Considering the copyright law . . . it IS LEGAL
to excerpt and review.
Also, it's legal to discuss such intellectual "scholarly" treatises in professional journals at some length.
Seems to me there are enough FREEPERS to do both:
1. FREEPERS could go to Wellesly and in an organized fashion--take the most potent and damning sentences from say 3-5 pages at a time.
2. LOG THEM IN on FREEPMAIL with Mia-T and maybe Alamo-Girl supervising and rank them in order of most damning to less damning.
3. Then each individual FREEPER amongst however many it took to do a good job of the worst sentences--could quote 1-3 sentences--well within legal copyright excerpting allowed--on an FR thread about the thesis.
FREEPER ATNYS--WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING GRITCH SHRILLERY COULD DO SUCCESSFULLY, WOULD THERE?
4. FREEPERS could find a useful conservative professional political journal. Each Freeper could do essentially the same as above but with paragraphs. Either in letters to the editor or better in another professional journal article critiquing the thesis. She could do nothing--RIGHT, ATNYS???
I think we need to also be contacting Rush and make sure that the thesis released is really the original untampered one. Those Machiavellian traitors would easily and happily replace the original quite against university rules.
Having said that, I wonder if Hillary Clinton ever copyrighted her thesis? Certainly, as an attorney she would have known how to do it.
Did Rush see the original, or this copy, which some have said, has an increased number of pages....
Another thought: If hillary clinton 'revised' the thesis, one thing she would have done is to try to appear prescient. When we read it, let's look for anachronistic slips.