Glenn Greenwald's Career In Comedy

Glenn Greenwald, who never settles for "shrill" when "hysterical ranting" is within reach, tells the world that Jason Zengerle *might* have fabricated an email from Steven Gilliard when he wrote this post. [UPDATE:  I respond to Greenwald's follow-up gas-letting here.  Hint - my title is "What Would A Weasel Do", and it is emphatically *not* autobiographical.]

However - it is only in an UPDATE that Mr. Greenwald finally presents some highly relevant information:  Mr. Zengerle excerpted THREE emails, including one from Mr. Greenwald himself; and Mr. Greenwald confirms the authenticity of two of them, including his own.  That UPDATE sort of undermines the high dudgeon on display here in the original Greenwald post:

What makes this all the more disturbing is Zengerle's claim that he was "re-print[ing] some of the e-mails that were going to the 'Townhouse' list, according to three sources . . . " It is difficult to see how Zengerle's claim about his sources could be true, to put it generously. It is highly unlikely (to put it mildly) that three different sources would send Zengerle the same fabricated e-mail and falsely tell him that it was sent by Gilliard to the Townhouse list. And it is equally unlikely that three different sources would confirm that Gilliard sent an e-mail that he, in fact, simply never sent.

I would say that those additional facts are quite pertinent - Mr. Greenwald's more complete hypothesis seems to be that Mr. Zengerle had two genuine emails and fabricated a third.  Somehow that seems to change the balance of probabilities a bit, especially since the "fake" email makes the same point as the two authentic ones - why, one might wonder, would Mr. Zengerle bother to gild the lily with a fake email supporting two real ones?  And does it seem "highly unlikely (to put it mildly)" that Zengerle would have three sources confirming two genuine and one fake email?

I would think that if he wanted to allude to the possibility of dishonest behavior by Mr. Zengerle, Mr. Greenwald would take extra care to be honest himself.  Oh, well - perhaps subsequent UPDATES will offer even more illumination.

MORE:  Absurd squirming by Mr. Greenwald in the comments:

(4) I don't actually think the Gilliard e-mail is irrelevant. Even though it is shorter than the other two which Zengerle published, the fake Gilliard e-mail is really the ONLY one which bolsters Zengerle's point (namely - that bloggers wanted to write about this issue but then didn't when Markos requested silence). The first two e-mails (including mine) simply make the point that Jerome should himself respond to these charges because only he can.

Uh huh.  I would say that the email cited by Mr. Zengerle (in an earlier post) as having come from the Kos himself makes the point even more clearly:

This story will percolate in wingnut circles until then, but I haven't gotten a single serious media call about it yet. Not one. So far, this story isn't making the jump to the traditional media, and we shouldn't do anything to help make that happen.

My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story.

So the current Greenwald hypothesis is what - no one has disputed the Kos email, but Mr. Zengerle fabricated the Gilliard email a day later in order to buttress it?

What a tangled web we weave.

UPDATE:  Jason Zengerle rejoins the discussion on Sunday evening, telling us that there is a logical explanation but he has no idea what it is.  Oh, he does a bit better than that:

Steve Gilliard claims that he did not write the email I attributed to him in this post. After doing some further investigating, I'm afraid to say that he is correct. He did not write that email. I apologize to Gilliard for not checking with him before publishing my post, and I regret the error.

 

Here's how the error happened: A source forwarded The New Republic three emails purportedly written by members of the "Townhouse" list--Glenn Greenwald, Mike Stark, and Steve Gilliard--expressing concern about the Armstrong-SEC story. The emails lacked timestamps and headers, so TNR checked the emails with two other sources who belonged to "Townhouse." Both of these sources vouched for the authenticity of all three emails (and two of the emails, Greenwald's and Stark's, are indisputably authentic). After returning to these two sources this weekend, TNR learned that when initially shown the three emails, both sources immediately recognized the 181-word Greenwald email and the 389-word Stark email; having determined that those two emails were authentic, the sources just assumed the 22-word Gilliard email was authentic, as well. We now know it wasn't. These were clearly honest mistakes on the parts of the second and third sources; and TNR has been unable to determine why the first source--who has not responded to messages--included this one piece of incorrect information along with the accurate information the source sent us. Therefore, I won't abide by Glenn Greenwald's demand to disclose the identities of these sources. If Greenwald thinks that makes me, as he's hyperventilated, "a new Stephen Glass," then he can take that up with my editor Frank Foer, who knows the identities of the sources and has reviewed all the relevant materials they provided.

Mr. Zengerle has kind words for Steve Gilliard:

I sincerely regret not checking with Gilliard before quoting his purported words, not only because this was unfair to Gilliard--who has behaved more responsibly than anyone involved in this particular matter, myself included...

Let me add that I thought Steve Gilliard came across as a stand-up guy in this post, where he explained that he had not written that email to the Townhouse ListServ, but did hold the sentiments expressed therein:

To be fair, I told Glenn I disagreed with the characterization of it being false, because I may have express some kind of sentiment close to that. The issue to me is not that Zengerle created it out of whole cloth, but if he got it from a source that he was too lazy and sloppy to confirm it with me.

...But even if Greenwald goes farther than I would, the question remains why didn't Zengerle do any interviews for his pieces. Why didn't he extend the basic journalism courtesy of asking if these were my words and if they were sending to the Townhouse list? I mean that's basic shit, Reporting I stuff.

...Now, some people may wonder why I didn't hammer Zengerle up and down the blog and call him a bald faced liar.

Let me explain something: presenting something false as something real and attributed to a person is a firing offense. This is not a game, if he was misled by a source; he deserves the chance to prove it. If he just pulled it out of his ass, I expect Frank Foer to fire him.

For myself, the notion that Jason Zengerle cut that email from a whole cloth never made sense.  However, one does hope that his mystery source has an explanation.  If I had to guess (and I don't, but...) I would say that the first source ended up attributing to Gilliard thoughts actually expressed by someone else, perhaps in a different forum.  Still a mistake, but hardly as monumental as the hyperventilating Greenwald wanted to pretend.

But let's pass the mike to Greenwald himself, from his UPDATE III, so that we can be clear about his view:

Let me be as clear as I can be. I re-iterate my statement that the e-mail printed by Zengerle is fake. Scores of individuals on the Townhouse list have confirmed that Gilliard never sent any such e-mail to Townhouse, and Gilliard has said the same thing. He also says he has no record of sending such an e-mail to anyone. Contrary to the claim of Zengarle or his "three sources," it was never sent by Gilliard to the Townhouse list. Thus, what Zengarle reported -- allegedly based on three sources -- is indisptuably false.

The e-mail was simply fabricated by either Zengarle or his sources.

Emphasis added.  At this point, we still don't know how the genesis of the "Gilliard" email.  However, if it was written by someone other than Zengerle or his primary source but misattributed, then I seriously dispute the use of the words "fake" and "fabricated".

Hmm.  We are puzzling over UPDATE IV from Greenwald, which includes this:

I not only look very forward to that moment [when Zengerle addresses this], but also to what I'm certain will be the candid and straightfoward acknowledgments of error by those bloggers and commenters who spent the day giddily claiming that the e-mail was authentic and/or that no basis existed for the claim that it was false. In case it slips their minds, I'll be sure to remind them.

(For non-link-clickers, I am "giddily").

Well, I have no doubt Greenwald will claim vindication regardless of the actual facts as they become available.  However, before he reminds me of his glorious victory, maybe he can remind me of just where it was I said that "the e-mail was authentic and/or that no basis existed for the claim that it was false".

Since what I did say was:

Mr. Zengerle excerpted THREE emails, including one from Mr. Greenwald himself; and Mr. Greenwald confirms the authenticity of two of them, including his own.  That UPDATE sort of undermines the high dudgeon on display here in the original Greenwald post:

[Skip]

...Mr. Greenwald's more complete hypothesis seems to be that Mr. Zengerle had two genuine emails and fabricated a third.  Somehow that seems to change the balance of probabilities a bit, especially since the "fake" email makes the same point as the two authentic ones.

Since my objection was to his near-total suppression of the existence of two authentic emails alongside the email in dispute, I think he will have a hard time with his claim that I asserted there was no basis for saying the email was "fake".  Well, he will have a hard time if he confines himself to the facts.

Comments

[Rick]

Cut Greenwald some slack. Obviously, he took seriously Komrad Kos's instructions for handling the email: "Burn Before Reading."

Cordially...

[noah]

Too bad our host doesn't take the host of TL as seriously. Kos is a certifiable idiot (except for the cash). OTOH JM is a dangerous enemy of our values, in spades.

[verner]

You know, I don't really follow Labor, but some interesting things are going on right now. It seems that Stern and SEIU are currently at odds with Paul Booth and AFSCME--or at least were last year when they had all the dust up at the AFL-CIO (Booth is a Sweeney supporter--Sweeney was a former pres. of SEIU) Who knows what's going on behind the scenes with those people!

SEIU is a client of Fenton Communications. It also appears more radical than Sweeney and the AFL-CIO. One of Stern's strategies is to support CAMPAIGNS instead of CANDIDATES--reflecting the utter failure of labor in supporting the Democrat Party--they spent $100 million for nothing last time around. Now, doesn't that sound like what KOS is doing?

[lurker]

Andy Stern

Wow. Verner, you've been fabulous.

[lurker]

Verner and topsecret, none of your links work via FireFox and IE on Windows. Think they work on Linux, though.

If you could use BB tags, that would help.

Yes, that's what it looks like, verner.

[lurker]

Verner, do you know if discoverthenetworks has a page devoted to ANSWER and Ramsey Clark? Wonder if they are connected to all of this...

[lurker]

I found Ramsey Clark.

[verner]

As I understand it, for various tax reasons, Win Without War and US Labor against the War could not be under the same roof. But they most certainly co-ordinated efforts--and ALL of the major players were clients of Fenton.

Also, many many of the orgs. mentioned above in the WWW list have been linked for years--through both the Vietnam anti-war movement (SDSers)and the nuclear disarmament movement during the 1980s. To give you an idea of just how close--Heather Booth, (Who founded USA ACTION one of WWW's member orgs) is married to Paul. She was Fenton's Ira Arlook's and WWW's Tom Andrew's boss at Citizen Action. Arlook is married to KAren Nussbaum, who served in the Clinton Administration. Booth has worked with David Fenton on various projects for years.

David Cortright, who I mentioned before, is married to KAren Jacobs of WAND.

I could go on, but I'm afraid your eyes would glaze over.

And if KOS is being bankrolled by SEIU and Soros (or either of the two) well, he fits right in there somewhere. The word Grassroots is the key. They always call themselves grassroots!

In other words, The kingdom of KOS is nothing but another agitprop left wing org., just like all the rest of them. I seriously doubt he's calling the shots--he's just the public face. Another attempt to repackage the "message" and fool the public about where it's really coming from.

[lurker]

Dan Reihl should be made aware of these connections. Clarice! A candidate topic for your next article!

[lurker]

Or you can write one for AT / FrontPageMag.

[verner]

I'll tell you what lurker. Here's all you have to know. The "progressive" movement operates like the BORG in startrek.

[MayBee]

great progressive organizations that joined in to make it happen -- People For the American Way, MoveOn, DFA, UNITE-HERE, SEIU, the Rappaports

This is who Kos acknowledges for helping fund Yearly Kos in his post about how an attack on him by the right-wing TNR is an attack on everybody. Not that he's the leader, though.

Another poster said the AFL-CIO put a lot of money into it, but didn't get any love.

[MayBee]

http://www.yearlykos.org/node/409
---
The named sponsors of YKos:
SEIU
Wake Up Walmart (poor Armando!)
Air America
People for the American Way
MyDD
Unite Here
Good Storm
NDN:NDN is lead by its founder Simon Rosenberg. NPI is lead by Peter Leyden and Theo Yedinksy.

[verner]

SEIU--Andrew Stern

Wake Up Walmart (poor Armando!)--a pet project of Stern's

Air America--who cares, nobody listens

People for the American Way--Fenton Client, Tom Andrews of WWW worked for them before he went to Citizen Action. Founded by Norman Lear.

MyDD-See Riehl World

Unite Here--Union in alliance with SEIU

Good Storm--don't know

NDN:NDN is lead by its founder Simon Rosenberg. NPI is lead by Peter Leyden and Theo Yedinksy--don't know about them either.

Well, at least we know where ole KOS is getting most of his advertising money from! LOL

[clarice]

lurker--this one is Verner's though I think it might be fun to gather up the lighter articles on it. IN any event, my position is clear, I'd like Kos and Armstrong to stay in business..0-21 are the kind of odds I want for opponents.

[verner]

Oh, Maybee, you forgot moveon.org on the sponsor list!

NDN looks like a typical Democrat push the message kind of thing. Worth looking into. They may be the real brains of the outfit, so to speak. And did you notice Warner's name!

[MayBee]

verner-Yes, you're right. I missed moveon.org when I retyped the list. Shows you how long my attention span is.

[clarice]

Maybee , do you recall where you saw that Matt Cooper was leaving Time?

[verner]

Interesting picture emerging.

Joe Trippi--Howard Dean's old manager--is in with NDN.

KOS is being heavily backed by SEIU.

Moveon.org is in alliance (Dean and Soros)

We know that KOS was paid by Dean.

Riehl has shown the financial relationship between Kos, Armstrong and SEIU--plus a little action from Warner.

What a bucket of slop--or maybe we should say a pot of gold.

And I have one question. Semanticleo--are you a card carrying member of SEIU?

Anybody want to take bets?

[MayBee]

clarice-
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/print/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002727178>Here
via Talk Left

[MayBee]

Interesting that one feature on the NDN website is a conversation with SEIU president, Andy Stern.

[MayBee]

Looks like NPN/NPI is in the business of telling politicians how to spend their advertising money (hint:new media)

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/04/for_tuesday.html>here

I don't know what it all means. It interests me, though, that most of the Yearly Kos sponsors are somewhat disconnected from the interests of the attendees.

[clarice]

Thanks, MayBee. The first issue of Portfolio isn't due out until late April of 2007..Hmm.

[topsecretk9]

Link 1 (and scroll)

Link 2

Lurker-- I was being lazy

[PeterUK]

Oh course,if one wanted to discredit two genuine emails,sending a third and denying authorship would be the ideal way to do it.Everything comes in threes for thesespeople,the Three Wise Monkey',the Three Stooges.

