Md. GOP Seeks Wider Firing Probe

Washington Post ^ | 11/02/05 | Washington Post Staff Writers

[conservative in nyc]

--Snip--

[Ehrlich Chief Counsel] Finney suggested redirecting the investigation and added more fuel to the whodunit by releasing two e-mails that he implied could help identify MD4BUSH -- one of them allegedly written by a former staff member of the Maryland Democratic Party. That e-mail was written the night before The Washington Post reported on Steffen's postings and Ehrlich's decision to fire the aide. That e-mail advised party loyalists of a "big story" coming out.

The operative, who no longer was working for the party at the time the e-mail was dated, said last night that the document was a fake.

The Post's Maryland editor, R.B. Brenner, said: "It is not surprising that Democrats were communicating about the story the night before it appeared in print." He added, "The Post interviewed Mayor O'Malley, Governor Ehrlich and Joe Steffen, among others, before the story was published."

--Snip--

Brenner said, "The Washington Post had no involvement in any way in the chat room postings" between Steffen and MD4BUSH. "The Post did not know about them until after they had already occurred, as we have reported."

Brenner said The Post does not know the identity of MD4BUSH, which the newspaper also has reported.

Post reporter Matthew Mosk received printed copies of the message exchanges last fall, Brenner said. To verify they were authentic, he said, Mosk was given sign-on information needed to view the private chat room by an intermediary acting on behalf of MD4BUSH in late January. Mosk used that information to verify that "the chat room messages were genuine," Brenner said. Mosk presented the printouts to Steffen in February to confirm that they represented his words.

[conservative in nyc]

Interesting. We got a strong denial from the Washington Post. And an explanation about why JimRob's logs might show the WaPo logging in as MD4Bush.

Due to space constraints, I've taken the unusual step of deleting the lead to post the most relevant info. At least the WaPo accurately described MD4Bush as the person "who coaxed Ehrlich's longtime political aide, Joseph Steffen, into discussing Steffen's involvement in spreading rumors about Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a rival to the Republican governor" this time.

Note that the article is not attributed to any one WaPo reporter.

[conservative in nyc]

MD4Bush Ping!

The Washington Post speaks!

[Billthedrill]

The operative, who no longer was working for the party at the time the e-mail was dated, said last night that the document was a fake.

Oh, my guess was that he was very much working for the party. That'd be the Post's guess too were he a Republican.

[advance_copy]

Main assertions by WaPo:
- WaPo does not know the identity of MD4BUSH
- WaPo was working with "an intermediary acting on behalf of MD4BUSH"
- WaPo was given MD4BUSH's FR password (WHOA!) by the "intermediary"
- WaPo logged into FR and "verified" the FReepmails between NCPAC and MD4BUSH
- WaPo posted this article on their web site at 2:15am EST
- WaPo does not name the Democratic Party "operative"
- RAT operative was "no longer was working for the party at the time the e-mail was dated"
- RAT operative claims the e-mail message obtained by the Governor's chief counsel is a fake.

So, based on this report we are to believe:
1. WaPo had (has?) MD4BUSH's FR password but does not know who MD4BUSH is.

Yeah, right.

2. The "operative" wasn't working for the MD RATS in Fall '04

Yeah, right.

3. Using MD4BUSH's password WaPo accessed the FReepmail long before it was posted publicly

Yeah, right.

4. WaPo is staying up really really late to work out their story on MD4BUSH

Now, I believe that one.

[Southack]

"Brenner said The Post does not know the identity of MD4BUSH, which the newspaper also has reported."

Yet another reason why so-called Journalist "shield" laws and anonymous sources are a bad, bad idea. Such things let far too many political dirty tricks transpire...

I mean really, publishing a story based on an email from someone you don't know is like treating a spam email as a front page news story; ridiculous.

[conservative in nyc]

The "operative" wasn't working for the MD RATS in Fall '04

We know from the original WBAL thread that the Democrat operative is Ryan O'Doherty. The Washington Post probably didn't name him because he denied any wrongdoing.

He may not have been working for the Maryland Democratic Party in February, the date of the purported e-mail from him that Finney's office released. I haven't found any MD Democrat Party press releases from February 2005 with his name on it. The last I found was from January 2005. That doesn't mean that he wasn't working there or his e-mail address wasn't still active, though.

Why is Fall 2004 is relevant?

[DB]

How do they know that the operative: "no longer was working for the party at the time the e-mail was dated" if they don't know who it is?

[advance_copy]

Why is Fall 2004 is relevant?

Ooops, it's not. The relevant date is February 8, 2005. This is when WaPo asserts that MD4BUSH wasn't working for the RAT party. But did you see the question from DB?

How do they know that the operative: "no longer was working for the party at the time the e-mail was dated" if they don't know who it is?

Busted!

[advance_copy]

Of course, their answer will be "the operative isn't MD4BUSH". That's why the posted the claim that the e-mail is a fake. I have to believe that the Governor's chief counsel got that e-mail from a reliable source. Do they really think that a top lawyer in MD working for the Governor is going to send a forged e-mail to the MD State Senate?

