And don't try that "rule of law" crap on me; I see enough twisting of the law around here to know not everybody agrees with every single law on the books.
I believe that public officials lose that expectation of privacy upon becoming "public", comma, and I believe that the authorities must answer to those whom they serve (the Public), period.
And don't try that "rule of law" crap on me; I see enough twisting of the law around here to know not everybody agrees with every single law on the books.
Why? Do your fear it will come back to bite you on the gumper at some later date? I disagree with the laws preventing Cops from profiling islamo-terrorists, but I expect the authorities to comply with those laws nevertheless, and not try to excuse it for the sake of convenience.
The authorities? Puhleez! It is "the authorities" who have betrayed us on this. If they had done a thorough and honest investigation, we would not be doing this. BTW, is this the Howlin I remember? You sure don't sound like the same one today.
Gee, you had me goin so much that I completely overlooked that you had changed the subject to autopsy photos. Who said anything about autopsy photos?
If we never had a Clinton, I would agree with you. But we did have a Clinton, and he was even re-elected after Foster's strange death was exposed. This is the pathway to Rome. This paves the way for openly assassinating political problems. It must be dealt with. Or this nation's freedom is doomed. We must, at least, document this in the history books. For goodness sakes, there is talk of Clinton getting a TV show. There is talk of his wife being president. And you think the balance of powers will remain in place if both those predictions are made true?
Privacy must take a back seat to Freedom. Note that the judge agreed that there was reason for questioning the official investigation. It took special permission as it was. Even if there were no special permission, it is our duty to bust open coverups. And there was a coverup with Foster's death.