Gilliard-gate

Zengerle fesses up

Steve Gilliard claims that he did not write the email I attributed to him in this post. After doing some further investigating, I’m afraid to say that he is correct. He did not write that email. I apologize to Gilliard for not checking with him before publishing my post, and I regret the error.
…
I believe that this error is of a relatively minor nature–I did not, as Matt Stoller has maliciously alleged, “fabricate” anything–but any error is of course unacceptable. I sincerely regret not checking with Gilliard before quoting his purported words, not only because this was unfair to Gilliard–who has behaved more responsibly than anyone involved in this particular matter, myself included–but because the mistake that resulted from this failure has allowed Greenwald and others to try to use this minor error to distract people from much larger issues.

Those issues are: Armstrong’s troubles with the SEC; Armstrong’s relationship with Moulitsas and Moulitsas’s pattern of supporting politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant; Moulitsas’s attempts to silence liberal bloggers from commenting on these matters; the seeming acquiescence of so many of these liberal bloggers (including Greenwald) to Moulitsas’s demands; and now, strangely, stuff like this.

I have been called to task by commenter Mona for failing to retract my accusation that Greenwald was liar. While I think his persistant refusal to mention Gilliard’s “my email” comment fell short of “the whole truth,” the facts have borne out Greenwald’s contention.

I stand corrected. He is no liar.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Don't Go Into The Light on 26 Jun 2006 at 8:02 pm

    On Email, Ego, and Fighting Like a Girl….

    I’ve pretty much ignored the ministorm between Glenn Greenwald and a number of prominent bloggers on the right (Tom Maguire, Jeff Goldstein, The Commisar, and Glenn Reynolds. There’s plenty of painfully wrong things said by Greenwald and his robotic …

Comments

  1. Mona wrote:

    Commissar, I’m essentially reiterating what I posted to you at Greenwald’s (where I write as “Hypatia”)

    Error? Someone who now refuses to respond to Zengerle’s inquiries as to provenance clearly did exactly what Greenwald said — this person fabricated the email that best buttresses Zengerle’s accusations. And two other sources just sort of… forgot that they hadn’t actually ever seen it; they vouched for its authenticity as a Townhouse post.

    Greenwald said it was a fake, and you, Commissar, called him a “liar.” You dedicated a whole post to that theme.

    Now, I respect your blog, and have enjoyed your posts on creationists/IDers, and one a long time ago on female teachers who seduce their male students resulted in one of the most lengthy, entertaining threads I can think of.

    You’ve struck me as right-wing on foreign policy, but reasonable and not willing to be a GOP-bot; you’ve seemed honest. So, I would expect a bit more of a gracious admission from you that you should not have called Glenn a liar. Further, if TNR had made such “errors” regarding right-of-center bloggers you like, I don’t think you’d consider it a “gnat’s issue.” Nor do I think you would even accept the “error” codswollop. Do you really think I’m wrong about all that?

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 9:11 pm

  2. commissar wrote:

    Mona,

    Greenwald was extraordinarily selective about the Gilliard’s excerpts he chose to use. And he simpy refused to ever mention the Gilliard’s comment about “my email.” So Greenwald’s failure to tell “the whole truth” may or may not be a lie.

    Nonetheless, he was proven correct on this, and I will shortly add more words to the post to eat some crow on that.

    If other aspects of the story were pending confirmation, the fake email would obviously tend to discredit them, and it would be great importance from that perspective.

    I now look at the total story, excluding the fake email, and there are plenty of good questions there, all based on documented facts.

    “Oh but the presence of a fake email fed to Zengerle proves that he is a partisan hatchetman out to GET Kos.” ???? I dont see that. Please elaborate.

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 10:09 pm

  3. commissar wrote:

    I don’t think you’d consider it a “gnat’s issue.” Nor do I think you would even accept the “error” codswollop. Do you really think I’m wrong about all that?

    Yes.

