L.A. Times Responds to Busch’s Sentencing Statement
After publishing Anita Busch’s eye-opening statement at Anthony Pellicano’s sentencing yesterday, I wrote L.A. Times editor Russ Stanton last night to ask for a reaction — and why the paper had not mentioned Busch’s references to the L.A. Times. Stanton is out of the office, but I received a reply this evening from L.A. Times California Editor David Lauter:
Good afternoon Mr. Frey,
Russ is out of the office, but since I usually try to respond when people have questions about Metro stories, I thought I’d get back to you on this one.
As the Times has stated before, we take very seriously any threat made to our employees in the course of doing their jobs, and that certainly included the threats to Ms. Busch. The Times cooperated with law enforcement investigations in her case and provided monetary and personal support — and protection — to Ms. Busch.
The paper has also made clear previously that neither the paper nor its lawyers have ever hired Anthony Pellicano. Ms. Busch’s repeated suggestions that our lawyer said Pellicano had done work for The Times is untrue. It’s a matter of public record that Pellicano has been an occasional source for journalists at the paper over the years, both on the record and off. Journalists have many kinds of sources when reporting their stories.
Ms. Busch went through a terrible experience as a result of Pellicano’s illegal activities, and her former Times colleagues sympathize deeply with what she’s suffered. We didn’t include her statements about The Times in this morning’s story because they were neither true nor new.
All of us at The Times hope that the conclusion of the trial will bring Ms. Busch peace of mind.
Los Angeles Times
Mr. Lauter’s statement deserves a response.
Above: Anthony Pellicano
“Maybe Anthony Pellicano would know something about this . . .”
After she received a fish, a rose, and a note saying “Stop” on her windshield, Busch got a call from a man warning her that a private detective had hired someone to blow up her car. She told this to her employer, the L.A. Times. According to the New York Times, the paper’s lawyer, Karlene Goller, suggested getting in touch with a private detective . . . Anthony Pellicano:
Maybe Anthony Pellicano would know something about this, Ms. Goller said, according to two Times employees. . . . A reporter who had long experience with Mr. Pellicano as a news source, Chuck Philips, said he had tried to reach him at Ms. Goller’s urging and did not get through.
So it is a matter of public record that the Times‘s lawyer actively sought information about the threat to Busch from the very man now accused of ordering the threat: Anthony Pellicano. Goller sought Pellicano’s input even though she knew that a private detective was allegedly behind the threat. Busch discussed this in detail in her sentencing statement, and Mr. Lauter does not deny the allegation; instead, he responds only by quibbling over the word “hired.” But the embarrassment for The Times does not turn on whether they intended to pay Pellicano for his counsel.
Treated as the “Tawana Brawley of the newsroom.”
Mr. Lauter portrays The Times as a sympathetic employer that stood by Busch in her time of crisis. But as I have previously reported (see here and here), The Times was anything but. The New York Times article quoted above said:
According to a 2002 article in The Washington Post, people at The Los Angeles Times called [Busch] the “Tawana Brawley of the newsroom.”
“I was telling the truth, and no one was believing me,” she said. “People started questioning whether I had somehow lost my mind. It’s hard to take, when you’re telling the truth and people are looking at you sideways and laughing in your face.”
I reported in May that Chuck Philips had even rolled his eyes at Busch:
Busch told me that she once ran into Chuck Philips in a hallway at the L.A. Times. She had not met Philips before, but recognized him. She said: “You’re Chuck Philips.” And Philips responded: “Oh, you’re the woman who got threatened?” When she said she was, Philips rolled his eyes and walked away without another word.
Above: Chuck Philips
Goller, the lawyer who had sought Pellicano’s involvement in investigating the threat, was particularly unsupportive, according to Busch — even after two men tried to run Busch down on the street. According to the New York Times, “an F.B.I. informant recorded a suspect saying that the threat on [Busch] had not done any good — she was ‘back at it.'” Three days later, “two men in a Mercedes tried to run her down outside her apartment.” Busch told me that Goller later dismissed the incident:
Busch tells me that, after she was almost run over, Newton’s wife Karlene Goller “looked me in the eye and basically told me that she didn’t believe me.” According to Busch, Goller told her: “Maybe those guys in the car [who tried to run her down] were just looking for a parking spot.”
