Fox News Sat On Letter In Ensign Scandal Case, Lied About It

7:04 pm EST June 24th, 2009 | Media | 7 Comments

Fair. Balanced.

Fox News received Doug Hampton’s letter about Sen. John Ensign’s adulterous affair three days earlier than the network reported, according to information obtained exclusively by the Las Vegas Sun.

Fox said it didn’t receive the letter until June 15, when it arrived as an attachment to an e-mail. But FedEx tracking of a ‘priority envelope,’ which a reliable source said contained the hard copy, shows it was delivered on the morning of June 12.

That would mean the national news organization had additional time to investigate and report Ensign’s affair before the senator’s own admission of the relationship with Hampton’s wife, who worked for the senator’s leadership political action committees.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

7 Responses to “Fox News Sat On Letter In Ensign Scandal Case, Lied About It”

  1. News Reference says:
    June 24, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    If Republican Senator Ensign followed his own rules he’d resign.

    But Republican’s First Rule is Always Rules Are For Other People.

    AKA IOKIYAR

    Right wing troll defending Republican hypocrisy in 5, 4, 3…

  2. News Reference says:
    June 24, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    [and to recycle my own funny]

    At least adulterous Republican Mark Sanford can say he was boning up on international affairs for the 2012 election so he wouldn’t be caught with his pants down like Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin.

    (“In what respect, Charlie?”)

    What can adulterous Republican hypocrite John Ensign say?

    That the married woman he was cheating with was worth every penny he was paying her and her husband?

    And remember, nobody does hypocritical moralizing like thrice married Republicans (Gingrich, Giuliani, Limbaugh…), so after a couple of divorces both adulterous Republicans Sanford and Ensign will be back in the top of the Republican leadership rolls.

  3. Wilbur says:
    June 24, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    Suppose that same mailroom clerk received a similar letter about Senator Reid rather than Senator Ensign? Think he might have sent is somewhere other than the circular file? Remember this is Fox we’re talking aobut.

  4. SpiderJ says:
    June 24, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    But why would Fox News sit on this story? After all, isn’t he John Ensign (D)?

  5. Repack Rider says:
    June 24, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    And the evidence that anyone other than a mailroom clerk actually LOOKED at that letter from an unsolicited, unknown source?

    The time stamp and signature on the FedEx delivery?

    Are you saying that no one who sends a message by overnight express to a news agency should expect it to be read? The government holds me accountable for stuff I sign for; that’s the PURPOSE of delivery methods that require a signature.

    What is YOUR standard of evidence that they read it, a notarized statement?

  6. News Reference says:
    June 25, 2009 at 2:18 am

    The “usual ‘Republican’ suspect” doesn’t think a right wing organization invested in the pretense that it was a “News” organization should be able to correctly report the date it received a ‘priority envelope’ that could predictably have a confirmation-delivery date/receipt that could be independently produced to show WHEN they received the ‘priority envelope’.

    I guess it’s not that hard to believe. After all, the last thing I associate with FOX Propaganda is timely, investigative journalism…

    If the ‘priority envelope’ sent to FOX doesn’t say “Republican Talking Points” “From” either Luntz, Norquist, or Rove, why would FOX open it?

  7. Repack Rider says:
    June 25, 2009 at 11:13 am

    repack, the government holds you responsible for things you don’t sign too.

    It’s impossible to “prove” that no one read it, all that is possible to “prove” is that they had it in their hands with a date and time stamp on it and lied about that date and time stamp.

    So all we know for sure is that FOX lied about when they got it, and for what reason do you suppose they did that when it is so easy to “prove” that it was a lie?