Laura Novak
  • Welcome
  • About
  • NYTs
  • Scribd
  • Murder
  • Clarity
  • Contact

Watergate. Babygate. What's the Difference?

7/29/2011

74 Comments

 

All The Presidents Men
 
The title says it all about the era, the event, the man who fell down and all the men who couldn’t put him, or the presidency, back together again.

On these cold, foggy summer nights, we’ve been taking our time watching the Alan J. Pakula film, produced by and starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. It’s a lot slower than our family favorite:  Dick, which is a must see for anyone who loves Will Ferrell and might enjoy the thought of Henry Kissinger get high on hash brownies.

Watching ATPM again, I was reminded of how slowly,
painfully slowly, Woodward and Bernstein worked that story. The gum-shoe reporting, the drudgery of knocking on doors of a long list of people who might possibly know who might have authorized whom to make payments of whatever amount of money to people who might have been connected to some guys who happened to get caught breaking into a swank apartment complex one weekend night. It was a small story made up of messy loose ends with notes written on scraps of paper and a few columns at first in the Metro section, begrudgingly delegated by grumpy middle manager editors saying the paper couldn’t afford to lose its shirt on such nonsense.

These now famous reporters were green city desk neophytes at
The Washington Post, fresh on the job, and, in Bernstein’s case, nearly out on his ass.  They didn’t always get along and weren’t necessarily good at what they did.

But they never gave up. Woodward and Bernstein pestered and badgered people and when it seemed they’d gone too far, their hands shook when people told them off on the phone.

Why did they pursue the story to the level they did?  Ben Bradlee, as portrayed by Jason Robards in the movie (I haven’t read the book in decades) stayed on his reporters’ case until they could prove every last thing.

They had three names?  They needed all five. They had two sources? They needed three. The GAO audit on CReeP was coming out? The paper wouldn’t run the result until the report was out – not that it was due to be released.

Watching the film, when “Woodstein” figure out that Mitchell authorized the payments to the burglars, I got goose bumps. Imagine the overwhelming sense these guys must have had suspecting that this odd break in and these even odder amounts of money might then be traced all the way up to Nixon. That attempts to discredit Muskie had been going on for more than a year. That there might in fact be a connection between the White House and the Democratic candidate the Republicans wanted Nixon to face for re-election.

And then there’s Deep Throat in the parking garage saying everyone in the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department knew full well what’s going on.
WTF we might mutter today.

So, when Spiro Agnew delivered that first “non-denial denial”, I had a sense of déjà vu in the present tense. Seeing the real news clip of him in the movie, followed by Redford asking, “
What did he just say?” I recognized that Palin is merely the latest and greatest incarnation of this entire scenario.

Many of you have theorized that the plan to put her in place started with the starbursts cruise and the king crab lunch in Juneau. Some of you even believe that the Down syndrome baby as a political ploy surfaced as far back as then.

Certainly, we know from
The New Yorker that the rumors of her daughter’s pregnancy and Palin’s cover-up were alive and well in Juneau and Anchorage in early spring 2008. And reporters on the scene then wrote of the Gasp! Shock! Surprise! of learning their fearless leader was so pregnant - yet so darn svelt - not long after.

The baby arrived one convenient month later, accompanied by a bizarre story that should have strained anyone’s bullshit meter. But as one long-time journalist in Alaska told me, the focus was by then on the Branchflower report. No one thought Palin could survive that. Besides, she was never around. A dubious tale of tight abs was not really on any reporter’s radar.

But let’s say it had been – and no, I don’t mean that lame ass excuse of a story that the
Anchorage Daily News supposedly was working up, and the even sorrier display of “beat me master because I like it” blogging that the paper’s top editor did. Let’s say that a couple of reporters had said to Dougherty, “What did she just say?” about any number of the odd, non-denial denials that Palin proffered about her vaginal fluids and restful plane flights.

If history is any indication – and evidently Ben Bradlee knew what he was doing  - a couple of reporters might have been knocking on doors. Behind those doors would have been nurses or technicians or office workers or friends and foes of Palin who might have gone on deep background and said something. The very same people who feared for their jobs, feared they were being followed, were deathly afraid to talk and who might not have added to the narrative anyway. Woodward and Bernstein kept trying. Every name on that ever-lasting CReeP list got checked off, one by one.

Or, as the ignominy around this absurd fish picker tale, which if true loudly displayed what a careless, risky moron this woman was, mounted, they would press the doctor, over and over, to make a public statement in front of a bank of cameras (all two TV stations) a few radio microphones and a few print reporters' tape recorders.

But it appears no one did press for that. Why? Because Bill McAllister was now her press go-to-guy and was this one the mother of all stories, pardon the pun, that he couldn’t report on, so he’d make darn sure no one else did either?

I am told that he was as surprised as the next person to find out Palin was pregnant. So, McAllister didn’t know?  Did he press to find out? Or did he not engage any press who asked to find out?

Did any one single reporter up there bother to say “You know, I was just going back over my notes and…” to anyone in power up there?

(Maybe there were a couple of Woodsteins in Alaska, and we just don’t know that they never got to the point where they could write the story and have it pass the legal department.)

Or was my source right:  Branchflower gave way to McRogue, and the clown car of kids, a pregnant unwed teen mother, a special needs baby, redneck grandparents, and an uneducated father figuring out how to knot a tie. Think about it. That campaign bus was a cluster fuck of the highest order. And bodily fluids conveniently receded into the distance.

This is a long-winded way of answering what someone asked me in a comment. If reporters like McGinniss, Sullivan and me say that there is a piece missing, and that piece is a “Bradlee level” lack of proof allowing anyone to report that she didn’t give birth to Trig, then what about the pieces that are not missing: that is, that there is no proof that she
did give birth to this baby.

I hear your question, yet I see it the other way around. There is no proof that she didn’t. And the presumption of innocence prevails.

No, I know that the March 14th photo defies all possible belief. I understand that the grey museum photo, replete with very odd crotch and white square under the shirt is a form of evidence. But it’s not proof. Not in the Ben Bradlee world.  In that world, three people would have to present evidence of the hoax or the cover-up. There would have to be some paper trail of plane tickets or money that changed hands for a birth certificate or adoption paper.

I know that Sarah had Todd toddle off to Dallas with her. That she got rid of security right around the time she would have to adjust her prosthetic every day in the car. I get all that.

But what I also get is that she doesn’t have to prove that she gave birth. She has a baby that she pokes her finger at, coos toward, and then routinely walks away from. That’s all she needs for the general population to believe
her.

Just as President Obama doesn’t have to prove he went to Columbia University. Someone else has to prove he didn’t. And they can’t do that. Why? Because either the university has confirmed that he did. Or because Obama’s records are private and no one will verify that he did.

And that is where CBJ and the
Daily News come in. What is an appropriate story, and I’ve said this before, is the “why do the hoax rumors persist?” story.  That is what the Daily News started on, that’s what they should have finished. That the doctor would not confirm on the record that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig is indeed part of the story. My only conclusion as to why Dougherty chose instead to play a game of “spank me very much” with Palin is what my journalist source suspected: the paper got into an off-the-record deal that backed them into a corner.

What those of us who say – and I say this religiously –
the story just doesn’t add up – need, is the piece of paper, the doctor’s statement, the exact quote on background or the information on deep background. Even it it’s to say, “she did gave birth to him.”

But as far as I know, no reporter who has gone up there to write a book, has been able to prove that Sarah Palin is this boy’s birth mother – or that she’s not.

So don’t get me wrong. I still find the tale of Trig’s birth as odd and suspicious as hell. This woman can’t tell the truth. This woman doesn’t tell the truth. And we know from Nixon’s story that the “hoax” was in play a full year before the Watergate break-in. That he was smiling and waving and winning by a landslide knowing full well that his covert ops were in play. So with Palin’s bizarre tale, absolutely anything is possible, also, too.

But we also know that it took two, tortuous, lonely, and isolating years for Woodstein, a few editors, and Katherine Graham, with her proverbial tit in a wringer, to nail down the biggest political story of my lifetime. The
Post was laughed at, ridiculed and vilified as a partisan hack rag.

