Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The Entrepreneur | Main | Not fake, no, not really - Josh 149 »
Sunday
Feb192012

Heartland issues legal notices

The Heartland Institute has issued legal notices to at least two of those who have been engaging in dubious tactics after the faking of the strategy memo became clear.

Firstly there is DeSmog and secondly there is Greg Laden, the blogger who was the subject of considerable interest among Tallbloke's legal team a few weeks back.

...we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (201)

This may actual backfire , as these people would love to sell themselves as martyrs attacked by 'evil cooperation's' while in DeSmog case they doing a good job of making idiots of themselves as they tie themselves in knots.

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Fair enough as far as the fake memo goes. I would have thought they were pushing their luck a bit with the others. If they are genuine (and at the moment that seems likely) then there is no difference between publishing these particular "purloined" articles and any others.
Sauce for the goose.

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike -- you are missing the point. This is private information. It has no relationship to work carried out at public expense on publicly owned or paid for computing equipment.

Do you think its ok if I somehow acquire some of your private email and documents and publish them?

There are laws against doing so with PRIVATE information. Exactly the oposite is true for public information, and there are laws (FOIA) to enforce the ability of the public to get access to that information.

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip Peake

Strange warning. It doesn't seem too clever. As noted above they really can only enlist sympathy over the fake memo, I think most neutral people will feel fair play over leaks of the real docs.

I would have though a lawyer would have emphasised the point that Smog/Laden can't attribute any of the content of the fake to the HI. Any specific constructed statements Smog/Laden riffed off from that document are what they need redress on.

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Philip, I think you are right in your analysis of private versus public information. But Mike is right that legal heavy-handedness will do more harm to Heartland than its private information (which, as far as I can see, is innocuous) remaining in the public domain. All IMHO.

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterNeil McEvoy

I think that they may need to fire this shot to keep their legal options open.

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMique

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/fakegate-and-post-modern-journalism/

The legal process simply doesn’t work at that pace. As explained above, it grinds along slowly and inexorably towards a resolution. It may take months before it happens but that magic phrase “you have been served” will eventually be heard.

As a climate realist, I consider the Dan Rather like reactions of those organisations and individuals, who’ve put themselves firmly in the libel zone over Fakegate, will turn what was a PR blunder into a gruelling long-running PR disaster. I can’t help but be in favour of that.

©Pointman

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Actually, without the faked memo, there would be little cause for legal action except against the person who did the "social engineering" that got the documents released unless one can show a direct link between the person and DeSmog.

On the other hand, the blatantly faked document does cause all sorts of interesting legal issues -- particularly if DeSmog gets caught with that scanner I warned them to dump.

Excuse me while I rush off to the store to stock up on pop corn and beer. This is going to be an exciting little drama. Publishing that faked document was dumb, DUMB, DUMB

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Mike Jackson : "Fair enough as far as the fake memo goes. I would have thought they were pushing their luck a bit with the others."

It is simple breach of copyright. The material was stolen. It was clearly private. There is not public interest for these to be out (everyone agrees that they show nothing which is untoward).

It is just like someone stealing your bank statements and putting them on line because "they wanted to know if you were funded by Big-oil". And then they make a big fuss about the way someone pays you money to do a job.

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Haseler

Pointman via Mac

the Dan Rather like reactions of those organisations and individuals, who’ve put themselves firmly in the libel zone over Fakegate, will turn what was a PR blunder into a gruelling long-running PR disaster. I can’t help but be in favour of that.

I can't help hoping he's right :)

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

I'm a bit surprised that the American Spectator piece that WUWT linked to hasn't attracted more attention. What's is interesting about it is not what it says (which doesn't really add anything to what Mark (in WUWT comments), McArdle, and Mosher have said) but who is saying it. The author is a "Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and former member of its Board of Directors" as well as a donor. He's not just another random blogger or commentator. Although he says that "nobody from the Heartland Institute has ever attempted to influence the content" of his writing, that statement is consistent with him authoring the piece and then checking with someone senior at Heartland that they were happy for it to appear. Or with him having talked to Heartland people and they having suggested that it would be great if he could put something out there. I construe the post as a way for Heartland to informally name "a person of interest" (in US police jargon).

