BRAD BLOG: 'Bloggermann' Keeps Shoveling...

[BradBlog]

Sorry, guys. I know there's a lot of KO fans here, but we need to call a spade a spade, and hold the MSM feet to the fire. Olbermann's feet need a deep char right about now...

'Bloggermann' Keeps Shoveling...

MSNBC's Prime-Time Star Continues to Fail To Get the Story Right.
Offers Some Explanation, But Ignores Most Troubling BRAD BLOG Charges.

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001077.htm


Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[impeachthescoundrel]

1. Thank you Brad

I agree completely!

[madison2000]

2. So do I!

Thanks for your input.

[GetTheRightVote]

3. Thank you Brad for bringing up th spirits of the troops

:bounce:

[KaryninMiami]

4. But Brad- KO was simply reading the release from the Kerry attorney

What do you think all of this means? Are they in or are they out? Why make that statement on Wednesday and then un-state it with the release below AFTER filing the demand for evidince today?

"There are many allegations of fraud. But this presidential election is over. The Bush-Cheney ticket has won. The Kerry-Edwards campaign has found no conspiracy and no fraud in Ohio, though there have been many irregularities that cry out to be fixed for future elections. Senator Kerry and we in Ohio intend to fix them. When all of the problems in Ohio are added together, however bad they are, they do not add up to a victory for Kerry-Edwards. Senator Kerry's fully-informed and extremely careful assessment the day after the election and before he conceded remains accurate today, notwithstanding all the details we have since learned."

[lonestarnot]

6. Aren't you forgetting many issue in Ohio? They haven't been heard yet.

The wheels of justice turn slowly. Even a repulsive, a staunch repulsive said and I quote, "If I find out that Bush (bushitler) was not truly elected by the people and you know I voted for him, I want him removed and Kerry to be sworn in..." Hang in there...watergate facts were not MSM blasted until Martha opened her big mouth...

[Virginian]

9. "..until Martha opened her big mouth..."

I always wondered if her cancer was due to being under surveillance.

[lonestarnot]

11. surveillance...cancer? how could the two be causily linked? LOL

[Virginian]

19. It goes like this...

Martha Mitchell liked to talk to reporters from a phone she carried into the bathroom so that she couldn't be overheard.
Much of what she said was embarrasing to the Nixon adminsitration.
Martha Mitchell was married to and living with Attorney General John Mitchell.
John Mitchell would not have consented to having his own phone tapped or his home bugged. Someone might have listened in on his own conversations.
Listening devices were not as sophisticated then. I don't know the technology, but there was something about a beam.
There was more that went on with her, I just can't remember what was real and what was told to me by a lying boyfriend at the time.
I only paid remote attention to the whole thing. I was in school a stone's throw from the White House. The fact they were "getting" Nixon was enough, I was too busy with school to sort through the details.

[BradBlog]

10. Apparently you didn't read my post, KaryninMiami...

...Had you done so, you would have seen that my Blog item (linked on the original post) was not about Kerry or his attorney or any of their statement.

In was completely in regard to another topic that KO managed to bungle in a *huge* way.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[lonestarnot]

5. bloggerman needs a paycheck...just stop watching if you can't handle the

MSM take on what's going happening from their vantage point. We will continue to seek truth and justice and reveal the illegitimacy and corruption of the election bushitler and dishonorable dick.

[KaryninMiami]

7. It's not Keith that everyone is upset about- it's Kerry's attorney's words

Why would they say this after saying something so different on Wednesday? Are we all just overreacting? Keith was simply responding to the information he'd received from the Kerry legal team. I agree- MSM's take is whatever they want it to be and Howard Feinman is another story not worth wasting time with now.

But this statement, issued AFTER they filed this afternoon is the issue. What do you make of this then? If you can shed some light here and some optimism, I'd sure welcome it.

"I would caution the media not to read more into what the Kerry-Edwards campaign has said," Mr. Hoffheimer advised us by e-mail, "than what you hear in the plain meaning of our comments. There are many conspiracy theorists opining these days. There are many allegations of fraud. But this presidential election is over. The Bush-Cheney ticket has won. The Kerry-Edwards campaign has found no conspiracy and no fraud in Ohio, though there have been many irregularities that cry out to be fixed for future elections. Senator Kerry and we in Ohio intend to fix them. When all of the problems in Ohio are added together, however bad they are, they do not add up to a victory for Kerry-Edwards. Senator Kerry's fully-informed and extremely careful assessment the day after the election and before he conceded remains accurate today, notwithstanding all the details we have since learned."

[lonestarnot]

12. He's not same attorney who filed to join today.

[stillcool]

8. Agree ....

There is NO televised msm worth one second of my time! While KO read a statement by a Kerry lawyer...I don't need KO to read for me, I'd rather do it myself. While many applaud him for reporting at all, sometimes a little bit of a story can me more harmful than none..ASK KKKarl Rove. While none completely know what the K/E legal team has or doesn't and where this is all going,..I prefer to read the printed word, without all the innuendo and speculation. It is spin city, and on its face you can handle the words, yet put in a slightly different context your doomed and gloomed. I don't say trust K/E, I say trust the facts. And there are alot of us who come here to do just that, and THANK YOU DU, and Will Pitt, and Andy, and TIA, and Faye, and each and every poster who has allowed me a lot more hope in humanity than I would otherwise have. Trust yourself and find the facts and fuck the fear.

[Imagevision]

13. Thanx Brad..just sent KO a copy

[Imagevision]

14. Presidential election is over! -- now just the facts...that's all - FACTS!

[Al-CIAda]

15. Thanks eom

.

[smileyWPB]

16. Thanks Brad Blog

It is interesting the tone shift on the Oberman Blog over the last few post's. I was hoping for a better reply to the Brad Blog's critiques of Obermans post a few days back. Did you notice the whole weird conspiracy theory theme and play regarding the editor guy.

Something smells...

[newyawker99]

22. Hi smileyWPB!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DemonFighterLives]

17. Great Job Brad

Keith often falls short of the mark. He is discounting vote fraud in line with the Repubs.

[Blue in the face]

23. He isn't discounting anything

Maybe Keith is trying to sift through the bullshit like dead dogs and affidavits and trying to cover his ass with hard facts. I know if I was in his journalistic shoes, that is what I'd be doing. I am sure that is what Kerry is doing as well.

However, I know when I asked questions of Brad about Curtis's affadavit, I got a short and not satisfactory answer of "look up the police report yourself". I doubt that KO would find that a satisfying response either and I can imagine that he has grown tired of trying to legitimize every theory that DU has offered as evidence of voter fraud, especially someone who "just realized after 4 years that Feeney and the Republicans might be up to trying to cheat the election", but has no hard evidence to back himself up.

I believe that it is possible to have come up with computer program to change votes. I believe that Curtis's affadavit does nothing to prove that point, however. And I believe that Bradblog has had it out for KO since Keith pointed out the holes in Curtis's story.

I believe that the best way to get Keith talking about what we want him to is to show him hard facts, but just like Bev Harris, Votergate and all of the other investigations that ended up being one big tease, if not fundraising tools, Clint Curtis's story does nothing to prove voter fraud and so far has been a disappointment.

Go ahead and flame away, I know it's coming: "I only have 200 posts, if I was truly behind the movement, I would have found the police report about Curtis's dead dog, I'm a Freeper", etc.

But if you guys are attacking me then maybe you will leave the hell alone the only TV journalist to seriously investigate and publicize this issue.

[BradBlog]

24. Surely you jest...

...Your suggest that my disinterest in posting personal information that could endanger Mr. Curtis by describing where he lives on an Internet website is in anyway relevant to Keith Olbermann sliming an American citizen by telling his readers that an anonymous attorney has said Curtis sent "written threats" sufficient to warrant a "police report"?

All without bothering to ask to examine such "written threats" or checking with the police precinct in question to see if such a report was ever filed?

Your pathetic attempts at discrediting the story are precisely that.

It would be lovely if you actually searched for any information that might disprove Curtis' claims (So far, I've only be able to find information that disproves the claims of Feeney, Yang Enterprises, Inc, and their attorneys...and by the way, the Oviedo Police have still been unable to locate any such police report after having searched their records for over a week).

Your interest, of course, is to desperately do anything you can to cast doubt over what is a more and more credible story by the day. And we expect no less from folks like yourself.

But your transparency is remarkable, and your silliness is -- to say the least -- getting more than a bit tiresome.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[Blue in the face]

25. Silliness? Transparency?

How's this for transparency, smart guy- My name is Amy Collins and I helped coordinate the Clark campaign in Fredericksburg Va. I had been reading DU for some time, but found it to be my only solace after being the only one in the area willing to confront this year's election fraud head on and started posting then. "Folks like" myself may not be the toast of this board or the Dem party, but it is "folks like" myself who must be convinced of a story's legitimacy if they are going to go out there and try to convince the Freepers and the apathetic that it is true.

While I have found a lot of great information on this board, I've also found a great deal of misinformation as well. I've tried asking questions about your findings, but have found you to provide only the same vague, unconvincing answers to legitimate questions about the truthfulness of this story.

