Replies

> You keep suggesting that none of this is news. Maybe.

My point was "what's really new here?" for someone who
follows FR and SBVFT.

Many people get a bit overexcited with JW's frequent
mischaracterizations of JW's efforts. As far as I can
tell, there is no formal investigation underway. The
letter was referred (rather than denied) and an
investigation may or may not result, and if one results,
the timetable may or may not affect the election.

> How many times, prior to Judicial Watch, has this
> been submitted to the Navy calling for an official
> investigation?

This is the only public letter that I know of, and was
certainly worth doing. Any number of SBVFT or other
interested parties may already have made requests and
not told us.

> You act as if Judicial Watch is NewsMax instead of
> a legal firm.

Their press releases tend toward hyperbole, and their
cases take forever to wind towards often-less-than-
-satisfactory resolutions.

Most legal firms do not publish press releases at
each step of their cases. If you've been following the
matter of SCO v. IBM, for example, SCO blabs at every
opportunity (and IBM is using their PR against them).
IBM has said el-zippo outside their filings. My money
is on the IBM approach.