Feb 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJane Coles

I agree with the Heartland action, as only truth will out in a court of law. Look at any other item with warmists they still think the discredited hockey stick debunked by your good self, is still valid. They still think that the so called inquiries exonerated them. They still think that there is nothing to see in the UEA emails. Hit them every time they break the law. Only ridicule and the law will work they ignore science because scientists as in the royal society pander to them and politics.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Whale

Sending the email is raising the stakes. If it was your private information what would you do? "Ok, never mind.."? The Internet is a wild place, doesn't mean you cannot defend your part in it.

And if the desmog blog states in defense, "Why just us? You didn't give anyone else a take-down order." This is making it clear. HI are saying the info is fake and damaging.

I love this from Greg:

The lawyer who "signed" the "email" is ironically one of those right wing "law suits are evil and must be stopped" persons, as far as I can tell, who works for Heartland:

Greg, right wing or not, lawyers don't do irony... I married one.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

I don't think the fake "strategy document" is the biggest legal issue - although it is certainly the one with the most political significance. At most it can give rise to libel allegations - but these would be heavily countered by free speech and fair comment defences in the US.

The impersonation of someone to obtain confidential documents, however, is a serious criminal offence in most jurisdictions and I'm pretty sure it would be in the US - so perhaps this has influenced the tone of the legal letter.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

Mike Haseler

It is simple breach of copyright. The material was stolen. It was clearly private. There is not public interest for these to be out (everyone agrees that they show nothing which is untoward).

Under US law, as I as a publisher understand it, you are correct with regard to DeSmog publishing the actual HI documents, unless, they paid for or otherwise caused the theft to occur. The actual theft is at least a misdemeanor. If DeSmog was involved in the theft, then they are accomplices.

The publication of a false document and continued publication of a false document which they have received notice for, well, that is VERY MESSY.

The HI letter to DeSmog is a clear notice that the document is a fake. It is the first step in serious legal trouble if they refuse to remove it.

As for whoever created the fake document, that might be interesting because HI could insist that DeSmog reveal where they got the fake document. They can't hide behind "freedom of the press" in that case.

This will be a long and drawn out affair.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

If they obtained information from a criminal deception, then surely they should apologize? There big difference between the hack/leak of CRU and the Pishing of HI is the 'criminal deception' part.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterDocmartyn

Stay tuned! If and when I have a minute tonight, on the wake of this sorry episode I will become BIG OIL.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

I think some of you are over reacting, "backfire" and the like. Heartland haven't committed themselves to any course of action at the moment. Let's see if Desmog and Laden have any stomach for this.

;)

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterGSW

Philip Peake / Mike Haseler
I didn't say I condoned publication but the dividing line between public and private is a tricky one to justify and I wouldn't like to be the one obliged to make that call.
What you are saying in effect is just because the Climategate emails were from a university departrment that carries out research with public funding then it's OK to hack/leak their emails. I might be inclined to condone that action on the grounds that there is already a suspicion that the writers of those emals are playing fast and loose with scientific facts to the detriment of the wider public. Others would condone the publication of the Heartland data on the same basis.
Which is why I say they might be pushing their luck on the stuff that is, as far as we know at the moment, genuine.
And even if they're right, is this being clever? Napoleon's dictum: "Never interfere with your enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself" comes to mind.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

If I were Heartland I would want to bring action against DeSmog because DeSmog is still refusing to desist and retract.

But maybe more importantly - I would want to run discovery against DeSmog, as they are part of the trail towards who "published" the documents, since most of the documents if genuine were apparently obtained using identity theft. So, civil action against DeSmog may increase the chances of successful criminal action against whoever obtained documents from HI by false pretences.

And as the FBI cannot be wholly relied upon under the current Department of Justice to bring a criminal action, HI would still have the option of taking civil action against the document thief.

Ah, some might say - how would that benefit HI ? The thief might be poor, never sue a straw man ! But outing the document thief could be good if the thief is a well-known Warmist. Because the thief is also plainly a fraudulent character.

