Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« For Your Christmas Consideration | Main | The Clinton Donors »

December 20, 2007

Comments

Barry Dauphin

Or maybe there really is no controversy, the guy needed something to write about, and wants to make it seem that those who disagree with Krugman will go to any lengths to smear such a gifted and brilliant op-ed writer who is no doubt our moral better and should have been Time's person of the year (although Putin probably reads him).

Rick Ballard

This morning I'm more interested in the Times hit on Clinton via the article that Ann noted on anothr thread. What does Giustra expect from the Red Witch in return for pumping 31.3 million into the Horndog Foundation? Where does the International Crisis Group fit on the world stage? With Soros involved, we can bet that it's another open lesion but of which disease?

The former Enron advisor's foibles are nice light entertainment but the shadow of Broom One lays on the land.

Jeff

The specific allegation is that Krugman has a son working for Hillary but the substance of the allegation is that Krugman has a family connection with the Hillary campaign.

Totally hilarious - I am loving this acceptance of the distinction between specific allegations and denials and the substance of allegations and denials. Accepting it a while back would have saved you a lot of time defending the White House in the CIA leak investigation. (The substance of the allegation was that Libby and Rove were involved in disclosing Wilson's wife CIA employment. The specific denial was that no one knowingly leaked knowing classified information on a sunny Tuesday in July etc. The substance of the allegation was that Bush indicated he would fire anyone involved in leaking Plame's CIA identity to the press. The specific denial was that he never said he would fire someone who didn't use her name on a sunny Tuesday in July over the phone with a pen in hand . . .)

And yes, I am well aware that you made ample use of the distinction when it came to NBC, rightly so. Until the NBC players involved made the specific denials you requested.

clarice

Breaking on Drudge:
"
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY
Thu Dec 20 2007 10:56:57 ET

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.

MORE

The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation.

The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

Rutenberg, along with reporter David Kirkpatrick, has been developing the story for the last 6 weeks.

Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday, sources reveal, but editor Keller expressed serious reservations about jounalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election.

McCain campaign officials Rick Davis, Charlie Black and Mark Salter are also said to have met with the NEW YORK TIMES in an effort to halt publication.

Developing... "

kim

No, Jeff, Joe disclosed his wife's CIA affiliation. So did Armitage. Cheney and Co. were the last to know.

Please, Jeff, don't be the last to know.
================

Tom Maguire

The substance of the allegation was that Libby and Rove were involved in disclosing Wilson's wife CIA employment. The specific denial was that no one knowingly leaked knowing classified information on a sunny Tuesday in July etc.

Your point being that Krugman is as trustworthy as Rove? Interesting.

Anyway, "knowingly leaked classified info" could be a crime; chit-chat would not be.

Put another way, the substance of the Plame allegation was that a crime had been committed; in that context, specifics matter.

But I know you know that; hence the improbable "sunny Tuesday" qualifier.

I'm pretty sure no one is alleging that Krugman's family times, real or imagined, could be criminal. Well, I say that, but far be it from me to underestimate the grievances of lefty conspiracists.

Until the NBC players involved made the specific denials you requested.

My failing memory... I still think Russert may have perjured himself to save his sorry ass; other than her laughable performances on Imus I don't recall Andrea Mitchell's denial that she was tipped to Ms. Plame, nor do I remember David Gregory stepping up to the mike to respond to Ari Fleischer. (The closest he came was on the Tim Russert Show when he said, roughly, "I never got a call"; of course, Ari said it was a face to face chat.)

Ahh, well. Jeff, lest we not lure you by again soon, Happy Holidays.

MikeS

This is the first I've heard about Krugman's odd Batman obsession.

clarice

Hill has set up two new websites just to attack Obama..apparently she's going to charge him with cowardice for being absent for some votes. (As opposed to her, I suppose , who just lies about what she voted for?)

clarice

One wonders how the papers like the NYT and WaPo seem to find an unending suppy of nitwits who write letters to them? Is it really possible that there are so many mushy heads who can spell?

kim

Beware the wrath of a woman spurned by the electorate. And Bill? Somebody give him a cigar and a humador.
============================

clarice

**suppLy***

kim

Their sapply gushes.
============

MayBee

Oh goody! Is the thread open to overly specific denials in the Plame case now? How about this one from La Plame herself:

Was I at that "fateful" breakfast in May 2003 when Joe discussed his trip to Niger with New York Times columnist Nick Kristof? Not I was not at the breakfast which took place at a Democratic Senate weekend retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Joe was invited to speak on a panel about our policy toward Iraq, and I attended simply as a "social spouse". It's called living your cover. I did not hear Joe and Nick's conversation on Niger.

