WRITER Knows that Radar and Bigheaddc Knows That You Know That I Know They are Failing to Save Face

"Sen. Vitter needs to do everything he can to avoid becoming a sound bite, and it would be best if he said nothing." --An anonymous GOP Senate aide.

WWW--I'm sending this e-mail off to Rob Capriccioso in a few moments, and these are going to be my last words on this whole affair wherein Rob and Radar's Editor John Cook thought they had a "big one." They didn't, and if they don't believe Ms. Palfrey is lying in her assertion that Sam Donaldson's presence in her now-defunct escort service's phone records has no significance, then what do they really assert?

To save face, I recommend the following constructive suggestion: start doing some real investigating of the people in the shadows who were her real clients, and drop the gossip. It should be noted here that none of this is to suggest that Ms. Palfrey was running a prostitution ring--that's not a necessary component.

What's very likely is that Senator David Vitter and others solicited her subcontractors to engage in acts that would constitute prostitution. There has been no trial yet, and Ms. Palfrey must be presumed innocent until proven guilty under our system of justice (or what's left of it). Go after the leads in the case of Ronald Roughead (and possibly his brother, CNO Gary Roughead), Randall L. Tobias, and Senator David Vitter.

Many in the GOP, fearing political consequences, want Vitter to fight the subpoena or refuse to answer questions by invoking Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination. Vitter has yet to say whether he will fight the subpoena. ...Vitter's allies contend the record already shows Vitter had an alleged taste for the high-priced escorts, particularly Paula Neble, so there is nothing he can add that can help Palfrey. (New York Daily News, 11.17.2007)

Of course, they would know, wouldn't they? Especially considering some of them could be--or individuals associated with them--are still to be uncovered in the phone records, and if there was actually some substantial investigation occurring by those with the means to do so. Instead, we get Sam Donaldson rooked into all of this because of some misdialing, but the show still had to go on at Radar and Bigheaddc. As a result, their behavior has all the appearance of being just like the corrupt, lazy, and apathetic mainstream press. While people are attempting to cover their asses, the bad-guys are getting away (presumably with murder in many cases).


The e-mail to Rob Capriccioso:

Dear Rob:

I'm posting this e-mail at my site:

I've read your piece, and in fairness, I am giving you some benefit of the doubt. However, simply because you've done hours of interviews with Palfrey does not support your thesis, and I'm skeptical there will be any follow-up explanations. In fact, nothing in the posting 'Blogger Thinks We Think Palfrey Is Lying; He’s Wrong,' supports the contentions that there was ever a worthwhile story here. It's my opinion that you're not seeing the forest for the trees, but you're hardly alone on this.

Of course ABC mishandled the phone records and behaved suspiciously, that's been obvious since May. Certainly, there is a strong likelihood that they were concerned about their ranks being in the records as well. But what of it? This is the same media that carried this administration's water--almost to the man and woman--and got us into this absurd and illegal war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think your efforts are going to make any real difference?

ABC's not the real story, and Ms. Palfrey confirmed my thesis that there was no story with Sam Donaldson in the phone records and that you jumped the gun on all of this. She has confirmed my assertions in correspondence as being "spot-on." You contend that you don't believe she lying, which makes no sense in this context at all. You need to be watching real clients of her phone records, like Senator David Vitter, Ret. Army Colonel Ronald Roughead (US Navy CNO Rear Admiral Gary Roughead's brother), and even a fellow named Mark Capansky, a former intern of Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Goodlatte. You also need to be looking into affairs at Annapolis, a short drive for you and your associates. You're too interested in the easy fix and the smut side of the story, and the ABC story is very likely a red herring, a dead end. We can all do better than this.

I could be wrong, but you're acting just as ABC did last Spring: only being interested in the "big names," the smut or salacious side of the story, and not really interested at all in getting-to-the-bottom of the whole affair. I assume a lot of this is for the sake of brevity--it takes explaining a story of genuine significance, and the rewards are often meagre. I will not disrespect you by calling you a journalist, as it's not a good thing to be called these days.

Thanks to all this running-in-place by the press and bloggers, Senator Vitter can now be replaced with a Republican appointed by Louisiana's new Republican Governor, Bobby Jindal. However, it's possible now that the GOP's incumbents in the Senate are going to turn on Vitter because of this fact. Will Vitter's counsel move to quash the subpoena? That's likely, but it doesn't mean it's going to be successful. We can only wait and see how Judge Kessler will rule on this.

Why you continue to assert that there is something to the Donaldson story puzzles me, but that's for others to find-out and publish, I'm done with this sideshow. This is a very broad scandal with implications that strike to the core of our political and economic system. As someone living around Washington D.C., you need to start hitting the pavement and tracking-down the real clients of Pamela Martin & Associates. You're hardly alone in being distracted from what is likely the real focus of the story: specific clients like Vitter, Tobias, Roughead, Capansky, and others who haven't been uncovered yet, but who are probably the cause of the whole scandal.