And then there’s Bradlee quoting a Gallup poll showing that a full 50% of the country neither knew, nor cared about Watergate. Sound familiar?

As a previous commenter wrote:  the people who don’t have power have to decide that they want it and then decide how they are going to get it.

That’s what bloggers and readers are trying to do. Invent the new way to do this. Have an alternative line of authority, if any, to answer to. However, I still think that the criteria for “making the case” remains the same. Palin might call it a “time tested truth.”

And don’t forget:  I am the mother of a 36 and 5/7 weeks, 5 pound, 14 ounce medically fragile preemie who was born at night, not in the morning, in only one city, and treated by a handful of medical professionals who would willingly verify our relationship...and who looked like this at 12 hours old:


Picture
And not like this baby at 10 hours old, supposedly born at roughly the same weight, only two weeks younger gestation:    
Picture

Call the 1% that’s missing the “Bradlee factor.” And it’s still missing for me. 


74 Comments
Up
7/29/2011 11:40:52 am

Per the Alaska DPH there were only 16 women aged 40-44 who gave birth to preterm babies in Alaska in 2008. If only we could find those women and demonstrate that none are named Sarah Palin...

Reply
chumpThreads link
7/29/2011 12:00:39 pm

An excellent post, Laura!
I completely agree with you. We have the images and the outrageous story, but the crucial evidence is missing. As long as Palin's medical records are private; as long as someone who knows something remains silent; as long as the MSM flee from this story, all we have are images and an outrageous story.

Still, I have to believe that the break will come, some how, some way. Levi has to know, but as the father of his own child, he is vulnerable and can be intimidated into silence. So who will finally speak?

As the saying goes: The truth is out there.

Reply
Ivyfree
7/29/2011 12:10:32 pm

I'm going to go all Spelling Police and say Katherine Graham got her tit caught in a wringer, not a ringer. A wringer is a device composed of two rollers, very close together, which compress wet clothes and squeeze the water out of them. My grandma had one on her washing machine. You had to stand close and feed the wet laundry through the wringer, and that's where the imagery of the tit comes from.

Reply
Banyan
7/29/2011 12:30:41 pm

Like you, Laura,

I've been there and done that (with a preterm baby), and I know Palin is lying.

But as a writer/journalist myself (aging
Watergate veteran), I also know the standard for evidence and reporting; it is high and explicit.

However, I also know that when the dam is breaking (and it is breaking on the Right-Wing establishment -- see the NYT's "smoking gun" in the Murdoch case), the missing pieces can miraculously be filled in as the fear diminishes and as the rats abandon the sinking ship.

Reply
balzafiar
7/29/2011 12:43:05 pm

Your requirements for proof are very understandable. What is going to have to happen for them to be met is for Sarah to finally push her agenda over the line. That will trigger release of the needed information from several sources.

It's just a matter of time because she cannot help herself.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/29/2011 12:57:49 pm

Thank you, Ivyfree. I know you're right and I just changed it. Merci!

Reply
Johnell McLean link
7/29/2011 01:29:25 pm

Love your persistence and thoroughness. Have another spelling quibble. Ben's surname is Bradlee, not Bradley.

Keep up the good work. I check you every day!

Reply
anonfornow
7/29/2011 01:54:29 pm

Yes, this is the problem. Since Sarah had the power to arrange things so that she could walk out of the hospital holding a baby and said, "This is mine," she didn't even need to don her empathy belly; there is simply no way to prove she didn't give birth unless someone steps forward and talks.

Yet the number of people who do know the truth is long, and only medical personnel are bound by HIPPA. As much as Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace were around the Palins during the campaign, it's impossible they didn't hear Sarah scream at Bristol, "Come take your %$#^ kid!" The McCains all know, but they need to cover their own asses and will never talk. Also in the know, surely, are Sarah's sisters Heather and Molly, and by extension their children and thus Wooten, too; so why doesn't he speak up? He must surely want to pay Sarah, Todd, and Chuckles back for what they did to him. Who is he afraid of? Doesn't he need money?

The Johnstons were effectively muzzled by the sting operation launched against Levi's mother. Why has that stinking farce never been investigated?

I think the main problem is that Alaska is simply too far away. Too few real journalists have been able to go up there and really dig around for the truth. Which is why I hope she throws her hat in the race. THEN surely the MSM will begin to investigate her?

Reply
Punkinbugg
7/29/2011 05:04:26 pm

One more "psst" from the Spelling Police: It's Ben Bradlee, not Bradley. I'm a big ATPM fan, too.

If I lived in AK and had Woodstein's note pad, I'd go after the women who worked in the Governor's Juneau office and the Anchorage office, especially Janice Mason. She's the one who asked her boss if she wanted to go down a 9-10' slide made of solid ice at a winter festival in Feb. 2008. FEBRUARY.

When I worked for a high-maintenance woman in downtown Dallas, I knew when she got her nails done, her hair cut, when she would be "OTL" for more than an hour because it was Last Call at Neiman's, and I wasn't even her "scheduler"!

I think Ms. Mason would know about doctor's appointments for the entire family, and certainly she'd notice extra visits to an OB/GYN.

If only we had an Alaskan Woodstein!

Reply
dt
7/29/2011 10:03:42 pm

An truly excellent post, Laura. Thank you.

Reply
jeff
7/29/2011 10:26:26 pm


Wow! That's one of the best I've read, Laura. Thanks for putting your passion and insight into words.

ATPM is one of my fave movies and books, also, too. I might have to read it again since it's been years since I've read it.

Reply
LisaB2595
7/29/2011 11:04:30 pm

It's true nothing adds up. Funny how HIPPA protects Sarah in all instances except in her mind when she used a FAKE name to have an invasive medical procedure than might have injured her child or caused a miscarriage.

Funny how Sarah felt she needed to LIE about her identity then and that a professional doctor's office would let her.

There's so many pieces to this puzzle that simply don't add up. They do not jive with reality. Of course, this isn't really strange for Sarah, but it's shocking how the media has refused to point out the very bad arithmetic.

These things do not add up.

Reply
comeonpeople
7/29/2011 11:43:09 pm

I really enjoyed this post Laura, thank you.
You capture why I continue to think the weak link in this is CBJ. If only more pressure is put on her to explain her alledged actions/inactions and be held accountable as a professional, this case could crack. There is just no one willingly to persue this lead to its conclusion. She is the weak link in this in my opinion.
The bloggers are reinventing investigative journalism and it is exciting.
The truth will eventually be out there, who knows if everyone will see it or care, but at least the critical thinkers of the world will be vindicated.
I look forward to that day.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/30/2011 12:26:29 am

Thank you! Spelling Bee-ers. I know that, and yet I was so tired when I wrote this, that I didn't bother to double check. Apologies for the sloppy error.

(At the NYTs, we had at least FIVE editors go through copy and some times spelling errors STILL got through.)

Mr. Bradlee, I am going in to change your name right now!

Thanks all.

Reply
Viola-Alex
7/30/2011 12:54:48 am

So many thoughts spurred by this post, Laura. It's good to read your journalistic mind at work.

I believe Sarah's hoax was no CIA-style scheme ala ALPM. It was done by the seat of her pants because she was delusional about her power. Her best accomplice was Alaska's outlier-ness. Nobody questioned her, nobody dared doubt her. She new her state well enough to know that weirder things than her pregnancy happen there everyday. And later, when sane people questioned the hoax, that's when the MONEY got into it to clean up the mess, imo.

I agree with anonfornow, that if a real gumshoe got up there, started nosing. Somebody would talk. It would take a woman, as punkinbugg says, to know a woman. (loved your Last Call reference. Do they have an N-M in AK?)

Finally, CBJ. I joked on here once before that maybe all the Palin blogs should mount a SNAIL mail campaign to deluge CBJ with letters. Kind, simple letters asking her to do the right thing. If we all wrote her twice a week for a month?? well, who knows. that might be enough weirdness to drive someone to the open. A form of non-violent protest, if you will.