[PeterUK]

Mr Ballard,
"The people being fleeced by Kos and his ilk deserve to be fleeced - it's part of their educational experience. "

How can you say that when these people have hard working dealers to support.

MayBee,
Actually more than a 1000 turned up for the Kos Konference but were turned into pillars of salt on the outskirts of Las Vegas.

[M. Simon]

OK,

We have one e-mail that was not from the list which changes nothing about the fact that Kos was trying to give the netschlongs their marching orders.

One errant fact has not invalidated the story.

[jerry]

Maguire, you owe Greenwald a retraction and an apology. It's that simple.

That you can't do that shouts volumes.

[Tony Computaro]

Gary Maxwell wrote:
Sheesh I wish I had vocies in my head or been up for 64 hours as an excuse. Cant type, never could. Maybe voice conversion software will show up soon.

You expect us to believe that poor typing skills is your problem? Dude, to me you seem at least borderline retarded.

[Rick Ballard]

Jerry,

The fact that you didn't cut and paste from Tom's post saying "see look right here - you owe a retraction for that" screams huirricanes.

Go ahead - cut and paste the part that requires retraction.

[MayBee]

That you can't do that shouts volumes.

I always find it easier to apologize to people that I believe have some amount of goodwill.

[PeterUK]

"That you can't do that shouts volumes."
This would be one of those newfangled "Talking Books"?

[Steve Smith]

Ah, the old "fake but accurate" meme....

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Vastly amusing, far beyond the limits of mortal man.

The really funny part of all this is the ridiculously excessive overemphasis on the Gillard email, which is largely irrelevant. But the exercise is a pathetic attempt at misdirection and redirection. To push the debate from the TWO confirmed emails to the third. Thus the debate morphs from one of Kos's seemingly rather unethical behavior to one about the veracity of an email.

The important thing to remember is that even if Gillard didn't write that third email. The third email concisely represents his actual and accurate viewpoint.

That's rather hard to overcome. But it'll be amusing to see the lefties try it anyways.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Well, he will have a hard time if he confines himself to the facts.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Well, he will have a hard time if he confines himself to the facts.

NOt that this is likely to be a problem.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

WTF?

Sorry, somehow my "preview" turned into a post...

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Maguire, you owe Greenwald a retraction and an apology. It's that simple.

Jerry, it would a lot simpler if you would quote what Tom said that you think was false and deserves a retraction. I can't seem to find it.

[Pisistratus]

I'd start with the title of this post Charlie: "Glenn Glennwald's Career in Comedy."

Everything Glenwald stated was accurate.

TM's career in comedy is not as promising since he's a bad joke.

[Joe]

Oh Pissy, I think that the whole episode proves that Glenn trying to pass himself off as an independent thinker is high comedy. This Pod-people powered politics is pure gold.

[Azael]

What's real comedy gold is that Joe's comment is a robotic repeating the approved line from his own line of Pod people - without even a hint of creative input to the mainline meme.

C'mon, Joe! You can do it. One more try.

[topsecretk9]

AZ

IS that what Townhouse told you to say too?

[Joe]

Actually Azael, that was a riff off "an aide to a Democratic presidential candidate who asked not to be identified while the boss was angling for Moulitsas's support" from the latest Newsweek article who described you guys as something like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Check tomorrow's horoscope for your next set of instructions.

[Tom Maguire]

Maguire, you owe Greenwald a retraction and an apology. It's that simple.

That you can't do that shouts volumes.

Hmm, that you can't actually print the bit I wrote that merits a retraction whispers "BS".

And from Pissant:

Everything Glenwald stated was accurate.

OK, from near the top of his post:

Zengerle caused The New Republic to print a completely fabricated e-mail and then falsely attribute it as one Gilliard sent to the Townhouse list.

I'll accept that it was falsely attributed to Gilliard (a point I never disputed, BTW).

Please show the evidence that the email was "fabricated", as opposed to, for example, mistakenly attributed. What we have from Zengerle is this:

Here's how the error happened: A source forwarded The New Republic three emails purportedly written by members of the "Townhouse" list--Glenn Greenwald, Mike Stark, and Steve Gilliard--expressing concern about the Armstrong-SEC story. The emails lacked timestamps and headers, so TNR checked the emails with two other sources who belonged to "Townhouse." Both of these sources vouched for the authenticity of all three emails (and two of the emails, Greenwald's and Stark's, are indisputably authentic). After returning to these two sources this weekend, TNR learned that when initially shown the three emails, both sources immediately recognized the 181-word Greenwald email and the 389-word Stark email; having determined that those two emails were authentic, the sources just assumed the 22-word Gilliard email was authentic, as well. We now know it wasn't. These were clearly honest mistakes on the parts of the second and third sources; and TNR has been unable to determine why the first source--who has not responded to messages--included this one piece of incorrect information along with the accurate information the source sent us.

