The Charlotte News

Monday, July 4, 1949

THREE EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the 173rd Fourth of July was marked by speeches, traveling, picnics, swimming, as well as accidents. Thus far, 397 accidental deaths had been recorded, with traffic accounting for 191 and drowning, 130. Texas had the highest number with 35 deaths, 24 of which were from traffic accidents. Michigan suffered 30 deaths, only three of which were from traffic, 20 from drowning, the high in that category. New York had 26 deaths, nine from traffic and ten from drowning. Pennsylvania had 19, ten from traffic. California had 18, 13 from traffic. Illinois, also with 18, had ten from traffic. Indiana had 17, eleven from traffic. North Carolina had recorded eight, including five deaths in one traffic accident. The death toll the previous year for the weekend was 500.

A rodeo was held in Reno, Nev., with volunteer bartenders, including millionaires, serving up the drinks.

In New York, the fleet weighed anchor and sailors came ashore.

In Japan, General MacArthur took swipes at Communism as an instrument of "force and intimidation" permitting minority groups by stealth to seize political power.

Yeah, that has been happening for a few years on the extreme right in the United States, thanks to a particular "news" network, which continues to ail us, together with their crazy, brainwashed minions and obeisant flock along the broad internet highway. We force ourselves every once in awhile to listen or watch, just to see how nuts they have become. If it were not so sad and disturbing, it would be roundly entertaining, sometimes acting as its own unintended parody of what a news network ought be.

We shall say it again: a little less time spent on hair and makeup and a little more on substance and true balance in reporting the news, less stress on wholly uninformed and uninforming talky-talk, especially in an election year, would serve the public interest much better, that is, assuming, optimistically, that there is any shred of aspiration to that lofty goal remaining.

The West Berlin Government protested to the Western powers regarding diversion by the Russians to the Russian sector of the mail arriving by rail from the Western sectors and then exercising censorship of it.

In Prague, the Communist Government of Czechoslovakia had expelled an American journalist on 48 hours notice "for personal reasons".

Senator Walter George of Georgia proposed a drastic slash in four appropriations bills, including the Marshall Plan and military funds, to avoid deficit spending for the fiscal year, amounting to 1.8 billion dollars in the previous fiscal year just ended. He also favored a bill proposed by Senator John McClellan of Arkansas directing the President to cut between five and ten percent from appropriations made by Congress, a bill backed by 62 Senators. But Senator George feared that the bill would never make it through both houses and be signed by the President, who had mocked the bill for passing the buck to him on reduction of expenditures. He noted that 27 billion dollars of the budget was tied up in foreign aid, defense, and appropriations for the Department of Interior and independent agencies.

Union leaders urged their members to rally in support of defeating 50 Senators who had voted to scrap the Administration's labor bill which had been designed to repeal Taft-Hartley. First on the list was Senator Taft, up for re-election in 1950.

The American Legion promoted a plan for self-help to alleviate unemployment, such that communities would determine a list of goods and services needed locally, in an effort to create jobs.

In New York, a mob of 200 angry East Siders beat and kicked an alleged hit-and-run driver the previous night after a car chase in which a woman was killed by a stray police bullet. The driver which led the chase was pulled from his car by the mob, shouting, "Lynch him!" whereupon he was beaten for several minutes until police arrived and dragged him to safety. He was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident and third degree assault for hitting the child, as well as other charges. The car had fled after striking an eleven-year old boy and breaking his leg at a Lower East Side corner. The woman was fatally shot by police during the ensuing chase. Eventually, the motorist crashed into a packing crate on a waterfront street.

Whether, incidentally, a felony-murder charge against the fleeing motorist might lie for the accidental death of the woman at the hands of the police would depend, first, on New York law at the time and whether under it such vicarious liability for the death of another at the hands of the police occuring during the course of a felony could be charged, second, whether the death was caused by the felonious activity of the defendant or was completely collateral to it, and third, whether there was intervening and superseding negligence by the police in firing a gun in a public area at a fleeing felony suspect.

Near Smithfield, N.C., at least five persons were killed and several injured in a collision on Highway 701 between Smithfield and Newton Grove at Strickland's Crossroads, as a bus collided with a milk truck. Both drivers were killed. A farmer rushed to the bus and broke windows, enabling most of the passengers to escape a fire which erupted after the crash.