The Times Distances Busch
The people at the paper who derided Busch did not know that law enforcement was surreptitiously recording conversations that corroborated what she was telling everyone. But common decency should have caused The Times to stand by Busch in her time of crisis. Busch told me in May that the opposite had occurred:
Busch says that Goller’s lack of support went further. When the paper drafted a letter of support for Busch, it was sent to Goller for her review. Goller removed the line: “We stand firmly by Anita and value her contributions to The Times.”
The Times continues to distance itself from Busch to this day. Strikingly, in their latest story, The Times refers to Busch — but doesn’t even say that she was working as an L.A. Times reporter when the threats to her life occurred.
I asked Busch tonight for her reaction to the statement from Times editor Lauter. She did not want to get into a tit for tat regarding each one of his points. However, she told me that she stands by what she told me in May, and added this:
I’ve told the truth, and my accounts of these events have been borne out by the arrest and conviction of these individuals. Pellicano, in addition to compromising the legal system and judicial system, had relationships with people inside the Los Angeles Times, including a journalist whose work has been discredited. It’s time for the Times to submit to an independent investigation of their relationship to Anthony Pellicano and coverage of the case.
Nobody’s holding their breath waiting for that to happen.
In addition to an investigation, there’s one other thing that I’d like to see. The Los Angeles Times should say “I’m sorry” to Anita Busch. The paper treated Busch shabbily, and ought to apologize.
But apparently the paper is once again taking its cue from Anthony Pellicano, who today declared that he will not apologize to his victims for what he put them through.
It appears that The Times shares Pellicano’s unapologetic attitude.
UPDATE: Kevin Roderick links and defends Goller’s decision to contact Pellicano. However, Roderick doesn’t address the most salient point: Goller was seeking the assistance of a private investigator, after an informant had warned Busch that the plan to blow up her car had been ordered by a private investigator — a fact that Goller had been told. I think her decision to call on Pellicano was “questionable,” not in any corrupt sense, but rather in the sense that it showed poor judgment — and became a source of embarrassment for Goller and the newspaper after it turned out that Pellicano was believed to be behind the threats.
Perhaps that’s why John Carroll vetoed the idea; Busch has told me (and has also previously told Diane Dimond) that Goller continued to pursue the idea even after Carroll had explicitly said not to. Carroll had said that the investigation of this crime should be left up to LAPD and the FBI, an approach that seems wise and sound.
UPDATE x2: In addition, Matt Lait and Scott Glover have written that, even before Pellicano was charged with crimes, “[e]ven cursory research would have turned up media accounts in which he boasted about or was accused of thuggish or illegal behavior.”
Are there any Cannons of Legal Ethics that Ms. Goller should be investigated about?Another Drew (64fe9d) — 12/16/2008 @ 7:38 pm
I don’t want to go there, AD.Patterico (cc3b34) — 12/16/2008 @ 7:44 pm
I can understand your reticence, but I would think there are enough injured parties here that someone is going to file a complaint.Another Drew (64fe9d) — 12/16/2008 @ 8:09 pm
I hate to say this but I wish the New York Times would write a follow-up story. At least it didn’t discount everything Anita Busch said. Of course, I really wish a newspaper would publish Patterico’s columns or investigate his leads, but that’s probably hoping for too much.DRJ (b4db3a) — 12/16/2008 @ 8:17 pm
So the LA Times staff brings the same lazy stereotyping and situational ethics to intra-office relationships as it does to its news reporting?JVW (bff0a4) — 12/16/2008 @ 8:21 pm
As I mentioned before, the LAT is not merely conflicted, but corruptly so, in this and other stories that it reports without telling its readers of its conflicts of interest.SPQR (26be8b) — 12/16/2008 @ 8:24 pm
The LAT deserves to go out of business…sam (a66070) — 12/16/2008 @ 8:28 pm
(and that’s coming from someone with 21 years of newspapering under his belt who grew up in a newspaper household…)
Mr. David Lauter is a lying sack of crap, and I wouldn’t waste the energy it would take to punch him in the face.