So Pissy, you are certain that the only plausible scenarios are that, hmm, (a) Zengerle is lying and made it up himself, or (b) the source was lying and fabricated it himself?

As to a hypothetical (c) the source copy/pasted an email from a different list and lost track of the author, you can prove that to be impossible because...

Good luck.

As to retractions and apologies, Greenwald ought to explain this:

...who [bloggers] spent the day giddily claiming that the e-mail was authentic and/or that no basis existed for the claim that it was false.

Help out your guy - show a passage where I claimed that.

Or go tell Greenwald he owes me a retraction and apology.

No worries, Pissy - this is a test of both your reading comprehension and integrity, so I have no doubt of the outcome.

[Tom Maguire]

Hmm, re-reading my original post, I do see the problem - I made quite a show of pointing out the low probability of Greenwald's hypothesis without troubling to offer a competing hypothesis of my own.

Actually, that was deliberate - it is not my job to guess, it is Zengerle's job to explain. And I never really focussed on the possibility that folks would be unable to conceive of any alternatives other than "Zengerle (or someone) faked it".

Honest Injun, Pissant and Jerry, did it never occur to you that maybe Zengerle's source just mis-attributed the email? C'mon, even Greenwald distinguished between fabricating and attributing in his post.

Well, if that is your position, maybe Jerry is right and I do owe someone an apology. How this - I'm sorry I over-estimated your intelligence and imagination - it never dawned on me that Greenwald's lackeys would be unable to conceive of two or three plausible alternatives.

And I'm sorry I wasted my time writing caveats such as "Mr. Greenwald's more complete hypothesis seems to be that Mr. Zengerle had two genuine emails and fabricated a third. Somehow that seems to change the balance of probabilities a bit...".

I propose a time-saver - why don't you write up what you think I said, and I'll apologize for the failure of our nation's education system?

[tbogg]

...Or you could be a man about it and just admit that you fucked up.

Or at least pretend that you're a man.

[Gary Maxwell]

I'm sorry I over-estimated your intelligence and imagination

You forgot the vow to never do so again! too funny TM.

[Pisistratus]

TM-what's amazing is that you actually believe you have a good defense.

No wonder you give money to Libby.

[Davebo]

Well it's official.

A simple "I was wrong" is something Tom is incapable of.

But hey, you can always get out of it by debating the meaning of "is".

[Gary Maxwell]

Davebo I think your hero was the guy with the various definitions of "is". What is official is that its clear you want to ignor what TM says and put words in his mouth and then ask him to admit he is wrong. But keep kicking up dust, enough might obscure what is really going on in the astrologically guided Townhouse.

[HeavyJ]

I enjoy your journalism classes immensely. If, for example, Jeff Goldstien wrote an email saying "I dreamed about sucking George W. Bush's cock," and I wrote an article for TNR about Tom Maguire's presidential fellatio fantasies, attributing said quote to Messr. Maguire, would that be:

a) Misattribution

b) Fabrication

c) A royal fuckup, demanding immediate dismissal

d) All of the above

[A Hermit]

So Mr. Maguire has joined the Dan Rather school of justification; "the e-mail was false but the substance of the story is true so it doesn't matter."

Heckuva job Tommy.

Greenwald just handed you your ass; accept it with humility, admit you were wrong and try to be smarter next time.

Or better yet, just shut up.

[Gary Maxwell]

Greenwalt could not find his own with two hands and a Rayovac flashlight, let alone handing anyone anything.

Monnbats sure are entertaining when they finally get the memo on what the meme should be though. Cut and pasting to a near art form.

[Walking with Cheney]

Yup, it's amazing that Greenwald bothered to post here considering that he couldn't be sure anyone here is bright enough to read him. Greenwald may, at times, rant and rave but by God he does his research and sticks to the facts, mam. And the guy can hold a thought for more than a blog post.

Ass. Handed. On. A. Platter.

Carry on, please. Me? Well, this ex-Republican is going to finish reading What Would a Patriot Do?

[S.D.]

Dan Rather, You Screwed Up. Be big enough to admit and be done.

No Wait...

[boris]

Gosh, would somebody post the claim that turned out to be "wrong"?

The money quote (authentic) is ...

"My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story."

If all of the TANG memos but one had been authentic pretty sure Mapes and Rather would still be at CBS. If the one were simply about a different GWB, Gerry W Bush, it would have been dropped from the story without further ado and Kerry would now be president.

[isitstinky?]

hahahahahaha.

Why do you guys even try?

hahahahaha

Joke.

[Ffakr]

Please show the evidence that the email was "fabricated", as opposed to, for example, mistakenly attributed. What we have from Zengerle is this:

Mr. Macguire,

I think this would be relatively obvious to you if you were willing to admit that you were in the wrong.
The email in question was submitted with 2 other emails from the Townhall list. One would only assume that source1 had access to Townhall.
Source2 and Source3 had access to the TownHall list in that they confirmed the authenticity of all three of the emails. Somehow, they were able to easily confirm that the two much longer emails were entirely accurate but not able to confirm that the much smaller email was accurate and properly attributed.

