Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Well duh: Sam Donaldson Not "IN" Phone Records of Jeane Palfrey's Pamela Martin & Associates


The Generally Crappy Mainstream Media/Washington D.C.
--This is a good one-- Rob Capriccioso, "sometime" blogger for Radaronline.com and founder and proprietor of Bigheaddc.com has been let go from Radar for screwing-up and stating that Sam Donaldson's phone number is in the phone records of the so-called "DC Madam's" (Deborah Jeane Palfrey) former escort service, casting it in a light that Palfrey alleges never existed.

It's likely that Larry Flynt's investigator Dan Moldea has also chimed in that the number means nothing of any significance. Does anyone do thorough fact-checking anymore? Nah, that's not cost-effective. I think they're giving away Press Club credentials with a pack of Chicklets (TM) nowadays, right? Ask Larisa Alexadrovna, she might know. But right, he wasn't a REAL journalist, whatever that means these days.

Why would someone like Bigheaddc.com's Capriccioso do something like this? Who's telling the truth? In this case, my money is on Palfrey. Cook has called her story "bullshit," and probably because it didn't deliver the salacious material they wanted. Why not look at all the other aspects of the story, the political ones? Nope, it's the easy fix for Radaronline and Bigheaddc, the "hooker" story.

They're willfully ignoring what's important to the story, just like the rest of the media, and to their shame. It's possible that because the blogs are starved for resources, Rob Capriccioso and John Cook saw an opportunity to get some of those funds through a big scoop (more advertisers). Something went wrong--it wasn't the big story they thought it should or would be. An exchange between Radar's Editor, John Cook and Capriccioso has been going on since yesterday evening, here's some of it:
[Ed.-Posted by John Cook, November 13th, 2007...]

On Nov 12, 2007 11:34 AM, John Cook wrote:
Rob-

I need to talk to you about Donaldson. Can you call me or e-mail me a
number?

John

***

On 11/12/07 12:28 PM, "Rob Capriccioso" wrote:

John,

The update you posted containing much off the record information
between me and Tyler has nothing to do with new information Big Head
DC received and reported regarding Donaldson. I don't understand what
you are doing. Can you clarify ASAP via e-mail?

Rob
--
Rob Capriccioso | Publisher & Founding Editor | Big Head DC |
bigheadDC.com | rob@bigheadDC.com | AIM: bigheadrob007


***

On Nov 12, 2007 12:29 PM, John Cook wrote:

I called you and left a msg

You have my phone number. If you want to talk, call me. ...

[Ed.--Capriccioso responds with a correspondence from a reader who also happens to be a blogger...]


To how many different Radar writers did you expect me to give quotes, John:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. Huff
Date: Nov 12, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: About the Donaldson story...
To: Rob Capriccioso


Thank you, Rob. I appreciate it.

Steve...

On Nov 12, 2007 12:09 PM, Rob Capriccioso wrote:

Hey Steve,

Heading out of pocket right now -- have to run. But here are a couple
of quick quotes. ..."I'm extremely confident in our story. And - let me be clear - how ABC
has maneuvered its reporting of the 'DC Madam' case is the real story
here." ..."We're currently researching another high-profile national anchor, who
has been especially critical of political hypocrisy in the past."

Sincerely, Rob

Rob Capriccioso | Publisher & Founding Editor | Big Head DC |
bigheadDC.com | rob@bigheadDC.com | AIM: bigheadrob007


On Nov 12, 2007 11:50 AM, wrote:

Rob,

Don't know if you authored the post on Sam Donaldson possibly being in the
DC Madam's phone records , but it looks like you're the guy to contact in
general for BigheadDC. I wrote a short entry for Radar's "Fresh
Intelligence" last night linking the BigHeadDC post. They've posted it but
they've asked to me seek comment/confirmation on the story. I'm not going to
ask for source info or anything, of course, but a comment on the story --
how solidly do you stand by it, that sort of thing -- would be helpful. I can be reached at
678-778-2849 or call you -- I couldn't find a number quickly for you or I would have gone that route.

Thanks, Steve Huff

Rob Capriccioso | Publisher & Founding Editor | Big Head DC |
bigheadDC.com | rob@bigheadDC.com | AIM: bigheadrob007
...

It comes-off as being like a flame war by a couple of teens in a chat room, doesn't it? Ownership of outlets is the key to our current problem with the media, and we should be subsidizing independent outlets so these outbursts are minimized.