North and South Carolina resorts were packed for the weekend. Myrtle Beach saw clear skies and low to high 80's on the thermometer. The police clerk of the town said that the crowds were the largest he could recall. There was little violence, no bad accidents, and the ocean was pacific.

That's about the time an atom bomb will drop.

In the mountains, at Blowing Rock, N.C., there were clouds and occasional showers. It was also packed, with little space for any more cars, except little bitty ones in between the big ones.

The humidity was high everywhere.

The Fourth of July remained hot across the country, with a low of 72 at Minot, N.D., and a high of 110 at Pierre, S.D., a degree above Yuma, Ariz., and thunderstorms in Michigan and Minnesota. It was 102.4 in Chicago, the highest for the date in the city's history, 2.4 degrees below the all-time high reached in 1934.

The world is coming to an end. Beware.

A judge in Chicago found the jail so hot that he ordered the release of prisoners arrested for disorderly conduct relieved of their normal bail of $10.

A letter to the editor appears on the front page, addressing an article of the previous Thursday, titled "Few Resist River's Lure", anent the Catawba River. He finds the article to be the work either of an inexperienced writer or someone not very familiar with the river. The river was cooler than the surrounding territory, presented a comfortable place to relax. It was very deep but the deaths which occurred on it were preventable by simply following fundamental safety rules. Duke Power occasionally sprayed it for mosquitoes, leaving a green scum on the river for a few days until the current took it away. There were no squatters in evidence and the houses along the river were, by and large, well-built affairs, not shacks as the one pictured with the article.

Well, if it's so wonderful, why are you so busy writing to defend it and not in it on a hot summer's day?

He does not impart of the nude swimmers out there on occasion, whether a benefit, detriment or merely a distraction depending on the eye of the beholder, we suppose.

On the editorial page, "Dismal Financial Picture" finds that Treasury Secretary John W. Snyder and the President had not resorted to the trick of the 80th Congress to try to show a technical surplus rather than a deficit in the budget. They could have used the three billion dollars set aside by the previous GOP Congress from the 1947-48 surplus, anticipating a Dewey Administration, and carried it over to show a 1.18 billion dollar surplus instead of a 1.81 billion dollar deficit. It showed a return to realism.

The result was not unexpected as the President had predicted a deficit, had sought to avoid it through higher taxes on the corporations. Senator Harry F. Byrd and other fiscal conservatives had also predicted it but sought avoidance through cutting expenditures. The Congress, in the end, lacked the fortitude to make the necessary cuts or to raise revenues.

At the end of the fiscal year, the country was in a financial mess and there was little hope of extricating itself in the foreseeable future.

"Cutting Off Their Noses" describes the reaction of labor leaders to the new Taft amendments to Taft-Hartley as representative of the all-or-nothing attitude which typified their response to labor legislation. They had recommended abandonment of the Administration bill entirely once the injunction and plant seizure provision passed the Senate, so that they could use the issue in the 1950 elections.

But, as the Associated Press summary of the labor bill on the page showed, labor had gained considerable ground in the new Senate bill. Labor leaders were thus willing to sacrifice the good of millions of union members for political reasons. It suggests that their "insolence and arrogance", acting as "spoiled children", would gain them nothing.

"Inflexible Dividing Line", by way of showing the flexible lines between rural and urban areas, examples the transfer of transportation costs for schoolchildren living in county areas annexed to Charlotte as of January 1, from the State to the City, despite the children still being transported by State school buses, as they lived in rural areas. But the State Board of Education had determined that there was no legal authority for the arrangement and so was withdrawing from it.

The reason for the arrangement had been the lack of alternative school transportation for these rural-dwelling children. Fully 200 of the 650 such children could not reach Duke Power city buses and some of the 450 who could would have to walk six to eight blocks to do so.

The piece urges that the State ought continue the arrangement at least until the Duke Power buses could extend their routes to encompass all of the city schoolchildren.

Stop bellyaching. The exercise will do them good. We used to walk about 33.3 miles to school and back each and every day, getting up at 2:00 a.m., and getting home pert near 9:00 p.m., just in time to eat supper and go off to bed for four hours sleep, after a little ice cream, and start again, studying, of course, the while as we walked to and fro, occasionally eating an apple or a pear. Discipline, young men and women whippersnappers, is what you need.

