<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lott has a visit with Anita Lee</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.folo.us/2008/02/25/lott-has-a-visit-with-anita-lee/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/02/25/lott-has-a-visit-with-anita-lee/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:40:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: NMC</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/02/25/lott-has-a-visit-with-anita-lee/#comment-9093</link>
		<dc:creator>NMC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/2008/02/25/lott-has-a-visit-with-anita-lee/#comment-9093</guid>
		<description>There is some interesting stuff lurking here-- Cochran&#039;s office says, first, that he&#039;s not going to comment because he&#039;s been named as a possible witness, but, second, he&#039;s not been contacted by either side.  That&#039;s a little odd.  

Second, you&#039;ve got an unequivocal denial by Lott that he was contacted about the investigation prior to resigning.  That squarely contradicts substantial rumors I&#039;d heard for some time.  There&#039;s two separate and inconsistent lines of rumormongering going through the system right now.  In one, Lott is as pure as the driven snow.  Nothing done wrong.  In the other, he&#039;s in it up to his ears.  The biggest single fact we know to balance the scale one way or the other is the timing of his resignation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is some interesting stuff lurking here&#8211; Cochran&#8217;s office says, first, that he&#8217;s not going to comment because he&#8217;s been named as a possible witness, but, second, he&#8217;s not been contacted by either side.  That&#8217;s a little odd.  </p>
<p>Second, you&#8217;ve got an unequivocal denial by Lott that he was contacted about the investigation prior to resigning.  That squarely contradicts substantial rumors I&#8217;d heard for some time.  There&#8217;s two separate and inconsistent lines of rumormongering going through the system right now.  In one, Lott is as pure as the driven snow.  Nothing done wrong.  In the other, he&#8217;s in it up to his ears.  The biggest single fact we know to balance the scale one way or the other is the timing of his resignation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lotus</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/02/25/lott-has-a-visit-with-anita-lee/#comment-9071</link>
		<dc:creator>lotus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/2008/02/25/lott-has-a-visit-with-anita-lee/#comment-9071</guid>
		<description>Sorry for the rush-up job on this post, y&#039;all -- trying to blog, cook, and figure out WTF the shurf&#039;s chopper is doing buzzing yer neighborhood all at once . . . things get a little stretched.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry for the rush-up job on this post, y&#8217;all &#8212; trying to blog, cook, and figure out WTF the shurf&#8217;s chopper is doing buzzing yer neighborhood all at once . . . things get a little stretched.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jester</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/02/25/lott-has-a-visit-with-anita-lee/#comment-9068</link>
		<dc:creator>jester</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:02:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/2008/02/25/lott-has-a-visit-with-anita-lee/#comment-9068</guid>
		<description>I started reading the article and came up with a sarcastic (who me?) remark or two.  By the time I finished the article, I figured why waste my daily sarcasm limit on such fluff, but I cant ignore a few things - you know - fish - barrel - smoking gun - just too easy....

Assured (not a target)?  Nothing to justify that (investigation)??  knew nothing when he resigned???

Okay.... I got this bridge that I can reallllllly make you a good deal on...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I started reading the article and came up with a sarcastic (who me?) remark or two.  By the time I finished the article, I figured why waste my daily sarcasm limit on such fluff, but I cant ignore a few things &#8211; you know &#8211; fish &#8211; barrel &#8211; smoking gun &#8211; just too easy&#8230;.</p>
<p>Assured (not a target)?  Nothing to justify that (investigation)??  knew nothing when he resigned???</p>
<p>Okay&#8230;. I got this bridge that I can reallllllly make you a good deal on&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
