Smear Job - Horton, Simpson, 60 Minutes - Round Two

Wow, team Rove is indeed taking their targets on one by one. Here is my latest on this, but for those of you who have not been following the hit-job saga, see these two threads first:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2903087&mesg_id=2903087
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2906401&mesg_id=2906401

##



Quin Hillyer, the author of this smear is about to be shown a bit of what is known as investigative journalism.

Quin uses "sources" to make claims that are patently unsupportable by the evidence he provides. Case in point, Quin points to Eddie Curran's recent hit job on Scott Horton as proof of something - not sure what exactly, but lets take a look.



Actually the TRUTH is a bit more interesting than this. Mr. Curran - I am told - authored in ghost form some Siegelman prosecution documents. That hardly makes him an ace investigative journalist. Rather, he appears to be nothing more than a hired shill. I suggest Mr. Quin vet his sources better. He might want to ask Mr. Curran about his father's close friendship with Senator Jeff Sessions.

Quin goes on to then use Toby Roth as a source to lie openly about Ms. Simpson's long-time role in Alabama politics. Let's see here:



Interesting thing about Quin's little lie here is this. In his smear job, Quin calls Roth an "activist" when everyone knows that Roth is a lobbyist. Now, you might wonder why Roth being a lobbyist is important. Well, you see, he too has a conflict of interest here - namely, to avoid jail time. Someone might wish to ask Roth about his client list.

Quin also points to his "Republican sources" in Alabama who, according to Quin, have never heard of Simpson. I have spent a good deal of time in the deep south investigating this story and every Republican I have spoken with - and I mean real Republican, not Rove-Republican - has a whole other story to tell. I have Republican friends, liberal friends and every conceivable flavor of political opinion. They respect me and I respect them because we all understand that our individual political leanings are less important than the truth, the rule of law, and our country. Republicans should be as outraged as Democrats at what has been happening in Alabama. Anyone who is not outraged is neither a Republican or a Democrat or any other version of American.

But I digress, as I often do.

The rest of Quin's piece is predictably a pathetic attempt to defend Karl Rove, who won't even defend himself by testifying under oath. Ms. Simpson testified under oath and that alone puts her credibility far above that of a man known to be a liar, who uses the press as his personal propaganda tool, and refuses to address each allegation under oath. Until Mr. Rove appears before Congress and addresses each one of these allegations, his credibility problem will continue. And reporters who come to his defense based on his word alone are either incredibly flawed or incredibly paid off. Which is it Mr. Quin? I am curious.

What is clear is that someone is very worried about the 60 Minutes special that is to be aired this Sunday. So worried in fact, they feel the need to attack the reporters on this story as Quin does by flippantly referring to Scott Horton as "a blogger."

I think the public should contact the American Spectator and ask them what relationship Quin has to Mr. Rove. If Quin's sources were vetted by the editors at the American Spectator. And what proof other than the say so of highly questionable "sources" of anything written in that piece. Surely the public has a right to know if the American Spectator is in anyway compromised from reporting the facts, no?

Just because they lean toward the right does not and should not discredit the American Spectator. I for one enjoy reading the American Conservative. Facts don't have a politic position and should not be treated as mere political opinions. The only difference between a credible publication that openly leans toward a political point of view and a publication that does not is in the stories they choose to focus on. There is nothing wrong with that so long as the facts are in order and the evidence is not "fixed around" allegations. The American Spectator, therefor, owes its readers some answers regarding this unacceptable piece of propaganda. Conservatives and liberals alike should contact the publication and demand some answers about this story:

The American Spectator
1611 North Kent Street, Suite 901
Arlington, Virginia 22209

Tel: 703.807.2011
Fax: 703.807.2013
Website: www.spectator.org
##
http://www.atlargely.com/2008/02/the-smear-job-.html

help?

:kick:

Thank you for getting out this story!

"A former Democratic Alabama Supreme Court justice (and sometime Siegelman adversary) who represented a co-defendant and close ally of Siegelman's in the trial that convicted Siegelman of federal bribery and obstruction charges, said that the previous versions of the woman's oft-changing allegations "must have been created by a drunk fiction writer.""

Yet it's somehow not worth mentioning the name of such an esteemed member of the bar? Or does not naming the person - so clearly identifiable by the details - make it easier to backpedal when he or she denies ever having made such a statement? "Oh, no, it was someone else." Of course it was. It always is.

Judging by the article, you might think that Quin was given an advance copy of the 60 Minutes report for viewing. However, that is obviously not the case. The entire article is built upon rumor, speculation and sound bites in an attempt to discredit 60 Minutes (good luck) and dissuade people from viewing the program. Obviously Quin has never heard the old Hollywood line "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

The more controversy these asshats generate about the 60 Minutes report before 7:00 pm tomorrow evening, the better, I say.

Somehow, the rigging of an election and Siegelman in prison are not the issues? Laughable, and transparent!

There seems to be a real smoke storm swirling around the central issue, trying futilely to make certain it is ignored.
Gonzofication seems to have set in too--reporters embroiled themselves in the story, more distraction from the core issues.

Of course, effect is limited to the attention it gets. "Don't link the false and the absurd" seems a good idea always, I say!

on all the talk shows and for them to be quoted on all the "news" programs....

:kick:

on edit, reading this article makes the author's outrage a little difficult to track, what with the frantic setting up of straw man arguments.

Scaife did get involved in numerous anti-Clinton activities. He gave $2.3 million to the American Spectator magazine to dig up dirt on Clinton and supported other conservative groups that harassed the president and his administration. The White House and its allies responded by fingering Scaife as the central figure in "a vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," as Hillary Rodham Clinton described it. James Carville, Clinton's former campaign aide and rabid defender, called Scaife "the archconservative godfather in heavily funded war against the president.">

and

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2001/05/18/arkansas_project/

lots more background

are playing defense and trying to hold back the tide.

K&R!

at least here on the West Coast.
Glad they're airing it, but what a crummy night to do so.

Happy Birthday, Gov! We'll be watch 60 Minutes.

I have wondered if the airing on his birthday is subtext, making a statement??

Thanks for that, makes sense now.

to protect someone like Rove - or who is it they are protecting?

on the Montgomery Independent Web site. The site also includes an editor's note somewhat supportive of Horton. This is hack journalism at its very lowest.



an indictment of that publication??

Right. Although we do need some indictments, that's for sure.

Edit to add: Read the whole thing. The level of disgusting ad hom attack will blow your mind!