Wow.  Just wow.  Slager's latest post is basically a textbook example of all of the things that I have pointed out in the past.  I'll deconstruct it on the ride home tonight, but the absolute most ridiculous part of the post is this:

The author of the e-mail sent a second one to the Observer, asking the information not be used for publication for fear of personal safety and the safety of family members. After consulting with counsel, the Observer has decided to publicly reveal a portion of the e-mail...The Observer has made this decision after being told by counsel that the company could face obstruction of justice charges by withholding this information from the authorities.

So let me get this straight.  Slager's counsel said "if you withhold this from the authorities, you could get in trouble".....and he published it on his blog publicly?  That's patently irresponsible.  If that was the advice he got from counsel, then he should have sent that information TO THE AUTHORITIES, not published it online.  Also, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't obstruction of justice only apply it someone is being questioned in the course of an investigation?  Wikipedia seems to think so:

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, who is not a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers...Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if he was under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence.

So does this mean that Slager has been questioned in the investigation, and chose to respond to those investigators by publicly posting information on his blog?  Does it mean that his lawyer is nuts?  Does it mean that he's making stuff up again?  Who knows....

Who would believe that Susan FORCED Mark to sign something? Anyone who knows those two would simply laugh at such a claim. Talk about unbelievable. At least make it SOUND like it could happen if you are going to lie about it.

Yet another reason to ignore the rag. You can't believe a word someone says when they have been proven to be a liar on so many occasions.

Bobo, who was the lawyer that gave you this legal opinion?  Will you print a copy of the legal opinion he gave you?

And Bobo, why haven't you called for Sweet Brucey's resignation for lying to you yet?  Or do you not mind being his dupe?

Oh, and feel free to say an anonymous source on the REAL Observer website suggested it wasn't the Republicans.  Actually, use the truth, commonsense isn't suggesting it's not the Republicans, commonsense knows it's not.

And no Bobo, it wasn't commonsense either

If Rep. Gifford has that much power over her husband and the D. A.'s office, I would be concerned that within two business days, if I was the owner of the Observer, I would be served with a subpoena and a search warrant to discover who accused an elected official of criminal acts.
Don't be like Nixon...better burn the tapes.

acasualobserver wrote:

Also, it looks like he just added something about a rumor surrounding United Steelworkers - has anybody else heard this, or is it just in his head / an attempt to change the subject?

What is this? I couldn't find what you were referring to.

PShooter

PShooter, it's the last paragraph of his post at the top of the site:

Rumors that the United Steelworkers of America (which recently began representing some town employees) was involved in stopping the audit have proven unfounded. Representatives on the national, state and local level told the Observer the union has no involvement in the computer audit in any way.

Rumors that the United Steelworkers of America (which recently began representing some town employees) was involved in stopping the audit have proven unfounded. Representatives on the national, state and local level told the Observer the union has no involvement in the computer audit in any way.

That's funny because the Courier has it listed as "United Steel Makers of America Union," who leveled complaints against the town. Are they the same thing? Does it matter?

PShooter

Let me see. Ragboy lied about the anonymous Cape Verdean couple, he lied about Paul Shooter, he lied about his "sources" on the computer audit, he lied about the anonymous library trustee, and now he is telling us another lie about the anonymous emailer.

PLEASE, don't pay attention to what he says. He has lost all credibility. How many times can you catch a person in a lie before you relegate him to the trash bin?

This is the end of the rag. It is not even worth lining your bird cage with. It is not worthy of being fish wrap. It is a RAG and should be treated as such.

Boy that felt good.

Gee, I wonder if Bobo will be shaking in his office (bathroom) when he gets summonsed before the Grand Jury.  Stay tuned.....

That is what he wants Common. He doesn't like to report the news, he wants to be part of the news. Then Paul shooter can be the reporter.

Bobo will look like a freaking idiot whe he wants his Miranda rights read to him. Yeah bobo they don't do that in grand jury hearings dope

Now this dope has another article saying that the da office taking over is worse than when he saw a crack baby in the hospital. Oh my head , then he gives the atty generals address and phone number and encourages you to call and tell them how displeased you are (remember the cash market tactic ) I will call and tell them what a good job they are doing . He wants you to call because an anonymous email. I wonder if you can run a newspaper in a jail cell?

Larry,

You remember Baghdad Bob, Saddam's Press Secretary?  The images of U.S. tanks rolling into the city and Iraqis throwing rope around Saddam statues and pulling them down and cheering all over TV...and yet ole Baghdad Bob was saying "Everything is fine, we are crushing the American pig infidels, nothing to see here."

I think we have a Baghdad Bobo on our hands. 

(Bobo, I know this just went over your head, it was a metaphor).