Zengerle provided 3 sources with access to TownHall that were all incorrect about the authenticity or at the very least the attribution of the 1st email.
You must accept that Zengerle has sources with access to Townhall mailing list archives.

If this was simply a case of mis-attribution, why has the real source of the email not been announced? This story has been festering for days now. Zengerle has at least 2 sources that he remains in contact with who went throught the trouble of verifying two long emails. I would hope they verified the attribution AND the contents of those emails.
Here's the big question:
If this is a real email that was mis-attributed why can't Zengerle or anyone else find out who really wrote it?

I think the conclusion is obvious.
It is most likely a fabricated email. Fabricating email is not difficult. If you'd like, I'll send you an email from you and it will be untraceable to me (I work in IT). You'll even have real (appearing) headers. Not only was this email, by ALL appearances, forged it was poorly forged. Anyone with a minimum of IT experience can connect to an open SMTP port and send a bogus email anonymously.
Unfortunately I don't have access to TownHall records as Zengerle does or I could verify definitively in short order that this email never passed through that list.

ffakr.

[john]

Tom wrote:
"Hmm, that you can't actually print the bit I wrote that merits a retraction whispers "BS"."

This certainly does:
"What a tangled web we weave."

[Catch22]

Odd how you can twist the fact that you were wrong and Glenn Greenwald was correct, into an ongoing attack on him.

It was fake, however it was manufactured or taken from something else.

[Catch22]

Let me add that I thought Steve Gilliard came across as a stand-up guy in this post, where he explained that he had not written that email to the Townhouse ListServ, but did hold the sentiments expressed therein

Perhaps you should include Gilliards subsequent comment on the issue:

"I don't think Zengerle has handled this well, and this grudging article tries to minimize the gross error he has committed.

I don't think this is a minor error, nor does Frank Foer. Zengerle attributed to me words I have no record writing and is still protecting a source who sent him an e-mail which cannot be verified. He admits that he doesn't have have the headers to the e-mails he was sent from the list and then gracelessly raises the same issues for which he has relied upon on at least
one unverifivable e-mail for.

What I would have liked to see is an admission that his refusal to actually consult with anyone he quoted was a fundamental mistake. His first reply to me snottily suggested that I didn't know anything about journalism for wondering why he quoted my words to a private e-mail list.

Well, I stayed awake when my journalism advisor discussed these things at my college paper and in class. I paid attention to the idea that you confirmed quotes when you didn't hear them personally. I also learned that fairness was an objective goal. So before quoting me, it would have served us all well to make sure those were my words.

Matt Stoller may be wrong in accusing you of making up my words, but you are still protecting a source who clearly sent you a doctored e-mail. So until that person is revealed, he can, like Zengerle, assume facts not in evidence.

Glenn Greenwald isn't the only one demanding that you reveal your source for my e-mail. As I have said in private comunications with the TNR editors, I want the chance to compare that e-mail to any I may have written. I fully expect that unreliable and probably dishonest source be revealed, expediciously .

I do not do this lightly. I was taught as a teenager that one protected sources at all cost, even going to jail. Myron Farber was a collegue of many of my professors, so this was taken seriously, even in class. Sources need to be protected, as I do and many other bloggers do. But not dishonest and mailicious ones.

But until the person who lied to the the New Republic is exposed,this apology is hollow. This person thought they were defaming me by using words I have no record of writing. They refuse to answer questions from Zengerle, and now I expect, Frank Foer. This clearly reeks of malice to imply, falsely, that I said something I didn't. To continue to protect this source serves as an ongoing wrong to me.

And I'm sorry, I don't think this is minor or a disraction. I find it unseemly to attempt to defend yourself after commiting a major breach of journalistic ethics by repeating the unproven charges which landed us here in the first place. This stoppped being about Kos the minute TNR published an e-mail which they cannot confirm coming to me.

Then it became about their ethics and practices.

All of the questions Zengerle has are legitimate, but he should do some reporting and talk to people about them, not just sit back and draw conclusions from purloined and now unverifiable e-mails.

Do I agree with TNR? No. I don't even agree with all the conclusiuons in Frank Foer's soccer book, which I liked. But I have tried to treat them fairly in all this, because that is the way to handle such matters.

Again, and I will be e-mailing Foer with the same request: I fully expect TNR to reveal the source of the e-mail I was quoted from and in a timely manner."

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/06/apology.html

[topsecretk9]

Irony never better...Jerome? Jerome?

Matt Stoller at MyDD:

"The right-wing blogs are aflutter, unsure how to handle the unethical conduct of their colleague. "

"But not all is well in right-wing land. Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, and Glenn Reynolds are still silent. This is especially notable because Ben edited Hugh's book and Malkin's latest book.

