John blueoval at 1SMARTISP.NET
Fri Jan 14 06:12:33 MST 2005

Stephen, you are correct, sir. What makes this a tough case to
prosecute is *PROVING* who knew what and when. However, Bernie
Goldberg (on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes") delivered a
damning blow several nights ago, by saying there are several
e-mails and memos that made the rounds. Getting them would be even

John Q.

On Thu Jan 13 15:29:33 PST 2005, "Stephen A. Frye"
<s.frye at VERIZON.NET> wrote:

> OK - up front, I am NOT an expert on this.  However, if the laws
> on TV reporting are the same as newspaper, I don't believe that
> they can be
> prosecuted for printing something that is not true unless they
> KNOW it is
> not true.  That may be difficult to prove.
> At 03:24 AM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
>> You wrote:
>> >> Not too many know this, but the broadcast of known forged or
>> phony
>> >> information with any eye toward affecting the outcome of a
>> federal
>> >> election race is a *FELONY*! As such, it carries with it the
>> >> penalty of a *MINIMUM* 20 years in a federal penatentury (like
>> >> where Web Hubbell and Jim Traficant went). If you ask me, the
>> >> people at See-BS were shown incredible mercy.
>> >>
>> >> John Q.
>> That's exactly what I was thinking, John. So now, whose
>> responsibility is
>> it to prosecute the C-BS folks for their felonous act? Or
>> perhaps a better
>> question, will it *ever* happen?
>> Rob

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list