Please stay on topic. Please don't be asses.
Great job on the timeline of the WSJ cover story. The freepers were using this rationale a few days back. My guess is that Jim Jeff found his alibi out there.
you ask, Why doesn't he simply say, "I got the information from the WSJ story."
Like, because he's a pathological liar? His affect is like that of the narcissistic criminals you see on shows like Court TV's forensic files. Even when caught out, they play the victim because they're the center of their own universe and they get angry and huffy if you don't recognize that and pay due deference (like wolf and howie)
So now that it's clear he's a male hooker, the question is, why hasn't someone moved in to shut him up and keep him off tv? Because he's got the goods on someone in the WH? b/c his boyfriend in the WH is someone important? can't wait to find out.
The question is why doesn't he?
Golly - he's a liar, he likes attention, he likes to cling to the pretence that he is a journalist.
I have slightly different questions - why should he tell the specific, exact, and precise truth in these unsworn, no-legal-consequences forums (other than becuase lying is not nice), and why do you think he did *not* tell the truth to the FBI?
DO you have *any* evidence to contradict the theory that (a) he told the FBI he got it from the Journal; (b) after pushing him to see if that was just a convenient cover, the FBI gave up and left?
DO you have, for example, any evidence that he went on to testify to the grand jury? Or that the FBI is still interested in him?
I wish you would share it, so we could all look at it. That would make for a more productive discussion.
(adapted from a dKos comment)
. . Fascism is all about contempt for the rule of law. It's about power, and petty high-school cliques, and capricious law enforcement. If you aren't friends with the powerful people, you can be destroyed over nothing. If you are friends with the powerful people, you can't be touched by anything (until the day your powerful friends aren't your friends any more, but there have always been fools who think that will never happen to them)
. . So the answer you can give next time someone asks how come some people can get away with dicking the FBI around, and not others, is . . .
* * * It's The Fascism, Stupid! * * *
(it's all in the history books . . . )
Another question: "Did you have a sexual relationship with anyone in the WH or RNC"?
I think (I hope) I just finished jousting with one of the resident RW trolls on Talkleft about the Gannon thing. Like shooting fish in a barrel, for once. Its a story that can't be defended/excused. Push down one place to create a cover argument and it pops up somewhere else. But will it go anywhere?
It's already gone a lot farther than anyone might expect.
There are a number of aspects to this story -- all of them impacting on the MSMs manifest incompetence.
No matter what they tell you -- Yes this IS about Sex!!!
And it goes right to the top.
The Talented Mr. Gannon isn't quite as talented as he imagines and props to Digby for tracing this particular lie. It's Painfully Obvious that he saw the Plame memo. After all, why should the White House show it to 19 other REAL journalists and not show it to JimJeff?
What really get me is that the Wasington Post is getting credit for "discovering" the websites. That was OUR work! Howie and company didn't want to have anything to do with it!
I found his demeanor on Anderson Cooper 360 fascinating and especially in light of your comment del
VERY insightful.
Gannon is not used to having a critical spotlight on him, and unlike the Bush Administration he is not practiced at LIES THAT WILL KEEP HIM OUT OF LEGAL TROUBLE.
Cheney can lie about a "connection al Qaeda" well after it has been disproved. How? He focuses on a tiny technical "relationship" that they actual had. He implied it was much greater. And when pushed he finally admitted just how tenuous the relationship was (Al Qaeda wanted help from Saddam and Saddam said no.) So technically they DID have a relationship and so technically this isn't a lie. But by this time the damage was already done. Only if Cheney lost power and only if he was under oath and only if there was a congress that had the will to push him on this would there be any consequences to conflating this “relationship” between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
What is fascinating about Gannon is t
Thanks for pulling this together.
Didn't Wolf already get him when he didn't dispute the predicate of this question:
BLITZER: Do you have to reveal how you got that memo?
GANNON: No.
part II
What is fascinating about Gannon is that he has 1) shame 2) guilt 3) fear.
He is unpracticed at this hi-level deception of splitting hairs or playing the power card.
By looking fearful, resigning and actually worrying about people seeing him as doing something wrong he is actually acting like a surfer with a cut leg in Great White Territory.
They can smell the blood in the water.
If you have ever been in the hot seat and you don't have a history of being a good hair splitter it is very, very hard. We all saw how uncomfortable he was on Anderson Cooper. One of the reasons that the president is kept in a bubble and the press are limited to one follow up is that he is not a good technical liar like Cheney or Condi. Cheney just finds some way to deny access to the truth. Condi claims ignorance and splits hairs and hides behind "national security". Bush speaks in nonsense if he is caught or just repeats a talking point that doesn’t answer the question and moves on. He ac
Part III
actually uses the “how dare you question me, I’m the President!” attitude to intimidate the press. Since they are afraid of getting yelled at or losing access they don’t push too hard. Only people who HAVE SHAME and actually fear they might thrown in jail will exhibit the emotions of Gannon. Bush will pull all sorts of tricks out of his bag when he might actually pay a price and get noticed for lying (I have to “have a conversation” with the 9/11 committee with Uncle Dick their so we can (get our stories straight? Avoid saying something that will implicate the other? List to the story that the other tells so we can give each other cover?)
Gannon is very dangerous and I expect this White House to circle the wagons and use the typical techniques they have used in the past.
1) Deny (We know nothing about planes possible being used as missiles)
2) Diminish -"It's no big deal" (a.k.a. 16 words)
3) Whine about the "liberal media" (All the rightwing noise machine)
Poor Jeff, everyone is out to get him. He didn't do anything wrong.
4) Appeal to a higher power to cover up previous sins "When I was young and irresponsible I was young and irresponsible. Then I was born again" Gannon bathed in the blood of Christ. He found Jesus and didn't do anything wrong since, why is his personal life fair game? If he did stumble on his path to the lord we are all sinners and he has asked forgiveness. I mean he WAS going to church the day he was outted and some scary people were following him. He said they were liberal bloggers; maybe they were Rove’s Rangers
Last part *(sorry for the long post. I was inspired by Del!:
5) Claim that he was "out of the loop" and then ask for proof that he was in the loop. (Clarke, O’Neill)
6) Go deep and play another card. "The private relationship, gay card"? This falls into Karl “turd blossom” Rove’s territory. His Speciality is taking a shitty situation and making it smell sweet. How would he turn it around? I’m not sure; expect something subtle and deceptive that points to the enemies of the president. Distract people with some part they have gotten wrong or when in doubt, start another war. Raise the terror alert?
It depends on how much "capital" they feel they need to spend to get this under control. I'm guessing that the powers that be got him the media coach for the Anderson Cooper interview. I’m guessing that his GOPUSA boss (who looks to have disavowed him) paid for it, or Gannon is smart enough to figure it might keep him out of jail.
I look forward to the developments on this, esp
in light of Sunday's pundit parade.
Oh, and thanks for the like to
Justin Raimindo's Anti-war blog. Good reading!
Just something to throw into the mix: many people have commented that Guckert seemed drunk or drugged during his appearance with Anderson Cooper. Others have pointed out that his eye-blinking and halting and stammering were very reminiscent of Dubya.
Somebody saw the clip yesterday and said, "It looks like he's hypnotized." Hunh? I say dumbly. "Look at his eyes, it's like he's reading answers off a cue card only he can see." Ohhh.... "See how he can't answer some obvious questions like when he started writing ...? You could make something up or say, 'Well, it was about such and such a date,' or say 'I don't remember exactly,' but he says something very strange: 'I can't answer that because I'm here...' What?? He can't answer because he doesn't see a card with the answer on it."
Manchurian Beefcake indeed.
--felix
Gannon was interviewed a week ago Friday on CBC's "As It Happens" and was asked a couple of direct questions about the Plame memo, and carefully dodged each one. I caught the re-broadcast Monday morning on our local NPR station and it was very clear from his answers he had some kind of access to the memo.
And lest we forget: Why did Bush see fit to consult a lawyer per this from CBS:
"Mr. Bush has acknowledged that he had met with a Washington criminal lawyer, Jim Sharp, about the possibility that prosecutors might want to interview him about the case. So far, the White House has made no mention of Cheney's interview or whether it influenced the president's decision to meet with Sharp, the Times notes. "
LINK: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain620810.shtml
--felix
1) He and an IFB (an earpiece you use when you are on a remote feed). This is so you can hear the interviewer and the producer tell you when you are on and when you are on break.
Now do you think that maybe his media consultant was feeding him stuff over the IFB? Hmmmm. I think he might just have been holding up fingers or a card or shaking his head "NO!" when he started to answer this.
They picked the tough question and then prepared answers.
You saw it with his response, "How I'm going to answer that is..."
Tom Maguire, I have slightly different questions - why should he tell the specific, exact, and precise truth in these unsworn, no-legal-consequences forums (other than becuase lying is not nice), and why do you think he did *not* tell the truth to the FBI?