Jeff

Well, I tried to riposte, and also to wish you a Holly Jolly Christmas in return, but I got blocked, for the first time ever, which is very very suspicious. I included an inclusive note about Festivus, but I suspect your spamblocker may be part of the infamous War On Christmas I keep hearing about.

Cecil Turner

The substance of the allegation was that Libby and Rove were involved in disclosing Wilson's wife CIA employment.

Only to those who were either:

  1. so invested in the "evil outing for revenge" meme that they take any discussion of a pertinent detail in the case (i.e., who sent Joe) as proof positive of mendacity; or,
  2. convinced that leaking the CIA affiliation of one of the worst-covered officers in modern history is malum in se because it was a horrifying breach of national security.
Neither argument is persuasive. It'd have been wrong if it were a (knowing) leak of classified information. As it was, it hardly rated as an error until Fitz managed to get Libby to make a couple of misstatements in his eight-hour gj testimony.

I suspect your spamblocker may be part of the infamous War On Christmas . . .

And party to a few other conspiracies as well, based on the goofy error messages I get.

Jeff

the substance of the Plame allegation was that a crime had been committed

Incorrect! The substance of the allegation was that top White House officials were involved in disclosing Plame's CIA affiliation to reporters, and that that may have constituted illegal conduct.

Cecil's comment is, perfectly aside from being completely wrong, totally irrelevant to the point at issue. The allegations were made, the questions were asked, and they had a certain substance, a certain point. And the White House offered certain very specific denials and so on. It would have been perfectly open to the White House to say, sure, Libby and Rove told reporters that WIlson's wife worked for the CIA as part of the pushback against Wilson. But it wasn't illegal, and moreover, like Cecil says, etc etc. But that's not what they did.

p.s. And it would appear to follow from Cecil's comment that if the White House had done that, it would have faced no real consequences. I'm skeptical, but whatever. The substance of the allegations were clear; the White House dodged them.

Topsecretk9

-- but I got blocked, for the first time ever, which is very very suspicious.--


Actually Jeff, typepad's been overly protective. Everyone is getting flagged as spam.

Jane

My gawd Jeff, give it a rest. You have never persuaded anyone here of your version of events, and from what I can tell you are losing not gaining ground.

It's Christmas. Bash Krugman.

kim

I agree, Jeff, that confronting Joe from the gitgo would have been a preferred course. Remember, though, that Kerry and Rockefeller met with Joe and Val early in May, and the Press did know a lot more about it than they have let on, even still. Your preference for a different course for the Whitehouse has the benefit of hindsight, and biased sight at that. They could sense an illegitimate attack; they were too naive to counter it effectively.

History will get it right, though.
======================

Jeff

Actually Jeff, typepad's been overly protective. Everyone is getting flagged as spam.

I was totally kidding. Seriously. I don't really think there's a war on Christmas.

Cecil Turner

The allegations were made, the questions were asked, and they had a certain substance, a certain point.

I note you seem unable (or unwilling) to make that point. Or to acknowledge that it came with an accusation of felony misbehavior:

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others? [Corn, channeling Wilson]
The accusation, of course, was false. And the denial speaks to the false portion of the accusation, not to the true bit . . . that everyone and their brother was talking about--and to--the Wilsons.

It would have been perfectly open to the White House to say, sure, Libby and Rove told reporters that WIlson's wife worked for the CIA as part of the pushback against Wilson.

Again, only if one is invested in the "evil outing for revenge" meme. There is no evidence even to suggest the mention of Wilson's wife was other than idle gossip (except for the "perfect" bit from Armitage, which demonstrated schaadenfreude over the White House's discomfiture, but not much else), or that it was memorable to anyone involved.

And it would appear to follow from Cecil's comment that if the White House had done that, it would have faced no real consequences.

