*** Special to The BRAD BLOG
*** by D.C. Correspondent Margie Burns
Has the Washington Post been fooled (again) by high-level ‘leakers’? It sure looks that way.
On Tuesday, March 20, the Post ran a front-page article on the DOJ-U.S. Attorneys scandal that led off:
The item was sourced to unnamed “administration officials” who gave it to two WaPo reporters “yesterday.”
This juicy lede graf was followed up:
The major problem with this story? It’s not true. The Department of Justice never ‘ranked’ U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald negatively or as ‘undistinguished.’ According to sworn testimony by D. Kyle Sampson, today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Fitzgerald was rated ‘very strong’ internally in the DOJ.
So who fed the Post that story? And why did they run it without pinning it down first?…
As readers know, the Post article spawned headlines across the nation, all saying that the DOJ ‘ranked’ Fitzgerald “undistinguished,” “mediocre,” or “middling” or “hadn’t distinguished himself,” etc., etc. ““ further generating thousands of Internet hits (Google the pertinent terms) from enraged bloggers and Chicago fans of the prosecutor, and of course intensifying calls for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign (or be impeached).
Never happened.
This doesn’t take the administration off the hook (see below). Gonzales still has his problems; the ‘war on terror’ is still a massive attack on the Middle East abroad and on the middle class at home; and the Bush White House still politicizes everything it can. But to do it justice, ha ha, the DOJ itself did not generate an ‘undistinguished’ or any-of-those-other-words ‘ranking’ for the Special Counsel.
Take a closer look at graf 2 of the article, quoted above. Only when we turn to an inside page in that day’s Post, page 5, do we find out (beneath the inside headline, “Amid CIA Leak Probe, Prosecutor Was Rated as Undistinguished”) that the DOJ ‘documents’ referred to above had not been published at the time of the article[emphasis added]
Uh-huh.
Today I sat in on the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Kyle Sampson testified. Sampson’s chart has now been turned over to Congress and was handed out to journalists. I received a copy. I have the ‘chart.’ There IS no “reference to Fitzgerald.”
UPDATE 3/30/07: Here is the chart online, among documents posted by the House Judiciary Committee. (Note: this is a 25-page set of documents. Sampson’s email and chart are pages 5 through 8 of 25; scroll down somewhat.)
Now follow along closely at home: There are 93 U.S. Attorneys. Sampson’s chart lists all 93 districts. Only ten of the attorneys, however, are ‘ranked’; all 83 others, not ranked. Each of the ten falls into one of two categories, as Sampson says in his accompanying email and as the Judiciary Committee summarizes elsewhere:
- Five names are bold-faced, meaning “recommend retaining” (BTW, one of these keepers is David Iglesias of New Mexico, since fired. Two other names, Bogden of Nevada and Charlton of Arizona, wd appear to be the ones ‘ranked’ neutrally as not distinguishing themselves either positively or negatively).
- Three names are strikeout/crossed out, meaning “recommend removing” ““ Cummins of Arkansas, Margaret Chiara of Michigan, and Carol Lam of San Diego.
And where in all this is U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, you ask? ““ Simple: Like the 82 other USAs, he was not included in this initial (Feb. 24, 2004) set of recommendations by Sampson. 83 U.S. attorneys are simply not ranked at all. (Note: ‘unranked’ does not mean ‘undistinguished.’)
He’s not ranked. He was not placed in an “undistinguished” category or any other category, because he ““ like 82 other prosecutors, the overwhelming majority ““ was not characterized on Sampson’s list. They are not touched by it (directly, although all USAs are affected by the lack of morale at Justice ““ which is where that bogus Post article, and this analysis, come in).
As Sampson testified today before the Judiciary Committee, “I knew he was handling a very sensitive case, and I really didn’t want to rate him one way or another.”
Sampson ““- also testifying, as mentioned, that the DOJ had rated Fitzgerald internally as “very strong” -““ replied repeatedly to pointed questions from Senator Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, “I didn’t want to rate him,” “I didn’t rate him,” “I didn’t rate him one way or the other.”
Not that Sampson’s off the hook either. Sampson went on to testify, under further questioning by Durbin, that he had himself raised Fitzgerald’s name in a discussion much later, “on one occasion in 2006.” As Sampson recounts in sworn testimony, he was talking to Harriet Miers (Bush Supreme Court nominee for a short time) and Bill Kelley, and “I said Patrick Fitzgerald could be added to the list.” He adds, “I immediately regretted it,” a statement he repeated several times, mostly under questioning by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who repeatedly tried to tie the item to Karl Rove.
