Lots of questions for one of the leaders of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy/Democratic Culture of Corruption, regarding a possible internet payola scandal.
The only response I've seen is a Kos Komment that TNR has now totally gone over to the Dark Side.
As if......
Poor Kos. He can't make up his mind over whether he should remain the Master Of His Own Domain, or try to become a serious player in the Lefty political world.
The problem is that his pal, Mark Warner advisor Jerome Armstrong, has now been revealed to have been busted some time ago by the SEC for fraud, and other irregularities have now been exposed.
What's a Lefty blogger/politico wannabee to do?
Why do I not feel sorry for him?
P.S.-- Maybe I just overlooked it, but has anyone seen this issue discussed in any of the other local blogs?
I linked to the NY Times story that broke this open earlier in the week.
ReplyDeleteThe guy's name is Jerome Armstrong, not Brad Armstrong. His problems were with the SEC, not the FEC. You misstate the nature and scope of the allegations against him.
If the only response you have seen is the response to the TNR piece, you haven't been looking very hard.
Here's a piece from Daily Kos, for example, that goes into some detail about the case on Armstrong:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/23/205826/266
Great start to the blog, Bubba.
Thanks for setting me straight, Ed. What would I do without you to point out the errors of my ways?
ReplyDeleteI need to do a better job on typos. Let me see if I can make corrections
Other than that, tell us how I misstated the nature and the scope of the allegations.
Corrections made.
ReplyDeleteNow let's see: What could cause Ed to think I was mistating the nature and scope of the allegations against Mr. Kos.....could it be my use of the word "payola"?
ReplyDeleteHere's what Bill Hobbs thinks.
Key Point:
"But that looks to be what Kos and Armstrong may have done, with Armstrong raking in thousands of dollars as his partner Kos urged the DailyKos.com fanatics to give money to those very same candidates."
By golly, Look at that! Hobbs links to Mickey Kaus, who made this choice comment: "I say you don't have to have illegality to have corruption, and this situation reeks of corruption. "
Maybe it was the use of the word fraud.
Excerpt:
"Armstrong signed off on a settlement of the charges on Dec. 16, 2003, barring him from touting securities. In addition, Armstrong agreed never to deny any of the SEC charges. It was not immediately known if his statement to The Post denying guilt would violate the settlement agreement."
Perhaps I should have used "con man" instead of "fraud".
We'll save the rest for later. Of course, I could be all wrong. Maybe Ed had something else in mind entirely.
What would you do without readers to correct you? Continue to run embarassing factual errors, I guesss.
ReplyDeleteCommon practice on blogs is to correct substantive errors in the text, not just fix them as if they'd never happened.
As my comment clearly states, it is the charges against Armstrong, not Kos, that you misstate: you say fraud, in fact it was a civil charge of touting a stock without disclosing that he was compensated to do so.
"Common practice on blogs is to correct substantive errors in the text, not just fix them as if they'd never happened."
ReplyDeleteA wrong first name and a typo consist of "substantive"? "Factual errors"?
Sure, Ed.
Regarding the SEC action, yopu think the fact that it was a "civil" matter automatically eliminates the "fraud" question, and by inference, means that the charges are no big deal?
Let's examine this.
Excerpt:
"[S]ome people … compare the blog boomlet [Kos and Armstrong] helped create for Dean to the work of online bulletin-board posters who touted dodgy Internet stocks during the boom market without disclosing that they were being paid for their words.
Which, interestingly, is precisely what the Securities and Exchange Commission, in court documents filed last August, alleges that Jerome Armstrong did in 2000. (The original S.E.C. complaint is here.) In a subsequent filing, the S.E.C. alleges that “there is sufficient evidence to infer that the defendants secretly agreed to pay Armstrong for his touting efforts” on the financial Web site Raging Bull.
Without admitting or denying anything, Armstrong has agreed to a permanent injunction that forbids him from touting stocks in the future. The S.E.C. remains in litigation with him over the subject of potential monetary penalties."
So let's recap your points: My incorrect use of a first name, and a typo are "substantive", while an SEC action against Armstrong was not?
Dig the hole a little deeper, Ed.
To continue on the points in my original post, do you not think the possible "pay for play" aspect of Armstrong and Kos' relationship is a "substantive" problem for the two of them?
I forgot to post the SEC complaint against Armstrong, et. al.
ReplyDeleteWhile the SEC judges him guilty of touting, clearly, Armstrong was in league with those who committed fraud.
Ed's right, Bubba. When you make a mistake, you use the (del) or (str) tag to cross out the wrong term and then type in the new one. It's simply the way it's done to show accuracy and corrections, even on SMALL errors. (Yours were not small.)
ReplyDeleteIf you want to blog, read the well done ones and copy the simple formalities. Otherwise, your writing is unsubstantiated tripe and no one can be sure that what you have displayed on one day is the same as what they might see there on another.
As for Kos, if you can't find this on the blogs, then boy, you just don't read very much.
"even on SMALL errors. (Yours were not small."
ReplyDeletePerhaps by your standards.
The reality of the situation is that they were INSIGNIFICANT to what was said.
P.S.-- I don't publish this blog to please anyone except me.
Unlike others, I have no desire to attempt to make a living at blogging.