His paper can, of course, provide detailed records showing these funds it provided as support, and records of the personell it detailed for her personal protection.
Ms Busch, I hope that faced with similar circumstances, I show even a fraction of what you showed.
The LA Times is apparently staffed with worthless piles, and deserves to fail utterly. I will dance a jig as Mr Lauter and other walk out the front door.Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/16/2008 @ 8:52 pm
According to a 2002 article in The Washington Post, people at The Los Angeles Times called [Busch] the “Tawana Brawley of the newsroom.”
In light of the prevailing political slant of most employees of the LA Times, and of most members of the media in general, I’m surprised that the words “Tawana Brawley” necessarily are perceived (or used) as a negative. If anything, I’d think that name would be so twisted and distorted in the minds of such people, that “Tawana Brawley” would be interpreted by them as a reference to a sad, poor, dejected underdog up against the system, up against the cruel capitalist conservative world.
But I guess to make the thick skulls of the left correctly supportive in this instance — or whenever appropriate — not only requires the legitimate standing and merits of an Anita Busch, but that such a person also be either black, Latino or gay. Or that he (or she) be Barack Obama’s reverend, or Hillary’s husband, or Bill’s wife, or Bush’s foe, or Cuba’s friend, or foe of Western religion (ie, Christianity or Judaism), or enabler to and excuser of Joe Biden’s plagerism, Al Gore’s hypocrisy and AGW neurosis, etc, etc.Mark (411533) — 12/16/2008 @ 9:05 pm
Mr. David Lauter is a lying sack of crap, and I wouldn’t waste the energy it would take to punch him in the face.
Well, Scott, first of all, I don’t like that kind of talk even when you say you’re *not* going to do something. Second of all, he may just be saying what he’s been told to say by the legal folks.Patterico (cc3b34) — 12/16/2008 @ 9:13 pm
Comment by Patterico — 12/16/2008 @ 9:13 pmAnother Drew (64fe9d) — 12/16/2008 @ 9:17 pm
Yes, and we know that Ms. Goller is the epitome of legal counsel.
The LA Times has always followed an elitest agenda. Those in charge, like politicians of the same ilk, believe that they have cornered the market on knowing what’s best for the unworthy masses. An apology to Ms. Busch from the Times? Ha! An acknowledgment of error . . . Please! Not in this century.jweb (9b710d) — 12/16/2008 @ 9:27 pm
Just because he was TOLD to say it doesn’t make him a lying sack of crap. It just means he’s also a toadying, lying sack of crap.
For the first part, sorry. But the man is utter scum.
He forgot the end of that sentence…
“so that she might not opt to sue our pathetic asses”Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/16/2008 @ 9:37 pm
“so that she might not opt to sue our pathetic asses”
Heh. Yes, you do get the sense that this fear is driving the statement.Patterico (cc3b34) — 12/16/2008 @ 9:39 pm
Truly they DO consider themselves the gatekeepers.
There was a time – so I am told – that a paper reported what happened. She made a statement, so REPORT IT YOU SACK-LESS SONSOFBITCHS!!Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 12/16/2008 @ 9:40 pm
you are a complete stud!cts22 (bac6ff) — 12/16/2008 @ 10:24 pm
No, I’m not, after all: Anita, SUE THEIR A***ES!Patricia (ee5c9d) — 12/16/2008 @ 10:29 pm
And let’s have a poll. Who thinks Patterico should write a book about the whole Chuck Phillips/Pellicano/Busch saga?
Count me in.Patricia (ee5c9d) — 12/16/2008 @ 10:34 pm
Anita Busch, meet former San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre, target of libel and calumney from the San Diego Union/Tribune. The two of you have a lot in common.Alan Kellogg (e4d258) — 12/16/2008 @ 10:36 pm
I added a couple of lines to my update to clarify my position regarding the likely significance of the LAT’s decision to call on Pellicano for information about these threats to Busch.Patterico (cc3b34) — 12/16/2008 @ 10:58 pm
I hate to date myself but the behavior patterns of the pugs at the Los Angeles Times bring to mind the Nixon White House in those Watergate days of old.
