Reminds me of "All your base are belong to us".
Only it's not likely to end up in internet folklore.
As to the merits, it's interesting to see one newspaper report from another reporter who is complaining about having information "leaked" to them. Most of the time, or at least when the stories are about republicans, reporters LOVE to have information leaked to them, will report the leaks as if they did hard work to get it, and will go to jail to protect their sources.
But in this case, the "story" is the leak:
A former newspaper reporter in Loudoun County is accusing Commonwealth's Attorney James E. Plowman of leaking him damaging information about a former state Senate candidate charged with election fraud -- fraud charges initiated by Plowman's office.
However, the attempt to tie this to a political campaign is a bit weak. First, there is no law against a politician noting that their opponent is a criminal, nor is there a crime involved. If we could hold politicians responsible for anything any of their supporters did, we'd put ever politician in jail. Look how many of Clinton's supporters ended up in jail.
Even if a politician called for an investigation of their opponent, that would not be criminal. And in this case, the stories are true, as Tate was indicted as reported.
If the prosecuter actually illegally leaked grand jury testimony, rather than simply noting that there was an investigation, the prosecuter should be punished. But it's no reason to attack Tate's opponent, especially with poor grammar.