Thank you very much.
The article was actually the one that Mike was quoting for his source a few postings back.
Michael repeats the from that article information attributed to "a white house Lawyer," who goes unnamed in even the Baltimore Christian Conservative Examiner as if there were nothing wrong with that. Who is this lawyer? Who does he work for? Does he have any connection to the business under discussion?
And the last part of the the piece in The. . . Examiner makes it very clear indeed that the author hasn't the least idea of what the difference is between a news article — whose point is a report of the facts in as close to an objective fashion as possible — and an editorial — whose purpose is to to set forth and perhaps argue an opinion.
Exactly what Mike is trying to get at, I don't know. He makes interesting points sometimes, and there may be something interesting here, but it doesn't seem clear from the sources that he's offered as support so far.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven