in a big way.

jencab on December 30, 2008 at 8:31 PM

How many other lawsuits can be brought over media negligence this election cycle? I hope there’s bunches.

Mojave Mark on December 30, 2008 at 8:34 PM

A trial lawyer taking on a defamation case? I don’t think so.

terryannonline on December 30, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Don’t mind him, Terry. He doesn’t even know what the P and I stand for, he just heard it on TV and thought it sounded good.

Jaibones on December 30, 2008 at 8:36 PM

She waited until after the election, IMHO, to keep it out of the headlines.

and as far as the exit question…I don’t think the maverick cares at all. He’s lost his last (probable) chance of becoming POTUS….everything else pales in comparison and this isn’t about reliving it. It’s about justice. I’d think he’s all for justice where it’s due.
But, then, I’m a believer that he’s one of the Good guys.

bridgetown on December 30, 2008 at 8:46 PM

Hit ‘em HARD!!!

DL13 on December 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Bury them in legal fees!

Iblis on December 30, 2008 at 8:49 PM

Benny’s logic is Nonexistent; as usual.

Dritanian on December 30, 2008 at 8:49 PM

This lawsuit isn’t going anywhere.

“reckless disregard for the truth ”

How can the Slimes be sued for doing it’s job?

In fact, the phrase is a requirement in the service contract for each Slimes “journalist”.

notagool on December 30, 2008 at 8:49 PM

May she help them along toward bankruptcy.

I was in the city this afternoon. Felt nauseous just walking past their building.

JammieWearingFool on December 30, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Finally!!! Somebody has the guts & courage to take on these bullshit back stabbing elitist bastards!!! I will never forgive Bush for allowing these traitors to get with destroying a top secret program designed to track the money coming and going to terrorist networks; a program that involved several nations working directly with America in the fight against Islamic Terrorism. Screw the bastards at the NYT, and every other member of the MSM who chose to celebrate these crimes rather than expose and report.

God Bless you Vicki…..

Keemo on December 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM

SINK THE TIMES!!!!!!!

Oy, what am I gonna use to line the litterbox?

J.J. Sefton on December 30, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Benny’s logic is Nonexistent; as usual.

Dritanian on December 30, 2008 at 8:49 PM

I tend to treat him that way always.

thomasaur on December 30, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Alrighty,I want names,who was the
smart #ss that towed icebergs into
the Liberal political shipping lanes
so to speak,

first off,Blago smacks into one,and now
its taking forever for Blago’s political
ship to sink!!

Then,

The NWT smacks into one,and the NWTimes
political bildge pumps are finally over
heating,but h#ll,its also taking forever
for NWT to sink,as well!

Dammit! Haha.

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 9:00 PM

The Iseman Cometh! I think she sued now because if she waited any longer the NYSlimes wouldn’t have any money left to pay her. Perhaps when she wins she’ll take over the Slimes ownership interest in the Boston Red Sox (that’s how you know the NYSlimes is scum, imagine any NY paper owning their city’s baseball team’s arch rivals? Traitors from top to bottom).

eaglewingz08 on December 30, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Finally..

Keemo on Dec 30,2008 at 8:54PM.

Keemo:That was a mouthful,and well stated!

Where have you been?Shipwrecked!haha

*Happy*,The day before *New Year* to ya:)

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 9:04 PM

I think this just helps blur the line between them and The National Enquirer just a little bit more.

Sweet….

BigWyo on December 30, 2008 at 9:05 PM

How much lower can this liberal rag set the bar.

They just take hit after hit after hit to any credibility or semblance of objectivity in journalism.

They are only a fraction away from having “Bat boy”,or another “Elvis siting” on their front pages.

What a joke the liberals have turned this paper into.

Baxter Greene on December 30, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Shut’em down, the worthless POS is not even worth potty training a puppy with!

christene on December 30, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Just bear in mind, McCain insisted on answering ALL questions regarding Ms. Iseman, back then.
Obama, on the other hand shushes you when he’s playing golf

ToddonCapeCod on December 30, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Maybe the judge will give her the Boston Red Sox or the Times headquarters building. Or maybe he will just give her the New York Times itself.

I sometimes fantasize that, if I were a multibillionare like Bill Gates or Carlos Slim, I would buy the NYT for kicks, fire all of the people there, and sell the name and logo to a porn company.

Jim62sch on December 30, 2008 at 9:24 PM

Oh boy,double dammit,I must have the North West Territories
on my mind,crap,that should read,

NYT,and not NWT,UGH!

