Skip to main content

View Diary: Armstrong Williams: 'There are others' (381 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Washington Post Online Discussion (none)
    The WaPo just recently concluded an online discussion with Armstrong Williams.  He pretty much conceded errors in judgment and accepts that his reputation has been tarnished, but he seems to continue to maintain that what he did was essentially legitimate.

    One questioner from State College, PA, specifically asked, "How common do you think it is that commentators are put in a situation where they are offered money to promote particular agendas? And do you think others are 'getting away' with it, while you were just unlucky in getting caught?"

    Armstrong Williams' response: "Let me not bring anyone else into this discussion. The focus of this discussion today is about me and my error in judgment. But I will raise this: what are the standards? On the one hand, I should not take advertising dollars? Or should journalists not go out to give $10 to $15,000 for speeches before some special interest group? I'm just trying to figure out what the consistent standard is for everyone."

    So here, at least, he really ducked out on even implying that others have accepted payments as well.

    •  Still doesn't get it? (none)
      Or doesn't want to get it?

      I think Wms is stupid, but how stupid can you be? At this point, he must know that this was unethical and he's simply decided that he's safest by playing this really, really stupid.

    •  The Door Is Ajar (none)
      One questioner from State College, PA, specifically asked, "How common do you think it is that commentators are put in a situation where they are offered money to promote particular agendas? And do you think others are 'getting away' with it, while you were just unlucky in getting caught?"

      Armstrong Williams' response: "Let me not bring anyone else into this discussion ..."

      He could have categorically denied knowledge of other commentators. Further, his answer suggests there are others ("anyone else"). No names, but the implication does exist.

      vote early - vote often

      by wystler on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:57:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site