    1) Absent the fake email, it’s still a compelling story — Markos “requesting” omerta on an embarrassing story, and getting compliance, as well as the orginal Kosola charges.

    2) I wouldnt accept the “error” codswollop if this came from a Leftie? I dunno. Try this. There’s a huge brouhaha in some circles about a global warming paper that showed a ‘hockey stick’ effect. Some global warming skeptics went after it. Ultimately, the ‘hockey stick’ paper was found to have some minor errors, but was substantively correct. I accept that.

    Best I can do on a hypothetical “Would you be reasonable?” question.

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 10:27 pm

  4. Mona wrote:

    Greenwald was extraordinarily selective about the Gilliard’s excerpts he chose to use. And he simpy refused to ever mention the Gilliard’s comment about “my email.” So Greenwald’s failure to tell “the whole truth” may or may not be a lie.

    How to put this charitably about Gilliard? I read his post at least 4 times, and could not determine exactly whether he was categorically denying it, hedging, confused, or expressing reluctance to accuse anyone of something that could cost them their job — or all of the above. It was a pretty incoherent and rambling piece.

    But Greenwald was not relying on that Gilliard post alone, as Greenwald’s initial post and updates made clear. He was relying on (a) his own membership on the list and not having received any such email from Gilliard or anyone, (b) checking with other members who also did not receive it, and (c) extensive email exchanges with Gilliard to determine search results of Gilliard’s email box. Greenwald then concluded that, notwithstanding any distaste or confusion Gilliard might be having, it simply was flatly the case that Gilliard wrote no such email to Townhouse or elsewhere, and neither did anyone else send that email to Townhouse.

    One can disagree with some of his political judgments — on a few I certainly do — but Greenwald would never be so reckless as to stake his reputation on a claim so stark and uncompromising as the fake Gilliard email unless he was very sure of himself. Is he hyperbolic? Usually. Shrill? Sometimes. Some tendency to overstate the case on occasion? I think so.

    But he isn’t a liar.

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 10:30 pm

  5. Mona wrote:

    Markos “requesting” omerta on an embarrassing story, and getting compliance, as well as the orginal Kosola charges.

    He didn’t get “compliance.” Greenwald was in no position to write about the Armstrong SEC matter because he knew only what he had read in the NY Post. But he insisted silence was a very bad idea, except that Jerome or someone who could speak for Jerome had to mount the defense. If he didn’t know jack **** about what Jerome’s position was, what was Greenwald supposed to say?

    As for the Kosola charges, I think those merit some attention. But I also think TNR has a hard-on not just for left bloggers, but for bloggers per se. And that it was in everyone’s interest to slap them around for their preening sense of Old Media superiority, especially when caught with an inauthentic source as proven by those “irresponsible” bloggers.

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 10:41 pm

  6. commissar wrote:

    He didn’t get “compliance.” ???

    No Leftie bloggers touched the story. “Compliance” with the omerta email was not limited to Greenwald. Bloggers write about tons of stuff that the principals cant or havent.

    Markos said, “hey guys, this is embarrassing, starve it of oxygen,” and the Leftie bloggers did just that. Note that they didn’t respond with “these charges against Armstrong are B.S.” They tried to smother it.

    Indeed, if TNR hadnt forced their hand, they still would be observing omerta.

    In a way, they still are, because they still refuse to address the issues, preferring to focus on Greenwald’s “golden gnat.”

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 10:52 pm

  7. Mona wrote:

    No Leftie bloggers touched the story. “Compliance” with the omerta email was not limited to Greenwald. Bloggers write about tons of stuff that the principals cant or havent.

    Greenwald gets asked, all the time, by some lefty or other to speculate that, oh, the Bush Administration is using the NSA warrantless surveillance program to spy on political enemies. He never goes down that kind of road, because he is careful to stick only with what the facts he can determine will bear — he frustrated an Air America interviewer pretty severely when he simply would not sign on to that accusation, of which he has zero evidence.