Thanks, Laura, for putting your journalistic mind to this conundrum. Someone will talk eventually.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/30/2011 02:16:50 am

Punkinbugg, I too LOL at the mention of the Last Call sale. But more importantly, everyone knew the woman's whereabouts, whether it be nails or the big sale.

I have more I want to do on some of the emails. A few of them have been bugging me. What else is new?

Reply
lilly lily
7/30/2011 02:40:17 am

Has it ever been etablished who decided on Tripp for Bristol's childs name.

People do comment about it. It is a bizarre detail.

I think Levi wanted some other name.

Someone who calls himself, or herself "Lifer" is writing at Joe McGinniss Rogue Blog.

Post after post on Sarah and her families lives and how normal and happy it is. Also that no one knows Sarah like Sarah knows herself, so no one can write about her properly. Bizzarro, in fact I think it possibly could be one of Sarah Palins alternate identities such as Lou Sarah.

Joe McGinniss isn't responding or rising to the bait. "Lifer" says only Sarah knows about Sarah, a good NORMAL,(hah) family woman, implying she has taken on the thankless burden of politics for the little people of this country, defending their interests. A pretty yet normal woman who has risen to the upper middle class by her own efforts. Without prostituting Piper by having her do Disney, or selling clothes or doing anything tacky.

Perhaps whoever it is claiming to know intimate details of Sarahs family life will let something of actual interest to us all spill out in her paeons to the many glories and wonders of "Normal" Sarah Palin.

I'm waiting.

I think it is someone who called themselves "Conservative 4 life." Perhaps he or she has been bombarding you, as well as Joe McGinniss.

Reply
rubbernecking
7/30/2011 03:17:23 am

Laura, I don't see how a reasonable onlooker would conclude that CBJ has not gone "on record." The McCain campaign released a letter under CBJ's name that says Palin delivered a baby at 35-wks gestation in 2008. Lisa Dermer also quoted CBJ in a 4/22 article.

You may feel that CBJ is not believable, you may have valid suspicions about the unusual timing of the letter's release, and you may be unhappy that CBJ has refused follow-up interviews, but these are different issues.

When people say CBJ refused to go on the record, they sound like Birthers. They sound like Birthers because they are applying selective rules to what is proof. Anything that weakens the preferred premise is false, forged, or ignored.

Could CBJ be lying in her on-record statements? Yes. Have you or your readers proved this? No.

P.S. In the interest of time, a few readers will want to remind everyone that 1) Palin has power in AK; 2) There are fundamentalist evangelical christians in AK; 3) It is possible to digitally alter documents; and 4) There are unsolved crimes in AK. For good measure, I'll add in 5) It snows in AK. Just because a statement is factually true does not mean it is factually relevant to every argument.

Reply
Balzafiar
7/30/2011 03:40:49 am

comeonpeople, CBJ may be the weakest link we know of currently alive. The weakest must have been Dar Miller, who died under mysterious circumstances according to everything I've read.

I disagree that no one is willing to pursue this; it's just that 99% of us don't have the resources to do it.

You are so right about bloggers reinventing journalism, and that may be the actual key in this instance: don't let the story die, keep it moving every single day if possible. Ultimately someone will realize they can safely come forward to tell the truth.

How to entice them to go public with their story? I wish I knew.

If I were afraid to write under my own name, I would enlist a carefully selected, very small group of trusted bloggers to work as cutouts for me. I could supply the true information to them as needed and they could in turn write the story.

Even if key parts were split between bloggers to help mask my identity, readers would quickly connect the dots and the full story would emerge.

Now is that brilliant thinking on my part? No, not at all. That's the way it's been done for eons by everyone from ordinary people to rulers of nations who have information that should be disseminated but they are, for one reason or another, not able to deliver the information personally.

It really is that easy.

Reply
viola-alex
7/30/2011 04:29:44 am

Babygate. Watergate. What's the diff?

A vagina.

Reply
rubbernecking
7/30/2011 05:58:40 am

@Up, that is an interesting angle. Do you know if adoption affects the Alaska DPH data? If a child were adopted, would the DPH data on maternal age describe the birth mother or the adoptive mother?

Reply
Comeonepeople
7/30/2011 06:01:58 am

I meant no one with power in the msm went afterCBJ with hard hitting questions and follow up . Lots of us with limited resources have written letters but apparently not enough to get a real investigation going . But eventually the truth will be revealed. And again with the wasilla mafia posts . Someone spill the beans ans go into a witness protection plan. If it is really that bad then do what you can to end it . Sorry , just frustrated that people feel they have no recourse . The Palins are idiots Also , ive long suspected CBJ let her fundieism intervere with her professionalism . hello??? State board??? Hello anyone there???

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/30/2011 06:19:58 am

Rubbernecking: I think, and as even Doc has pointed out, the Eleventh Hour Letter raised more questions than it answered. I don't believe it was forged, but I do believe it was written in such as way as to validate Doc's concerns about it. Even the hour of release was premeditated for a reason, and not because the fax machine wasn't working properly.

The more curious, or even alarming, aspect of this story, is the fact that when the paper did try to investigate the Hoax Won't Die story, CBJ allegedly stonewalled them. Perhaps she got her marching orders from Palin ("Don't bother my busy doctor"). I have one possible theory about what went on in that conversation with the doctor.

But were the story on the up-and-up, it wouldn't and shouldn't plague the good doctor one bit to say, once again, that she had this baby on this date and it's been my joy to work with her and her family.

The silence was deafening. So, no, I don't agree with you that it's case closed on how the doctor has publicly handled this - or not. The doctor's role in this is fuzzy and vague. The letter didn't solve anything for me.

Reply
CA Guy
7/30/2011 06:44:21 am

There is little doubt that Woodstein would be stonewalled in this day and age. The internets may have laid open the common man's private world but those who wield power and those who are propped up by the powerful can keep their secrets very well hidden. We have a Supreme Court that will insure that the Koch Bros. will never be exposed for their treasure bath for the Tea Party minions, that Sideshow Sarah will never be exposed, that the pay-offs of the freshmen in the house will stay safely under the rug.

The story line of ATPM? "Follow the money" Deep Throat said. Well, Thomas, Scalia and Sons have made it very clear that that's no longer possible. The ghost of Nixon is alive and doing very well thank you.

And to be clear, the subversion of the constitution by Nixon was treason. The lying of the country into a war in Iraq was treason. The willful attempt to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States is treason. These are acts that clearly violate the oath these buffoons swore on the bible to uphold. Sideshow Sarah is right: there are no lamestream media types left to even whimper a response.

Reply
FrostyAK
7/30/2011 07:16:38 am

@rubbernecking

I see you don't appreciate comments about what IS in AK. That's too bad, as I will continue to make such comments, and refer to unsolved mysteries pertaining to the topic we are discussing. Please feel free to skip over any comment I make.

The fact is that the corruption in AK is just more exposed than the corruption that has overtaken the entire country. Bringing light to this small slice of corruption may be a beginning to the end of it nationwide. One can hope anyway.

Are there any courageous journalists left? Any courageous middlemen? Certainly not at the ADN. Or are the only courageous writers nowdays those who blog, as they don't have to answer to corporate?

Reply
Brad Scharlott
7/30/2011 07:54:00 am

Excellent post, Laura. Nice rejoinder to r-necking also.

History will see babygate for what it was. In 25 years, it will be a given that a very disordered woman faked a pregnancy to try to get into the White House.

So the interesting question for me is will it be sooner rather than later that we as a country get to that point. What gets released on Sept. 20 in the McGinniss and Levi books could shine a big light on that question.

Hey, why not send Clari Drake to Alaska?

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/30/2011 09:23:38 am

Thanks, Brad. I think Clari Drake could rock it up there. One of the best compliments I've received on Finding Clarity is from a reader who said Clari not only susses out the mystery, but she "tells the story." Wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell this story!

Balzafiar, great points you make. A practice throughout history: plant the ideas among those who can connect the dots. Sometimes I think we bloggers are doing that, or are close. And then things reveal themselves to be not all that true after all.