The government should be funding independent outlets so people like Cook and Capriccioso spend their time productively for the good of our society, becoming a strengthening force for our democracy in a time when it's badly needed. The Founding Fathers thought this was an exceptional idea...you know, if you want a democracy at all. It seems some of us don't, especially the more money we have and make. Where are these "independent outlets, Matt," you might be asking?

You're on the most important one right now, the internet. Whoops! That would be logical in a democracy--giving money to people with opinions we don't like--but it doesn't serve the unbridled interests of unaccountable power, so down the memory hole it goes, bloop! Making that same silly mistake of actual independent thought again, I always assumed that in our legal system when one is accused of something that there's an exchange of information between the plaintiff (the accuser/prosecution) and the defendant. In a trial, this is called the "discovery process."

From today's missive from Ms. Palfrey and her attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley:
One has to ask:

-Why has and is the Department of Justice going to such lengths to keep me from having access to materials I rightly am entitled?

-Why does Mr. Sibley have to seek assistance from the Court, to obtain this mandatory discovery?

-As importantly, why have the Government’s lawyers made numerous efforts to keep this very same information from coming to light via the use of injunctions and protective orders?

-What exactly is the Government hiding? [Ed.-I can hazard a guess...no case, and their own very real crimes under the umbrella of officialdom.]

('Government AUSA's Refuse to Disclose Mandatory Discovery in D.C. Madam Case...,' 11.13.2007)
Where's the discovery process? This--to belabor the point again-and-again--is what we all assume occurs at the federal level, just like in state and local trial courts. We would be wrong, particularly in drug and/or forfeiture cases...or the case of Ms. Palfrey. Today, Jeane has filed a motion once again (is Judge Kessler napping a lot these days?) to obtain information, since assistant U.S. Attorney William Rakestraw [Ed.--Perhaps we know what some of his ancestors did...] Cowden won't even respond to any of these motions for discovery.

Of course, Cowden's doing so under the orders of his superiors, U.S. Attorneys Kathleen Connolly and Jeffrey A. Taylor. Taylor is currently the man helping the White House obstruct subpoenas on Karl Rove and Harriet Miers from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. This writer believes Mrs. Connolly and her hubbie have visited this site numerous times. Hello. You know this already Mrs. Connolly: You and Mr. Taylor don't represent the interests of the average American. Please resign before it's too late.

If Miers or Karl Rove are dragged into court, it's likely that Mr. Taylor--as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia--will begin the real obstructions he was appointed to expedite, hence the reason for his extraordinary appointment under the Patriot Act provision. This is the man prosecuting Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a man very close to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, and a man who never would have been appointed at all had it not been for said scandal. Surely, Judge Kessler has noted this as a very real possibility, and that the case against Palfrey is decidedly political.

To deny such is to deny what everyone can see as plain as the nose on their own face every morning. Her rulings and statements in several areas are not only disingenuous, but are a denial of objective reality. Bluntly-put, she is lying in her rulings in these areas, particularly in her bold assertion that there's no political element to the prosecution of Palfrey.

Judge Kessler shows all the poker-faced impassivity of a Mandarin, which is appropriate in some ways. But is she missing something in her attempts at impartiality, or hiding behind the image of acting impartial? Will justice prevail, and will there at least be reasonable due process? We're still waiting. As Mr. Taylor was appointed as an interim U.S. Attorney by the former, disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (in that hidden provision of the Patriot Act renewal in 2006, now repealed), and it could be a very long wait. Whether the new attorney general will be significantly different is an unknown. What will Michael Mukasey be any different than Gonzales? This writer thinks it's doubtful, but there's always hope!

Nonetheless, all the media can--or is allowed to--talk and write about is this absurd, pseudo-titillating blurb of a blogger who thought he had a "big fish." He should go track-down Ronald Roughead--but then, so should the rest of the discredited mainstream press. If Huffington Post wants to rescue its sagging credibility, it would behoove them to look into the less salacious (sexy) aspects of Ms. Palfrey's legal predicament.

Perhaps Judge Kessler and all these other clowns just want to help preserve a rickety, corrupt, and ailing order that doesn't deserve saving (for the sake of their own petty privileges). That would be a lousy epitaph for anybody, including John Cook, Rob Capriccioso, and even Sam Donaldson. "Bullshit" indeed. (Revised 11.14.2007)

Common Dreams, 01.27.2007: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0127-01.htm

February 14th background on 14 US Attorneys serving without Senate approval: http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/2/14/9546/72609

Jeffrey A. Taylor's DOJ page: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/US_Attorney/index.html