I saw your posts on Glenn Greenwald’s site, and thought I’d respond directly on yours.

Like you, I’m bothered by the “omerta” email, as you put it. I don’t really believe that the financial aspect of Advertising Liberally is that important in terms of bloggers not writing about it. I do believe that folks, like Glenn, wouldn’t have written about Jerome’s SEC dealings in the first place. It’s just not his issue. I can also imagine that Glenn, FDL, etc., took seriously that this was a private conversation.

That said, Kos shouldn’t be asking bloggers to deprive a story of oxygen.

Now, as far as Gilliard’s statement that he might have said something kinda sorta like that in email to someone else a month ago, is irrelevant to the TNR piece. Recall that Glenn and others, as particpants in the Townhouse, could just look in their in-basket to see that Gilliard said no such thing, at least on the Townhouse forum.

So, IMO, I don’t see this as any dent to Glenn’s credibility.

Greenwald tries to crucify Zengerle for a minor discrepancy not supported by the sources. In so doing, he makes his own minor discrepancy not supported by the sources. Greenwald quoted Gilliard as “no email … to the list .. or anyone else.” Gilliard says that is not so.

Greenwald must be subject to the same uncompromising standard he applied to Zengerle.

How does the fact that Gilliard used a similar phrase in a different email at a different time to different addressees make Zengerle’s reporting accurate, or undermine Greenwald’s credibility? It was false, whether or not Gilliard would characterize it that way.

And is credibility really something that gets “vaunted”? Or is it just something one sort of accrues by telling the truth.

I agree in part (the second sentence), dissent in part (the first sentence).

Here’s where we agree: Glenn misspoke when he said with certainty that Gilliard never sent a mail like that to anyone. My interpretation of Gilliard’s post is that he’s trying to be as charitable as possible, especially on an issue that could get someone fired.

Now, here’s where we may not agree: if Zengerle misremembered the source of an email, then he should correct that in “print,” but, yes, that’s a minor discrepancy. If he printed an ill-sourced email, without verifying it came from Gilliard, that’s more than a minor discrepancy.

We don’t yet know what happened, as Zengerle hasn’t updated his post.

Greenwald misrepresented what Gilliard told him.

Greenwald: “Nor, according to Gilliard, did he ever write any such e-mail at all, to Townhouse or anyone else.”

Gilliard: “I didn’t deny writing the e-mail.”

Bluntly, Greenwald lied.

By his own exacting standards, it is proper for us to question his credibility and impugn his motives.

Man.  Is Glenn Greenwald having a bad day or what…?

Should have had his chart done, I guess.  As a Towhouse premium club member, I hear you get a 20% discount.  Though that's probably just another of Zengarle's vicious RI…

Only problem: I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn’t send any e-mail with that phrase at all.

And, in an e-mail sent to me by Gilliard prior to my posting, he wrote:

I can’t find anything for that on the 18th or 19th at all. I do not find any e-mail using that phrase referring to Jerome Armstrong in June 2006, until this e-mail [the one I wrote in which I re-printed Zengarle’s post].

Only someone with severe reading comprehension problems could read this sentence from Gilliard — “I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn’t send any e-mail with that phrase at all” — and claim that I “lied” when I said that Gilliard stated he sent no such e-mail to Townhouse OR ANYONE ELSE. That is, as a basic understanding of the English language makes clear, exactly what Gilliard said.

The proof will be in the pudding as soon as we hear from Zengarle. I really can’t wait for that.

Well, I’m working up my long-promised review of How Would A Patriot Act?, but Glenn Greenwald is not making it any easier. The book is good; alas, it is far better than his blogging has been of late.  Glenn makes quite a show in his book and on…

Gilliard: “TNR quoted my email … violated my confidences.”

Greenwald: “Still fake.”

Frankly Greenwald had lost any and all credibility a long time ago when he start to try and pass himself off as a conservative. A rather unattractive aspect of progressives is that they always try to position themselves in an unassailable point in order to squelch criticism. This is why there so many copies of Cindy Sheehan. With Greenwald it’s his rather pathetic assumption of the mantle of conservatism.

What conservative would be in cahoots with Kos?

What conservative would be on a private mailing list with Kos?

What conservative would obey marching orders originating from Kos?

Credibility? Greenwald has none because he simply doesn’t have the courage to portray himself accurately as a ultra-left progressive liberal.

Gilliard:

I didn’t deny writing the e-mail. I said that I had no record of writing such an e-mail with that phrase, to the list on that day.

Sad, isn’t it? There’s another list, and you aren’t on it. You’re not even as important as you think you are to the Kos Kidz. That’s gotta hurt.

Regards,
Ric

The real crime is that campaign ad Zuniga cut for Ned Lamont.

It’s completely nauseating.

It must chap everyone’s hides to find out that Zengerle has admitted that the email in question was fake. The source of the 3 emails won’t even return his calls and Zengerle is saying that the 2 sources who confirmed that email just made a mistake because they must have confirmed the two long ones and just assumed the 3rd one was also accurate. Man, it sucks when you’ve got such crappy and dishonest sources.

We’ll get ‘um next time.

Pure comedy gold from the Lie and Die crowd.

Can you even read? My post? Or Glenn’s? Even Greenwald noted my crow-eating post.

Droog, ffakr,

You’re entitled.