Apparently Miers and Kelly reacted to Sampson’s remark by looking at him as though he were a bad smell.
Sampson admittedly needs the scrutiny, but so does that Post article. I am a lifetime newspaper reader; I love print; I love the press ““ and I cannot find in that article anywhere a declaration that the reporters who wrote it actually saw the ‘documents’ alluded to. Did they ask for any documentation of what they’d been told (the day before)?
A second — and bigger — question. Who are the “administration officials” who fed this highly ambiguous description of Sampson’s chart to the WashPost? Are they actually in the DOJ, as the article seems to imply? If not, where are they? Are there just two of them? (I like a good joke as much as anyone else does, but please tell me the reporters weren’t reeled in by a couple of Armitage cronies.)
And what, oh what, was the game plan here? The March 20 Post article places this purported ‘ranking’ in the context of other mid-term firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The item was instantly believable for many people because of other White House actions — remember Paul O’Neill, Colin Powell, etc. And of course the guilty verdict in the Libby trial made jokes, or fears, about firing Fitzgerald inevitable.
Whom were the unnamed ‘administration officials’ gunning for? Was it the Post, which got snookered once again by an administration that keeps on using the bait of access to play reporters like trout on the line?
Was it Fitzgerald, whose office has four prosecutors who were that day beginning the large, high-profile trial of former media mogul Conrad Black in Chicago?
Or was it Gonzales, whose credibility as Attorney General was further damaged by insinuations that he was somehow responsible for a false rating of a good prosecutor?
Regardless of the deeper accuracy, if any, of the item, that was quite a hook — whatever else it was, it gaffed at least a couple of people — the prosecutor possibly, though I would hope not, and Attorney General Gonzales certainly, and in this instance unfairly. That said, the AG is still the man at the top in Justice. Perhaps the DOJ still has the resources to find out who ‘leaked’ ““- actually, planted -““ this bit of “swift-boating” mischief in a national newspaper. Its effect cannot be to make the DOJ look good, or to strengthen Justice within the administration.
A remaining question is whether reporters with high-level access are ever going to get a clue. We know by now that the White House and the Office of the Vice President will eagerly ‘leak’ an ‘exclusive’ to make an item a better plant — like Judith Miller’s Iraq WMD, like Bob Novak’s ‘his wife sent him,’ like the WaPo’s ‘Saddam’s own people will rise up against him.’ This administration has done it to them over and over again.
One last note: Just before Durbin was to ask his questions, the Senate GOP tried to cut off the hearing by applying the seldom-enforced 2-hour rule. For 15 to 30 minutes journalists and others milled around in the Hart central hearing room, waiting for further word, until Republican senators apparently reversed course and termed it all a misunderstanding. (Senator Hatch remained in Hart 216, speaking with the press.) Then Durbin — finally — got his chance to question Sampson.
Of course they were swift boated-just like everyone else who openly disputed the accuracy and legitimacy of their policies. Didn’t cha, dubya and rover? You boys went after ANYONE who might attract some attention-most people call that a 1st Amendment rights violation.
What makes you think Sampson didn’t use or create a different chart for the Senate than the one reporters might have seen? Are you so sure he wouldn’t lie under oath?
Who would have benefited in this if it were a Swift Boat trick?
As a journalist, I can tell you it is fundamental that a reporter who wrote that story would have to have seen original documents showing what they wrote. And multiple editors would have verified that. Very basic. Were the documents in court originals?
That said, John Solomon is one of the reporters, I see. Solomon has a suspect reputation among some peers and burned sources. He recently left the AP for WaPo. Some of us are quite curious about that. It has been said it was believed his work at the AP often was formed from oppo research, with a peppering of added quotes from a quick call or two that sometimes involved giving expert sources distorted facts to elicit the quotes that would fit the meme the GOP lobbyists had crafted. His Harry Reid “scoops” were particularly notorious, and amazingly well timed to the very hour they moved on the Washington wires to the satisfaction of GOP strategists, but there were a few other stories of his watched curiously in journo circles.