Clearly the point isn't that he "should" tell the truth. The point is that it appears that he's been coached and has something to hide.
Good to see you're covering for Republican press plants, just like you cover for Bush by positing unlikely future stock market behavior to cover for Bush's Social Security plan.
Whoops...too many "cover fors" in that comment.
Who is Gannon's lover in the White House? That's the un-asked question that enquiring minds want to know the answer to.
At least I do.
If he just read the Urinal story, why not just say so? Because ...
To do so, he would have had to LIE ...
And lying, he knew, was a sin, a sin
And lying, he knew, was a sin
Simple question to Gannon: Who's coaching you? Why let him answer the questions or not answers the questions like he's been doing-the media stinks!
Well technically, I believe he's been coached to phrase his answers that way. You (and us!) are the ones doing the parsing.
But I do want to know who did he sleep with, and when did he sleep with them. Unless it was Rove, squick.
The Justin Raimondo link was excellent. This scandal, if it goes deeper, may expose the the internal struggles within the administration (i.e. the neocons) against any remaining resistance in the intelligence community. A scandal that adds more lies to justify a war that had no real casus belli. Sure, we want to know JimJeff's involvement with the memo, and it's a start, but if the memo's a counterfeit, who in the WH is responsible for it? Besides outing agents, counterfeiting government documents is a crime.
I noticed something else from the Justin Raimundo link that made me curious.
He speaks of the subpoenas to reporters, and names them, including Jeff Gannon. I assume there was some documentation at the time listing the names of those subpoena'd?
Why is Gannon/Guckert subpoena'd by his pseudonym? Why didn't his real name come out at that time?
Digby, thanks for the link to the Justin Raimondo story. He's been on this story for a while now.
And he links to this article by libertarian Lew Rockwell about the creeping fascism in this country. Rockwell, Paul Craig Roberts, the more traditional conservatives are all atwitter about the militarist statism of the Bushies and their loyalists.
Oh, and remember when we would never negotiate with terrorists?
Well, we're negotiating with terrorists again.
Tom McGuire
I have no proof of anything. Neither do you. However, Gannon has been cagey on this matter from the very beginning and his answers continue to be vague. He has no obligation to speak to reporters at all but when he does he raises more questions when he speaks in this legalistic way. Look, there's even a word for this --- "Clintonian".
I raise the idea that he lied to the FBI because he of his ego --- which, when you think about it, actually exonerates the white house.
Time will tell. But the matter is not yet closed.
I raise the idea that he lied to the FBI because of his ego --- which, when you think about it, actually exonerates the white house. -- Digby
Hmmm...Is he smart enough to know that his lying will exonerate the WH? Was he being coached? Will he willingly take the fall, and if so, what's his reward? An untraced Cayman account? Perhaps I'm getting into tinfoil hat territory? I dunno.
OT, but I came across an interesting President's Day tidbit from Milbank's article in WaPo today: In a Prez Day theoretical election, 62 percent of republicans would vote for Dear Leader over George Washington. 'nuf said.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that after reading the Milbank article, I think I need a big glass of Jack Daniels even though it's too early in the day.
Wait a minute....
The FBI interviewed this guy, and they didn't even question him for his prostitution activities?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but prostitution is illegal!
Tom McGuire posted about the WSJ story on Feb 11....
http://
justoneminute.typepad.com...why_did_th.html
Giving this as a probable source for Gannon.
Tom McGuire also mentions the WSJ article here:
http://
justoneminute.typepad.com...why_did_th.html
http://
justoneminute.typepad.com...e_know_if_.html
I posted about this post to ask "SusanG" at Kos questions to respond to Tom McGuire's points.
We know all that Lloydetta. The question is why Gannon doesn't just say that's where he got the information istead of playing this game.
My supposition on this is that he may have lied to the FBI and said he couldn't reveal a source as part of his grandiose self image as a "reporter" and may now find that he's in trouble. Maybe somebody whispered about it to him as well as the WSJ. Or maybe he's just stupid.
But for whatever reason he refuses to say clearly and precisely that he read about the memo in the Wall Street Journal and let it go at that. He continues to leave this question open.
This is off the point, btw, and I confess I know nothing about the aesthetic and ethos of the gay hustler lifestyle, but wasn't that pretty fucking stomach-turning awful for that dude to be posing pouring his piss-stream into a toilet bowl?
Maybe that's what passes for street cred with ersatz "journalists" like ol' Jeff.
15 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