This is pretty much a no-brainer (which with many of the players in this game appears to come natural) but clearly Ms. Busch’s bonafides have been totally vindicated by the courts. The sentencing of Pellicano to a decade and a half behind bars validates this. (And at his age, those bars are about as close to a watering hole he’s going to get.) Didn’t anyone at that paper learn anything?
Anita Busch has been clearly telling the truth.
I mean, use your common sense. Who’d make this up? Ms. Busch was subjected to trial by fire, cross-examinated under fire, bothered, berated and brutalized. If journalism awarded medals for valor, she’d have a hundred. And the courts believed her. People are in prison because of it.
The smart move for the LAT would have been to say nothing. Let her statement stand and the whole episode drift into the past. But no. Somebody at that rag took the bait. “Truth is, these aren’t very bright guys. And things got out of hand.” –(apologies to Hal Holbrook for borrowing his line from ‘All The President’s Men.’) It’s so obvious.
There’s such a thing as corporate support and editorial support. You can project tacit ‘corporate’ support in a ‘work to rule’ fashion and still leave your staffer twisting in the wind (another Watergate reference). Give them a desk, a phone… and nothing to do. This ‘tacit’ faux support is clearly what happened to Ms. Busch.
And it could happen to any of you, too, in your chosen walk of life.
In the Watergate days, Grahame and Bradlee backed Woodward and Bernstein to the point of risking the paper. On a smaller, but similar scale, The Los Angeles Times did just the opposite and did not back Ms. Busch with a similar zest and zeal.
What’s most troubling to me as an Angelino is to step back from this and see it all in the context of a bigger picture. The pattern emerging at the Los Angeles Times over the years of sloppy reporting; omitted coverage; selective editing; exposed biases and a general sense of shabby, unreliable and undependable reporting. That usually signals poor management– or a hidden agenda.
They can deny it vigorously, of course. But given their recent record, why should I, or anybody else, believe them? Or anything Philips ever wrote? Or that this Karlene Goller isn’t trying to protect her job at a bankrupt newspaper that’s certain to be shedding old deadwood if it wants to streamline and survive by stridently backing a paper against a victims statement.
This entire episode, like the others, is crabgrass in their yard. Meanwhile, their roof is on fire.
As for Pellicano, In an epilogue, just 24 hours after being sentenced to 15 years in the Big House, in an AP interview from behind bars on what must be a slow news day, Pellicano says he was “careless” and has “no apology” for the victims he “spied on.” (This is considered news? Fresh, not frozen road kill as mystery meat in tonight’s prison stew would be news.)
He also denies being behind the “harrassment” of Anita Busch. Of course, everyone in prison is innocent, right Pelican?
‘Harrassment’ is a decidely tame term. This was more than just mussing her hair.
“When you investigate someone, you intrude into their lives,” said Pellicano, noting that he was a licensed private detective. “My practices are no different than others’. I was just better at it.”
If he was better at it, why was he caught, convicted and sentenced to 15 years in the pokie?
As I said last night- ‘a dim bulb.”
But at the end of the interview, in what is clearly delusions of grandeur, (or just plain delusional,) the Pelican boasts the belief that his tapes will aid his appeal and, depending on interpretation, show him in a better light.
There must truly be some Liddy in this jailbird as this line of thinking is pure Nixonian. And the clients, victims, et.al, recorded by him will be thrilled that he envisions the possibility of marketing his infamous audio library to make a buck.
“If there were a way to help my family without breaking my own laws so to speak, I would consider it,” Pellicano said. “There would be a mass sale of books, there would be eyebrows raised and some heads would roll, including some in government.”
Live long and prosper? Fascinating.
Like Katrina, the story here for the AP, any and all isn’t Pellicano but the wreckage and ruin left behind. And the clean-up it’s going to take for the victims throughout their lives.