Maybe just another piece of the jigsaw showing Warmism to be a fraud.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Anderson

Looks like the warmers are going to dig in. Looking for clues in the letter as to how much they have. They could be feeling out the blogs to see who flinches. It is interesting. These warmer blogs keeps saying they have no way of knowing the fake document is fake but continue to quote from it. Because they have no way of knowing it is authentic.....

So I believe that since it has no signature and nobody can verify authenticity it is criminal to refer to it's contents. It would not be admissable in a court of law for proof of anything so to use it as a resource document would begin the down the road of libel.

Feb 19, 2012 at 8:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDude

I was going to say something similar to what Don Pablo de la Sierra stated.

The notice was a good faith shot over the bow.

There is no government cover up here or a victim that has things to hide.

The charges involved with the crimes inflicted upon Heartland are serious and Federal.

I do not see this going the same way as Climategate.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul in Sweden

Laden backed down when Tallbloke started legal proceedings. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

Personally, I think most of you are incorrect in what you are saying. These documents were obtained by deception. There is no "Insider" at all involved. The fake document was very clumsy and yes it actually stands out as being fake. The fake document also slimes several people including Dr. Wojick who has proposed the project relating to school education. Since Dr. Wojick is a scientist who consults with the EPA I cannot see that he would be wanting to discourage the teaching of science. In fact he has stated on Judy Curry's blog that this is all very much incorrect. He has a right of legal redress over the matter. Then there is Bob Carter who was getting paid for being an editor of a newsletter. Again, this has been misrepresented and he is entitled to legal redress over that misrepresentation.

On top of that the individuals who have been quite literally wetting themselves over this revelation, have been making other spurious claims against the Heartland Institute including claims that they are doing the bidding of big tobacco. A little google search and a scan of documents on the Internet goes a long way in getting to the truth which means ignoring the little trolls making up lies about Heartland Institute. I refer to the study on second-hand smoke.... and I came to the conclusion that the author was correct to question why decisions were made based upon an extrapolation of the results of an extremely small sample.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterMargaretO

I hope that Heartlands go after the Guardian and it's various commentators - they seem to have jumped the gun when deciding that the main "strategy" document wasn't a fake.

Further, having published many column inches based on the fake document they have not been able to bring themselves to come clean and retract the garbage they have written.

If Leo Hickman had any scruples or any conscience he would fully retract his article and apologise unreservedly.........but I'm not holding my breath!

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin

DeSlurBlog has two problems:

- It reproduced the documents (apparently within an hour of receiving them) without making any attempt to verify their authenticity - in contrast to the bloggers who received the Climategate emails, who spent two days checking their authenticity and redacting personal information.

- Even when notified that one document is totally fake, they continued to publish and cite it, claiming that they didn't believe Heartland's assertion that it is fake, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that it is genuine.

Remember, it took a letter from Tallbloke's lawyer to get untrue and defamatory statements about him taken down from another blog. When you are dealing with people with the ethics of alley cats, only the big stick will make them behave with even a modicum of decency.

If DeSlurBlog is stupid enough to ignore the requests in this letter, an action which includes powers of discovery could be commenced. I do not think that they would come out of that smelling of roses.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterjohanna

Heartland need to demand these retractions and corrections. They're setting out their stall, and forcing Desmog and Laden to set out theirs. Now that they've been challenged directly, what they do or don't do in response to Heartland's demands can no longer be construed as incidental.

What Desmog do or don't do next is purposeful and deliberate. Desmog's line has been that Heartland haven't contacted him directly to ask for a retraction. He can't claim that any more.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Martin

That is interesting point to ponder. All these papers ran with the story that they were authentic when nobody had proved it. Some did put qualifying statements in their articles that Heartland said it was fake and then they would say they could not prove it.......soooooo if you can't prove it you should not take quotes from it......libel by extension and accessory to a crime. This is easy stuff and the wamers must have an answer if they want to play the game of chicken.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterDude

Mike Jackson.

I suspect the PCC guidelines would be pretty common throughout the world. They outline the defence of public interest as:

1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

Serious crime or impropriety .... absolutely No.

