Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

"Actually, you already have betrayed her trust, she just doesn't know who you are yet."

Key word, of course, is "yet" - if in fact the source is real, and that the person did say this. Discovering who Sarah Palin's aides spoke to related to the TEA party in Iowa would not be difficult - again, assuming this conversation actually happened. No true TEA party representative would trust the MSM, let alone speak on this topic to a journOlister, so I doubt the statements, personally.

As proven this past week, actual "sources" are no longer necessary for the MSM. They just make things up and spin their prose to avoid a law suit. Which, of course, has been true for at least the last 3 years; but it is now blatantly obvious to any sane, aware person.

Last week the media exposed themselves. No pretense of "objective journalism" can cover up their nakedness.

Heads up. Sheriff Dipnik had been gagged, officially, due to "controversy." I have confirmed this.

It is also out there the good sheriff is good friends to the assassin's family; not yet confirmed by me.

Dipnik's blood libel left a "blood trail" back to him.

@ Voting Female: Source?

> A top official in the Iowa Tea Party who doesn't want Palin to know who it is who is betraying her trust told RealClearPolitics that a friend of SarahPAC met with him in person in Des Moines late last year and prodded him for suggestions on how Palin might mount a grassroots campaign in the state.

Fixed it for them.

Good catch, professor. Shows that both the top official and Real Clear Politics use strange definitions to appear legit. The official for betraying the confidence and Real Clear Politics for giving unwarranted anonymity to a source.

Nice fix, Aaron.

So somebody who says somebody said that somebody commented on how Palin might conduct a campaign in Iowa.

And this is news?