No doubt ‘White Heat’ is in the prison Betamax library so he can keep his Cagney prison persona fresh. We all know Brando’s Corelone would never have been caught dead in jail. In months to come when the cell door slams shut, he can write his ailing Ma and proudly boast to her he made it…
‘Top of the world!’
I believe Anita Busch 100%.
There’s simply no motive for anyone to make this stuff up. None. But given the recent history of the Los Angeles Times and its problems, I am less inclined to believe their position. It’s bankrupt…. in more ways than the obvious one.
Many thanks for your kind comments on my essay about Anita Busch’s ordeal. And thank you Patterico for elevating it for others to read and consider.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/16/2008 @ 11:15 pm
Every time I think I’ve seen the worst possible behaviour from the mainstream media, something crops up to disabuse me of that notion.
I think that ‘journalist’ has become a perjorative word, like ‘whore’, ‘murderer’, and ‘child abuser’. Honest reporters and opinion writers shouldn’t use it to refer to themselves.Evil Pundit (843b74) — 12/17/2008 @ 1:11 am
Earth to Ms. Busch: Look for a different workplace/environment if you haven’t already done so. These pukes at LAT do not deserve your energy, loyalty, and perserverance.FrankM (b00491) — 12/17/2008 @ 5:22 am
Earth to FrankM: Busch hasn’t worked at the L.A. Times in years.Patterico (cc3b34) — 12/17/2008 @ 6:15 am
God to Earth: What are you guys doing down there? You’re still reading dead tree newspapers??? I gave you the internets! Whatta you want? An engraved invitation? I should make the LATimes be swallowed up by the earth?
Hmmm… I’ll think about it.Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 12/17/2008 @ 7:46 am
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 12/16/2008 @ 10:36 pmAnother Drew (bc69ec) — 12/17/2008 @ 9:01 am
Mike Aguire might have had a more productive legal career in San Diego if he hadn’t started off carrying a Giant Sequoia on his shoulder.
The U-T opposed him when he won, and when he lost.
He had just pissed-off too many people eventually – the kiss-of-death of any politician.
and one more thing…Another Drew (bc69ec) — 12/17/2008 @ 9:02 am
I think you do a disservice to Ms. Busch in comparing her to Mr. Aguirre.
Re: Kevin Roderick links and defends Goller’s decision to contact Pellicano
It’s not surprising that Mr. Roderick would take the Times side. He is a former LA Times editor who currently works for another former LA Times editor in UCLA’s Media Relations Department.Beth (d3fe08) — 12/17/2008 @ 9:54 am
Jay Nordlinger, Impromptus, NRO, 12/17/08, remarks over the Pellicano sentencing that back during the “…days of the Lewinsky scandal, When Team Clinton was using Pellicano…I rejoiced in referring to him…as ‘Clinton’s dick’.”Another Drew (bc69ec) — 12/17/2008 @ 11:54 am
um “duh” yeah of course the Times always treats its employees with respect and courtesy – “duhhhh”
“Which way do I go, which way do I go … I believe anything the Times says.”
get real.Leon (52fdbb) — 12/17/2008 @ 12:21 pm
There must truly be some Liddy in this jailbird as this line of thinking is pure Nixonian.
Actually, Nixon did little that was of the pattern seen with Pelicano, et al. He had an inept group of employees who decided to bug the Democratic party HQ. One rumor is that they thought Larry O’Brien was trying to get something on Nixon’s brother who had had some minor association with Howard Hughes. Nobody was threatened. The burglary at the psychiatrist’s office was as bad as it got.
At the time, I thought Nixon was some criminal mastermind like the picture Woodward and Bernstein were painting. In fact, most of it was BS and Mark Felt was feeding it to them to get back at Nixon because he didn’t get the FBI Director job.
Liddy recognized his mistake, served his time refusing any plea bargain and got on with his life. His book is worth reading as he exposed a corrupt warden while he was in prison and became a hero to the other inmates who respected him as a stand up guy.
