Skip to main content

View Diary: It's official: Lieberman and Co. lied about "hacking" (250 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you ever read any newspapers? (0+ / 0-)

    Did you read no reporting about the Whitewater, Watergate, Chandra Levy, CIA leak, etc. grand juries?  I saw plenty.  Grand juries are secret but it doesn't stop reporters or newspapers from trying to get the news to the public.

    Theres no news because the New York Times, Washington Post and the networks CHOOSE not to report about Lieberman's $387,000 in unitemized disbursements in the 12 days prior to the primary, not because its illegal for them to go after the story.  The little New Haven register has reported on the story; there is nothing stopping the major news outlets except their desire to protect Lieberman.  

    http://www.nhregister.com/...

    •  please don't lie to people (0+ / 0-)

      NYT, 10/29/06:

      The latest sparks came early this week, when the Lamont campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission about nearly $380,000 the Lieberman campaign listed as ''petty cash'' to pay for volunteers in the final two weeks of the primary. Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for Mr. Lieberman, said the money was used to pay for young workers used in the field operation in the last days of the campaign.

      By law, a campaign must keep a journal of petty cash payments of less than $100, but it is not required to make the contents of the journal public. Ms. Sun declined to allow reporters to examine the journal, saying there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

      Several campaign finance experts said that while the expenditure was an unusually large sum of money to be listed as petty cash, it would be legal as long as each of the payments was less than $100.

      NYT, 11/3/06:

      Mr. Lamont filed a second complaint with the Federal Election Commission about how the Lieberman campaign accounted for an unusually high $387,000 in petty cash spending.

      His campaign continued to call on Mr. Lieberman to account for his petty cash primary spending after an article in The New Haven Register raised new questions about whether Mr. Lieberman properly reported payments to canvassers last summer.

      The campaign has declined to release details of its petty cash spending, which federal rules require to be disbursed in amounts of less than $100.

      The Register article said several of Mr. Lieberman's canvassers collected more than $200 each, a threshold that requires itemization in public reports. Two consultants employed by the senator also told The Register that they got only half the payments Mr. Lieberman listed, in his last campaign finance statement, as going to them.

      Mr. Lieberman called the complaint an ''11th-hour attack.''

      WaPo, 10/23/06:

      Ned Lamont's campaign says Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) has failed to account for $387,000 in petty cash his campaign spent days before the state's Democratic primary in August.

      "Whenever this much cash is floating around, it certainly raises suspicions of possible vote-buying and other potentially illegal activities that the Lieberman campaign must answer," said Liz Dupont-Diehl, a Lamont spokeswoman.

      The Lieberman camp denied any wrongdoing. Spokeswoman Tammy Sun said the cash was paid to field coordinators who then distributed money to canvassing workers.

      •  I said they did blog posts (0+ / 0-)

        These are not up to the standards of national media reporting on a national figure blowing a $387,000 loophole in campaign finance law.  

        They had Shays, one of the authors of campaign finance law, right there in Connecticut and they didn't bother to ask him if he left that loophole in the law.  No, they go and find anonymous "experts."  They didn't go to McCain, either, another author, but they sure know how to get in touch with him for a comment when John Kerry botches a joke.  

        Its a cover up and you are completely wrong and dishonest that there is some restriction to reporting about campaign finance abuse allegations.

        •  Quit lying. (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          Lois

          Those were all full, published newspaper articles.

          Moreover, if you knew anything about campaign finance law, you would know that the reporting and disclosure requirements had nothing to do with BCRA, of which Shays and McCain were sponsors, but predated BCRA by decades.

          As far as the confidentiality of FEC proceedings goes, click here.

          You're embarrassing yourself and the worthy cause which you're failing to support.  Just apologize and stop it.

          •  You are a liar and a shill. (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            Adam B

            There is no bar to news media digging out the fact about campaign finance complaints.  The New Haven Register did some digging and they're not being prosecuted.  

            Shays and McCain are, of course, the likely pols to go to about campaign finance stories.  Who would you go to, the guy who made his name about the Bridge to Nowhere?  Shays, Meehan, McCain and Feingold are the pols that any serious reporter would go to for a quote about a national figure blowing a $387,000 loophole in campaign finance law.  

            •  Those are awfully big words (0+ / 0-)

              I presented evidence of links directly to news articles about the Lieberman petty cash fund.  You engage in name calling, and accusation without proof.  The "shill" thing is particularly unilluminating.

              Yes, Connecticut papers did a better job reporting on a Connecticut story than non-CT papers.  Big deal.

              You have no idea what you're talking about, whatsoever, either on the facts or the law.  I'll let you try to redeem yourself if you can answer one question:  what blogger was the source who determined which particular federal regulations may have been violated by the Lieberman petty cash fund?

              •  You deserved it! (0+ / 0-)

                What some bloggers said has nothing to do with anything!  You're going off the deep end.  I'm supposed to keep track of bloggers??