And CaGuy, your points are so well said and seriously taken. We might well indeed be living in an era, to remain from here on out, where information, while so freely shared, is also so tightly controlled, there is no more hope for the Woodsteins of the world.

Or as I said: as long as the chain of authority remains the same. So, as Balzafiar points out: find a new methodology and share the information that way. Tell the people who don't have to answer to the same old people.

Books can now be sold by word of mouth and viral marketing. Investigative reporting can do the same.

Reply
B
7/30/2011 09:57:15 am

"I know that the March 14th photo defies all possible belief."

Why is it not proof if it defies ALL POSSIBLE belief?

Am I confusing the criminal courts' Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt with a different journalism standard for running a story?

Reply
rubbernecking
7/30/2011 02:45:32 pm

I'm not a college professor or an Ivy League graduate. Maybe some of the reason for the spiral of silence is that average readers like me don't always have the background to understand the argument.

My objection was to your sentence "That the doctor would not confirm on the record that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig is indeed part of the story." I didn't believe an average person would agree with this sentence if they looked at other sources like NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04medical.html?scp=3&sq=Baldwin-Johnson&st=cse

I realize now your argument is that CBJ should have given a quote on-record for the hoax-won't die story, post election. Genuine misunderstanding on my part. I read your sentence as saying CBJ was never, ever on record that Palin gave birth to Trig.

I never intended to argue "case closed on how the doctor has publicly handled this." I actually acknowledged in my 2nd para that there were valid questions about the letter's release and CBJ's refusal to do follow-up interviews.

Some readers beat up Schwyzer because he held an opinion without learning all the details of Palin's odd birth. I angered one of your co-bloggers when I couldn't grasp a theory about birth announcements.

For what's it worth, if I say I don't understand something, I am 100% sincere.

Reply
AKRNC
7/30/2011 03:19:48 pm

Laura,

When you mentioned that only 16 women, between the ages of 40 and 44 gave birth to premature babies in 2008, I was wondering if anyone has checked the statistics reported to the Health Department on babies with Down Syndrome? If they don't correlate, that could open things up. All hospitals have to report these things and they are a matter of public record or at least they should be.

Palin did NOT give birth to that baby, you only have to take a look at her allegedly 2 days after birth and compare her to the post-partum $arah, a month after Piper's birth. HUGE difference! In one she is definitely post-partum, in the other, she is definitely NOT!

Reply
abbafan
7/30/2011 03:27:48 pm

Laura,your persistence of the Palin con job will pay off hopefully soon; her rogue, deviant behaviour will be exposed. All The President's Men is still one of my all-time favourite movies directed by the late Mr. Pakula (I share the same surname).IMHO,your dogged determination in pursuit of the facts concerning this horrid liar makes you the "Woodstein" of this story. It's truly sad no one in the MSM will touch this story with a ten foot pole. Eventually,$P's lies will catch up with her and her grifting dysfunctional brood.Just like Deep Throat (brilliantly portrayed by Hal Holbrook) said: Follow the money!

Reply
V ictoria link
7/30/2011 04:18:40 pm

I agree with rubbernecking that we have to concede that CBJ did release a letter in which it seems to be clear that SPalin gave birth to Trig. When I did the calculation of probability with respect to Palin's pregnancy, this was the only item that reflected at all in Palin's favor. Everything else was against her or simply neutral.

The thing that has bugged me most about the CBJ letter is when it was released: just before the election. Why so late? If the facts in it were true, then releasing it earlier would make the Palin bashers look like fools.

On the other hand, if the facts in it were not true, why release it at all? By the time of the release it was obvious that McCain and Palin were about to lose the election. It did not help.

But perhaps there is a third scenario. Perhaps CBJ wrote a letter like this to please Sarah early on - including claims that were not true - but they all agreed that it would not be released until just before the election so as to reduce the ability of journalists to do fact finding.

In the letter, CBJ claims that SP engaged in appropriate prenatal appointments, etc. What sort of schedule would be appropriate? Can we add to the mountain of circumstantial evidence to show how unlikely it was that she did this?

Reply
Ginger
7/30/2011 04:57:10 pm

@anonfornow

You better believe the McCains know and will never talk. I saw Steve Schmidt on 60 minutes screaming Sarah did not tell them her daughter was pregnant. Since they announced her as VP on Aug. 29, 2008, I assumed they found out after her debut. But, I could never figure out the timelines. The RNC was days later and there was Levi. All dressed up, shaven, hair cut and Bristol's name tatooed on his ring finger. We had heard he was out hunting and they came after him. The timelines didn't add up to me.

Then, after reading Frank Bailey's book, I learned Sarah called him crying..."Bristol is pregnant." She invited the Baileys over on Sunday, Aug. 16, 2008. It was to get their stories about Troopergate straight. She hinted about the VP run and Bailey was astonished to think she would run with Bristol pregnant. Sarah just shrugged her shoulders and said something like, "people will find out anyway."

This is my theory and remember, Sarah faked a pregnancy to protect Bristol so the world would not find out she was an unwed, teenage mother. Well, I think the RNC told Sarah they could deal with Troopergate but not the fake pregnancy rumors all over the internet. When she told them she had a "rill" birth certificate, that made matters worse. They only had two months and the controversy over Pres. Obama's b/c, was overwhelming. Good grief, how could they deal with that plus all the other baggage she brought with her? So, if she wanted the VP slot, they had to say Bristol was five months pregnant and that would quickly stop all the rumors. As we know, it worked.

I'm sure Sarah and Todd talked this over with Bristol before accepting the RNC's offer. Also, I think it's one of the reasons she hates them. All the work of faking a pregnancy...all the lies she had to tell...for naught!

JMO...

Reply
Ferry Fey
7/30/2011 06:56:09 pm

"Presumption of innocence"? Isn't that a legal stance rather than a journalistic one? A presumption of innocence could be as biased as a presumption of culpability.

I've seen a lot of people bring up the lack of doctor appointments in Sarah's known schedules. That's not a dealbreaker for me. Given Sarah's position as givernor, and her previous close association with CBJ, it's possible that if she were pregnant, she could make after-hours visits, especially if she were trying to keep it quiet.

I hope we'll find out whether Sarah Palin's tit fed the ringer (Ruffles) one of these days. The possibility of two Trigs has always been one of the most disturbing aspects of this.

Reply
PatG
7/30/2011 07:15:58 pm

Laura - your Watergate take on this is super - thank you. Nice to read a blog where real words and real thinking are used.

As for Levi's and McGinness' books, McGinness has stated that he has no definitive answers on Babygate and if Levi had any bombshells to drop, surely something would have been said by now. I don't have much hope that either of these books will clarify Babygate. Unfortunately, Levi has shown he is subject to radical mind changes depending on which way the wind blows and even if he has deep secrets to reveal, his credibility is a bit suspect.

What does that leave us? As you said, sometimes it takes a long, long period of digging and digging to find the truth. S.P. is under pressure every day about which truth will come out when. Problem of course is that she is so convinced of her ability to master all she surveys, truth or lack of truth isn't a stumper for her - she just carries on as if she had good sense.

As much as I would like for her to run for President so the investigative dogs would be unleashed, how can she possibly run and still play the victim of the MSM and not answer questions? Or is that a stupid question on my part?

Reply
NSG
7/31/2011 02:07:44 am

Well, here's an interesting sidebar that might be useful to some working on this.

I'm watching "Reliable Sources" on CNN -- not something I watch much, so that's partly why this has struck me.

Howard Kurtz has been interviewing a couple of journalists about the David Wu (Dem rep from Oregon) sex scandal story and how it has been reported. Intriguing Q&A about how editors & reporters have approached investigating & publishing a tricky story.

The whole thing has some interesting parallels to this Babygate discussion. Turns out they've been able to generate a range of leads and publish without an obvious "smoking gun" piece of evidence. Lo & behold, it looks like it took a concerted effort by reporters doing actual investigative work.

There was one particular anecdote that I found on point. Apparently there was some history with Wu dating back to his young adulthood, with an alleged attack against a college-age young woman, and the woman's counselor ended up coming forward all these years later because she felt like Wu had "gotten away with something." Medical & privacy ethics be damned, it seems, when there's a greater wrong involved, esp by an elected official.

