Hastert investigation story is a complete lie. (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here is the orignal fabricated story:

Officials: Hastert "In the Mix" of Congressional Bribery Investigation
May 24, 2006 6:24 PM

Brian Ross Reports:


Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html

The justice department has, not once but twice, denied this libelous story put out there by ABC and the drive by media:

Hastert Aide Says Justice Dept. Leak to ABC Was Payback
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 25, 2006


However, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a statement at 7:25 p.m. (Eastern) Wednesday: "Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department." And Hastert's office responded minutes later.

Later Wednesday evening, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty issued a second statement on behalf of the Justice Department.

"With regard to reports suggesting that the Speaker of the House is under investigation or 'in the mix,' as stated by ABC News," McNulty wrote, "I reconfirm, as stated by the Department earlier this evening that these reports are untrue."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200605/POL20060525c.html]

; furthermore, due to the fact that ABC continued to run the story even after they knew it to be false, Hastert is going to sue their lying asses for libel.

Here's the letter from Hastert's lawyers:

RE: False Story Regarding Justice Department Investigation

Dear Mr. Westin, Stephanopoulos, and Mr. Ross:

At 7:25 p.m., the Statement of the Department of Justice confirmed:

“Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.”

At 10:21 p.m., you wrote:

“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.”

This statement is false, and your republication of it after actual knowledge of its falsity constitutes libel and defamation. ABC News’ continued publication of this false information, after having actual knowledge of its falsity, evidences a specific and malicious intent to injure and damage Speaker Hastert’s reputation by continued repetition of a known falsehood.

We will take any and all actions necessary to rectify the harm ABC has caused and to hold those at ABC responsible for their conduct.

Please advise regarding who will accept service of process to remedy this intentional falsehood.

Very truly yours,
J. Randolph Evans
Stefan C. Passantino
Counsel to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert

 

[danarhea]

ABC News is sticking by its story, despite Hastert's threat.

1) As to the Justice Department saying that Hastert is not a target:

ABC’s law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal "target" or "subject" of the investigation.
"Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation," one federal official said tonight.

2) And then there is the smoking gun letter, which Hastert himself wrote to the Secretary of the Interior. Do you admit or deny that it exists?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

ABC News is sticking by its story, despite Hastert's threat.



1) As to the Justice Department saying that Hastert is not a target:

ABC’s law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal "target" or "subject" of the investigation.
"Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation," one federal official said tonight.

Oh really so is that why the Justice department clearly stated at 7:25 P.M. on Wednsday that:

"Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department." And Hastert's office responded minutes later.

And then later on that Wednsday past midnight after ABC again tried to push the false story at 10:21 p.m. (even after the DOJ's denial at 7:25 p.m.) the DOJ's Deputy Attorney Geneal Mcnulty again not only reconfirmed the DOJ denial of the Hastert investigation but also totally rebuked the ABC story itself:

"With regard to reports suggesting that the Speaker of the House is under investigation or 'in the mix,' as stated by ABC News, I reconfirm, as stated by the Department earlier this evening, that these reports are untrue."

The fact that at 10:21 p.m. (after the 7:25 p.m. denial by the DOJ) ABC still wrote:

“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.”

As well as the fact that Ross continued to slander Speaker Hastert this morning (even after the total repudiation by the DOJ in the past midnight statement by Deputy Mcnulty) by stating on Good Morning America that:

Despite flat and repeated denials from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement officials insist to ABC News that the FBI investigation of Capitol Hill corruption has widened to include potentially Speaker of the House Denny Hastert.

Constitutes a clear cut case of slanderous libel. Furthermore; the threat by Hastert's lawyers came after ABC again pushed the false report even after the DOJ had flatly denied it.

2) And then there is a smoking gun letter, which Hastert himself wrote to the Secretary of the Interior. Do you admit or deny that it exists?

What smoking gun letter? And how exactly does it relate to the fact that Speaker Hastert is not under investigation?

 

[danarhea]

Oh really so is that why the Justice department clearly stated at 7:25 P.M. on Wednsday that:

And then later on that Wednsday past midnight after ABC again tried to push the false story at 10:21 p.m. (even after the DOJ's denial at 7:25 p.m.) the DOJ's Deputy Attorney Geneal Mcnulty again not only reconfirmed the DOJ denial of the Hastert investigation but also totally rebuked the ABC story itself:

The fact that at 10:21 p.m. (after the 7:25 p.m. denial by the DOJ) ABC still wrote:

As well as the fact that Ross continued to slander Speaker Hastert this morning (even after the total repudiation by the DOJ in the past midnight statement by Deputy Mcnulty) by stating on Good Morning America that:

Constitutes a clear cut case of slanderous libel. Furthermore; the threat by Hastert's lawyers came after ABC again pushed the false report even after the DOJ had flatly denied it.