    He encouraged Kos not to go the silence route, but rather encouraged that Jerome should come forth with his version of events. Greenwald had no clue what that version was, but he was clearly disagreeing that even as a practical matter, an “omerta” could succeed.

    And that list, you know, is not comprehensive of all lefty bloggers (I’m not on it, and wouldn’t want to be, but I don’t think even the majority are bloggers). Not by a long shot. (And I don’t even agree that Greenwald is a lefty, but that’s another story.)

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 11:13 pm

  8. Pinko Punko wrote:

    My deal is that who knows if people were gonna talk about it in the first place, it is not like we can do the control where Kos doesn’t sent the e-mail, you know? A lot of people kind of blow off Kos and more so Jerome already because they don’t like them that much.

    I think Gilliard was playing somewhat of a game with Wengerle.

    I posit:

    1) Gilliard knew it wasn’t a Townhouse e-mail.

    2a) He may know what e-mail it is, but really would like to know who the hell is passing e-mails along (I would if I were him)

    or

    2b) He doesn’t recall sending any such e-mail, but possibly remembers saying somehting similar. He doesn’t want (and I think Gilliard said this) to deny it and then have it be produced so people can call him a liar. So essentially, he was asserting what he knew he could prove, i.e. that it wasn’t a Townhouse e-mail. I can certainly see why someone would want to be precise and certain in this climate of accusations flying.

    As to all the other details of anything, I’m not getting into any of it. I think this is the crux of what fine points were being argued by Greenwald. I think we got to pick through each thing in an orderly fashion. I’m not gonna fall into debating all sorts of things.

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 11:42 pm

  9. Jeff G wrote:

    I’d like to see who is on that Townhouse list. I call on Greenwald to reveal the names on the list.

    We can then look at their sites after the Kos email and see if anyone mentioned the JA SEC story — beyond this new tack of accusing Zengerle of being a fabulist. Which I very much doubt.

    I’d also like Mona to explain what her conservative / libertarian hero was doing on a Kos strategy list.

    Because hey, for a nice book deal and some of that Kos influence peddling, I might be willing to do a little shilling for him as well.

    To wit:

    JASON ZENGERLE? I HEARD HE LIKES TO SEX UP MARMETS! AND WHO CAN TRUST THE WORD OF A MARMETHUMPER?

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 12:12 am

  10. Pinko Punko wrote:

    To wit.

    Slay me.

    Anyhoo, who cares who’s on the list? Kos used stupid wording. He could have said “this is Jerome’s side of it for anyone interested” and that would have been fine. His wording put everyone else in a position where they’d have to deny the reason they didn’t blog about Armstrong had to do with Kos. I mean how stupid can you get? I mean what if people just didn’t want to blog about Jerome Armstrong ever? Silence on an issue does not speak volumes.

    I haven’t posted about delicious Bob’s donuts in quite awhile, does that mean they taste less sweet to me? No. I haven’t discussed Frank J and Gun Cake etc. and IMAO spelled EMU, does that mean I find them less unhumorous? No.

    OK, I’m outski.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 2:57 am

  11. Mona wrote:

    Jeff writes:

    I’d also like Mona to explain what her conservative / libertarian hero was doing on a Kos strategy list.

    It isn’t a “Kos strategy list.” Since what it actually is was described to me in a confidential email when he joined, but that I have not asked for nor received permission to reproduce or paraphrase from that, I won’t do either. There are several hundred members according to what I’ve read elsewhere, and by a longshot not all are bloggers, or so I’m given to understand.

    Greenwald is, as he has said in the comments at his blog, one who most closely identifies with those who call themselves libertarians. He has written an article for American Conservative magazine.