Hmmmm. Precedent, much?

Since it just aired, I doubt there's a link yet, but I'd encourage others to check it out.

And on a related tangent, Kurtz interviewed reporter Chrystia Freeland (sp?) about the debt ceiling story and the MSM's apparent need to treat this from a perspective of balance (ALL of DC is f'd up) vs truth (the Rs are being unreasonable and the Ds have actually made an effort.) Freeland's honesty about the media being gunshy about "liberal bias" accusations from scary conservative critics is refreshing, almost startling. And also relevant, IMO, to journalists pushing to investigate Wu/D (and Weiner/D) and not Palin/R.

Thanks, Laura & all, for time & insight.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/31/2011 02:11:38 am

Thanks, Abbafan, for that nice compliment. Glad to see you here!

Pat, I don't know. She has managed to call the shots the entire time. We all have the expectation that she has to answer questions once she runs. I think she's too imperial minded. She has a different view on her view as queen versus candidate.

Ginger, one of the amazing things about this story that has all loose ends and no clean lines, is that even the stories about how she told her kids she was tapped for VP, and how she told McRogue about Bristol's pregnancy...they never even add up. How many versions of both those stories have been told? How hard is it to have only one reality?

Rubbernecking, your eye for details and incredible memory for facts is highly valued here. I've always said that contrarians are welcome and indeed needed.

Whether Lidia, who has extraordinary skills with video and all things digital, is right about the letter being forged, or Doc is correct that it was carefully worded to disguise its true meaning, or that it was written for Sarah and controlled and released by the campaign at the eleventh hour to avoid questions, it's just ONE MORE THING that muddied rather than cleared the issue. And CBJ not talking, given one more opportunity, is what rankles me.
Thanks for all your insight and the facts you have at your grasp that clarify issues for us (ie, the green sweater!)

Reply
Ottoline
7/31/2011 03:50:30 am

B at 16:57:15: I found that hard to grasp too. But whatever.

Reply
K.M.R
7/31/2011 03:56:17 am

I almost didn't look because I thought I had seen all of the Sarah Palin photos that are out there. Low and behold, these are new pictures; found by a commenter over at Gryphen's IM.

The outfit: a grey coat with large pointed lapels worn with a darker grey jersey and deep grey slacks, is the same one taken on March 26, 2008 during the Alaska State Museum Bill Signing.
The new pictures are here:
http://www.profimedia.si/picture/sarah-palin-birth-controversy/0092945028/

and still more here: (same day, same outfit)
http://www.profimedia.si/editorial/search/photographer/PC-0092945028

Audrey's Palin Deception pictures of the same event are here:
http://www.palindeception.com/calendar/days/032608.html

Audrey's "Nail in the Coffin" post, regarding this event and Sarah's non-pregnant appearance is here: http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2008/12/nail-in-coffin.html

Reply
lazergrl link
7/31/2011 04:42:21 am

B and Ottoline, I agree. Why isn't that photo enough? If I commit a crime with a perfect alibi (say, apparently surrounded by people at a party), but appear on a single time-stamped photo at the scene of the crime, isn't that enough for conviction? Or do I watch too much Hercule Poirot?

Reply
Ottoline
7/31/2011 05:59:35 am

lazergirl and B: Yes, a photo of the perfect-alibi person would DEMAND an explanation of the photo at the scene of the crime.

In the same way that I keep begging Trignostics to explain the Mar 14 photo: at least one person tried, with a "sunrise pregnancy" explanation (you carry the baby above the waist, because his/her sister did). Physiologically impossible IMHO but a gold star for the effort. NO ONE else wants to touch explaining the Mar 14 photo. Because it can't be done. (And this latest bunch of photos to appear just support the Mar 14 photo premise).

Not even Allie tried to respond to this qu. I just don't understand.

Reply
Mhurka
7/31/2011 07:03:18 am

In this particular series of photos taken March 26 2008 (www.profimedia.si/editorial/search/photographer/PC-0092945028) there seems to be the outline of perhaps a towel wrapped around the midsection of Sp's body. (Especially the 4th photo in the top row.)

Reply
rubbernecking
7/31/2011 07:27:21 am

@B and @Ottoline, I believe the problem is confirmation bias--the human tendency to may more attention to evidence that confirms our opinions, and to underweight evidence that disagrees.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201107/you-end-believing-what-you-want-believe

Laura, I don't know Lidia's background in document forensics but I'm surprised she was able to make a determination of forgery. It's unclear how to draw this conclusion without access to the original file or knowledge of how the PDF shown on news sites was actually created. For example, it's possible to use software to "print" a document as a PDF; this process creates a very high quality document. It's also possible to use a scanner to create a PDF from a paper document; this creates a lower quality document.

Major media outlets treated the letter as CBJ's onrecord statement and there's no record of CBJ publicly denying the letter is hers.

Reply
B
7/31/2011 08:47:10 am

@rubbernecking. It's not just confirmation bias. It is fact.

It is possible for a non-pregnant woman to look 7.5 mos. pregnant if clothed and padded. But it is not possible for a woman 7.5 mos. pregnant to look non-pregnant, with a totally flat belly.

The March 14 photo is from the ADN, published contemporaneously. If it would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, why can't journalists rely on it--or at least present it for the public to draw its own conclusion?

@NSG. I feel a little more sane that someone on TV is mentioning that both sides are not equally to blame on the debt crisis fiasco. The Repubs own it.

Reply
Brad Scharlott
7/31/2011 11:38:05 am

Concerning CBJ's 11th hour letter, the relevant question to ask, it seems to me, is this:

If eventually it is determined that Palin faked the pregnancy, would CBJ have an out re the letter? And the answer, it seems to me, is YES. Look at the wording - she in no way indicates that she has first-hand knowledge of anything.

And as I recall, Palin travelled back to Alaska shortly before Election Day. I'm guessing CBJ insisted that before she would sign a letter, Palin had to visit her office and tell her every one of those details that got in the letter. And I will bet, further, that CBJ recorded all those details in notes that are now in Palin's file at CBJ's office..

So see how it works? CBJ can claim she wrote the truth as she knew it.

As to the Lisa Demer article, I'm guessing CBJ answered questions in such a way that she could later claim that she was referring to, say, Bristol's delivery, and that Demer incorrectly assumed she was talking about Sarah's.

The question to ask is: Has CBJ given herself plausible deniability? And I think she has.

Reply
NSG
7/31/2011 01:14:24 pm

@B, you & me both!

For the journalism junkies among us, here's the CNN Reliable Sources link to the Chrystia Freeland interview about reporting & editorial coverage of the debt ceiling mess.

http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/31/freeland-on-economic-effects-of-debt-talks/

The part where she talks about the skewed nature of the coverage begins at about 3:50, with specific interest at 7:00ish, but the whole thing is worth watching. (She used to be at the Financial Times and brings a strong, international finance/economics perspective.)

Reply
Up
7/31/2011 02:33:54 pm

KMR, your links to the profimedia photos are quite shocking.
( http://www.profimedia.si/image/detail/0092945030 )

There is NO WAY those photos are of a woman 7 months pregnant. No way. NO WAY. Especially when she looked like this at 5-6 months with her prior pregnancy. (scroll to the bottom of the post to see photos.)

http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/04/pregnant-with-piper-you-betchya.html

Rubbernecking, the stats I cited are based on births themselves. Adoption has nothing to do with them. Thus, if another woman gave birth to Trig, the birth would be listed in this report based upon the location of the actual birth and bio mother's age.

Further into the report it shows 25 births in Mat-Su county to women aged 40-44 in 2008, of approx 1250 total births. A smaller pool to wade through. (They don't separate out preemies vs. full-term, presumably because the numbers are too small and could lead to identification of the parents.)

In calendar 2008 the Frontiersman received info on births from Mat-Su Regional and published them. (Mat-Su is the only hospital in the county, so far as I can see on the state website.) Although some months' births are still available on the website, other months are missing. Not all mothers agreed to publication. Some had home births. So this was an imperfect source anyways. If anyone has ideas for public sites which might allow one to identify children born in Mat-Su County in 2008, I'd love to hear about them.