What smoking gun letter? And how exactly does it relate to the fact that Speaker Hastert is not under investigation?

Oh really so is that why the Justice department clearly stated at 7:25 P.M. on Wednsday that:

And then later on that Wednsday the DOJ again not only reconfirmed the denial of the Hastert investigation but also totally rebuked the ABC story itself:

The fact that at 10:21 p.m., after the 7:21 p.m. denial by the DOJ ABC wrote:


Constitutes a clear cut case of slanderous libel.



What smoking gun letter? And exactly does it relate to the fact that Speaker Hastert is not under investigation

1) The FBI did not say Hastert was not under investigation, but said that he was not a target. There is a huge difference. One can be not a target, but still be under investigation. You can misrepresent this any which way you choose, but it doesnt change a thing.

2) The smoking gun letter? Of course. Its the one Hastert sent to the Secretary of the Interior, asking him not to grant a casino license to an Indian tribe because it would interfere with other Indian tribes. Which tribes would it interfere with? Turns out to be the tribes represented by Abramoff. The smoking gun letter was sent just days after Hastert collected $26,000.00 from Abramoff at a restaurant which Abramoff owns.

3) As for Hastert's threat of a lawsuit? (slap suit?)

ABC News just told him to bring it on. Here is their lastest story about Abramoff, and guess who is in it? Thats right. Dennis Hastert.

I wish Hastert all the luck in the world. Since ABC News now chooses to keep rubbing it in, it can only be because they've got the goods on him, and Hastert is going to need all the luck in the world to make this go away.

But that's OK. Keep defending Hastert in your posts. I am putting my money on logic, and logic dictates that, if ABC News is still willing to run with this story, even after being threatened with a slap suit, my money is on them. After all, they would not just decide to give away millions of dollars to Hastert, would they?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

1) The FBI did not say hastert was not under investigation, but said that he was not a target. There is a huge difference. One can be not a target, but still be under investigation. You can misrepresent this any which way you choose, but it doesnt change a thing.

A) It was a DOJ repudiation.

B) That is a flat out lie not only did the DOJ specifically state that Hastert is not under investigation they also rebuked the ABC report itself in the past midnight statement by Deputy Attorney General McNulty:

"With regard to reports suggesting that the Speaker of the House is under investigation or 'in the mix,' as stated by ABC News, I reconfirm, as stated by the Department earlier this evening, that these reports are untrue."

2) The smoking gun letter? Of course. Its the one Hastert sent to the Secretary of the Interior, asking him not to grant a casino license to an Indian tribe because it would interfere with other Indian tribes. Which tribes would it interfere with? Turns out to be the tribes represented by Abramoff. The smoking gun letter was sent just days after Hastert collected $26,000.00 from Abramoff at a restaurant which Abramoff owns.

Guilt by association? That's circumstantial evidence at best.

Association fallacy

An association fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another, merely by association. The two types are sometimes referred to as "guilt by association" and "honor by association." Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and are often based in an appeal to emotion.

Guilt by association, also known as the "bad company fallacy" or the "company that you keep fallacy," is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organizations who support it. Some examples are:

Some charities have been fraudulant. Therefore, charities must be frauds.

Anti-war activists have stated that George W. Bush is just like Hitler. Thereforth, George W. Bush and his foreign policy are evil.

The Nazis supported eugenics. Therefore eugenics must be evil.

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Vegetarianism must be evil.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association

3) As for Hastert's threat of a lawsuit? (slap suit?)

The fact that at 10:21 p.m. (after the 7:25 p.m. denial by the DOJ) ABC still wrote:

“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.”

As well as the fact that Ross continued to slander Speaker Hastert this morning (even after the total repudiation by the DOJ in the past midnight statement by Deputy Mcnulty) by stating on Good Morning America that:

Despite flat and repeated denials from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement officials insist to ABC News that the FBI investigation of Capitol Hill corruption has widened to include potentially Speaker of the House Denny Hastert.

Constitutes a clear cut case of slanderous libel. Furthermore; the threat by Hastert's lawyers came after ABC again pushed the false report even after the DOJ had flatly denied it.