And Redstate? Ahh, Redstate. That loveable community is torn between pompous screeds like 'We Must Defend', 'We Must Attack', 'We Must Continue', and simply lying:"

"We're now seeing the rot from the inside. The conservative movement is nearly totally bereft of ethical standards. Torn between loyalty and integrity, they pick neither, a lukewarm mixture of contempt for those who point out ethical violations, a reflexive angry defensiveness, and a melancholy regognition that supreme self-righteousness might not be the most appropriate attitude in every instance."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/24/11252/1845

[Barney Frank]

"This person thought they were defaming me by using words I have no record of writing."

"Zengerle attributed to me words I have no record writing "

"As I have said in private comunications with the TNR editors, I want the chance to compare that e-mail to any I may have written. I fully expect that unreliable and probably dishonest source be revealed, expediciously ."

Gilliard won't even go on record as saying he didn't write what TNR published but TM is supposed to admit that he was wrong because he said Greenwald was being hysterical for comparing Zengerle to Stephen Glass.
Welcome to the reality based community.

[topsecretk9]

Can't imagine Gilliard doesn't know who he "communicated" words to this effect.

Sounds like maybe all this tut tutting is so that they don't have to reveal who betrayed the confidence of Townhouse.

[Davebo]

Barney,

Gilliard writes a lot of stuff. Posts, emails, actual news stories, etc.

And if you read JZ's mea culpa even he admits that of all concerned in this affair, Gilliard took the high ground and behaved responsibly, even more so than JZ himself.

But hey, JZ has been shown to offer up false facts in the past, perhaps he's lying about this too?

[Sue]

::grin:: I know Leo told me it was hard to take me seriously, since I ::grin:: at everything, but I can't help it. I find it humorous that the left is still claiming fake, fake, fake, and the right is saying so what? Accurate, accurate, accurate. I guess it really does matter whose ox is being gored.

[Tom Maguire]

Davebo, did you ever tell me what the problem was with my logic upthread?

Let me see if i can help Davebo, who wrote this:

So because two of the emails are legit, the third is irrelevant.

No, that is not what I said. What I have been saying is that the presence of two legitimate emails changes the likelihood pf various scenarios that include a bum email.

For example - suppose Zengerle simply confused a header and a footer on a forwarded list of thirty emails. In that case, all three emails are "authentic", but one was not by Gilliard, but instead by another Clownhouser. That would hardly change the thrust of the Zengerle article.

Of course, someone who did not realize that two authentic emails were part of the story might not hit upon that hypothesis. And someone reading greenwald's post might not realize that two emails were legit.

I am not, Greenwald's distortions notwithstanding, saying that a fake email is irrelevant; I am saying two or three real emails make the fake story a bit harder to understand.

That seemed awfully clear to me, although for some reason (gee, maybe clarity *was* the reason) Greenwald didn't cite that when he cherry-picked my comments.

[boris]

Unlike the TANG memos, the email might be Gilliard's but he has no record of it.

Compared to Cheney "behesting" Joe Wilson, this screeching about verification of quotes falls a little short.

[Barney Frank]

Davebo,

I'm not sure what you're point is.
Let me clarify mine.
TM is being prodded to confess he was wrong about something he never said.

And yet Gilliard himself is still hedging his bets in case the words JZ used were in fact words that Gilliard has used.
All we apparently know for sure is that the e-mail was not sent to Townhouse. Even Gilliard doesn't know whether the e-mail reflects words he has actually written.
Its entirely possible that the attribution of the e-mail was incorrect but that the words are in fact Gilliard's, according to Gilliard himself.

[topsecretk9]

Maybe we oughta say uncle to Glenn -- Gee, I am sorry for x, so now that we have that out of the way...can you tell me a little bit more about Townhouse and the **contents** of YOUR authentic email Glenn?

[Moses]

Be a man, admit you jumped the shark and were ill-used by a liar with dubious facts and/or integrity. As it is, the more you fight, the more apparent it becomes that Greenwald is kicking your butt all over the ring and you're looking like you're too stupid to even understand when you've lost.

[topsecretk9]

i.e...call his bluff on side-stepping...

Also...I like to no how "Townhouse" differs from our Cult -- other than our's apparently does not have a "Townhouse" message maker email machine...

I'd also really like to know what operatives and journalists are Townhousers

[topsecretk9]

know - shoot

[Tom Maguire]

Be a man, admit you jumped the shark and were ill-used by a liar with dubious facts and/or integrity.

I don't have time to count, but that uis the second or third exhortation to "be a man". What do lefties say to women?

Anyway, I am so dazed by my defeat that I have a whole new post up graciously surrendering. To my Dark Side.

It probably won't help Moses, however, because you actually have to read it and think about the facts in evidence. But no worries - I am sure Glenn will tell you what to think about it soon enough.