Apropos of nothing, I hadn't realized Mat-Su Regional is part of a large hospital chain which was formed by former executives of Hospital Corporation of America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Health_Systems

Reply
Lidia17
7/31/2011 09:20:01 pm

@rubbernecking, THIS is what I said:

"@Laura, I really think the CBJ letter was falsified. It does not sound professional to me, and focuses way too much on Trig's health as opposed to Sarah's. It has factual errors in it along with several sorts of digital schmutz. It's abnormal."

I THINK the letter was falsified for reasons laid out in the examination of it here, from 2009, in which I had no involvement and for which I take no credit:

http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/02/purloined-letter.html
(see text for link to downloadable pdf)

See also here:
http://shesnohockeymom.blogspot.com/2010/09/real-reason-for-cbj-letter-and-why-it.html


I WILL OFFER as my "expert opinion" that none of the aberrations noted in the letter can in any way be credibly connected to an ordinary, faithful scanning of the document, whether linked or not to the creation of or reproduction in a PDF file.

It has nothing to do with the overall quality of the document, but inexplicable intrinsic discrepancies from one part of the document to the next. Whether CBJ's signature was forged or not, I have no opinion about. It does certainly look as though it could have been digitally pasted in, seeing as it has the same color as those two overwritten "FP" letters, which by rights should be black, not grey. That color shift is, to me, inexplicable in a normal document.

No ONE of the discrepancies might be enough to convince me, but overall the letter has an extremely sketchy appearance. CBJ's reluctance to speak further on the matter only makes me more convinced that she did not issue the letter.

Let's not forget that it is in Sarah's genetic makeup to FALSIFY documents which purport to support her: the letter is just icing on the counterfeit cake of this whole counterfeit enterprise, imo.

Reply
rubbernecking
7/31/2011 10:58:35 pm

@B, confirmation bias affects how an individual's brain decides which "evidence" is more compelling, e.g., a photo published in the ADN or a doctor's letter published in the NYT.

A majority of voters were never 7-months pregnant. The person who wrote the "Definitive Debunker" at Salon is a man so he's never been 7-mo pregnant. Many people, men and women, have little personal experience with pregnant women and have no baseline to evaluate the picture. If you've been pregnant or your professional work involves caring for pregnant women, you will have a stronger reaction to the photo.

If the goal is to change peoples' minds, we need to understand their point-of-view.

Reply
The Babygate Book is in its THIRD Trimester link
7/31/2011 11:53:09 pm

A person, calling himself or herself "Fred", has posted a message at Gryphen's about the Babygate book. It sounds real to me. I could be wrong, but I'm not.

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2011/08/as-promised-here-is-update-on-long.html

mistah charley, ph.d., recently accused of being a "firebagger", one who practices a very serious thoughtcrime consisting of recognizing that Obama is a key member of the military industrial congressional financial corporate media complex.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/31/2011 11:54:27 pm

While I work on the next post, here's something fun to read:

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/32939/louise_mensch_responds_to_allegations_from_david_jones_investigative_journalists.html


Love to see the lady stand up to the garbage.

Reply
Laura Novak link
7/31/2011 11:56:27 pm

My understanding is that the "Fred" book is real.

Reply
viola-alex
8/1/2011 12:13:21 am

I'm bummed. Fred has spoken on IM-- and he's a man. A lawyer. It's more of the same document work. I wanted Miss Marple or Jane Kramer. Kinsey Milhone or Susan Orlean. Clari Drake. . . anybody who would stick her neck out and kick some AK butt.

Sorry for my rant. But I'm still angry that men like that Salon jerk who are not ob-gyns would think they could write definitively about a non- pregnancy. This story has gone untold because women haven't told it.

Brad's done his part. The theoretical framework is laid. Someone must dare to ask questions face to face and do the hard slogging, imo. As anonfornow wrote above, there are women in AK who know-- whether they know Palin had a tubal or know she was never pregnant. There are women who know.

This must be the season for rants.

Reply
Balzafiar
8/1/2011 01:13:02 am

@Lidia17 Re: CBJ Letter

First, let me give my qualifications. I have over 40 years experience in the graphic arts covering many aspects of it. Currently I do a great deal of Photoshop and Acrobat work among my other duties.

I downloaded the PDF you posted a link to and have done an examination of it using various tools.

It is an unusual PDF in that it appears to be a single scan, but it is not -- it is a composite.

It is also unusual in that the pieces are not Acrobat-editable although it has no security properties set. This is something I have never seen before so I need to research it.

Other than the fact that it is made up of multiple pieces there are just too many obvious physical discrepancies for it to be genuine.

A couple of things that strike me as very odd: the logo at upper right is made up of two pieces _from different sources_ instead of just one. The two pieces are very different in the way they were scanned.

Another thing about the logo: the blue colors don't match. Based on the logo I see on their web site, they should be the same.

The type styles in the logo and the hospital address lines are not the same type family. While this could be intentional on the part of the designer, it does get my attention because it isn't usually done that way by professional designers.

The letterhead elements (address and logo) are crooked (raised on the left) in relation to the body of the letter. Since the body of the letter is typed in the Times font, the body was likely printed on a laser or inkjet printer. The letterhead elements should align much better horizontally with the body, in fact nearly perfectly.

As with everything else, the signature is a separate piece, but oddly the signature piece also includes a portion of the title below, which it should not. This made the last two letters of the title the same color as the signature, which it should not be. I believe the signature came from another document as did portions of the logo.

Because of these things, I believe it to be a total fake, composited from several documents.

An aside: FWIW, the address on the letter is not only the address for Providence Administration, the Providence Crisis Recovery Center is located there. It is a facility for adolescents, so that may be where CBJ is practicing these days.

Reply
rubbernecking
8/1/2011 01:33:32 am

@Lidia17, what affects the quality of a printed document? Here are a few: the printer's resolution (dots printed per inch), the quality and capacity of the ink cartridge in use, and the paper feed mechanism. If your printer has low dpi, if your ink cartridge is running low, if you manually load letterhead vs using the paper tray, these will affect the quality and alignment of the printed document.

What affects the quality of a scanned document? Here are a few: the optical resolution of the scanner, the scanner's ability to handle color depth (e.g. different shades of gray), the physical positioning on the paper on the scanner bed, and dust or smudges on the scanner bed.

CBJ's letter was printed and quoted in national newspapers. No article shows that CBJ ever attempted to contact any newspaper to disavow the letter or issue any correction. The only way for CBJ to disavow the letter is to claim she was unaware the letter appeared in NYT and LA Times, AND to show how the "falsifiers" knew CBJ would never find out about the letter when it was printed in major newspapers.

We need arguments that average people can understand. CBJ is on record that Palin gave birth to Trig. CBJ *may* have included false or misleading information in her on-record statement.

Reply
NSG
8/1/2011 02:58:34 am

OK, this is likely my final update on the CNN Reliable Sources thing, but I wanted to finish it up now that the link's available.

Here's the segment on the reporting / editorial process of the David Wu (Dem/OR) sex scandal:

http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/01/local-paper-exposes-wus-sex-scandal/

IMHO, it's relevant here because it's another icky story -- like Babygate -- that "serious" reporters would avoid. Also, too, the nature of these are often full of he-said-she-said and few hard pieces of evidence or substantiation. Familiar?

Finally, a piece that really caught my attention was reference to an alleged previous attack by Wu when he was young, against a young woman. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, THAT young woman's college counselor (psychological) is coming forward with that old story because she feels like Wu may have gotten away with something. In essence, she realizes there's a pattern, he's an elected official with legal and personal powers, and she felt it necessary to tell the story.

Would that CBJ or other Palin-related healthcare professionals have a similar flash of courageous conscience to put a stop to the harm Palin and her backers (and MSM enablers) are inflicting on all of us.

And between this as precedent and Chrystia Freeland's fascinating on-CNN acknowledgement that reporters fear and avoid the liberal bias charge by conservatives, is there an opportunity to make a case to some reporters?