I doubt Pelicano is worthy of shining Liddy’s shoes.Mike K (531ff4) — 12/17/2008 @ 12:54 pm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/12/anthony-pellica.htmlBen (a1288e) — 12/17/2008 @ 1:30 pm
My reference to Nixonian thinking pertains to the egocentric faith in conveying intent via tapes. The Dean/Nixon tape regarding cover-up payoffs of a million dollars comes to mind. Nixon maintained the tapes would show he was feeling out Dean. Voice inflections and context left a different impression entirely. The tapes vindicated Dean. Point is, Pellicano believes his tapes will show him in a better light. Again, a dim bulb, indeed.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:09 pm
The worst part of this: those who care about well-reported, well-researched, timely news lost a huge asset when Anita was taken out of commission. Some other “journalists” were just as happy to see their biggest competitor taken out by this whole shameful matter. Compared to Anita, most of them are boot-licking jokes.Journo (faece3) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:15 pm
#31- Gordon Liddy is no hero.
He’s a convicted felon and a proven domestic terrorist before the phrase was in vogue.
Liddy wouldn’t shine Pellicano’s shoes. He’d steal’em them then trade’em for a pack of Lucky’s.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:15 pm
An educated guess would be that Ms. Busch knows first hand that journalism as we once knew it– the kind that made a person of her generation aspire to the trade, is dead.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:22 pm
DCSCA…Please explain how “…was convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping…” equates to proven domestic terrorism?Another Drew (bc69ec) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:26 pm
You seem to have a very large amount of heartburn over G’s role in history.
Why the animus?
AD – It is all about Teh Narrative.JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:29 pm
Well, Gordon Liddy was a “domestic terrorist” before the phrase was in vogue? Or evidently long after too, since no one seems to have adopted DCSCA’s new Humpty Dumpty inspired dictionary with all its creative definitions.SPQR (72771e) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:29 pm
That he is so rational re Pellicano, and just around-the-bend when it comes to G, is just inexplicable.Another Drew (bc69ec) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:32 pm
G must have run over his dog?
SPQR – Like Mario, DCSCA appears to have on of the Leftist dictionaries that come without actual definitions of words, so they can make shite up as they go along.JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:36 pm
dude, he never even threatened any body. Seriously, are you high??Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:36 pm
He’s a convicted felon and a proven domestic terrorist before the phrase was in vogue.
See, and here you had me reading your posts on this story, only to go all Leftard on us with that silly and inane comment.Dmac (e30284) — 12/17/2008 @ 2:53 pm
#37/#38/#39/#40/#41/#42/#43- Liddy,”… convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping…” equates to proven domestic terrorism.” Drew, you answered your own question.
Respectfully, to the rest of you: most of the operative actions employed by Pellicano and his henchmen are akin to Liddy and his Plumbers team, ultimately convicted and jailed for their Watergate crimes. It’s fact, albeit on a different scale. Perhaps time has clouded your memory.
Only partisians could get their feathers ruffled over the analogy. Pellicano and Liddy are birds of a feather. Jailbirds. Convicted felons and domestic terrorists. Unrepentent– even boastful about their crimes and lament only about being caught.
Liddy’s actions for his ‘clients’ destroyed lives and careers. So did Pellicano’s. And both have sought to cash-in on their infamy.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/17/2008 @ 6:01 pm
DCSCA, caught debasing the language, what do you do? Blame others. Only “partisans” could get upset that you debase language with ridiculous rhetoric.SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2008 @ 6:03 pm
I did not answer my own question, I asked one of you, and you repeated my question back to me – out of context – in attempting to change the meaning of what I had said.Another Drew (bc69ec) — 12/17/2008 @ 6:12 pm
You Sir, are a LIAR!
What did I tell you. Another Leftist with a make-it-up-as-you-go-along dictionary.JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 6:28 pm
#45,#46,#47- Ants have a space program. They call it the Empire State Building. Are you blogging from the 34th Street or Fifth Avenue entrance?