[Crust]

I think it's time to coin a new term, the "Zengerle defense" (or maybe the "Maguire defense"?) as in, in a perjury trial, "Yes, your honor, that statement is false, but I made two other statements that are true, so what's the big deal"?

Seriously, Tom, you're usually a pretty fair guy, but somehow whenever you tangle with Greenwald you seem to go a little crazy. I probably missed some earlier exchange where he picked on you unfairly or something, but really, you are better than this.

[Brian]

You are actually claiming the "fake but accurate" defense. Laughable! Better watch out or you'll get kicked out of the lizard club.

[boris]

actually claiming the "fake but accurate"

Actually the accurate part is admitted. The fake part would be more accurately termed "unclaimed".

Whatever the source, it was on current events and for all intents and purposes the content was not disputed, only the source. It would be most accurate to refer to the email as "unclaimed" at this point. Certainly of a pattern with the others which makes it's existence and attribution plausible as a small fubar of some sort, not a malicious forgery.

[boris]

"Yes, your honor, that statement is false, but I made two other statements that are true, so what's the big deal"?

"Yes, your honor, all three statements are true, but I attributed the last one to Thomas Jeffereson when it was actually Benjamin Franlkin who said it. So what's the big deal"?

[Brian]

makes it's existence and attribution plausible as a small fubar of some sort, not a malicious forgery.

Oh yes, an honest mistake. Made by an anonymous maligner, who purposefully stripped the alleged email of its headers, and then once he was called on this mistake refused any longer to respond to his email. Why, this poor honest soul has already proven himself of such integrity, we should give him the benefit of the doubt, eh?

"Yes, your honor, all three statements are true, but I attributed the last one to Thomas Jeffereson when it was actually Benjamin Franlkin who said it. So what's the big deal"?

First of all, you inaccurately reworded the scenario to make it more favorable to your point. But playing your game anyway... If the statement was "I was complicit in an attempted coverup," then it's quite a big deal, wouldn't you say?

[Steve Colbert]

Tommy my boy! You were thinking with your gut again! Good for you! Zengerle's faked email sure as an element of truthiness to it! So does your blog!

Woohoo!

[topsecretk9]

--Made by an anonymous maligner, who purposefully stripped the alleged email of its headers, and then once he was called on this mistake refused any longer to respond to his email. --

Jason Leopold did the same exact thing to the Enron emails - strip the header - that duped Salon and Paul Krugman.

[Barney Frank]

Uhmm,

I'm having a hard time seeing any maligning in an e-mail that the purported victim says very possibly accurately represented his words.

[Brian]

I'm having a hard time seeing any maligning

Thus, you play the typical "word hyper-parsing" game, instead of learning or saying anything substantial.

Fine then... "Made by an anonymous SOURCE, who purposefully stripped the alleged email of its headers, and then once he was called on this mistake refused any longer to respond to his email."

Does that paint the picture of a more trustworthy soul?

[boris]

who purposefully stripped the alleged email of its headers

Imagined malice that could only make sense to the paranoid.

Whatever the source, it was on current events and for all intents and purposes the content was not disputed, only the source. It would be most accurate to refer to the email as "unclaimed" at this point. Certainly of a pattern with the others which makes it's existence and attribution plausible as a small fubar of some sort, not a malicious forgery.

There's no implication of "an anonymous maligner" rather than accidental misquote in there.

The sentiment expressed in the unclaimed email was in sync with the topic and the participants. There would be no point in making it up and attributing it to a party perfectly capable of disputing its authorship if not its content.

[clarice]

Why didn't JZ just follow "accepted journaolistic standards" and simply state that the email was filed with the Court (Sealed v. Sealed) and all will be disclosed in 24 business hours?

[boris]

Suppose Mary Mapes and Dan Rather had 4 genuine authentic TANG memos to use against GWB ...

... Would they say to themselves "Say we can really stick it to W if we add just one more fake memo! Too bad we don't have any of those old typewriters ... hmmmm ... just use MS word nobody will notice the difference ..."

Well, that's almost believable actually ...

... nevermind.

[Brian]

You are obviously a defender of truthiness, rather than truth. Flailing around trying to deny or explain away the facts just makes you look silly. Debate used to have truth as the foundation, but apparently no more. Good day.

[Barney Frank]

"Made by an anonymous maligner",

Hey Brian, when you call someone a maligner you are implicitly stating that someone has been maligned.
If taking you at your plain written word is 'parsing' in your book then you need to take a sedative and reread your Funk and Wagnalls.
You implicitly stated Gilliard was maligned. I pointed out its pretty tough to malign someone when he says he might very well have said the words. Do you not know what malign means?

[gay spank]

great site!!thanks for the service http://spankzilla.spazioblog.it/

[gaia gold]

Gaia online is a very good game. Through buying gaia gold, I find fun in it.

[LOTRO Gold]

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!