 

[danarhea]

A) It was a DOJ repudiation.

B) That is a flat out lie not only did the DOJ specifically state that Hastert is not under investigation they also rebuked the ABC report itself in the past midnight statement by Deputy Attorney General McNulty:

\



Guilt by association? That's circumstantial evidence at best.



The fact that at 10:21 p.m. (after the 7:25 p.m. denial by the DOJ) ABC still wrote:







As well as the fact that Ross continued to slander Speaker Hastert this morning (even after the total repudiation by the DOJ in the past midnight statement by Deputy Mcnulty) by stating on Good Morning America that:





Constitutes a clear cut case of slanderous libel. Furthermore; the threat by Hastert's lawyers came after ABC again pushed the false report even after the DOJ had flatly denied it.

According to ABC News, Hastert either needs to crap (file the lawsuit) or get off the pot. They are clearly calling him on it.

To Hastert: If you have anything at all, now is the time to file your lawsuit.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

According to ABC News, Hastert either needs to crap (file the lawsuit) or get off the pot. They are clearly calling him on it.

To Hastert: If you have anything at all, now is the time to file your lawsuit.

I really hope they do, this is an obvious case of libel.

 

[danarhea]

I really hope they do, this is an obvious case of libel.

Time will tell. Lets see if Hastert REALLY sues ABC News.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Time will tell. Lets see if Hastert REALLY sues ABC News.

I would if I were him if only to prove a point that the media can't get away with these slanderous stories and continue to push them even after they know that they are false.

 

[Deegan]

I know, I keep waiting for the evidence of the Fox conspiracy, but all I find is, the NYTimes, USA today, CBS, PBS, Newsweek, and the like, we really need to get better at this stuff folks, we are way behind in the propaganda!

:rofl

 

[Kandahar]

According to ABC News, Hastert either needs to crap (file the lawsuit) or get off the pot. They are clearly calling him on it.

To Hastert: If you have anything at all, now is the time to file your lawsuit.

How generous of you to allow Hastert all of a couple hours to make that decision.

 

[aps]

This is interesting--Hastert firmly denies that this is true, and ABC says it went back to its sources and is staying with their story. Hmmmmm. I guess if Jefferson can claim he's innocent, so can Hastert.

 

[danarhea]

This is interesting--Hastert firmly denies that this is true, and ABC says it went back to its sources and is staying with their story. Hmmmmm. I guess if Jefferson can claim he's innocent, so can Hastert.

LOL. The funny part is that those calling for Jefferson's scalp are defending Hastert to their dying breath. Both are crooks, but the way Democrats defend Jefferson and Republicans defend Hastert shows just how low the bar is for honest politicians in America.

 

[aps]

LOL. The funny part is that those calling for Jefferson's scalp are defending Hastert to their dying breath. Both are crooks, but the way Democrats defend Jefferson and Republicans defend Hastert shows just how low the bar is for honest politicians in America.

Nancy Pelosi asked Jefferson to resign from his House committee post. FYI


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/24/jefferson/index.html

Though Pelosi backed her colleague in regard to the search, a letter Pelosi sent hours earlier asking Jefferson to resign from a House committee post was not supportive.

"In the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus, I am writing to request your immediate resignation from the Ways and Means Committee," Pelosi wrote to Jefferson early Wednesday afternoon.

But her request was quickly shot down.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

LOL. The funny part is that those calling for Jefferson's scalp are defending Hastert to their dying breath. Both are crooks, but the way Democrats defend Jefferson and Republicans defend Hastert shows just how low the bar is for honest politicians in America.

How is Hastert a crook? Just because ABC puts out some b.s. story does not mean it's true. It is precisely this besmirching of the mans character that is the reason Hastert should sue the hell out of ABC.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I don't understand the legal ground for Hastert to sue ABC. The WH said the initial reports are false, then later ABC reported that "a white house offical" told them otherwise after the denial. So is it illegal to report about something after the WH denies it?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't understand the legal ground for Hastert to sue ABC. The WH said the initial reports are false, then later ABC reported that "a white house offical" told them otherwise after the denial. So is it illegal to report about something after the WH denies it?

It wasn't the White House; the Justice department clearly stated at 7:25 P.M. on Wednesday that:

"Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department."