If you think that keeping corroborating info off of the internet "protects" Curtis, then you must be pretty naive. If this guy has any goods, the bad guys already know where he is. He would do himself more good by making himself as famous and public as possible, rather than some shadowy figure talked about on internet blogs.

Your inane story about "protecting" Curtis's from harm by failing to provide any evidence of anything that he talks about is a clue that this story is nothing but a snipe hunt. It is that kind of silliness which distracts us from going after real issues of voting irregularities. Simply blocking out sensitive info on the police report would help to back up your case, but rather than provide the info necessary for people to make up their minds, you choose to attack the character of anyone pointing out that you need to back up your assertions with real facts.

I find it ironic that Keith Olbermann is bringing this issue to the attention of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who wouldn't normally hear of it. Meanwhile, you sit on an internet board making accusations about Feeney, Wang and others while refusing to back up your claims. If you had your own TV show, rather than a blog, your butt would be sued so fast for libel, it wouldn't even be funny. But rather than acknowledge the issue of the credibility of your own investigation, you attack KO for his or me for mine.

Instead of being able to defend your position that Curtis is a link to election fraud, you've chosen to attack those with a healthy skeptism and encourage others to alienate those who aren't buying your story. While I don't give a shit what you think of my contribution to the cause of uncovering election fraud, I am not going to continue to sit silently by while you ask impugn someone who's brought real credibility to this issue simply because he doesn't believe your story.

And finally my "interest" in this issue is to uncover the fraud that I am convinced gave the election to Bush and ensure that my two daughters live in a Democracy and not some fascist pseudo-Republic with sham elections. If your "interest" was the same, you'd be bending over backwards trying to provide evidence to back up your story instead of telling everyone else that you are right until proven wrong.

[BradBlog]

26. Yes...Silliness, Amy...

"Your inane story about "protecting" Curtis's from harm by failing to provide any evidence of anything that he talks about is a clue that this story is nothing but a snipe hunt."

Uh, Amy, perhaps you have missed the several thousand words of reporting and evidence in regards to Curtis' claims that I've posted over the last three weeks on http://www.BradBlog.com

I urge you to stop on by, start diving in to some of the "Key Articles" in the red "Special Coverage" sidebar on the right side of the page (read from the bottom up to play along chronologically) and let me know what evidence you feel that I've withheld.

You will find a good deal of hard evidence in the matter including affidavits, court records, time reports received via public records requests, first hand evidence such as a "farewell card" given to Curtis and signed by the CEO of Yang (not Wang) Enterprises, Inc., and much more.

That I will not post Mr. Curtis' home address on the Internets is a decision that you are welcome to criticize all you like. But as I feel it's an increased threat to a man's security who has already lived through a number of disturbing incidents, that's the call I'll be making.

If you actually *care* about the issues of the case, I urge you to review as much as you like of what I've presented. And there is *much*. If you then have additional questions on the matter I'll be happy to give you any answers that I may have. As long as they don't present a clear and present threat to Curtis' personal health and security.

You comment about "He would do himself more good by making himself as famous and public as possible, rather than some shadowy figure talked about on internet blogs." is, I'm sorry to say, also absurd.

Mr. Curtis has appeared in public and video taped sworn testimony in front of members of the Judiciary Committee, has appeared on at least 4 different radio talk shows to discuss the case, has spoken to any reporter who has contacted him for an interview and answered every question they asked, and has stated publicly that he'd be more than happy to answer any of Mr. Olbermann's questions either via a phone interview or LIVE ON CAMERA.

My understanding as well is that he will be appearing, and hopefully speaking at one of the upcoming rallies.

That is hardly a "shadowy figure talked about on internet blogs", but if you wish to see him that way, that too, is up to you. It would, however, be a grotesquely inaccurate portrayal of what he has done, and what has occurred.

And of course, I'll be happy to do my best to answer any of your questions on the matter either here, via Email, or on The BRAD BLOG.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[Blue in the face]

27. What reporting and what evidence?

I've asked about supporting documentation and got nothing, KO did the same thing in his blog:

"For weeks, say sources at various levels of the formal investigations into the voting irregularities, Mr. Curtis has promised them corroboration of his accusations — even if it was just the statement of someone to whom he said, in 2000, ‘hey, this guy just asked me to write a vote-switching program.’ These sources say they’ve received no such corroboration, and certainly none has been presented publicly.

One e-mailer complained that the denial by the politician accused by Mr. Curtis of soliciting the program seemed pretty tepid, and confined itself largely to his comment “I don’t remember meeting Mr. Curtis.” Well, the ambiguity of the denial is partially my fault. Much of the remarks were boilerplate and repetitive, but I did leave out a fairly salient one, in which he said these were: “some of the most ridiculous, fictional charges you could ever imagine.” I wouldn’t classify that as a ‘non-denial denial.’

Two readers asked why we didn’t simply put Mr. Curtis on 'Countdown' or otherwise interview him. Unfortunately, there is a question of the size of the platform here. If the details of his charges can be found on an innocuous website with limited readership, it doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things if the possibility that they are partially or totally untrue, turns out to be the correct one. But if that’s the case — if this is actually the story of a guy out to hurt a politician — and we put him on national television, I will have effectively recreated the Swift Boat Veterans fiasco. Under those circumstances, especially in the absence of corroboration, the truth becomes secondary, and the damage is the only verifiable thing.

Lastly (and, for my money, most entertainingly): I noted that an attorney for Curtis’s former employers, for whom he was working when he claims to have been asked to develop the nefarious program, described him to MSNBC as a ‘disgruntled former employee.’ However, an e-mailer writes, at the time of his departure from the firm, the company gave him a going-away card. I had to smile at this evidence. When I left ESPN in 1997, the company gave me a tape of my oddest moments on the air, a huge farewell banner, and a going-away party that lasted until sunrise and was so joyous that the authorities were summoned. Still, I have to be the first one to say it: if anybody has the right to call me a ‘disgruntled former employee,’ it’s ESPN."

And your response to this is that you have a "farewell card"??? Who cares about a "farewell card"? Does it show that he came up with a program to change votes?

What about the corroborating evidence that has been asked for about the program? It's been asked for, but apparently never received.

Why put someone on TV that still has questions about his credibility? I've seen nothing on your site that offers any proof of what this guy is talking about. So why should he or you be a spokesperson for fraud? If you could give me something that can be traced to Florida's voting systems or anything else, I'd believe. I want to believe, but a farewell card, an affadavit and promises of police reports are nothing. Since they don't prove anything. In fact, you brought up yourself earlier that there has been no sign of this mysterious police report.

In fact, of all the complaining about being smeared or hit pieces on Countdown, I don't see you offering any suppporting evidence that backs up anything that Curtis actually says.

Unless you consider this supporting evidence:

[BradBlog]

36. THIS reporting and THIS evidence, Amy...

Amy asked and/or charged:
Why put someone on TV that still has questions about his credibility? I've seen nothing on your site that offers any proof of what this guy is talking about. So why should he or you be a spokesperson for fraud?

I don't believe that I have ever suggested that either I or he should "be a spokesperson for fraud".

As to Curtis credibility, and putting him on TV, that is, of course, up to MSNBC. But given that MSNBC (via Bloggermann) chose to give a platform to both Feeney and an "unnamed attorney" from Yang (YEI) to pass on unsubstantiated, and in fact demonstrably untrue claims (see BradBlog.com for several specifics, along with evidence of same) it certainly would seem fair to give the same amount of time to someone who is refuting those charges.

Nonetheless, my call was not to give Curtis airtime, but for Olbermann to substantiate the so-far unsubstantiated charges made by an anonymous source.

All charges that we have given to BRAD BLOG readers have come from named sources, and frequently included hard documentation to back them up. MSNBC owes it readers/viewers no less. Especially when they are going to use an anonymous source to slime an American citizen.

If you could give me something that can be traced to Florida's voting systems or anything else, I'd believe. I want to believe, but a farewell card, an affadavit and promises of police reports are nothing.

Perhaps you are not reading close enough. a) It was MSNBC that brought up the "police report" without bothering to confirm (which we have attempted to do for the past week, and the PIO at Oviedo Police still has been unable to find any such report, as reported by Olbermann from the anonymous YEI attorney). b) Neither I, nor Curtis as far as I know, has ever claimed that his program was actually used in "Florida's voting systems". The charge has been made, however, that Feeney conspired with YEI to create a prototype of a program that would do exactly that.

The farewell card you reference, with the message from the CEO of YEI stating that "the door will always be open" if Curtis ever needed it, is simply one of several pieces of evidence which tend to disprove the unsubstantiated charge made by Feeney and YEI that Curtis was "a disgruntled employee".

It also is yet another piece of evidence which would seem to show that YEI was lying in their stated claims that Hai Lin Nee, who Curtis had been reporting to authorities about for years as spying for the Peoples Republic of China, did not work at YEI. We have additionally offered several pay records, and emails which confirm that YEI's statements are untrue as well.