It seems that not everyone working as journalists today are what we journalists accept as our peers. And that’s not about competition; it’s about quantifiable professional standards. As well, this White House has proved repeatedly to be full of liars.
So the discrepancy you post about is quite interesting, indeed. I wouldn’t even begin to draw a conclusion yet about who’s telling the truth, but clearly the facts at hand aren’t adding up.
Jeff (#2) one of the reasons why the public has lost confidence in “journalists” is a statement like “As a journalist, I can tell you it is fundamental that a reporter who wrote that story would have to have seen original documents showing what they wrote. And multiple editors would have verified that. Very basic.”
This was followed by a description of behaviour by a “journalist” that is totally NOT that standard. That, coupled with the proof we have seen at supposed “institutions” of Journalism such as the NYT and WaPO of actions equally sordid by Miller and Millbank and others.
“Journalism” is dead. All that is left is corporate media designed for ratings and/or government propoganda. I respect my garbage collector — at least he does his job.
“A remaining question is whether reporters with high-level access are ever going to get a clue.”
I can only suggest that you watch David Gregory’s un-Pip-like backup moves to Herr Rove’s mayonnaise “rap” to get a sense of the fourth estate’s need for the “first” estate’s approval. So apparently, Not.
If one rummages through the documents at the RNC, one can find evidence that John Solomon of WashPost is a receiver of bribes (cash & in kind) and therefore his shilling for the GOP of today is nothing buy services for payment recieved. This person I believe adores Hitler and Josef Goebbel and follows Goebbel’s 19 points of propgandism. Remember, that Tony Snow, who touted lies and propagated them on a regular basis, is now fighting for survival. Why? Because the divine power said, Tony you are at the peak of your career and you abused your trust by those who looked up to you for spreading truth, and instead propgated untruths day-in and day-out. The result the divine power acted when Tony least expected. Another example is Lee Atwater. He was ONLY 40 years of age and RNC Chairman when he died. John Solomon, GOD is watching you. Your dishonest deeds are not going unnoticed. John Solomon, remember the word TRUTH. TRUTH never dies!
It could be argued that those who fly to close to the truth meet an early grave as well.
After all, what better way to destroy supreme power, but by destruction itself?
I just sent this email to the authors of the WaPo article, Eggers and Solomon:
Who leaked you false information that Patrick Fitzgerald was ranked as undistinguished by DOJ? You reported this in a front page story last week: QUOTE: The reference to Fitzgerald is in a portion of the memo that Justice has refused to turn over to Congress, officials told the Washington Post, speaking on condition of anonymity because the Fitzgerald ranking has not been made public. UNQUOTE. Yet yesterday Kyle Sampson testified under oath Fitzgerald was ranked ‘very strong’ by DOJ. Who lied to you? Tell us on the front page, where you placed the false story. And, please, stop letting the Bush Administration use you to smear their opponents. Read the Post’s policy on the use of anonymous sources again.
CharlieL, your criticism of corporate journalism is well deserved. You understand that the co-opting of the Fourth Estate was the critical turning point in the loss of democracy (keep a keen eye also on higher education, the next big target, IMHO, already well underway).
But attacking journalism as a profession is not deserved and is counterproductive.
You have most of the information you do because the majority “real ones” provide it. Bloggers and the WWW, thankfully, give the vehicle for work the corporations may keep obscure. (Net neutrailty, please fight for it. The only reason you haven’t seen more struggle yet is the MSM haven’t yet had their own online operations fully up and ad profitable.)
The corporate masters couldn’t sell anything if it weren’t for us real journalists. It’s a bit of a cat-and-mouse game in newsrooms, for those of us who have caught on — and admittedly most “real ones” just go naively on about their business without catching on, but their good work still is valuable.
For 5-10 years heavily, and to a lesser degree before that, I have watched an insidious intrusion of people within our ranks that do not practice the standards in place long even before college degrees in journalism were standard for hire.
Some of us do speak up in forums like this, but all kinds of whistleblowers suffer retaliation, and journalists have not been excluded. We’re no good to you on the bread line or dead like Gary “two-bullet suicide” Webb, but we can help each other call out the pod people. Please don’t dismiss all of us journalists.
When I see distorted “news” stories, I jot the bylines on a running list. Editors can have a lot of effect on a story, so I don’t immediately reject everything these reporters write. But patterns appear. One-sided reports, missing key facts, anonymous sources where no reason for anonymity is apparent or offered (that’s a big one), etc …. Solomon’s byline and 3 other frequent AP bylines come up pretty often and pretty consistently (economic reporting is particularly troublesome, fyi).
John Solomon’s move to WaPo feels to me much like the promotion of Fox’s Carl Cameron, who makes up stuff in stories and once admitted making an entire story up out of whole cloth, to the White House press corps after the ’04 election. Laughingly (but not funny), he’s accepted there as one of the gang.
WaPo and NYT have these pod journalists, too. Management must know who they are and why they’re there, and I can’t wait for the day they spill their guts. NYT has a Judy Miller clone already. Back in the day, these were called CIA journalists, but those handful of CIA journos still were qualified and presigious journos who operated normally and pandered in occasional commentaries that had impact because of their status. Now, it’s different, more nebulous and far more effective at propaganda than the Project Mockingbird that the Church Commission, I think it was, choked.
There are good but obscure reporters in the White House press corps, such as Victoria Jones, and of course there’s the venerable Helen Thomas, but most of the corps you recognize do not operate anything like real journos. What the most recognized White House corp do clearly is no longer about getting a scoop on the competition; it’s not about investigating an untapped line of papers or sources to break new ground; it’s all about making this White House and corporate investors happy. Look at the investment companies that own the media stock to find the real villians.
The corporate investors pulling the strings aren’t necessarily GOP. Don’t be fooled. But they have been predominantly operating through the GOP’s well oiled public manipulation machine.
I think the main point is being missed. Why did the administration rank Fitzgerald “‘very strong’ internally in the DOJ?” Were they or were they not in the habit of ranking USa’s based on whether they were a “loyal Bushie”? Why did they suspend the practice for a prosecutor who was reaching right into the White House?
Is the internal “very strong” a lie to make themselves out to be non political in the rankings? Then the WaPo “swift boat” attempt would seem to be counter-productive. Does it really serve the Bushies, in the midst of this scandal, to falsely suggest that they considered Fitz “undistinguished”? Only if they were trying to deflect attention from why they might consider him, internally, to be “very strong”.
Well, why not subpoena Mr. Solomon to Congress and get him to show up. He won’t reveal his sources in all probability, but he might be able to feel the heat. It seems to me that man has been conditioned to accept information or disinformation by his government sources. Fine. Maybe being questioned in open session would let him know he is at least suspect, and the information he wrote about might just be bogus, and that if he decided to be a journalist first, he might do some fact checking before publishing.
Was Judy Miller chastened? Was Cooper? Nobody is trying to shut them up, but they should be asked honest questions about their information when it conflicts so obviously with the sworn testimony of someone who “was there” (despite the fact he can’t remember too much). Congress is supposed to be locating the facts and making determinations. I think that includes investigating the twin stories: first, why were the folks who were terminated really held up for scrutiny in the first place? And why (or by what method of analysis) were all the others kept on? If Sampson can’t produce records of performance and merely aggregated the determinations of others, WHO drew up the lists and how did they decide who was to be on them? SOlomon seems to have located a real list? Okay, help Congress find it and bring it to daylight.
Those, like Dan Rather, who are not right wingnuts have no “right to lie”.
The right is the province of the lie. And WaPo is the lips thru which the right lies flow.
If you are a Dan Rather you must be able to prove what even Fitz could not, but if you are a right wingnut you only need to lie.
It is what happens when one becomes a psychotic liar and that sickness is then institutionalized.
PS: I mentioned that Fitz was in trouble with the what house long ago. I knew they were plotting against him and others in preparation for the ’08 election.
The neoCons have two tools … lies and corruption. Their lies are not working any longer, so what a surprise that corruption is rampant in the what house. The lie side of it can’t be measured because there is no truth coming out of the what house to compare with the lies that are coming from the what house.
It is a one trick pony what house.
The only department that can outlie the DOJ is the DOD …
So we should change the name of the DOD to the Department of Plundering Enterprises (DOPE).
I think that’s a good idea for Congress to call journalists to hearings, believe it or not. I believe firmly in reporter privilege to protect anonymous sources, but by no means does that mean their reasons for granting anonymity is beyond reproach. Why did Solomon give this source anonymity if the “chart” was going to be public record anyway? If it’s a piece Congress is being denied, Solomon must have demanded to know why it is being denied to Congress, right? That’s not protected by reporter privilege, which I would hope most in Congress respect … we real journalists do need to protect real whistleblowers without threat of prosecution.
I do want to add that I’ve seen at least two excellent stories by Solomon at the WaPo. I noticed them and scrutinized them because it surprised me, with his track record at the AP. So, in my speculating mind, there are many scenarios I wonder about him. In an objective analysis, don’t fall into the trap of pre-judging without all the information.
Could part of this be a consequence of the ” in fighting” going on at the DOJ? Lord knows they are all scrambling for their own corrupted reasons! I think I agree with Jeff, not all reporters are controlled by the “what house” section of the CIA yet…
For example you’ve got one WaPo article spreading lies about Fitz ratings and another WaPo article exposing the voter fraud fraud right here at the Brad Blog!
Also thanks Jeff for commenting about the higher education fix in the works. I’ve mentionioned here before about how this “what house” is recruiting science and math korporate robots by forgiving student loans for them, and how bout those commercials trying to recruit kids into the chemical industry?
David Iglesias was the US Attorney for New Mexico, not Arizona.
More precisely, the “Dan Rathered” WaPo. Leak something to discredit further TRUE reporting that might come out.
I too am a strong believer in the need for journalists to protect confidential sources. And as difficult as it is to take sometimes, I think that protection applies equally to sources who represent the power structure. However, I have always failed to understand why a journalist will protect a source who lied to him or her, especially if it’s clear that the journalist was just being used as a conduit to spread false information or smear someone’s reputation. A journalist should always give a source the benefit of the doubt, allowing for the possibility that the source was lied to, or mistaken, or interpreting information erroneously. But if a journalist is sure he or she has been used and lied to, why not reveal the source? Otherwise, what disincentive is there for sources to lie?
I think you’ve got your facts incorrect. They’ve got the emails stating that Fitzgerald was ranked poorly. Who can believe the Bush Administration these days when all they’ve done is lie to the people of the U.S. Just because Sampson and you say it didn’t happen… doesn’t mean squat to me.
Facts are facts. Lies are lies.
[RESPONSE: Thanks for your comment, as to all who weighed in — but with all due respect, there are no emails “stating that Fitzgerald was ranked poorly.” None.]
Explosive Op-Ed in the LA Times by Joseph Rich, about how bu$$hCo/KKKarl/Gonzo used the DoJ as a political tool to enhance one party fascist rule.
{Also see this link of Russian single party rule,..
“THE APPARAT” – http://www.mediatransparency.or...php?storyID=18}
snip :
Bush’s long history of tilting Justice
The administration began skewing federal law enforcement before the current U.S. attorney scandal, says a former Department of Justice lawyer.
By Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department’s civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He now works for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
March 29, 2007
THE SCANDAL unfolding around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest.
I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws “” particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies “” from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.
Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.
This pattern also extended to hiring. In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman’s central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.
Schlozman, for instance, was part of the team of political appointees that approved then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s plan to redraw congressional districts in Texas, which in 2004 increased the number of Republicans elected to the House. Similarly, Schlozman was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the division when the Justice Department OKd a Georgia law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. These decisions went against the recommendations of career staff, who asserted that such rulings discriminated against minority voters. The warnings were prescient: Both proposals were struck down by federal courts.
Schlozman continued to influence elections as an interim U.S. attorney. Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department’s long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration’s aims more transparent.
This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.
End snip:
Source/link,..
http://www.latimes.com/news/opi...nion-rightrail
Tap into Rep. Louise Slaughter. She’s good at the media investigations. She understands the business best of anyone on the Hill, IMHO.
I’d really like to see the two reporters called up to the Hill and put under oath to find out why they trusted their source and if they still do today, why they granted anonymity, if they saw the document and why their source said the one in the story wasn’t given to Congress. Ask them if they have subsequently asked their source why Sampson showed a chart different from the one he showed off this week. Does their source now tell them he/she thinks Sampson is a liar, and if the source is no longer reachable, why not?
All this can be done without compelling the reporters to break a confidence by revealing the source.
While they are at that, I think federal legislators should ask Solomon under oath, reminding him of the potential jail time for perjury, whether he earns any renumeration regularly or irregularly from any source other than the WaPo and previously the AP.
They may find they need a redux of the Church Commission, and fast.