And then later on that Wednsday past midnight after ABC again tried to push the false story at 10:21 p.m. (even after the DOJ's denial at 7:25 p.m.) the DOJ's Deputy Attorney Geneal Mcnulty again not only reconfirmed the DOJ denial of the Hastert investigation but also totally rebuked the ABC story itself:

"With regard to reports suggesting that the Speaker of the House is under investigation or 'in the mix,' as stated by ABC News, I reconfirm, as stated by the Department earlier this evening, that these reports are untrue."

The fact that at 10:21 p.m. (after the 7:25 p.m. denial by the DOJ) ABC still wrote:

“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.”

As well as the fact that Ross continued to slander Speaker Hastert thursday morning (even after the total repudiation by the DOJ in the past midnight statement on Wednesday by Deputy Mcnulty) by stating on Good Morning America that:

Despite flat and repeated denials from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement officials insist to ABC News that the FBI investigation of Capitol Hill corruption has widened to include potentially Speaker of the House Denny Hastert.

Constitutes a clear cut case of slanderous libel.

 

[Deegan]

I happen to hate this fat bastard, I can't believe he is my representitive, nor do I support him, but he has been smeared here, and ABC has a lot of explaining to do, period!:doh

 

[Binary_Digit]

Ok fine, the Justice Dept. Still, it seems all ABC is doing is reporting what "one federal official" is telling them. Unless it's illegal for the press to report on something they learn regarding a story that the Justice Dept. has since denied, Hastert should be going after that federal official, not ABC. Assuming ABC isn't lying about their source, which it appears they are not considering how strongly they're standing by it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ok fine, the Justice Dept. Still, it seems all ABC is doing is reporting what "one federal official" is telling them. Unless it's illegal for the press to report on something they learn regarding a story that the Justice Dept. has since denied, Hastert should be going after that federal official, not ABC. Assuming ABC isn't lying about their source, which it appears they are not considering how strongly they're standing by it.

Which Federal official? The DOJ itself repudiated the claim. Here's the deal, ABC reports that the DOJ is investigating Hastert, the DOJ totally denies that such an investigation is under way, ABC after the initial repudiation from the DOJ still reports that Mr. Hastert is under investigation. That is what we call a clear cut case of libel.

 

[Deegan]

Which Federal official? The DOJ itself repudiated the claim. Here's the deal, ABC reports that the DOJ is investigating Hastert, the DOJ totally denies that such an investigation is under way, ABC after the initial repudiation from the DOJ still reports that Mr. Hastert is under investigation. That is what we call a clear cut case of libel.

He has not gone that far, so neither should you, I don't trust the fat bastard, and would not go out on a limb for him, think about it! That said, you still don't leak, you still don't report on leaks, and you certainly don't stake your reputation on it, can someone say.........CBS?

I hate our journalists, I think they need to all be sent to Iraq!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He has not gone that far, so neither should you,

Actually it appears that Hastert has every intention of suing for libel check out this letter from his lawyers:

RE: False Story Regarding Justice Department Investigation

Dear Mr. Westin, Stephanopoulos, and Mr. Ross:

At 7:25 p.m., the Statement of the Department of Justice confirmed:

“Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.”

At 10:21 p.m., you wrote:

“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.”

This statement is false, and your republication of it after actual knowledge of its falsity constitutes libel and defamation. ABC News’ continued publication of this false information, after having actual knowledge of its falsity, evidences a specific and malicious intent to injure and damage Speaker Hastert’s reputation by continued repetition of a known falsehood.

We will take any and all actions necessary to rectify the harm ABC has caused and to hold those at ABC responsible for their conduct.

Please advise regarding who will accept service of process to remedy this intentional falsehood.

Very truly yours,
J. Randolph Evans
Stefan C. Passantino
Counsel to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert

 

[Deegan]

Actually it appears that Hastert has every intention of suing for libel check out this letter from his lawyers:

That's lawyer talk tot, he should have raised hell when first told, and then interviewed! I'm just saying, I didn't trust him then, I don't trust him now, don't go taking hits for the guy. That said, of course, ABC is a piece of S**t, what else is new?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Which Federal official?

Um, this one:

"“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.”"

And this one(s):

Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's lawyer talk tot, he should have raised hell when first told, and then interviewed! I'm just saying, I didn't trust him then, I don't trust him now, don't go taking hits for the guy. That said, of course, ABC is a piece of S**t, what else is new?

Personally I don't know much about the guy, but this report is just another example of the drive by media attack machine in action and I think it's high time somebody calls them on their bullshit.