Freeland is now the Digital Editor with Thomson Reuters, formerly with The Financial Times. (And recently pregnant, visible (!) from her appearances on Morning Joe, MSNBC.)

Laura or others who have better knowledge, skills, connections -- is there an opportunity to connect with Freeland and point out both these segments and ask her to assign someone to investigate why this story hasn't been reported?

Hoping to spark more ideas....

Reply
lilly lily
8/1/2011 04:19:57 am

As far as I'm concerned KAJO at 8:28 over at the IM has posted about 6 pictures that are definative of no pregnancy.

In the large lapelled grey coat. Sarah Palin twists easily, and the grey coat swings open showing......ta da, ta da...drumroll here... absolutly nothing in her womb. She didn't even bother trying looking pregnant outside of wearing that stupid coat. Too much of an effort for the stupid peasants..

http://bit.ly/ghyolS

Reply
curiouser
8/1/2011 04:31:23 am

Up reminded me of some possible strangeness in DPH reports that may be worth pursuing.

Mat-Su Regional seems to have done a simply horrendous job in their quality of public health record keeping (if I'm reading the reports correctly.) They have high numbers of 'unknown or unclassifiable information,' especially in the categories of 'Abnormal Conditions of the Newborn' and 'Congenital Anomalies.' The poor reporting appears to have started in 2007 and continued through the first quarter of 2010.

http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/bvs/data_quality/Hospital_Report/frame.html

Another report with AK birth statistics:
http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/bvs/birth_statistics/Profiles_Age_Statewide/frame.html

Reply
lilly lily
8/1/2011 04:33:27 am

Oh, the thing I love about it is her choice of jewelry.

Of course, one of her many flag pins, but about her neck a chain with a key attatched.

Tiffany put them out. Sort of a key to my heart. But loads of copies out there.

I have one myself. LOL.

Even better than March 14th.

Reply
rubbernecking
8/1/2011 05:07:40 am

I don't have any issue with the "plausible deniability" theory. CBJ's letter does not say she is Palin's only physician. Palin's medical chart would include information she self-reported to her doctor and information entered by current or former employees at CBJ's clinic. I agree there are multiple ways CBJ could have provided misleading, false, or unverified information in the letter.

I don't believe print quality issues or the use of passive voice are convincing proof that CBJ was deceptive.

Reply
Mhurka
8/1/2011 05:44:12 am

I have no idea whether CBJ's letter is valid or not but I do know that there is one old wise saying that people might want to consider-Paper will hold anything you put on it.

Reply
mistah charley, ph.d., firebagger link
8/1/2011 08:30:21 am

<b>@balzafiar:</b> Dr. CBJ's letter is hinky in several ways: in the documentary sense as reported by your and other examiners, in what it says and doesn't say, in how it was released, and in how CBJ has been unwilling to either repudiate it or stand behind it. All in all, it's just another chink in the wall.

<b>@viola-alex</b> While it's true that "Fred" - not his full name - is another male lawyer, it may be that his perspective has been informed by the women witnesses who have spoken up on this issue since the controversy developed. He's been unwilling to state his full name, or even give the title or publisher of the book, and people have wondered about that. Here's a repost of my comment at Gryphen's blog:

<b>Why All the Secrecy? A non-paranoid hypothesis</b>

I was wondering about all the secrecy, and I'm not the only one - one of the most prolific commenters on this blog, "Anonymous", asked earlier today, <i>"What I don't get is, why all the secrecy about the book -- title, author(s), etc? I'm not a troll, and I believe there is a book in the works, and it sounds like it will give credit where credit is due (which is great), and I am looking forward to reading it. I'm just curious."</i>

By g_d, I think I've got it! "Fred" (not his or her full name) is working assiduously on getting things together and putting them in order, in a way that gets the message across to the intended reader. Once "Fred" is known to be publishing a book on this topic, a great many people in the biz (whatever biz that is) will call up and want to know <b>wazzup</b>? And since it's not completely up yet, "Fred" thinks it's a better use of his or her time to keep on working, rather than take time to talk to everyone who wants to know about at.

At some point, if someone "in the biz" wants to know <b>wazzup</b>, you can hand them a hard copy or email them a PDF. Until that final version is ready, getting it ready is the most effective way to pursue truth, justice, and the potentially sentient way.

So you see, you don't have to suppose that someone's car might be forced off the road, or somebody's publisher might be bought up by a big conglomerate, or somebody's house might catch on fire, in order to have a really good reason for privacy.

Reply
Up
8/1/2011 11:54:08 am

Curiouser, the report for 2008 appears to show that Mat-Su Regional has a lower rate of unknown or unclassified information (see 2nd column) than the state average (3rd column), and lower than the national average (4th column) in many areas. The exception is in the recording around the mother's last menses.

Reply
Diane
8/2/2011 12:25:24 am

If palin runs, she will be protected by fox news. I think she will run as a third party, just to get all the attention and not have to campaign according to the 'rules', you know, a real maverick, rogue.
She will not have to answer any questions she does not want to, thanks to fox.
Now, if fox news goes down in this hacker scandal, think of what it will do to the republican candidates and palin?

I wonder if the pregnancy was a coverup for her sister Molly. They went after the brother in law ruthlessly.

Besides being stupid(I reserve this for people who will not learn or change and think they know everything)palin lost me after the wild ride from Texas.
I could never, in good conscience, vote for a woman that treated her unborn child with such callous regard.

Reply
Lidia17
8/2/2011 03:17:42 am

@Balzafiar, Thank You!

@rubbernecking, quit dicking us around. I know what a "printer" is, what a "scanner" is, what "resolution" is, and what "ink" is. Give it up.

Reply
Lidia17
8/2/2011 03:39:30 am

I'm not sure if I hold out much hope in "Fred".

I haven't seen whether Gryphen deigned to print my comment (he has blocked comments of mine in the past) but I pointed out over at IM that "Fred" made a strange error (for a lawyer), which then got propagated down into the comments.

"Fred" writes: "One extraordinarily interesting discrepancy was pointed out by Gryphen in his blog on June 13th, when he shared the enormous disconnect of Palin sending herself a draft copy of the letter she intended to release to friends and family…" Gryphen's post says "It was the draft of the letter she eventually sent to friends and family after Trig was 'born' on April 18th, eleven days later."

But I don't see any evidence that there was a later mailing.

From all appearances she sent out the ACTUAL mass e-mail ON April 7 to whatever group of recipients; the only reason it looks like it was sent "to herself" is because of the Blind Carbon Copy process. When you don't want each recipient to see all the other recipients, you use the Bcc field, but you still need to have one recipient visible, which is why the mail does end up getting sent to the sender.

While the oddities regarding the text remain, this was obviously a REAL mail, not a "draft"… and the only reason we are fortunate enough to see it is because it was incidentally cited/forwarded with another person's mail from the 19th. The original outgoing mail and Sarah's own incoming copy would appear to have been redacted.

Reply
Tealsheart
8/2/2011 05:40:13 am

...just wondering, did the hospital receive federal funds, and since the baby 'was born' there, could this be focused on as a violation of some type -since they were/are not authorized/equipped to make special needs deliveries?

I think the hospital (not HIPPA), but rules and procedures ought to be questioned legally, after all they are listed as the birth place...

Reply
Lidia17
8/2/2011 05:49:28 am

"The original outgoing mail and Sarah's own incoming copy would appear to have been redacted."

…OR were not subject to the terms of the emails needing to be released…

Reply
Trisha
8/2/2011 08:39:47 am

great post. When I read comments on some blogs that say, ehat does it matter....i'm shocked.

The deceipt would show her lack of ethics, her unChristian values, but mostly I believe there may be crimes associated with this hoax. Bribing the hospital for silence, bribing Levi for his silence, the arrest of Levi's mother---odd timing to say the least (seemed like a warning to keep her mouth shut), and the church fire that potentially destroyed records and killed a witness. I have no doubt that they have been involved with other unsolved crimes of people who knew the truth about the Palin's and the true parents of more than one of their children.