A piece from the Christian Science Monitor, titled "The South Will Do It", believes that sound-thinking Southerners would combat the Klan and their imitators as denunciations had come from citizens, the pulpit, labor unions and a large contingent of the press regarding the floggings recently reported from Alabama.

It explains the delay in prosecution of Klan members as a function of the past Reconstruction era during which there had been carpetbagger rule, resulting in free rein given to vigilante action. In the recent cases, however, the victims had been white for the most part, accused of neglect of children or lapsing from the common moral code. Such rationale no more justified lenience toward such cowards as in any other section of the country which allowed some people to escape criminal justice.

The Northern agitation for Federal laws against lynching, to establish fair employment standards, and abolish the poll tax, may have triggered some of the violence in reaction, but condoning such vigilante behavior would only hasten Federal remedial action. Many Southerners were speaking out in just that manner, urging that the Klan be put down.

For its part, the Klan denied involvement in the floggings. Nevertheless, the Alabama Legislature was proposing a bill to ban wearing of masks in public.

Thus, the piece was encouraged that Southerners, themselves, would eradicate Klan violence.

Drew Pearson tells of it having been a decade since he had revealed the scandals in the gang of men who had been around the deceased Huey Long, leading to the imprisonment of Louisiana Governor Richard Leche and others. But the Long family had staged a comeback, with his brother Earl becoming Governor and son Russell elected Senator. Mr. Pearson had returned to Louisiana recently to see how the machine had made that comeback and found the atmosphere changed, calmer and less spectacular, more serious. Mayor de Lesseps of New Orleans was still rowing with the Long machine, but with less melodrama than in the days of Huey Long. Earl Long was running a nearly mundane administration.

Seymour Weiss, who had gone to jail for tax evasion, was staging a comeback, running the Roosevelt Hotel and being a solid citizen. Former Governor Leche was raising flowers on his farm. Dr. J. Monroe Smith, former president of L.S.U., who had been sentenced to jail for 30 years, was now dead, but before his death had been made a rehabilitation officer at the Angola prison and then was released on parole. Failing to get a job, he begged to be returned to prison. George Caldwell, who went to jail for stealing building materials from the Works Progress Administration, was now back as a leading contractor in Baton Rouge. Abe Shushan was also back in business. Only Monty Hart had failed, committing suicide.

Mr. Pearson asserts the belief that Huey Long, whom he had known well, had always been honest. He had soaked the big oil companies, taxed the utilities, and got campaign contributions from all kinds of people. The money went back into free schoolbooks, better roads and a network of bridges, all of which left its lasting mark on the state.

Earl, by contrast, was a quiet, easy-going farmer. He had also followed a policy of soaking the rich, inducing the Legislature to pass a heavy tax on the oil companies. He had put through free school lunches for all children and increased black teacher pay for those with college degrees from $70 to $200 per month.

Earl said that the oil companies hated Huey but had taken their displeasure with his tax program out on nephew Russell, whom he believed would be a good Senator. He also said that Huey wanted money for power, not for himself, but that he did not need money or power and would retire when his term as Governor was completed, preferring his pig farm to the State Capitol.

He imparted that a pig did not eat when it was unhappy, cooped up in cramped, filthy surroundings. Mr. Pearson told him that he would quote him to his wife who was still miffed at him for building an ornate hog barn with running water and upstairs duplex sleeping quarters. They agreed that women appeared not to appreciate the importance of comfort and cleanliness in the life of a hog.

The Associated Press provides a comparison of Taft-Hartley to the Taft-amended version which had just been passed by the Senate and handed to the House. The major change was in injunctions, allowing for plant seizure as well as injunction for 60 days when a strike threatened the national welfare. The President could appoint an emergency board to recommend settlement.

As before, the closed shop was banned. The union shop was permitted but the union no longer had to vote for it. Stricter state laws governing closed and union shops continued to override the Federal law.

The NLRB would be increased from five to seven members, not more than four of whom could be of one political party. The office of independent general counsel, able to select which cases came before the Board, would be abolished.

Unions and management would continue to be prohibited from interfering with collective bargaining. The ban on "featherbedding", the practice of unions requiring more employees to be hired for a position than necessary to perform the work, would be eliminated.