Public health and safety ... would require them to not only prove that global warming was harming to health and safety, but that the Heartland institute had made false claims ... presumably in the documents. About the only claim that anyway touches this is the funding for education, and education or information for education (which it is up to educationalists to decide if they use) really seems impossible to fit into this category .... so no.

Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation. ... requires that the documents show something that the shows the public were being misled.

The climategate emails showed they were saying one thing in private and another thing in public. As far as I know the Heartland Documents are only working documents which they didn't intend to make public. So how can the public be misled by information which it wasn't intended to see?

Where in all these documents is there a single bit of evidence the public were being misled? The answer as far as I can see is not at all.

In other words, there is no smoking gun. About the only public interest is that they weren't taking BIG-OIL money. Perversely, that may be the only way some of them will be able to argue there was a public interest.

In other words, this was a criminal act, committed with no public interest to justify stealing the private copyrighted material of this organisation done for malicious purposes.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Haseler

Official statement by Joseph Bast can be found here:

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-sends-legal-notices-publishers-faked-and-stolen-docume

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterDuke C.

Those accusing Peter Gleick of lying low fail to note his being beaten to the punch by fellow Forbes columnist, Steve Zwick :

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/16/what-happened-at-heartland/

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Marvellous. Things continue to unfold as they should.

The fish took the bait, and are now swimming off with it in their mouths. This email looks like the hook.

If they fight it the hook will be set and driven in permanently and fatally. If they quickly spit it out - by apologizing and pleading stupidity (or maybe CO2 induced mental problems just to be creative) - the fish will still be swimming away fast to wherever such wounded fish retreat to.

Either way, Desmogblog and suckers like Black have been caught out and exposed for what they are, while the massive sources of funding pouring into the AGW Team - versus what the skeptic side has -have also been made more widely known.

This has been a Humpty Dumpty moment no matter what happens now.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered Commenteredward getty

WRT the IRS 990, it's a publicly available document. No harm, no foul as they say.

I've compared the stolen version with the one that's been filed with the IRS and the only difference in the copies was the "Client Copy" stamp. I didn't review every check box but the numbers match. Accordingly why would desmogblog remove it?

Were I responsible for desmogblog, I would remove the fake document and any reference to it in my posts. Period. It's the right thing to do.

As for the other documents and the reader comments, I would seek legal advice. Based on the counsel, I would weigh the value of keeping the documents online against the cost of defending that decision. If my attorney says I have a terrible case, then I would pull the documents. And if my attorney tells me I have a great case, the follow-up question I ask is "for whom?"

Apparently desmogblog has a backer with deep pockets. Perhaps he's itching for a showdown. Or perhaps UCS will pick up the tab.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterDGH

Mike Haseler

You are correct about the "public good". However, that does not eliminate the criminality of how the documents were obtained. Should it be shown that DeSmog was involved, then they are criminally liable. It is only when the documents are "thrown over the transom" by persons unknown does the public good argument apply.

As for the fake document, they have been sent notice. They can chose to react by complying or not. If not then they are open to discovery on how they obtained it. Since Brendan DeMelle is Executive Director and Managing Editor of DeSmogBlog and lives in Seattle, he can be served.

I suspect come Monday they will back down once they talk to a lawyer. While they could tough through the HI documents in a "public good" argument and gain protection from "freedom of the press" in the US, they are perpetuating a fraud with the continued publication of the fake document. There is no freedom of the press protection of that. And I might add that it is a federal offense since the internet was used.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

they are very bold in naminng Peter Glieck and Peter is very quiet.. !!??

Maybe I upset him a bit tto much a few weeks ago.. (for those that did not see our email exchanges)
http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Hearland is not going after everyone just the pawns. Hearland needs to takedown the Guardian, BBC, CBC, and Skeptical Science (SS) for posting such libel and unauthorized acess of private documents.

And no.... there is no criminal activity other than the hacking.

No again.. the CG1 and CG2 emails are public property.