Not really. The precise political ramifications are hard to figure, but with a complicit press corps, there's little doubt it'd have been spun as a vindictive attempt to blow someone's cover for revenge and intimidation. [Like, hey, it was!] The point is, rather, that there was no real substance to the accusation . . . just like the rest of Joe Wilson's carefully-parsed false witness.

clarice

When we do the movie version of JOM we can get Richard Beltzer to play Jeff--he was so good in homicide always arguing about the Lincoln assassination.

MayBee

So what Krugman denies, even if true, wouldn't be a problem.
Theoretically, what Libby and Rove denied, even if true, wouldn't have been criminal.
What Gregory, Mitchell, and Russert over-explicitly deny, wouldn't be a problem for them.
What Plame over-specifically denies, however, could have cost her her job if true.
So that's interesting.

boris

perfectly open to the White House to say, sure, Libby and Rove told reporters that WIlson's wife worked for the CIA as part of the pushback against Wilson

Assume Libby did not tell any reporters until after Novak or Russert told him. Or didn't remeber telling reporters regardless of whether he knew it. Miller and Grenier didn't remember discussing it for example without prompting.

Assume Rove did not consider "you heard that too" to be "telling reporters" or confirmation. In plain English it wasn't. YMMV.

With those assumptions there would be no reason for the White House to do anything differently. Further neither one would be a firing offence.

hit and run

Tom:
My failing memory... I still think Russert may have perjured himself to save his sorry ass

Heh, one of my favoritest (besides you, of course) writers on these internets is Jay Nordlinger. In his Impromptus column today, he wrote:

If there’s one man in the American political establishment who’s universally admired, or at least respected, it’s Tim Russert. (N.B.: He was a Mario Cuomo staffer.) Do you ever hear a bad word about him, from anybody, left, right, or center?

He wrote this to complain of Russert's handling of the Mitt Romney MTP interview this past Sunday.

And I wrote him to gently notify him that there were, indeed those who were willing to say bad words about Mr. Russert.

Since I can't get to JOM at work, and couldn't send him any direct links to specific threads, I sent him a google search of Russert JOM links.

clarice

HIT! Jane and I were about to send out the Swedish Womens Search Party and Brandy Patrol.

BR

Kim at 12:45

Entering the humor door :)
What temperature should it be at?

hit and run

I'll redisappear then. And send up a flare.

Topsecretk9

There's a cloud over the Prosecutors office in Chicago

Fitz has been on the stand - getting grilled on charges he and the FBI strongarmed a witness and then didn't read him his miranda rights, etc., but I thought this was pretty delicious...

Fitzgerald said he couldn't remember some other details of the meeting, including how many FBI agents were posted outside the room.

More here

The griller got grilled.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, known for his skill in interrogation, came under aggressive questioning himself Wednesday as he defended how he handled his interactions with a deputy U.S. marshal accused of leaking secret government information to the mob...

clarice

I just bet you will,Hit..........

clarice

Interesting TS.

Topsecretk9
"I was thinking about my wife and how she was going to raise the kids if we were separated, how we were going to provide," Ambrose said, tears coming to his eyes.

"I felt I had been hurled into a vat of quicksand, and Mr. Fitzgerald was throwing bricks at me," Ambrose said.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mob/703400,CST-NWS-mob19.article

Topsecretk9

If Rocco is out there....

The FBI had information about potentially shady business deals involving a Louisiana congressman going back the late 1990s _ at least eight years before he was indicted for taking bribes, an FBI agent testified Thursday.

FBI agent Timothy Thibault said during a pretrial hearing at U.S. District Court that he found a bureau document from the late 1990s questioning Rep. William Jefferson's business deals with a sugar company. It was not immediately clear what investigation, if any, occurred at the time

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7527303

richard mcenroe

Hey, I'm just relieved at the idea Krugman has failed to reproduce...

BR

Too funny, Clarice, H&R and RM!
What an amazing, serious and funny thread.

If I were an investigative reporter, I'd
have 3 questions for Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Do you believe in:
1) the inverted cosmos theory?
2) the hollow earth theory?
3) the hole at the pole?

kim

Investigate Beldar. He blows smoke rings for Fred.
===============================

sophy

I do not know how to use the twelvesky Gold ; my friend tells me how to use.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame