Is Madsen trying to discredit Conyers?

[Cocoa]

I'm wondering now if I have this Madsen thing backwards.

I've been assuming that Madsen and his people have been trying to borrow credibility from Conyers by repeatedly tying their bogus story with the very real work Conyers and the other democrats are doing on voting irregularities.

It's obvious they are consciously and repeatedly suggesting a link between Conyers and Madsen, a link which doesn't exist. Conyers's letter doesn't even approach what Madsen is writing about, not even close, let alone cite Madsen himself or endorse anything he's writing.

But maybe I have it backwards, maybe Madsen isn't trying to boost his own credibility, maybe he is trying to drag Conyers down, realizing that any thinking, sane person will reject Madsen as a fraud, and so if they are under the impression Conyers is with him, that they will discount Conyers as well.

Maybe it's the same with Olbermann. The Madsen people very dishonestly continued to claim Olbermann was a supporter of them, even after Olbermann clearly stated on his blog that he thought Madsen's story was junk.

It's obvious what the motive would be, to have people see both Conyers and Olbermann as "conspiracy theorists."

[OKthatsIT]

1. Way OFF here, bub

Madsen came through first, conyers was fueled by it

[Wordie]

6. I don't think so.Conyers was working on voting issues BEFORE the election.

In fact, he has been working on voting issues since the 2000 election. AND if you read what he has written and what he has said, he doesn't even mention fraud! The letter is very carefully worded and to link him with the Madsen stuff is just mistaken, no matter if Madsen is right or not!

[emcguffie]

15. not using "fraud"

I called my congressman and senators this a.m., and I talked to whoever in each office was the point person on the election. Some had read BBV. They were definitely aware of the possibility of fraud. But no one is saying anything out loud.

I asked and asked and asked if they were admitting the possibility of fraud, and basically, I was told, yes, they all are. And they are all still "looking into it".

[Wordie]

22. That's still VERY FAR from making accusations of fraud. As it should be.

Conyers and the other congressmen are professionals. They are being smart, and taking a careful, step-by-step look at what really happened in this election. If they were to make unsubstantiated accusations at the outset of the investigation, that might taint the outcome. What they need to do is take an unbiased a look as possible at what really happened. They need to remain cautious and say only what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to avoid having their own work discredited, should any of the claims that people are making prove untrue.

[Cocoa]

12. it's usually more subtle than that

:-)

[Wordie]

2. Its why we should be VERY careful to focus ONLY on VERIFIED information.

[ClintCooper2003]

3. You are way out to lunch, my friend.

You are way, way behind on the times. Madsen has already acknowledged that the aspects of his story that Olbermann criticized the most were actually "false clues" designed to lead him astray. He has already mentioned that the 29 million dollar check was a fake.

Olbermann's main gripe against Madsen was basically that he needed evidence and corroboration for his story. Well, he's got evidence now!

[high density]

5. So Olbermann was right and Madsen was using bogus info

It would be nice for Madsen to fully pursue his "false clues" to the truth and not publish anything until he can actually verify the facts.

I think Madsen and Harris are indirectly helping the right-wing make anybody who questions this election look like total fools.

[BlueDog2u]

9. It would be nice for Madsen to fully pursue his "false clues"

Agreed. Although Madsen's fourth story has much more substantial detail than the previous stories, I'm not very impressed with how he got there. I don't see how a serious professional investigator can put himself in a position of having to retract critical details in his own story only a few days after its been published. It doesn't look very impressive.

[bj2110]

17. Madsen stated for the get-go that there wasn't enough time....

... for a full investigation. He felt like he had to get something published quickly, and that meant possibly compromising the verifiability of some parts of his story. He said that this story would normally have a long lead time, but we don't have that luxury. Time's a-tickin'. What impresses me is that he comes out full frontal and acknowledges part of his original story was a fake (the check). It reads to me like the motive is sincere. And that's what's most important.

[stirringstill]

20. Don't Compare Apples and Oranges

Name a professional investigator of the MSM that investigates government officials, parapolitical organizations, CIA operatives, and internationsl money laundering schemes. There are very few and many are that do become agents of disinformation (NYT--Judith Miller). I wager it is simply one of the most difficult type of stories to cover. One can not compare this type of investigative journalism to what typically appears in the press. Plus it is a progressing/developing story, that is why it is being published in Online Journal and not Harpers. It should be expected to morph as more is learned and as the disinformation gets weeded out.

[BlueDog2u]

24. Point well taken

Look, I don't wish to badmouth Mr. Madsen. I salute his courage. I just wish he was a bit more careful of verify or debunk his own theories before he puts them to press. If he did that, I think he would enhance his own credibility and protect himself from critics who will ignore even his valid work by pointing to his tendency to shoot from the hip sometimes. But you are correct, he's in a league all by himself and it is easy to criticize others. Please take the criticism as an indication merely of my wishing that he will be vindicated.

[Cocoa]

7. I'll wait to hear it from Olbermann

once again, the Madsen supporters are downplaying Olbermann's criticism.

After Olbermann came out on his blog saying Madsen wasn't credible, all the Madsen supporters said that Madsen and Olbermann had spoken, and suggested that Olbermann would come around, or that he already had.

But Olbermann of course never himself revised what he said about Madsen, I think it's safe to assume he still thinks it's garbage.

And now you are again suggesting that somehow Madsen's latest installment of nonsense will change things. Like I said, I'll wait to hear it from Olbermann.

[MarkusQ]

14. I don't trust the affidavit

If by "evidence" you mean the Clint Curtis affidavit, I'm not sure I trust it. He's been making wild accusations for years and doesn't seem particularly un-biased or trustworthy (to me at least).

That doesn't mean it isn't true; it just means I'd like to see more solid evidence than this affidavit.

--MarkusQ

[lthuedk]

4. ROVE ALERT !!!

[trumad]

10. Yeah...Cocoa is really Karl....

LOL ;-)

[Straight Shooter]

8. People can operate independently and both be subject to verification

I haven't seen where either party has used the other party to bolster their claims; but, rather, to indicate that there are other groups investigating the tainted election.

My money is on Cliff Arnebeck, but that's just me. I respect what Madsen is doing and believe he has the background to pursue it, but his work is much more complicated and "shadowy" as some would describe it. As for Conyers, he has my utmost appreciation and respect, but how far can a Congressman go without putting his butt on the line, and is Conyers willing to take it to the limit?

Same for Keith Olbermann, thank goodness for him, but he has restraints, too, both self-imposed and brought to bear by his employers.

Now I've lost my train of thought :eyes:

edit: itty-bitty typo

[Cocoa]

11. here's the meme I've detected

"Madsen is giving his info to Conyers"

I've seen that again and again, implying that Conyers's action has something to do with Madsen's story, and ignoring the fact that it has NOTHING to do with it.

A similar trick was used by Bev Harris while promoting her nonexistent book. Talking about all the people that were going to write blurbs for her book, just throwing out names that she thought DUers would like, and soliciting other names. Just recklessly implying endorsements by people that had nothing to do with her, but which her audience respected.

[stirringstill]

21. Meme exists but why?

Madsen has said that he has met with Conyers about this issue. Madsen has never mentioned any of Conyer's actions being linked to his investigation. Others are building a connection that may not be there and repeating it over and over. It could be true, wishful thinking, or malicious. I don't know which but if hurting Conyers is the goal then I do not get the impression Madsen is willingly trying to do this. Perhaps Madsen is being manipulated with info to hurt Conyers but given the nature of the information, I think that highly unlikely. I think it more likely that the core of the Madsen story is true, but some disinformation could infect the story and thus give an opening for the right to attack.

[lamp_shade]

13. Thanks Cocoa.

... for putting my thoughts (and surely other's thoughts) into words.

[Vinnie From Indy]

16. Madsen Bothers Me As Well

Madsen may be credible and he may be uncovering vital information that can be used to move the issue of vote fraud forward, but, as a community, we need to be cognizant that theories are NOT evidence. The awesome energy, focus and passion that is displayed on these forums undoubtedly make an attractive target for liars, thieves and charlatans. Skepticism is our friend in these matters. We should honor results and not solely proclaimed effort.

[sandnsea]

18. It's all very weird

I wish we would have just focused on the machine failures and people who didn't get to vote from the very first day. All this statistical analysis and conspiracy stuff has really taken the focus off of what was important.

[november3rd]

19. The Rove playbook

Sounds Dan Rather deja vu.

[shraby]

23. I don't think anyone would sign an affidavit

accusing a public official of crimes if he wasn't ready to back up his claim. It leaves him open for all kinds of repercussions.

[Alizaryn]

25. Well, the hearing is Wednesday being covered by CSPAN .