[redwitch]

According to Montana papers, the investigation began 4 years ago; an officer went undercover about 2 years ago. So, no, the article is wrong (no big surprise -- it is a Ritchie piece and integrity and honesty is not her forte). My point was this article was already posted, so why the new post on it? This article doesn't even come close to explaining how the investigation was done. There's no mention that the officer also was guilty of hunting out of season with the Morse/Rainey group. There's no explanation as to why it took so long to bring charges. There is a tremendous amount of "he said" and a lot of emphasis on the Morses' political viewpoints. It is a typical smear of the Morse family, nothing more. Copying just part of it is like copying a cake recipe but forgetting to mention the amount needed of each ingredient and then adding garlic because YOU like garlic.

And do remember I am not a Morse fan. I admire TV and their ability to have it built, including the business acumen required to accomplish this thing of wonder. I do not admire how they run the day-to-day operations and their need to have a finger in every pie in TV. I flat out resent their unwillingness to let other viewpoints into TV -- if it ain't Republican, it has to be behind closed doors and told about after the fact; if it's Republican, it's the Town Squares and non-stop stories in the Sun.

But this smearing of Mark Morse (and trying to taint all of the Morses with these charges -- does anyone even know if Gary Morse hunts?), is getting tiresome. Let's wait until more FACTS (not smears nor praises) are truly known and I'd be seriously hesitant in using the Sentinel as any basis of fact for any Morse/TV issue.