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 9:25 PM

They’ll settle and there will be a confidentially clause.

anniekc on December 30, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Please stop posting pictures of John McCain.

angryed on December 30, 2008 at 9:38 PM

Sorry too much wine- “confidentiality”

anniekc on December 30, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Fare thee well, ye Times.

Just kidding. Go away, and go away bankrupt you idiots.

Sir Loin on December 30, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Hope she gets every dime.

Hog Wild on December 30, 2008 at 10:06 PM

Is Joe the Plumber next?

faraway on December 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Hey right2bright, consider this: Tabloids have been sued. In my estimation this was tabloid journalism; therefore, they’re sue-able.

epb on December 30, 2008 at 10:38 PM

May John McCain develop hemoroids during testimony.

exdeadhead on December 30, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Hey right2bright, consider this: Tabloids have been sued. In my estimation this was tabloid journalism; therefore, they’re sue-able.

epb on December 30, 2008 at 10:38 PM

We can no longer insult the tabloids, The National Enquirer was the only one to report the Edwards Affair, otherwise known as the blurb on pg.15 of section J in your local rag titled “Former Political Staffer Harrassed by Tabloid”

Laura in Maryland on December 30, 2008 at 10:55 PM

Iseman is McCain’s Gennifer Flowers — as far as the analogy is meaningful concerning integrity and reputation on the woman’s part.

I look forward to following the coverage on this case through this website-since we all know it won’t be mentioned elsewhere.

gippergal1984 on December 30, 2008 at 11:01 PM

The National Enquirer was the only one to report the Edwards Affair, otherwise known as the blurb on pg.15 of section J in your local rag titled “Former Political Staffer Harrassed by Tabloid”

Laura

The Enquirer’s reporting was substantually improved by losing a suit filed by Carol Burnette.

Since then, they go the extra nine yards to get the story right.

If the NYT survives it’s financial problems, losing several such suits may improve their standards of reporting.

Kristopher on December 30, 2008 at 11:06 PM

If the NYT survives it’s financial problems, losing several such suits may improve their standards of reporting.

Kristopher on December 30, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I hope so, but I fear the bailout of the NYT and a few other “major” papers.

Laura in Maryland on December 30, 2008 at 11:08 PM

I hope so, but I fear the bailout of the NYT and a few other “major” papers.

Laura in Maryland on December 30, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Hadn’t thought of that, and it would probably happen too…. it’s a world gone mad.

Hog Wild on December 30, 2008 at 11:22 PM

Hadn’t thought of that, and it would probably happen too…. it’s a world gone mad.

Hog Wild

Not mad … Socialist. Just like Nazi Germany.

I wonder who will get tagged to be this century’s Speer?

Kristopher on December 30, 2008 at 11:37 PM

These things happen..

DaveC on December 31, 2008 at 12:32 AM

I’m sure it is mere coincidence that the flimsy McCain is cheating on his wife story made it into “the paper of record” while the flimsy Obama is cheating on his wife story barely made it into blogs, let alone major newspapers.

18-1 on December 31, 2008 at 12:32 AM

A trial lawyer taking on a defamation case? I don’t think so.
terryannonline on December 30, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Once again, 15 seconds on the Google could save you a world of embarrassment.

benny shakar on December 31, 2008 at 12:32 AM

How much lower can this liberal rag set the bar.

They just take hit after hit after hit to any credibility or semblance of objectivity in journalism.

They are only a fraction away from having “Bat boy”,or another “Elvis siting” on their front pages.

What a joke the liberals have turned this paper into.

Baxter Greene on December 30, 2008 at 9:07 PM

I could certainly see a “Batboy habitat threatened by global warming.” story in the near future.

18-1 on December 31, 2008 at 12:34 AM

Go, Vicki, Go! Careful not to get any slime on yourself as you wrestle with the scum at the NYT.

Hope you win every penny and then some!

purgatory on December 31, 2008 at 1:26 AM

Once again, 15 seconds on the Google could save you a world of embarrassment.

benny shakar on December 31, 2008 at 12:32 AM

Whoever takes it, I hope they vacuum every last cent out of the Old Gray Liar.

I hope there’s some big powerful Conservative money backing the suit. You know, like Soros and the Democrats.