                You're the one claiming there is some bar to news media digging into a campaign finance allegation and that is not true.  The news media gets information about whats going on in a grand jury, for heaven's sake.  Of course, the NY Times and the Washington Post can and should INVESTIGATE a national figure like Lieberman claiming a $387,000 loophole in campaign finance law, not to mention the stuff that reporter from the New Haven register had the gumption and integrity to track down, about double checks when the recipient says he only received one.

                Of course, it is absurd that the man knows he can go on Meet the Press and say he wants to start an Office of Public Integrity and KNOW that he won't be questioned about his own FEC report of $387,000 in unitemized expenditures.  

                You started with the personal nastiness, not me.  Read over your posts.  

              •  And a big baby with the troll rating. (0+ / 0-)

                I'll troll rate one of yours now.  Do you want to back and forth that, too?

                •  I'll go back and forth on facts and evidence (0+ / 0-)

                  When you have some, let us know.

                •  speaking of facts and evidence (0+ / 0-)

                  I accused you of being a liar, and presented facts and evidence which demonstrated that your allegations had no merit.

                  You accused me of being a "liar" and a "shill", and provided no basis whatsoever.

                  Just saying, is all.

                  •  But you did lie. (0+ / 0-)

                    "A complaint was filed with the FEC. Until it's done, the parties can't discuss it publicly, unless everyone agrees to."  

                    That was the first one; and its not true.  Obviously not true as Lamont most certainly did discuss it.  

                    Your insistence on this "secrecy" canard, over and over and over, was shilling, shilling a canard.  

                    •  Really. (0+ / 0-)

                      When did Lamont discuss it after the formal complaint was filed?

                      •  The campaign is the "party" to the complaint (0+ / 0-)

                        http://nedlamont.com/...

                        Thats the campaign's official spokesperson saying,

                        "The New Haven Register confirms that Senator Lieberman has a very serious legal problem on his hands, and Connecticut has a right to know exactly how he spent this money," said Lamont spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. "There is no excuse for any candidate, much less an 18-year incumbent, to brazenly ignore very clear campaign finance laws. Senator Lieberman must come clean about where this money went."

                        This is easy to find (but I'm not going to do any more research for you trying to find Ned Lamont quotes; its kind of bizarre to think the man was going around campaigning and said nothing about it).  In any event, to your point, the campaign is the party to the complaint.

                        •  It's actually not so easy (0+ / 0-)

                          You found a press release announcing the complaint, nothing more.

                          Care to retract the "no news articles" nonsense?

                          •  Which totally blows your "secrecy" canard (0+ / 0-)

                            You said the parties aren't allowed to comment; the Lamont campaign is the party making the complaint; the official spokesperson for the Lamont campaign makes extremely strong remarks about the complaint.  You said the news media can't do anything about a national figure taking a dump on campaign finance laws until the FEC finishes its investigation but theres a brave reporter from the NH Register tracking down Lieberman's sleaze.

                            QED You are wrong!  The reporter from the NH Register isn't accused of any wrongdoing for investigating; the Lamont campaign is not in any trouble with anyone for speaking out on the record about the complaint.

                          •  No, what I said was . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            . . . now that the FEC investigation has begun, the parties can't speak.

                            And what you said was that no major news media ever reported on the allegations in the first place, which is a crock of shit.

                          •  I never said that (0+ / 0-)

                            They didn't do stories on it; I never said that "no major news media ever reported on the allegations."

                            The items you cite prove my point better than yours:  The effort is to cover up for Lieberman.  They don't tell the reader easily available information about other campaigns spending petty cash sums like zero, $500, etc.  -- tiny fractions of Lieberman's.  They don't even tell the reader what Lamont spent in petty cash.  

                            The big media know how to do that kind of reporting.  When its Hillary Clinton, they sure know how to do it:

                            http://select.nytimes.com/...

                            "But that was not all. Mrs. Clinton also bought more than $13,000 worth of flowers, mostly for fund-raising events and as thank-yous for donors. She laid out $27,000 for valet parking, paid as much as $800 in a single month in credit card interest and -- above all -- paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to an assortment of consultants and aides."

                            The lead reporter on that story was also on the CT Senate race, Anne Kornblut.  

                            You have a bias so you construct weird rationales for the big media running defense for  a national figure like Lieberman doing something absolutely bizarre.  $387,000 in unitemized expenditures in 2 weeks.  Theres no point in having laws; campaigns could hire the mafia if they can spend money like that without documentation.  

                          •  Duh. (0+ / 0-)

                            They could report on Hillary's expenditures because she did itemize all of them in her FEC reports.  

                            You said: "NY Times, Washington Post, networks have yet to do more than a blog post on Liebermans $387,000 petty cash slush fund, either" and "the New York Times, Washington Post and the networks CHOOSE not to report about Lieberman's $387,000 in unitemized disbursements in the 12 days prior to the primary."  I disproved it.  It's all up there above.

                          •  Oy (0+ / 0-)

                            This is my last.  There is nothing, nothing standing in the way of the NY Times or the Washington Post from investigating what Lieberman did with the money except the editors and reporters choosing to protect Lieberman.  They never even made a stink that he release the petty cash journal, as he had promised to do.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site