I was in close-communication with Ms. Palfrey during the aftermath of the ABC debacle, and I can tell you that it's more about the people who own the network and their representatives in Congress and elsewhere in the political sectors of this country. Perhaps you agree, but clinging to the Donaldson story isn't necessarily going to get to the heart of things at the network. There is definitely more than enough smoke implicating the role of lobbyists in the Palfrey case as well. ABC's ownership made the decision not to report on a number of individuals, not merely Sam Donaldson.

There were hints very early-on that there might be journalists in there, and possibly even some from ABC--the contention isn't new. I'm frankly uninterested in the quick-fix school of journalism which takes the view of what sells best as factoid news, a rush towards bringing in those advertising dollars. ABC's Brian Ross and his producers fought a hard battle with ownership and lost, and there are stories of yelling matches at the network. That's something to think about. Accountability: it's not just for breakfast anymore. Make us proud and start hitting the bad-guys.

The New York Daily News, 11.17.2007:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/11/17/2007-11-17_republicans_urge_politican_to_stay_quiet.html

11.20.2007: PS to Rob--I'm a writer, not a blogger. One might wonder why Rob won't return my e-mails anymore, but I don't. He's already dug a deep enough hole with all of this.

Well duh II: What Happened Between Bigheaddc and Radar?

The worthless mainstream media/Washington D.C.--Right, Sam Donaldson IS in the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's defunct Pamela Martin & Associates, but it isn't significant. Have you ever dialed the wrong-number before? Sam's relatives did, since one of Palfrey's numbers was one-digit off from Donaldson's, so she kept getting calls from them, and over-and-over again.

Cue Radar magazine's site editor John Cook and an overzealous Rob Capriccioso of Bigheaddc.com who thought they had a major scoop that required virtually no investment and could bring in those advertising dollars.

A source close to the story has confirmed that there was no story to begin with. But they went and ran it anyway, and have now turned on each other claiming different stories. Readers should note that they both appear to be contending that Palfrey is lying, which is pretty low of them considering she's a defendant. That's how it goes in this story--guilty until proven innocent, a curiously un-American contention that runs-through the affair labeled "Hookergate" by the mainstream press. This comment was posted by this writer at Radaronline.com's page for the article "Donaldson's Digits: Wrong Number" at 1:50PM today, though I doubt it's getting put up, it is unedited:

Right, pretty vague information in those missives posted by Mr. Cook and Capriccioso. Here's what I have good reason to believe transpired, and from a source directly involved in the whole mess:Because of the salacious side of Ms. Palfrey's legal predicament, there is a class of journalists and bloggers who tend to fixate on the "prostitution" aspects, rather than the real story--the political side.

But no, instead we have the usual laziness of trying to find the "big names," when that's not the real story at all. What's the real story? We don't know all of it yet, but outlines are beginning to appear. But that means work, real investigative work, not an easy fix like a Sam Donaldson. What of the others in the records of Ms. Palfrey's former escort service?

The best example is one I and an anonymous commenter (I believe at Firedoglake) discovered in the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates back in July (yes, July!): one Ronald Roughead (703-836-0522, Cingular 2005) who is probably still employed by SAIC, one of the most successful contractors to the defense and intelligence communities, and who even have some tangential connections to the Randy 'Duke' Cunningham scandal. This connection come from associates of Cunningham's co-conspirator, Brent Wilkes.

It should be noted here that former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was mentioned in the trial of Wilkes in recent weeks by Wilkes' nephew. Also, it should be noted that Mr. Roughead is brother to Rear Admiral Gary Roughead, current Bush appointed CNO of the entire Naval Fleets of the US! But, according to the LA Times, Gannett, USA Today, and sundry other outlets, this isn't newsworthy. Ask yourselves why Ronald Roughead is in the records.

I have posted information about Mr., Roughead on Bigheaddc's comments section (of which I am now unable to access), and there has been no follow-up on it as far as I can tell. No, instead, we get Sam Donaldson and other such items of gossip--presumably to elicit more hits and more advertising dollars to Radar and Bigheaddc, the whole point of the rush to run the Donaldson pseudo-story.

Again, what happened between Radar and Bighead? They wanted the SMUT, but Ms. Palfrey wasn't going to confirm it to Mr. Capriccioso, so he went and submitted the story anyway. But there was a problem of confirmation: Deborah Jeane Palfrey. She's not going to confirm it because there was never a story to begin with. Her assertions are true, while those of Radar and Bighead are not. They wanted a story that was an easy fix, didn't get it, and went and ran it anyway. Now they have to do the clean-up.

The real job is find those culprits like Ret. Colonel Ronald Roughead (the people who expedite the atrocities of our day in the safety of the shadows), the real players with the security clearances who have called Ms. Palfrey's service (or vice versa).

A great face-saving gesture on-the-part of Mr. Cook and Mr. Capriccioso would be to get-up and drive to 1200 First Street, Alexandria, Virginia where Mr. Roughead lives and confront him. You might want to break the news to his wife, however. Did he phone escort services in Iraq when he ran the IMN (Iraq Media Network)? Roughead is likely a propaganda chief, so maybe that explains some of the bumbling on the internet...

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