Reply
LOZ362
8/2/2011 09:10:15 am

good post. I think SOMEBODY does have the goods on her and is blackmailing her already. Lest we forget in all of the crazy stuff she has done... she resigned from being Governor after <2 yrs. Somebody has already gotten to her about this and they are NOT spilling the beans probably because she is PAYING them not to.

That is why I do NOT think she will run for President.

Reply
V ictoria link
8/2/2011 03:25:02 pm

Gosh, I love the idea of someone blackmailing Palin! On the other hand, it seems to be a dangerous game.

I do not think that she will run. She has had to pretend to run because that's what brings in the bucks (how come people are donating to her PAC when she's not apparently running for office - now that is a good question and worthy of some journalism). But if she runs as a third party candidate, she peels off some of the Republicans, and then the mainstream Republican loses to Obama. So FOX will never sanction that.

Reply
Up
8/3/2011 09:22:09 pm

Medicare would not have been a party to this, unless Trig's mother was over 65. The hospital could be subject to sanctions by the state, but that is unlikely given the patient was gov and trying to hide it. Could be subject to trouble from JCAHO, by which it is accredited. That may be why some changes occurred at the hospital afterwards: CBJ lost privileges, hospital stopped sending birth notices to the Frontiersman. I'd imagine other policies & procedures were changed as well, but only someone working at Mat-Su Regional would know that.

I don't think the hospital itself was paid off. It is part of a 100-hospital chain (or at least it is now.). They would not want to risk having something like that on their record. The corporation, it's senior managers and board, as well as senior staff at Mat-Su Reg. would have to disclose that on certain regulatory filings for years. It would be an embarrassment to be explained anytime the corp or a member of senior leadership tried to acquire another health care provider in the US. (At least I think most states ask this question.). Was an individual bribed to keep info from senior managers, corporate or the regulators? That's another question.

Reply
rubbernecking
8/4/2011 05:47:14 am

@Lidia17, I don't know what you know. You haven't explained it. In particular:

1) What was the quality of the original paper document?

2) What was the quality the scanner used to create the image? Do you know who created the scan and how much experience he or she had creating these files?

I gave a few examples of quality problems that I've personally noticed when creating PDFs or image files from a scan of a low quality paper document.

I've read the PD document very carefully but I don't agree with its conclusions. The PD doc doesn't answer the questions I posed to you. I also looked at similar medical letters released by other campaigns. Some of the PD red flags are also present in other campaign medical letters, including the use passive voice and asserting information that the doctor cannot know firsthand, such the health of the candidate's parents.

Reply
Lidia17
8/4/2011 09:08:40 am

@rubbernecking, I'm not sure whether I'd rather you drop this issue or not… out of fear you'll turn your energies away from the CBJ letter and towards 'clouding men's minds' regarding other aspects of the multi-faceted Palin case.

NONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTION have ANYthing to do with the way the CBJ letter looks.

I'll repeat:
NONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTION have ANYthing to do with the way the CBJ letter looks.

You're being so pathetic about it that out of pity I'll tip you off to the fact that your arguments only serve to Draw Attention to their Own Fraudulence, should you have not already figured this out.

While some of the physical discrepancies denote otherwise——actually ENHANCING the case for a counterfeit letter——in the end it really DOES NOT ENTIRELY MATTER whether someone cut and pasted something before scanning it, or scanned pieces and then cut and pasted the digital results… Either way, the CBJ document is NOT OF A PIECE!

Why do you insist on beating this dead horse? That letter is, in my opinion, FAKE. You are NEVER going to convince me otherwise. I don't care if a scan of the letter or parts thereof was/were done by the publishers at Rizzoli, by Kinko's, or by the 1980s-vintage scanner in your basement. I don't care if they were lovingly created pixel-by-pixel by those disabled folks who use a paintbrush (or mouse) in their mouths.

READ the comment by Balzafiar, above. (This is directed toward anyone inclined to believe rubbernecking… she herself already knows the score.)


You really do "protest too much." You've looked at similar medical letters in the physical detail gone into by the PD document??? DO TELL. How is it that you had access to the originals (or even electronic originals, anyway)? Oh… I see… you are only talking about the content! (Sure… because you CANNOT JUSTIFY the ransom-note-style cut&paste physical issues with the CBJ "original" letter, you deflect to the language use instead.)

Whoever claimed that the passive voice was an issue? That's something YOU invented.

A FAMILY physician might certainly have information about the health of a given patient's parents… that's neither here nor there. You are electing to combat two arguments that NONE AMONG US ACTUALLY PROFERRED.


MY point is——instead——why, when asked to attest to the health and fitness of SARAH PALIN, were we regaled with sketchy info about La Palin but an effluence of information about the health of Tri-G? Assuming your recountings of past candidates' health reports are correct (links, please)… still, as Devil's advocates, we might conceive——somewhat wrongly but infinitesimally more rightly——that the health of one's parents could hold clues as to one's own potential weaknesses. What does the health of Tri-G, however, have to do with SARAH's fitness to be vice/president?? Would it BOLSTER the case for her being mentally challenged, d'you think? How else could it be relevant otherwise?

Rubbernecking, I have sensed from the first that you are Full Of Shit, and you're doing a yeoman's job of bearing out this opinion as far as I am concerned. Do carry on, though, as I find your flailings amusing.

I also welcome the opportunity you give us to expound on the facts which you're unable to effectively muster in the Queen's defense. Someone skimming the comments here surely has a potential for being taken in by your superficial treatments of certain issues, but I think the vast majority of Laura's readers know better.

I would bet money that "rubbernecking" is Rebecca, "a spasso", desperately searching for existential relevance.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Laura Novak

    Reporter, Author, Blogger, and Mother...

    Picture

    RSS Feed


    My novel is now on Amazon Kindle!!
    Picture


    Blogs I Read

    Getty Iris
    Cloisters Garden
    Daily Dish
    AlterNet
    Immoral Minority
    Hullabaloo
    Phantomimic
    Jotting Down a Life
    Lynnrockets
    Oakland Local
    Passive Voice
    LitBrit
    Onward
    Joe McGinniss
    Barbara Alfaro
    Suzanne Rosenwasser


    Categories

    All
    Brushes With Greatness
    Dance Number
    Education
    Friday Feature
    Girls On The Bus
    Good Men Project
    Just Sayin
    My Favorite Movie
    Neonatologist
    Private Parts
    Quick Take Tuesday
    Sarah Palin
    Scharlott Stuff
    Scribd
    Shrink Wrap Supreme
    Tao Te Wednesday
    True Confessions
    Vox Populi
    Writing/Publishing

    Picture
    View my profile on LinkedIn
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010

Proudly powered by Weebly
Photos from acidpix, sicamp, Clearly Ambiguous, breahn, hoill, William Arthur Fine Stationery, southerntabitha, *Vintage Fairytale*, NeoGaboX, Dana Moos, ButterflyOrb, ruurmo, MCS@flickr, h.koppdelaney, Andrew 94, MarkWallace, fdecomite, Wonderlane, christophercarfi, dreamsjung, the superash, euphro, melloveschallah, Rhett Sutphin, I Don't Know, Maybe., Harold Laudeus, h.koppdelaney, jennaddenda, Harrissa Sunshine, Wesley Fryer, fidalgo_dennis, bark, [cipher], fdecomite, Marcos Kontze, legends2k, optick, pjohnkeane, Kabacchi, Pink Sherbet Photography, h.koppdelaney, alexbrn, Elsie esq., Rafael Acorsi, naitokz, tiffa130, otisarchives4, Sheloya Mystical and Agrimas Gothic, allygirl520, tnarik, Daquella manera, peyri, Patrick Hoesly, Anderson Mancini, Abode of Chaos, joewcampbell, keepitsurreal, Jonas N, David Boyle, Gideon Burton, evmaiden, Mike Willis, ankakay, LadyDragonflyCC -Busy Wedding Week for BF Amy!, Cast a Line, aeneastudio, Lord Jim, hisperati, dbzoomer, Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com, thegardenbuzz, kamshots, AleBonvini, smadden, CarbonNYC