Patterico's Pontifications

12/10/2008

Media Matters Attacks Sean Hannity by Relying on Famous Convicted Felon

Filed under: General,Morons — Patterico @ 5:56 pm



Sure, Media Matters regularly attacks Sean Hannity. But when is the last time they did so by relying on the word of convicted felon Anthony Pellicano? From a post of theirs published today:

[D]uring the segment, Hannity compared the FBI audio tapes of Blagojevich to tapes released by Gennifer Flowers, saying, “Everything that we heard in the Gennifer Flowers tapes came true.” However, the Los Angeles Times reported on January 30, 1992:

A nationally known expert who examined a tape-recorded conversation allegedly between Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and a woman who claims to have had a long-term affair with him said the tape had been “selectively edited” and is “suspect at best.”

“If you take this tape recording at its face value, it’s misleading,” said Anthony J. Pellicano, a prominent expert on tape recordings who has testified in numerous criminal cases involving tapes.

Is this Media Matters’s idea of evidence — relying on the opinion of Anthony Pellicano??

In 1992, Anthony J. Pellicano might fairly have been described as a “prominent expert on tape recordings.” But today, in December 2008, he’s more properly described as a felon with numerous federal felony convictions for wiretapping and possessing explosives. As the “private eye to the stars,” his case has been the subject of numerous stories in several national media publications, including New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

What’s next? A searing indictment of Rush Limbaugh, complete with quotes from Rod Blagojevich? An essay on Republicans’ lack of ethics, with expert commentary from Alcee Hastings and Dan Rostenkowski?

What are these people thinking? Are the people at Media Matters completely unfamiliar with basic current affairs?

22 Responses to “Media Matters Attacks Sean Hannity by Relying on Famous Convicted Felon”

  1. Wasn’t Pellicano, at that time, under retainer to
    “Fabiani & Lehane”?
    And, weren’t F&L the attack dog’s for the Clinton Campaign?

    Another Drew (4fff38)

  2. Greg Packer was not available?

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  3. Paid pros ( and its not short for “professional” ) know their own.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. Well, it might be remembered that Media Matters is the employer of Oliver Willis, the borderline nutty liberal blogger. Considering the quality of the help, why would you expect the company to be particularly reliable?

    The blogger Dana (556f76)

  5. the borderline nutty liberal blogger

    I thought he worked for The Atlantic.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  6. Would that be, Media (well make up what) Matters to us?

    Scrapiron (ce69ff)

  7. Any port in a storm.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  8. Does anybody but the fringe left take Media Matters seriously?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  9. Patterico commented “What are these people thinking? Are the people at Media Matters completely unfamiliar with basic current affairs?”

    No they are not. It is just that they view lying as acceptable if it helps them achieve their dream of a one world government run by ivy league lawyers. You can call them liberals or progressives or socialists or one worlders In their “new world” no one will ever be mean or discriminate or make judgments about other people They view patriotism and Christianity as an obstacle to their goals . So yes I do question their patriotism and morals. Its an Orwellian vision destined to fail

    From todays news… linked by drudge ….. “650 dissenting scientists from around the globe are about release a report challenging the UN global warming theories”. A quote from one of those scientists.

    “I am a skeptic……..Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    Barry Donovan (976755)

  10. Ad hominem attacks are lame. Is Pellicano actually wrong about the point in question or not?

    Looks like the jury was out at the time (“…News reports following the press conference said the tapes might have been doctored…”). Apparently, there’s been no conclusion since.

    Tom (e710d8)

  11. Media Matters is ‘reely’ off base citing Pellicano as a “prominent expert on tape recordings” when we all know Richard Nixon is the gold standard in that department.

    DCSCA (d8da01)

  12. Was Marion Barry unavailable to authenticate the tapes?

    Pat Patterspn (f44efe)

  13. When someone is offered up as an expert witness, whose veracity is being used to support an argument, it is not an “ad hominem attack” to point out that he lacks veracity because he is a mutiply convicted felon. An “ad hominem attack” is one meant to divert attention from the merits of an argument by attacking a person on an unrelated issue. And what you’ve done, Tom, is a lame attempt to change the subject — which makes you, sir, a troll.

    Beldar (294770)

  14. Tom wrote:

    Ad hominem attacks are lame. Is Pellicano actually wrong about the point in question or not?

    Looks like the jury was out at the time (”…News reports following the press conference said the tapes might have been doctored…”). Apparently, there’s been no conclusion since.

    Uh huh. We all know how difficult it is to create “news reports” from whole cloth to protect Democrat Party figures. But nearly seventeen unquestioned years later, if “the jury” is still “out,” you may want to check the chamber to see if they’ve left out the back door.

    If that’s not conclusive enough for you, you’re just the type of person determined enough for a difficult task: Taking up O.J.’s search for “the real killers.”

    L.N. Smithee (9c1fce)

  15. Okay, Beldar, I’ll bite. Is Pellicano’s expertise what’s being called into question here? Or is it his criminal past? (Or are the two somehow inextricably connected, and I’m missing the logic of that?)

    How this is different from suggesting that if an internationally renowned pianist becomes a convicted felon, recordings of that pianist no longer sound good as a result? Call me whatever name you wish; I am failing to see this distinction in earnest.

    Tom (e710d8)

  16. Yes, Tom, you are missing the logic. Maybe a reading course would help.

    if an internationally renowned pianist becomes a convicted felon, recordings of that pianist no longer sound good as a result? Call me whatever name you wish; I am failing to see this distinction in earnest.

    A course in logic would be good. If an “internationally renowned pianist ” was found to have been faking the playing while a recording of Glen Gould was being played, would you still think the sound was as good ?

    What an idiot.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  17. A course in logic would be good. If an “internationally renowned pianist ” was found to have been faking the playing while a recording of Glen Gould was being played, would you still think the sound was as good ?

    What an idiot.

    Hey, thanks for your good faith. You’re a classy guy.

    Tom (e710d8)

  18. Is Pellicano’s expertise what’s being called into question here? Or is it his criminal past? (Or are the two somehow inextricably connected, and I’m missing the logic of that?)

    They’re not telling a couple of key details. First, Pellicano made his “determination” about the tapes after being hired by Hillary. That fact in combination with his criminal history seems relevant. He may have testified about tapes in some other cases but nothing he said in this instance was under oath, and he’s probably the type who would even lie under oath and maybe did for all we know.

    Another point worth mentioning is that Flowers submitted her recordings to Truth Verification Labs, which found them to be 100 percent authentic. Somehow Media Matters decided not to include that piece of info.

    Pellicano Tapes

    Gerald A (138c50)

  19. Tom, willful obtuseness will usually get that kind of response around here. If you need a refresher course on that subject, look up posts by the commenter named “Oiram.” The distinction between reasoned debate and something else should be apparent.

    Dmac (e30284)

  20. Gerald A, thanks.

    Dmac, I’m not sure what about me stating “I’m failing to see that in earnest” equates to “willful obtuseness,” but I can appreciate the distinction between how you and Mike K choose to express yourselves.

    Peace.

    Tom (e710d8)

  21. Either call me nutty or not nutty. None of this borderline stuff.

    The piece is simply citing the ’92 LA Times story and comparing it to Hannity’s characterization.

    Oliver Willis (57f509)

  22. No, it is also relying on the authority of an “expert” who is now a convicted felon.

    Patterico (cc3b34)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3216 secs.