Update from Ben Swann regarding Newsletter-Part II of "Reality Check"

[Tyler_Durden]

Not long ago, he tweeted:

"Heard from the TNR reporter James Kirchick this morning. he sent me the name and byline of the writer and the edition. I will share tonight."

 

[tribute_13]

Awesome.

 

[Austin]

So if it isn't Paul.. then why was James sitting on the information the whole time?

I'm expecting it to be Paul's name, but if it isn't... several outlets owe Ron an apology. Still, they will turn it into "So Ron, now that we know who wrote the newsletters, will you continue to associate yourself with [author], or will you disavow him and his views?"

 

[robertwerden]

How come James Kirchick is the only person who has the newsletter? Did he write it? There should be hundreds of copies floating around not to mention the originals that the copies came from. I can't understand how on the whole planet the only person who has this letter is one man with the sole intent on smearing Ron.

 

[sailingaway]

Not necessarily awesome, it feeds the story and now they will keep it in the news cycle more disecting this person's relationship to Ron and to whatever other groups this person might have been connected with. Right on the eve of New Hampshire. You don't want to feed media trolls.

 

[specsaregood]

How come James Kirchick is the only person who has the newsletter? Did he write it? There should be hundreds of copies floating around not to mention the originals that the copies came from. I can't understand how on the whole planet the only person who has this letter is one man with the sole intent on smearing Ron.

IIRC, he went and got the copies from some university library in Kansas? back in 08.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Not necessarily awesome, it feeds the story and now they will keep it in the news cycle more disecting this person's relationship to Ron and to whatever other groups this person might have been connected with. Right on the eve of New Hampshire. You don't want to feed media trolls.

I'm trying to learn the lay of the land in the forum. Is this thread something I should not post?

 

[Jester6193]

You are right to post it. Then again, look at MY post count! Don't listen to me .... lol

 

[Philadelphia76]

I'm trying to learn the lay of the land in the forum. Is this thread something I should not post?

Fine with me. This is something Swann has undertaken on his own and he will report on no matter what- so it's hardly your fault IMHO. I won't speak for Sailingaway- but I think the point is that we shouldn't all automatically assume this is great news for the campaign though. Dr. Paul may be vindicated for direct personal authorship- but if it ends up being someone who continues to be in his inner circle in any way whatsoever- we may well have a "Jeremiah Wright" situation or worse on our hands (of course always good to remember Obama still won nonetheless)...

Frankly, Kirchick remaining silent might well have been the better result here. If he's offering up the name- it's most likely b/c it's potentially damaging to the campaign... and not helpful.

 

[Apparition]

Truth is a double edged sword... a good majority of the draw to Ron Paul is that he speaks truth, and not only when it's convenient.
If the information is out there of who wrote the remarks in question, and it vindicates Ron Paul from authorship, then frankly I want to know.

 

[Ekrub]

Let this story die.

 

[BLS]

If Ron wrote it, or knows who wrote it, then he's the not the guy we all think he is.

This can't hurt; regardless. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

 

[Plague-of-Locutus]

I'd rather the issue be resolved to completion. Sooner rather than later I say, even if it is slightly damaging. After this blows over it will be a completely non-issue issue.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm trying to learn the lay of the land in the forum. Is this thread something I should not post?

No, the thread is fine, although I don't know if we actually want to spread this for tactical reason (that is different than raising a hit piece). I'm just expressing my opinion. He's a friend, kinda, but he obviously wants to advance his career and finding 'new' info on the 22 year old newsletters will do that because other media will swarm in like screaming carrion birds. I'm just saying I don't know if we want to push the information when it comes out.

 

[sailingaway]

Let this story die.

this is how I feel about it too.

 

[sailingaway]

I'd rather the issue be resolved to completion. Sooner rather than later I say, even if it is slightly damaging. After this blows over it will be a completely non-issue issue.

We can do that after Ron's primaries. It isn't about Ron and that is what makes it a story -- fakely spinning it against Ron. That is not a story we want.

 

[ghengis86]

Then why didn't James reveal the info and get the media attention Ben will get tonight? If it would do more damage, wouldn't James want to vindicate himself and say, "ha, look I was right!" rather than someone steal his thunder?

My guess, there won't be a bombshell name or it is immaterial. The question of true authorship will not be resolved tonight, IMHO. I just wish we could put it to rest already (hers hoping Ben has the info to do that)

 

[eok321]

Well it had to come out at some point.

If its bad news for us we're screwed in NH.

 

[Dsylexic]

agree.kirchik is too much of a media attention hog to let any 'damning evidence' pass.

 

[sailingaway]

If Ron wrote it, or knows who wrote it, then he's the not the guy we all think he is.

This can't hurt; regardless. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

if he knew who wrote it? I don't think he knows, but I also think he isn't interested in knowing given 10 years had passed by the time he learned of the bad ones. 'Truth' only is interesting to people in tearing Ron down. That kind of 'truth' can come out after the election.