[maggief]

Why isn't Matthew Mosk's name on this article? Hasn't he written most of the WP articles on the matter?

Ref.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101653.html

http://www.google.com/search?hs=sOD&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=+site%3Awww.washingtonpost.com+ehrlich++steffen+matthew+mosk&btnG=Search

[conservative in nyc]

The article obviously was slapped together in the middle of the night to answer the charges that have been circulating on WBAL Radio and this website about the Washington Post's original story. It's not even attributed to any one reporter.

It's pretty clear to me that the "operative" to which they are referring is the Democrat who purportedly wrote the e-mail to supporters about the upcoming surprise WaPo article - i.e. Ryan O'Doherty. The WaPo probably didn't name him since he denied any wrongdoing and claimed the e-mail was a fake. If he's innocent, his name's irrelevant. But I tend to give the MSM the benefit of the doubt here than most FReepers.

[conservative in nyc]

Why isn't Matthew Mosk's name on this article? Hasn't he written most of the WP articles on the matter?

Yes, he has. I don't know why his name isn't on it. Might be because the article was hastily written after the news broke late this afternoon and he wasn't available. Maybe the editors didn't think he should be reporting on a story in which his actions are part of the story. Or maybe he actually wrote it or part of it, but the editors decided to publish it without a byline for some other reason.

[nunya bidness]

Check the other thread but it seems to me that the "intermediary" may be Ryan's brother Damian who had connections with Montgomery County (DC bedroom community) Executive Doug Duncan, who is running against Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley in the MD governor's primary soon.

Looks like the O'Doherty boyz are neck deep in this one.

[Congressman Billybob]

This denial of knowledge does not help the Washington Post. Apparently, the reporters signed onto FreeRepublic by using MD4Bush's account and password, "to make sure the messages were genuine."

Hellooo. The messages were, in part, generated by MD4Bush. The credibility of that person obviously bore on the story. Also, in order to run the story, the Post had already identified Steffen by his screen name. Also, when the Post was running the Watergate stories, they insisted that the Editor, Ben Bradlee, know who deep throat was.

One of two things is going on here. Either the Post has lowered its standards about knowing the sources for this story (and didn't a Post reporter get fired and have to return a Pulitzer Prize for exactly that error?), or the Post DID know who MD4Bush was, and are lying now to cover up a gross breech of journalistic standards.

Either way, the excuse above doesn't pass the smell test.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Democrat Official Outed as 'Sleaze' Source on Mayor O'Malley; Washington Post Ignored Story it Had"

[Congressman Billybob]

It is not just here, and on WBAL, that this story has been poking a stick in the eye of Wa-Po. The story has also been on Newsbusters.org since 7:04 p.m. EST. That's a reputable source. And I know the story's there because I put it there.

LOL. John / Billybob

[maggief]

...or the Post DID know who MD4Bush was, and are lying now to cover up a gross breech of journalistic standards. ...

Perhaps that's the reason Matthew Mosk's name is not on the most recent WP article.

[conservative in nyc]

If the WaPo had MD4Bush's password, I wonder if they are the ones who did the MD4Bush FReepmail dump on 2/8 in order to escape any legal liability for publishing private FReepmails. I don't recall the legal theory, but I seem to recall some FReepers were opining back in February that it might have been illegal to publish private FReepmails.

[advance_copy]

Much hinges on the claim that the e-mail is fake. If it is not, the "operative" wrote it. If "operative" wrote the e-mail, then he knew about the orginal WaPo story hours before it was posted.

Now, this gets us to the other (second level) WaPo assertion:

The Post's Maryland editor, R.B. Brenner, said: "It is not surprising that Democrats were communicating about the story the night before it appeared in print." He added, "The Post interviewed Mayor O'Malley, Governor Ehrlich and Joe Steffen, among others, before the story was published."

Assuming the e-mail is not fake, this is plausible if WaPo's "intermediary" to the "operative" was the original source for the MD4BUSH FReepmails AND "operative" is MD4BUSH. The intermediary could have told the operative that WaPo was running with the story but needed to verify the source. Operative could have given intermediary their FR password who passed it along to WaPo.

Once operative, i.e. MD4BUSH, realized that WaPo was running with the story, out goes the e-mail to "supporters". MD4BUSH, seeing the WaPo article and realizing they will be spotted as the source for private FReepmails, posts them publicly on unrelated threads.

NOTE also that WaPo doesn't assert the e-mail is fake. They only say that the operative claims it is fake. And I really doubt that because the e-mail comes from the Governor's chief counsel to the State Senate.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

As the old saying goes " ohh what tangled webs ( LIBS ) weave, only when they first try to deceive "

[conservative in nyc]

Well, the Washington Post attributes a quote to Ryan O'Doherty "of the Maryland Democratic Party" in a January 23, 2005 article. So we just need to find something proving he was still there for the next two weeks.