1. Ms. Busch has told the truth.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/17/2008 @ 7:18 pm
2. This writer believes Ms. Busch 100%
3. The court and jurors did, too.
4. This writer does not believe the Los Angeles Times based on their recent history.
5. Liddy & Pellicano employed the same methods. They are birds of a feather. Jailbirds.
DCSCA – Motion to strike. Non-responsive. Nothing we addressed to you had anything to do with Ms. Busch. Having been convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping does not make Liddy a domestic terrorist, no matter how many times you squeal it. It does, however, make you tin-foil hat stark raving mad.JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 7:36 pm
That’s what … the fifth time DCSCA has used that stupid joke?SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2008 @ 8:21 pm
SPQR – And apparently, it has some kind of meaning, and is funny, to it.JD (7f8e8c) — 12/17/2008 @ 8:22 pm
JD, inexplicably.SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2008 @ 8:23 pm
#49 JD- “Having been convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping does not make Liddy a domestic terrorist…”
Actually, it does. Thank you for reaffirming it.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/17/2008 @ 9:52 pm
#50- It’s not a joke to ants, ant. You must be at the 34th St. entrance.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/17/2008 @ 9:53 pm
That the U/T opposed Mike Aguirre, and city government too, is undeniable. That they lied about him and misrepresented what he said is undeniable too. There is a history of corruption in local government, local media, and the local judiciary that would impress Chicago politicos did they know of it. And why the animosity? Because he insisted on upholding the law.
San Diego city government seriously screwed up whereto their pension scheme. Aguirre pointed this out, and took steps to get the situation corrected. The city opposed his efforts, as did pension beneficiaries. Add in a superior court judge who consistently ruled against the office of city attorney even when Aguirre’s action were in line with the civil and criminal code.
The penultimate stroke—the ultimate being the fraudulent, in my opinion, campaign to elect his successor—being the claim that an hysterical San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre demanding the immediate evacuation of the city of San Diego in the face of the October 2007 wildfires, when Aguirre had only asked about evacuation plans, just in case.
But, considering your practice of attacking the victim, I doubt that will make much impact upon you. No AD, victims in your world are supposed to curl up and die so set upon whiners like you can live happy lives free of fretting and bad things. Your problem is that you cannot handle the feelings tales of travail and woe rouse in you, so you complain about those being harmed by bullies and tyrants so you can live a stress free life.Alan Kellogg (e4d258) — 12/18/2008 @ 11:56 am
Alan, I just remember the numbers of people that Mr. Aguirre irritated the Hell out of in his early gadfly days back in the 80’s – irritation that did not accomplish anything but to poison the waters for anything good he might attempt in the future, which is what he is reaping now.Another Drew (b7b852) — 12/18/2008 @ 12:07 pm
I am the last person you would label as a “Whiner” if you had read some of what I have commented in the past. I attempt to take a consistent position of personal responsibility in both my professional, and personal dealings.
I believe that the power structure in SD has committed some grievous errors, and probable felonies too, in the way they have handled the pension mess in particular, and the relationships with their professional sports franchises in general. Those who are guilty of crimes should be, and seem to be, prosecuted for their transgressions, and held to account to the fullest measure of the law.
I just don’t like grandstanding pipsqueaks, which I consider Mike Aguirre to be.
Look how the Times continues its “nothing to see here” wrap up of the Pellicano. How sickening to see a paper sidle up to the players who want this story to go away. No wonder the Times has lost its credibility. Check this out:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/add-pellicano-t.htmlKip (a1288e) — 12/18/2008 @ 1:08 pm
Back to Pellicano – let’s see, Patrick Goldstein of the LA Slimes weighs in with his thoughts on the Pellican case today (12/18) on the front page of the Calendar Section, and lo-and-behold he finds
much ado about nothing
Now that’s convincing in a “General Heinrici will soon break through and smash the bolsheviks” kind-of way. Anita who?MikeHu (e9e89c) — 12/18/2008 @ 1:29 pm
Patterico-when you do write that book-don’t forget the Suge Knight connection. When Bill Wasz was alive, he (Bill) tried to get Mario Nitrini to get in touch with Pellicano. It wasn’t until the Waymond Anderson incident that we figured out that Larry Longo was the missing piece to the puzzle. Thanks Patrick. BTW-Mario is fighting a new battle these days-he has cancer. He’s on Casodex and will probably start getting radiation treatments in January. Sorry about hijacking the thread…just thought you would like to know this information. Please keep on going after these guys…they can’t keep getting away with what they are doing!!!sweetpea (f8e839) — 12/18/2008 @ 5:05 pm
#58; Much Ado About Nothing??? Really?