    I also am a libertarian. While many on the left had seizures when Kos made the announcement, and many libertarians also expressed skepticism, Kos has declared himself a “Libertarian Democrat” and is making a pilgrimage to Cato Institute to chat about commonalities. For my part, I’ve had just about enough of the Bush Administration’s populist enthusiasms and attacks on the Constitution, theories of unchecked Executive power and etc….and my interest in supporting some Democrats to at least end GOP hegemony in all of: the House, the Senate and Executive is likely driven by the same interest that causes Cato to extend an invite to Kos.

    Politics can make strange bedfellows,and realignments. I’ve never comfortablyt fit with the creationists and homophobes in the GOP, and certainly went into orbit during the Schiavo madness. So, it would be familiar for me if I had to hold my nose working with Dems wrt some of their “progressive” notions, in order to achieve together those things on which we agree.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 9:14 am

  12. corvan wrote:

    Okay Mona, you say the list has been described to you. What is it? Why do you try to convince us of what the list isn’t without telling us what it is? That seems sort of like sophistry. And it’s the members of the list who aren’t bloogers that are the most interesting. How many of them work at media outlets? If so, which media outlets do they work for? Why do they find it necessary to join super secret email lists run by political partisans? Why won’t you answer all the questions?

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 10:22 am

  13. corvan wrote:

    For that matter is Larry Johnson a member of the list? How about some of his friends in the Plamegate kerfuffle? Mona there are alot of questions here. I wish you, since you claim to be in the know apparently, would make some effort to answer some of them.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 10:25 am

  14. Mona wrote:

    Corvan, this is how Greenwald describes Townhouse in his post on l’affaire Zengerle:

    Townhouse” Google group — comprised of 300 or so journalists, political operatives, bloggers, advocacy organizations, and others designed to facilitate communication between these usually isolated groups.

    That is consistent with how it was described to me, but I never knowlingly reveal anything sent to me by someone via private email, without permission, or unless they have first put an email exchange with me at issue in a way that requires me to defend myself.

    There is nothing nefarious about non-GOP opinion leaders and activitsts communicating among each other about issue framing, responses to attacks & etc. And I’d be shocked if the GOP doesn’t make use of email groups — even if it is just a large informal group who are all CCed — to do much the same thing. The Internet is the perfect resource for doing just that, and there isn’t anything wrong with it.

    Legions of bloggers got their knickers in a twist when Pajamas Media formed. Why, the death of independent blogging was nigh upon us. That was bullspit, and so are notions that a Google group list accomplishes the same thing.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 10:57 am

  15. Mona wrote:

    Here is a rather strong criticism of Armstrong by one of the author’s in “progressive” Ezra Klein’s stable.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 11:18 am

  16. corvan wrote:

    Mona,
    Then you wouldn’t mind the list being shared right? You wouldn’t mind seeing how journalists on the (secret) list covered the subjects Kos opines upon, right? Also, I wasn’t aware that Pajamas media membership was secret. Do you have information to that effect? Also your comparison of the list to theoretically similar Republican efforts seems to indicate a belief that those on the list are a members of the “Kos” party. Are the journalists on the list members of the “Kos” party? If they are shouldn’t they disclose that? These are questions that should be answered don’t you think? Why is Mr. Greenwald and why are you so hesitant to answer them?

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 12:45 pm

  17. luther blissett wrote:

    So, when are you going to add an update to the original post, pointing here? Or do your ethics not stretch that far?

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 1:41 pm

  18. corvan wrote:

    Luther,

    So when are you going to ask the members of the Kos list to come clean to the rest of us as to thier membership? Or do your ethics stretch that far? Mona, Mona are you out there?

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 2:06 pm

  19. Davebo wrote:

    Good on you commissar. Even with the caveats, it was a much better mea culpa than most. Perhaps the only one.

    What is ironic about all this is that, per Gilliard, Foer has stated that they are through with this.

    Given the original subject matter involved that’s a bit ironic. The boss says they are dropping it. Now the plank posters are employees paid by Foer, and he can order them as he pleases. But still, a bit funny all things considered.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 6:12 pm

« Maliki to present peace deal Sunday
RINO Sightings -George Santayana Edition »