Just watched the re-run of Rachel's show tonite and was dismayed to find her doing as one-sided a piece of work as has ever appeared on Fox re the Justice Department's investigation of the A.P. leaks regarding Al Queda. Not only did she do a 'hair on fire' pontification on the virtue of the Press and the perfidy of the government (which she also asserts is bound to lose in the final analysis) but also had as her only guest the lawyer for the AP. Needless to say he completely agreed with her 'legal' analysis.

This is far from the clear, cut and dried case she so fervently wants to make it out to be. There are significant legal nuances as to whether the DOJ actually violated its own guidelines which she chose to ignore and, even if they did, what if any remedies there might be. A lot more will have to be determined before fault can be fairly laid at the feet of the government in this instance. But Rachel's totally one-sided exposition falls squarely under the title of "Fair and balanced". I for one expected better than her