Reply #67: If I remember correctly ....

[H2O Man]

this article was the one that took the position that the Miller-Cooper defense team did not make the argument that "no law was broken" in the federal courts because "it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's 'crime of the century' wasn't a crime at all." (I hope I have the right article in mind; Sanford & Toensing's outline has been peddled to a number of outlets, and thus we see variations being printed across the country.)

Thus, they are trying to discredit one of the best constitutional attorneys, with a great background in "freedom of the press" issues, by claiming he would be "embarrassed" to win an important, high-profile case .... easily?