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

[sailingaway]

Well it had to come out at some point.

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

I don't think it will be 'bad', I think it will just be NEW and an excuse for new media cycles on it when the story had largely passed.

 

[jay_dub]

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

I don't think Kirchik is the only one with this info. Other media sources have said they had hard copies and never mentioned RP writing them. If he had, they would have said so.

The storm is over about this and the consensus is that RP is guilty of lax oversight, if anything. It serves no good purpose to put this back in the spotlight.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't think it will be 'bad', I think it will just be NEW and an excuse for new media cycles on it when the story had largely passed.

Yep. That and the timing is important. The media loves to do their smears in the days before an election for maximum effect.

 

[rp713]

i dont think ron's the author. they would have exposed that a long time ago. the fact that they hid the author name in the pdf file proves to me that ron didnt write it. they only wanted everyone to see ron paul's name on the first page. and conveniently cut off the real authors name on the last page at the end of it. the truth shall set you free.

 

[sailingaway]

i dont think ron's the author. they would have exposed that a long time ago. the fact that they hid the author name in the pdf file proves to me that ron didnt write it. they only wanted everyone to see ron paul's name on the first page. and conveniently cut off the real authors name on the last page at the end of it. the truth shall set you free.

truth just before an election will create a media cycle.

 

[rp713]

truth just before an election will create a media cycle.

all i can hope for is that this person is in no way connected with ron or isnt currently campaigning with him in some way. if he's not, then ron is innocent completely from this and it will die for good.

 

[Todd]

Good grief you people....

If Ron Paul wrote this himself, then he's just pulled one of the greatest political conjobs on around 30 thousand grassroots supporters on these forums who in my belief are some of the most critically thinking people about our civic duty in the country.

If that's the case, then we are all screwed.

Ron did not write this.

 

[affa]

Lol at the very thought he penned those words.

 

[LiveForHonortune]

They already tried this newsletter garbage four years ago. Why the hell are we still even on this? I hate the media...

 

[randomname]

The Swann/Kirchick exchange is on twitter already... no new news will be reported tonight. The only newsletter with a byline was a Ron Paul Strategy Report which was not the "racist" newsletter about the LA Riots (which does not have a byline), it was just one of 8 newsletters with some un-PC passages. TNR already published it in 2008: hxxp://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/UrbanViolence.pdf

It's old news. Not worth giving any attention to really. Please update the OP with this info.

 

[Publicani]

If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.

Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses.

All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.

 

[randomname]

To summarize, Swann made a mistake in his reporting. He said that only one newsletter had a byline, which is true. He also said the "racist" newsletter had a missing byline, which is untrue. The one "racist" newsletter did not have a byline. The newsletter TNR had already published in 2008 (in post #30) did have a byline, it was some guy called Powell which I doubt Paul was even really associated with.

So no new info, I don't really think this has legs.

 

[LibertyIn08]

If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.

Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses.

All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.

When Ben started research on this it was very much in the news. If he messed up, it is only that it took him too long to get it on the air.

He's been a great ally. Looking at his facebook news feed should confirm that for any doubters.

 

[ChrisDixon]

When Ben started research on this it was very much in the news. If he messed up, it is only that it took him too long to get it on the air.

He's been a great ally. Looking at his facebook news feed should confirm that for any doubters.

This.

 

[nedomedo]

If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.

Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses.

All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.

He started working on the report like 2 weeks ago when the issue was hot.

 

[sailingaway]

If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.

Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses.

All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.

He's not THAT much of a friend. I mean, he isn't biased, but he seems objective. So to him if this is something new, it is a story. It is just, from our point of view, that the reason it is a story is ONLY because they will keep tying it to Ron. If it was some no one, no one would care.

 

[agorist ninja]

Anyone dissing Ben Swann in this thread is clueless. Just stop posting.

He's gone above and beyond to fairly report issues pertaining to Ron Paul. Like it, or not, the newsletters will be a story until the campaign ends. Ben is doing great, great work by presenting the facts, so people can see that the claims against Dr. Paul are largely baloney.

 

[Muwahid]

If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.

Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses.

All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.

He started this weeks ago when Ron was being slammed for the newsletters on CNN. This is just more ammo to upload to youtube to counter claims, from a credible journalist.

 

[agorist ninja]

He's not THAT much of a friend. I mean, he isn't biased, but he seems objective. So to him if this is something new, it is a story. It is just, from our point of view, that the reason it is a story is ONLY because they will keep tying it to Ron. If it was some no one, no one would care.

I agree that his reporting is objective, not showing favor. Although the facts tend to be on Ron's side.

But if you look at Ben Swann's personal history, how he was raised, schooled, etc. It's hard not to think that he doesn't accept the principles of liberty as true. That sort of upbringing tends to steer a person towards Dr. Paul.

 

[matt0611]

Ben Swann is an ally. He's not biased but you can just tell from his views and the stories that he does that he agrees with Paul on most things. I would be very surprised if he isn't voting for Paul.