“All the anti-American propaganda that’s fit to spread.”

hawkdriver on December 31, 2008 at 7:48 AM

For everyone’s information, one of the two attorneys signing the Complaint, Rodney Smolla, is an excellent First Amendment academic and practising attorney. I have three of his books. One of them is entitled “Suing The Press,” which reviews major defamation cases, including the Westmoreland and Sharon cases. He was the lawyer who litigated the case seeking to hold liable the publisher of a hitman booklet.

Phil Byler on December 31, 2008 at 7:57 AM

canopfor on December 30, 2008 at 9:04 PM

Happy New Years to you also canopfor!!!

Took my family on a road trip to California to see our parents and old friends. Great times, horrible drive!

:)

Keemo on December 31, 2008 at 8:39 AM

I haven’t seen the complaint yet but I hope they included allegations to the effect that the Times’ defamation occurred because the paper was so far in the tank for Obama that it had adopted a double standard for reporting, depending upon which campaign was the subject.

The disparity in their reporting, acting as an attack dog against McCain but a lap dog for all stories involving Obama would seem to be quite powerful.

EconomicNeocon on December 31, 2008 at 8:53 AM

This is awesome. I hope she wins and bankrupts the gray hag.

becki51758 on December 31, 2008 at 8:58 AM

McCain will try to compromise and tell her not to go after the NY Times. He’ll consult with Ted Kennedy and Lindsey before he does anything that may not be “non-partisan” or be considered “racist”.

dragonash on December 31, 2008 at 9:26 AM

I, for one, would like to see someone grow some brass ones and give the “grey lady” what it seems she is immune from, honesty, truth, and integrity. Sad to say, this probably won’t happen with McCain.

theRealMcCoy on December 31, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Good, I hope she wins.

Ryan Gandy on December 31, 2008 at 11:09 AM

I hope the NYT takes her down hard. The article didn’t claim they had an affair and this apparent cheap lobbyist (which is generally just a polite term for high-class hooker in D.C.) and her scumbag lawyer are just looking for a payoff.

The top secret program that Bush had turned out to have violated FOCA, by the way. I’m glad all of you GOP types who want to take down the NYT are fine with the POTUS doing illegal acts. You’ll have no business criticizing Obama for potentially illegal acts since you’ve supported Bush’s acts that were proven to be in violation of law.

jim m on December 31, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Jim M

You are obviously the product of our public school system.

1st of all, FOCA is Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the law Obama wants to put in place that removes a doctor or hospitals choice of whether they want to provide services to people who’s choice is to kill their infant.

2nd of all: read some history, and review the executive powers that Lincoln, FDR, and Ike had during war time to gather signals intelligence. What you want to remember is that spies use cell phones now, instead of short wave radios.

3rd, I think Nancy Pelosi’s son and Barbara Boxer’s son in law, and Harry Reid’s son’s are all cheap lobbyists. That’s a lot of high-class hookers showing up for Thanksgiving dinner with your lib-tard congressmen.

ttime500 on December 31, 2008 at 12:03 PM

You’re right. I meant FISA, not FOCA.

If it was so clear that the executive powers language trumped FISA, then why was it necessary to amend FISA in 2007? (The White House pushed pretty hard for the amendment–and not just because of the retroactive nature of the telecom exemption).

Good of you to say that Pelosi’s, Boxer’s and Reid’s kids aren’t high class hookers. I think others here would respectfully disagree with you on that point.

jim m on December 31, 2008 at 12:26 PM

ericdijon on December 30, 2008 at 8:24 PM

You can still get your fix from Games Magazine. As a bonus, I don’t recall them ever getting political about anything.

Snowed In on December 31, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Poor Pinch, he’s not having a very good year. Wonder how all those ‘happy’ holiday family gatherings have been working out for him. Bet their all impressed with the high value of their stock holdings. Hahahahahahahaha!!

GarandFan on December 31, 2008 at 1:08 PM

I say since the liberals and the aclu so love suing every american they can find..

I want her to sue the crap out of the liberal news media..
If its true then make them pay throuh the nose..

jcila on December 31, 2008 at 3:15 PM

I don’t know why I bother trying to teach the willfully ignorant…

Iseman’s attorney’s firm’s slogan:
Attorneys for injured persons since 1910

First line of her attorney’s bio:
Recognized as an experienced and successful trial attorney, Coleman is dedicated to achieving superior results for all of his clients in the areas of personal injury, medical malpractice and products liability.

Now back to your regularly scheduled

benny shakar on December 31, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2