Their biased coverage of this criminal was, well, criminal.
Much Ado About Nothing? More like…
‘The Pelican, Brief.’DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/18/2008 @ 5:39 pm
The LA Times adheres to the credo of another great Hollywood rag, The Shinbone Star.
“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/18/2008 @ 6:06 pm
DCSCA, Liddy is an asshole and I have no problem with your hatred of him. He did awful things that dramatically harmed our public’s perception of the Presidency.
But domestic terrorists try to kill people. Or at least use real violence or threats of violence. What Liddy did was awful, but if ‘terrorism’ is such a broad term as to include wiretaps and break-ins, then ‘terrorism’ has far too diluted a meaning and calling someone a terrorist is no longer like calling them the worst of the worst.
Surely you understand that Bill Ayers deserves death for what he did, and Liddy does not, that Bill Ayers’s did far, far worse than Liddy did. That Bill Ayers, Osama Bin Laden, John Wilkes booth, and Tim McVeigh all are in a certain category of awfulness that Liddy is not in.
I mean, saying Liddy isn’t as bad as Bill Ayers is not saying much, and it is a huge shame that Liddy is given any attention as a wise commentator (which I understand to be the reason you keep pointing out he’s a criminal), but he’s not a domestic terrorist, or your definition of domestic terrorist does not accurately convey the concept’s true awfulness.Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 6:18 pm
Well, I have noted several times on this blog that I am an attorney. I work in Oregon, having recently graduated law school.
But in your world, I am only pixels on a screen and my persona could be completely fake and is totally irrelevant to my ideas. That’s the meaning behind the ad hominem / appeal to authority objections.
And you are not a teacher. I would eat my own head if you somehow demonstrated you were one. You are a very talented troll, and you don’t become that overnight. You cannot be a teacher given your posting habits / intelligence level (I think you’re very smart, but your comments are cleverly idiotic). You are almost certainly a bored university student between semesters.
And I again note that I legitimately think you could do so much more good screwing with the illiberal bastards on stormfront.org or a terrorist support thread. I was expecting you to pretend I was wrong about you, which you did, but I had a small hope you would admit you are a great troll and screw with us because you simply can’t stand the idiots on neo nazi sites, and screwing with people who are intelligent enough to put a lot of effort into refuting your hilarious comments is more stimulating.Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 6:43 pm
WRONG THREAD… Sorry!Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 6:44 pm
Well, that’s Juan for the record.steve miller (a29984) — 12/18/2008 @ 6:48 pm
Well, that’s Juan for the record.
🙂Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/18/2008 @ 6:58 pm
#62- Juan- Domestic terrorists ‘terrorize’ people.
Liddy did that. So did Ayers.
Arrest, convict and jail.
End of story.DCSCA (d8da01) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:08 pm
Comment by DCSCA — 12/19/2008 @ 3:08 pm
“Poor Johnny One-Note”Another Drew (efe318) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:15 pm
DCSCA, you and I just have different definitions of terrorist, then. The term, to you, simply doesn’t describe as horrible a group of people as it does to me.
You think that woman who illegally investigated Joe The Plumbers is a domestic terrorist. You think convicted and imprisoned marijuana users are domestic terrorists. You think Joco from The Jury Talks Back is a domestic terrorist.
Or don’t you? Perhaps it would be better for discussion if you gave me a definition for domestic terrorist instead of just saying ‘yes he is one, yes he is one, yes he is one’.
I think, for example, that it’s obviously ad hoc that you have to be convicted to be a domestic terrorist.
Please define the term so I can see what you are actually accusing Liddy of being.Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/19/2008 @ 3:25 pm