Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (20221)	5/26/2006 3:54:02 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Somebody's Lying Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting First, ABC News reported: <<< Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government. >>> Then, the Department of Justice said: Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department. Then, Speaker Hastert's office said: The ABC News report is absolutely untrue. As confirmed by the Justice Department, 'Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.' We are demanding a full retraction of the ABC News story. Then, ABC News said: <<< Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress. >>> Somebody's lying. The question is, if it's the sources for those ABC News stories, will ABC reporter Brian Ross do the honorable thing and disclose their identities. Without such action, there is no incentive against leaking wild, damaging but ultimately baseless rumors from high positions in the government. There is no accountability. When leakers are not punished for disseminating false information, each leak detracts from the public's knowledge — an unacceptable situation if the justification for such leaks is the public's right to know. Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting media.nationalreview.com blogs.abcnews.com blogs.abcnews.com corner.nationalreview.com blogs.abcnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20221)	5/26/2006 4:01:44 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"Libel and Defamation" Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting Looks like Hastert might be working up a lawsuit: <<< Dear Mr. Westin, Stephanopoulos, and Mr. Ross: At 7:25 p.m., the Statement of the Department of Justice confirmed: “Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.” At 10:21 p.m., you wrote: * “Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.” * This statement is false, and your republication of it after actual knowledge of its falsity constitutes libel and defamation. ABC News’ continued publication of this false information, after having actual knowledge of its falsity, evidences a specific and malicious intent to injure and damage Speaker Hastert’s reputation by continued repetition of a known falsehood. We will take any and all actions necessary to rectify the harm ABC has caused and to hold those at ABC responsible for their conduct. Please advise regarding who will accept service of process to remedy this intentional falsehood. Very truly yours, J. Randolph Evans Stefan C. Passantino Counsel to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert >>> ABC News, completely undeterred, has an update: <<< Federal law enforcement sources told ABC News Wednesday that Abramoff has been questioned about his relationship with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. "He is very much in the mix," a federal law enforcement official told ABC News about Hastert. The official said Hastert is not considered a formal "subject" or "target" at this time. Since our report, the Justice Department has twice denied that Hastert is under investigation or "in the mix." Speaker Hastert called the ABC News report "totally untrue." >>> How could somebody be "in the mix" without being "considered a formal 'subject' or 'target' of the investigation? This is nonsense! "In the mix" is a phrase that is utterly without meaning in a legal context. The Department of Justice is not a bakery, Alberto Gonzales is not a bartender, and Dennis Hastert is not an ingredient. Keep at it, ABC News, and enjoy the litigation. media.nationalreview.com drudgereport.com blogs.abcnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20221)	5/26/2006 4:06:46 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

ABC News Stands By Story Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting ABC News is standing by its story: <<< ABC News reporter Brian Ross said he stood by his story. "The people we're talking to feel very strongly about what they told us," Ross said in a telephone interview. ABC has not yet been served with legal papers from Hastert's attorney, Ross and ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said. In his letter to ABC, Evans said, "We will take any and all actions necessary to rectify the harm ABC has caused and to hold those at ABC responsible for their conduct." >>> And according the AP: <<< Correspondent Brian Ross stood by his report, saying he has checked with his sources who say the story accurately represents the facts "as they know them." "There's enough there for them (the FBI) to take a look at the speaker" and other members of Congress, Ross said in an interview. >>> Look at Ross's statements. First, "The people we're talking to feel strongly about what they told us." But what did they tell ABC News, exactly? That Hastert is "in the mix"? That phrase, conveniently, can mean any number of things. Second, "There's enough there for them (the FBI) to take a look at the speaker." But that's not what Ross reported. He reported that the FBI is taking a look at the speaker (if that's not what "in the mix" means, then it means nothing at all). The DOJ has stated in no uncertain terms that Hastert is not under investigation. They have even denied that he is "in the mix" — and given all the possible meanings of that phrase, that's a pretty broad denial. Furthermore, CNN reports: <<< Usually, when queried by reporters, the Justice Department neither confirms nor denies the existence of an investigation. >>> As I see it, there are two ways Brian Ross comes out of this with his credibility intact: 1. His sources turn out to be right. A few days from now, the DOJ clams up about this. Hastert's lawyers tone down the threats. We learn through more leaks to more reporters that Hastert is indeed the "subject" or "target" of an investigation (Future reports that Hastert is "still in the mix" or something of that nature won't suffice — no more meaningless phrases). 2. After more denials from DOJ, more threats from Hastert's lawyers, and no independent confirmation that Hastert is under investigation, Ross outs his sources so that the public can hold them accountable for floating baseless rumors. ABC News retracts and, if they're lucky, avoids litigation. If the rumors turn out to be baseless, Hastert sues, and ABC News stonewalls, this could be worse for journalism than the CBS memo scandal or the Judith Miller fiasco. And for what? So that Ross can stand by this "in the mix" claim that means essentially nothing? media.nationalreview.com today.reuters.com breitbart.com cnn.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20221)	5/26/2006 4:11:42 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

ABC News Gets Specific Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting ABC News reporter Brian Ross has gotten more specific about what he meant when he reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was "in the mix" of a Congressional bribery investigation: <<< As for the facts of ABC News' story itself, here is what ABC News knows: That the FBI interrogation of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff included specific and repeated questions about his relationship with Speaker Hastert along with other members of Congress. That, although Hastert is not a formal target, the FBI has been looking into a letter Hastert and others sent to the Secretary of the Interior urging her to block an Indian casino that would have competed with casinos represented by Abramoff. That a few days before the letter was sent, Abramoff hosted a fundraiser for Hastert at a restaurant he owned. >>> In other words, ABC News knows stuff we already knew about (the letter), and stuff that should come as a surprise to absolutely no one (the FBI questioned Abramoff about the letter and have looked into it). What about what ABC News doesn't know? 1. Did Abramoff tell investigators of a quid pro quo relationship between the fundraiser and the letter? Have investigators come across any other evidence that a quid pro quo relationship existed between the fundraiser and the letter? 2. Unless the answer to either of these questions is, "Yes," what makes this particular incident any different from hundreds of similar — and legal — incidents that occur between lobbyists and members of Congress all the time? If the answer to both questions is, "No," what makes this a newsworthy story? At approximately 6:30 p.m. yesterday, ABC News reported: <<< Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government. >>> Now, 24 hours later, Brian Ross tells us that he had essentially no more information than the rest of us when he hinted that he knew things we did not — using the mysterious phrase "in the mix" to describe Hastert's status in the investigation. If he had just reported on Wednesday what he reported yesterday, maybe he would not be facing litigation right now. As things stand, I hope a fellow journalist doesn't get sued. But I will have very little sympathy for him if he does. media.nationalreview.com blogs.abcnews.com blogs.abcnews.com riehlworldview.com blogs.abcnews.com blogs.abcnews.com media.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20221)	5/26/2006 4:11:55 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

This Was a Complete Overreach" Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting Howard Kurtz has the latest on ABC News's disputed report on Dennis Hastert: Reporters for NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and other news organizations checked out ABC's report but were waved off by law enforcement officials. "Within 15 minutes, we had three or four basic denials saying in effect this was a complete overreach, and we chose not to run it," said John Reiss, executive producer of "NBC Nightly News." No other television news organization could find sources to confirm this story. The Department of Justice issued an extremely rare public denial — not once, but twice. And Hastert is threatening to sue. ABC News is looking increasingly isolated on this. media.nationalreview.com washingtonpost.com