Secondary boycotts would continue to be banned except that a union would be allowed to refuse to handle goods of a subcontractor whose employees were on strike.

Injunctions against a union or employer would continue to be permitted during an unfair practice case, except that the NLRB, rather than the general counsel, would seek it.

Non-Communist oaths required of union officers would continue, failing which the union could not avail itself of the services of the NLRB. The same requirement would now be extended to employers and members of union policy-forming bodies.

Financial reports would continue to be required of unions before NLRB services could be obtained.

Non-threatening statements by an employer regarding a union would continue to be permitted, and the NLRB could set aside an election for pre-election statements by management.

The mediation service would continue as an independent agency.

Foremen would continue to lack collective bargaining rights, but the Taft-Hartley requirement for a separate union for plant guards would be eliminated.

The Taft-Hartley provision prohibiting workers on strike from voting in plant elections would be abolished.

Unions and companies would continue being subject to suit for breach of contract and liable for damages resulting from secondary boycotts and jurisdictional strikes.

Unions would no longer be prohibited from making political expenditures but still could not contribute to candidates.

Government employees would continue to be prohibited from striking.

Welfare funds would still be regulated, with some changes.

Public policy would advise having arbitration clauses in contracts, but agreement to such a clause would not be required by law. In a jurisdictional dispute, the NLRB would resolve it or appoint an arbitrator to do so.

DeWitt MacKenzie discusses the extent to which the democracies ought go in establishing trade with Russia. The Hungarian finance minister had stated in the Saturday Evening Post that Russia and its satellites had a military timetable which called for readiness for war by 1951. He said that the effectiveness of the Atlantic Pact and Marshall Plan would determine whether a war would start by then, together with such contingencies as Stalin's death and the continued American monopoly over the atomic bomb.

Meanwhile, Mao Tse-Tung had told his Communist Chinese followers that there was no middle road between capitalism and Communism, but that, for the nonce, they had to cooperate with capitalism to maximize their production.

America had fed oil and scrap iron to the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor, enabling the building of its military, and so the questions arose as to whether the democracies ought trade with Red China and with the Eastern European Communist bloc.

The West had determined not to provide war materiel to Communist-bloc nations, but there was considerable argument as to what that comprised. Britain was less restrictive in the type of goods it was willing to trade in order to stimulate its struggling economy. Trade among the Western European nations needed to be stimulated to enable economic rehabilitation and thereby deter the spread of Communism. That trade would include Eastern Europe, especially Yugoslavia, in disfavor with Moscow for its independence.

But there existed a contingent in the West who believed trade with the Soviet bloc ought be restricted to avoid aiding those nations.

Russia was fairly self-sufficient in many of the non-military materials possessed by the democracies and so was asking for the materials which would be classified as war-making. Recently, the Polish Ambassador to the U.S. was denied a large order of ball bearings for use in coal mining machinery and it was likely that the other Western allies would constrict accordingly their trade arrangements with the Eastern bloc.

A letter writer, age 12, who had been a student in public schools for six years, comments on the need for better teachers through higher teacher pay. His ambition for the previous two years had been to be a writer. But, despite teaching being an honorable profession, he had never heard anyone in school say that their ambition was to be a teacher, primarily because of low pay.

In colonial days, he suggests, teachers ruled by the use of corporal punishment but in modern schools, the trend was toward psychology. That required deep thinking and he asks rhetorically, therefore, whether he had made his point.

Yes, even if, most probably, you are signing your name to a letter predominantly written by a relative who is a teacher. But, perhaps, you are that exceptional 12-year old for whom every sentence was, more or less, save a sentence-ending preposition, in proper form.

That's okay, though. We agree.

The true test may come about four or five turns around the sun down the road when tv aplenty will be in your home and those of your compeers by your high school years. The lack thereof at this juncture may account for your generally proper rendition of the English language in print, despite the omnipresence of radio.

In the meantime, be sure to keep the short-wave set well-oiled and revved.

A letter writer responds to the June 21 editorial, "Separation of Church and State", finding that use of public funds for Catholic schools was only a matter of justice as Catholics contributed their tax dollars for public schools. The parents who sent their children to parochial schools suffered from the double burden of higher costs and payment of the taxes to support public schools. She believes that children sent to Catholic schools should be afforded public school transportation—allowed by the Supreme Court as a necessity, not therefore infringing the Establishment Clause, but which, in the substitute Federal aid to education bill proposed by Congressman Graham Barden of North Carolina, had been forbidden, along with funding for health services, from both public and private schools while funding generally for private schools was prohibited.

She appears to misunderstand how the Establishment Clause works, as well as how the Barden bill would function as proposed.

A letter writer responds to the July 1 editorial, "Bond Money for Machines", anent the political machine being established by Governor Kerr Scott through the Highway Commission and his rural road program, approved by the voters June 4. The title was meant as double entendre for the appropriation of five million dollars of the money for purchase of equipment with which to build the roads.

The writer wonders whether any voter had been naive enough to believe that the roads could be built without machines. He thinks the editorial was unfair to the Governor and to the members of the Highway Commission.

On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey set forth the Bureau's findings of its investigation into the use by former Secretary of State Clinton of a private computer server to transmit e-mails in her official capacity during the period 2009-13, recommending to the Justice Department that, in the final analysis, there is no ground for criminal prosecution in relation to those transmissions.

Not surprisingly, the spin artists have gone quickly to work on the matter, saying that the statement did not completely exonerate the former Secretary of State (and, we might add therefore, to whatever degree she might have been less than fully exonerated, so, too, would be former Secretaries of State Powell and Rice not fully exonerated for having done precisely and exactly the same thing, unless, of course, one wants to parse the matter beyond recognition regarding numbers of classified documents and to what level of classification in which they might fall, a quite subjective determination in any event). All of this spin, of course, is purely for political effect, being spun by the usual suspects of the Republican Party and its adjunct, the Fox and friends, the GOP Spin Zone, seeking to undermine Secretary Clinton's candidacy for the presidency.

Take this guy, for instance, who claims that "gross negligence" under 18 USC 793(f) is defined as "extreme carelessness", the latter being that which Director Comey indicated that the FBI findings suggested Secretary Clinton and her subordinates had shown at times in handling classified information—(and, again, by logical extension, so, too, Secretaries Powell and Rice).

But, it ain't so that "gross negligence" is so defined, as this political clown, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York many years ago, now contends. And you know it ain't so, unless you're either getting senile or haven't read any Federal criminal jury instructions in a long while, since the 1980's.

The only definition of "gross negligence" within the Federal Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, as found here, at least as proposed for the Federal District Courts of South Carolina, which should not differ appreciably, if at all, for present purposes, from other Federal Districts, relates to involuntary manslaughter and, in that context, defines it as follows:

The "unlawful act" has two separate parts. First, it is an act in its nature dangerous to life. Second, it is an act constituting gross negligence, to be determined on the consideration of all the facts of the particular case.

"Gross negligence" is defined as exacting proof of a wanton or reckless disregard for human life. The government must show that the defendant had actual knowledge that his conduct was a threat to the lives of others, or that he had knowledge of such circumstances as could reasonably be said to have made foreseeable to him the peril to which his acts might subject others.

Nothing, you will note, is said about "extreme carelessness", and words, themselves, do become of crucial importance when regarding statutory language and instructions to a jury regarding their meaning, especially terms which are only capable of being defined concretely, insofar as they can be, by comparative reference to other terms, as in this case, somewhere between ordinary "negligence" and "willfully", the thing not speaking for itself. No doubt, that is why Director Comey chose his words carefully and refrained wisely from utilizing any statutory language subjectively to characterize the conduct.

The spinning clowns are now trying to twist his words completely out of context to fit their preferred scenario and further confuse the public, undermining thereby the integrity of the process, and doing so quite deliberately for political advantage.

In the law, when there is no pattern instruction precisely fitting a term as used in a particular statute, as here regarding 18 USC 793(f), the lawyers, both the Government and defense, will attempt to tailor their own instructions and submit them to the judge, based on the statute, any other instructions available defining the word or phrase, or on any case law relevant to it which may have defined the term in the context of the statute. The judge then finally determines the wording of the tailored instruction. By our underscoring of the involuntary manslaughter version of "gross negligence", we have suggested the relevant legal wording which could be applied in this context. Then the lawyers in such an hypothetical case would substitute appropriate words regarding the gravamen of the offense in question, gross negligence in the handling of official documents containing "defense information" such that it becomes "lost or stolen", adding any other useful language from cases, as for instance, U.S. v. McGuinness, a 1992 case cited below from the Military Justice Reports, not available online.

The pattern instruction and applicable definitions for the statute are set forth below, again with the relevant wording underlined, albeit without further illumination as to the meaning of "gross negligence" within this context:

793(f)(1) Title 18, United States Code, Section 793(f)(1) makes it a crime to allow defense information to be lost or stolen through gross negligence. For you to find the defendant guilty, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant had been entrusted with or had lawful possession or control of;

Second, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information relating to the national defense;

Third, that the defendant permitted the above material to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of the defendant's trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed; and

Fourth, that the defendant did so through gross negligence.

[Definitions:]

"Information" applies to both tangible and intangible information.

The term "national defense" includes all matters that are directly connected, or may reasonably be connected, with the defense of the United States against any of its enemies. It refers to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness. To prove that the information or material in question related to national defense there are two things that the government must prove:

First, that the information was closely held by the government in that it had not been made public and was not available to the general public. Where the information has been made public by the United States government and is found in sources lawfully available to the general public, the information does not relate to the national defense. Similarly, where sources of information are lawfully available to the public and the United States government has made no effort to guard such information, the information itself does not relate to the national defense.

Second, that disclosure of the information would be potentially damaging to the United States or might be useful to an enemy of the United States.

"Not entitled to receive" means not authorized to receive. The government can prove that a person was not authorized to receive national defense information if a validly promulgated executive branch regulation or order restricted the disclosure of information to a certain set of identifiable people, and that person was outside this set.

An act is done "willfully" if it is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something that the law forbids, that is to say, with a bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law.

"Reason to believe" means that the defendant knew facts from which he could conclude or reasonably should have concluded that the information could be used for the prohibited purposes. It does not mean that the defendant acted negligently.

The official nature of documents involved in the case are pertinent to whether their transmission would injure the United States or aid a foreign nation.

Moreover, you, the jury, must find that the information transmitted was not available in the public domain.

____________________NOTE____________________

Congress intended to create a hierarchy of offenses against national security, ranging from "classic spying" to merely losing classified materials through gross negligence. United States v. McGuinness, 35 M.J. 149, 153 (CMA, 1992).

The government must notify the defendant of the portions of the material that it expects to rely on to establish the national defense or classified information element of the offense. 18 U.S.C. App. 3 10.

As Director Comey explained, the general context of such prosecutions is where such information is conveyed willfully and deliberately to persons not having proper clearance and access to the information or seeking to destroy information for concealment purposes to obstruct justice. One can conceive of the "gross negligence" scenario, therefore, as a situation involving lack of adequate proof of deliberate espionage or evidence of providing such information to someone without proper clearance but done in a context which was not criminally willful and deliberate, allowing, for instance, a finding of guilt notwithstanding imperfect proof of spying activity. The Government does not prosecute Government officials, low or high, for following the practices of their predecessors, doing nothing dishonest, not involving espionage, deliberately providing such material to unauthorized persons, or obtruction of justice in the handling of classified material. No doubt, if that were the case, a lot of prosecutions of Government personnel would be taking place, until the Government would be virtually paralyzed from operating efficiently, glorifying form over substance in interpretations of statutes. Paralyzing the Government, of course, throwing a wrench into the works, appears actually to be the goal of a lot of these clowns on tv and the internet, along with their brainwashed minions who watch uncritically and take in everything they say as gospel.

We also note that an NBC reporter suggested, quite inappropriately, that Director Comey stated that Secretary Clinton's handling of the e-mails was "so sloppy as to come right up to the edge of criminal misconduct". He never said anything of the kind and that is a gross distortion of his statement to the point of violating the public trust in reporting the news. To say it is an outrageously incorrect paraphrase is being generous to this reporter. And he did not state it as a paraphrase, but rather as if it had been a direct quote. It sounds more like a lie, a slanderous lie at that. But the reporter knows that the former Secretary of State, unlike the other person in the race for the presidency, does not go about suing people for libel and slander. If she did, she would be quite wealthy, indeed, no doubt, but would get little else done, we fear.

Framed Edition
[Return to Links
Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News<i><i><i>—</i></i></i>Framed Edition]
Links-Date Links-Subj.