As has been said to me on several occassions re: Clint Curtis, "If one of his statements is proven to be untrue, one has to discount the rest of his statements." It would seem that such an argument would also be true of both YEI and Feeney in this matter.

So far, only YEI and Feeney's statements have been demonstrably untrue. None of Curtis' charges has been shown so far to be untrue in any way.

"In fact, you brought up yourself earlier that there has been no sign of this mysterious police report."

Correct. But again, apparently you're not reading closely enough. That "mysterious police report" was said to have been filed by YEI. It was not confirmed by Olbermann, yet passed on to his audience after he was told of it by an off the record interview with an anonymous YEI attorney.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[Clark2008]

28. I just heard two words

Clark, Olbermann... I've got your back, Amy.
The two most honest people in primetime.

And people who follow them have depth, as evidenced by your post.

Go ahead, Amy... your analysis is valid. And my interest is your interest - only I've got a little boy.

[DemonFighterLives]

31. I was responding before I watched Olberman

So after seeing it, my opinion may have changed slightly. Olberman is at least still talking about OH when no one else is. Still he is so nuanced as to make it sound to reps. like the election stuff is all over. Clint Curtis may not be the keystone in this whole debacle, but Feeny and the gang of crooks like Blackwell may be.

[Vote4Kerry]

18. kick n/t

[bunny planet]

20. I would imagine you've sent this to KO, so I don't have to.

Feeney is definitely a dirty politician, that's why this story is so believable for me. Wasn't he the majority leader of the Florida Legislature in 2000, and didn't he threaten to appoint Bush electors even if a full count (and then a recount) showed Gore to be the winner in Florida. Isn't that otherwise known as threatening a coup d'etat. I think that story needs to be revived and circulated a bit too. I think people need to be reminded just how underhanded and tainted Feeney really was (is).

Just my 2cents.

[BradBlog]

21. Don't assume anything...

...Send whatever you think should be sent!

And yes, you are correct. That is/was the same Tom Feeney.

Were that that was all he seems to have been up to during his tenure as Speaker of the Florida House...

Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[Clark2008]

29. Amy is not saying Feeney isn't crooked

She's just saying BradBlog had given no person of credibility any credible evidence.

It's two separate issues!

[BradBlog]

33. Understood...However...

We *have* given credible evidence from credible people (including the U.S. Customs and Export Agency, the Florida Dept. of Transportation, and the U.S. Circuit Court in Orlando Florida, just to name a few!)

That said, I believe the language in my original note to Amy was probably a bit more antognistic that it needed to be. Though it was the first time I recall being questioned about these matters from her, there were several others who mentioned the same silly issue which had been answered over and over again.

The idea, of course, that no evidence had been presented in the matter -- after thousands of words with precisely that -- I'm sure lead to a more-hostile-than-necessary response to her original letter.

Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[bunny planet]

40. Who is Amy? I wasn't responding to her just to BradBlog.

Perhaps she was referenced in his original post, which I must confess I just skimmed over.

[thatcoloredfella]

30. KO not perfect

This is certainly not Keith's first time quoting unnamed scurrilous sources, although he tends to reserve it for celebrity gossip or a personal reference. I remember him straining to qualify almost every utterance, when it came to the justified 'WTF?' over the bizarre behavior of one prominent fraud figure, and the validity of another's assertions.

But, I'm glad brad called him on it, and I'm more surprised he actually responded. But, two more observations.

I surmise KO's terse response and out, was probably due to Brad's over-the-top, confrontational tone.

Yes, it is a petty, uncorroborated planted slime - but what does it tell you about Curtis' detractors that they would resort to this? This smear is only relevant ricocheting thru the Conservative Echo Chamber, but what injury does it do to Clint's claims?

[McCamy Taylor]

32. Npt nice! Keith's blog today is about the tsunami! Doing more good for

..those poor people than Shrub.

[PATRICK]

34. One carefully rationed

media pundit does not media coverage make. With all due respects to Keith and others like him, his platform seems well groomed to placate and deal with the complainers- not the problem. I am entitled to be suspicious I think of MSNBC in their overarching concerns.

[Vinnie From Indy]

35. Where's the Beef ?

What did Bloggerman write that has irritated you so? I would be helpful if your posts contained the actual information referenced in your sensational headlines.

[raipoli]

37. Keith Sold Out

Keith is guilty of what he accuses others of -- not doing hard reporting. All it takes is a phone call to check these things out, but no, KO wants to engage in yellow journalism. Let's all remember that Watergate was denied by all the participants including the Attorney General and the President. Drip, drip, drip, drip....

[genieroze]

39. May they swim in their own sewage of lies. eom

[lonestarnot]

38. KO Sunamied