Feb 19, 2012 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoh234

There will be many silent observers of the asinine and amateurish attempt to smear the Heartland Institute and its inevitable backfire on those who predictably rushed to print in incontinent haste. There will be furrowed brows at the BBC and the Guardian, and well deserved

Heartland seem to be playing it by the book with a cool and measured 'desist or face consequences' warning.

Activists continually shoot themselves in the foot- Labour's Rub-a-Dub, No Pressure, Voodoo glaciers, Times Atlas, Donna's 1 star, etc. And the Guardian -BBC senior editorial staff must cuss the air blue every time.

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Barry

I must admit I was stunned when they started naming Gleick and also very surprised his twitter has not mentioned this at all. Saying nothing is not guilt but back to the Heartland senior fellow fingering him as a suspect is pretty bold.

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterDude

My suggestion to all who discuss any of these matters with friends, family, or online etc. is that we emphasize the utter contempt for accuracy of information being displayed by all the journalists and bloggers etc. implicated in Fakegate.

I.e., most people have little interest in the details of memos real or fake. What nearly everyone can recognize and condemn is that the CAGWarmist charlatans seeking to benefit from Fakegate acted precipitously, recklessly, and with continued contempt for facts.

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

But these are not legal notices, just polite requests. Not that is a bad thing mind :)

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry

> Hearland is not going after everyone just the pawns. Hearland needs to takedown the Guardian, BBC, CBC, and Skeptical Science (SS) for posting such libel and unauthorized acess of private documents.

How do you know they haven't or won't?

(a) Early days yet

(b) While Greg Laden's first response to receiving a C&D letter might be to post a copy on the blog, that's unlikely to be the response of everyone, especially larger organizations.

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterCopner

Harry

But these are not legal notices, just polite requests

Oh, no, no, no. They are legal notices. Polite to be sure, but a legal notice. Ignore it, and you get a less polite one, but you have been put on legal notice. You can no longer claim "I didn't know!" That is the point of the first letter, which is from HI's lawyer.

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

"Let them eat fake!"

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip Foster

I I recall this was about a totally different subject, but I was very surprised to see any tweet from Peter.. maybe feeling sensitive

Peter Gleick@PeterGleick
@BarryJWoods @icey_mark @flimsin gee, what have I done now?
12:12 AM - 15 Feb 12via web · Details

to be honest if he tweets it wasn't him - I would DEFINETELY believe him

NOR by his silence do I think that it makes him the faker (perfectly reasonable of him NOT to respond to this either. (ie why dignify 'twitter/blogs approach))

Dammed if you do or dont', impossible to prove a negative

It has to be some activist type that got carried away, probably told Desmog blog, etc they had some juicy stuff, and thought that it wasn't quite enough, so 'expande'd a bit.. Most likely some student type 20 something, that bigged themselves up 'hacking' Heartland and didn't want to lose face with peers..

I don't think ANY climate scientist (especialy an older one) would resort to this, especially someone like Peter, absolutley heart on sleeve guy (that's why I think not) . I don't think he would ever do this..

BUT it is possible to be someone (as Pielke) said to be important enough, blogger, known to public activist type) to make it very interesting. IE even if on their own bat, if they were employed or had a role at any organisation, it would be very damaging.

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Russell,

That blast from Zweik at Forbes is bracing. You can feel the heat of his outrage bordering on mania. He completely disregards Heartland's call for "common decency and journalistic ethics". Instead he uses it as a launching pad for for an extended screed summarizing all the green pieties, no other perspective allowed. So maybe this really is a new ballgame, if Zweik is any indication. I'm very curious about DeSmogblog's response in light of Zweik's piece. Will they flout the cease and desist re "the fake"? If they're anything like Zweik, maybe so.

Feb 19, 2012 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered Commenterneill

Joe Bast also claims he contacted the FBI. The FBI spokeman in Chicago,Special Agent Royden Rice, said that the Chicago FBI have not heard from Bast and that, based on media accounts, this is not something they have any legal basis to investigate.

I wonder why Joe Bast doesn't just post a screen catch of the email that was allegedly sent to the unknown hoaxter by the duped Heartland staffer. This email would show what documents were attached and the email adddress of the person they were sent to. If the duped staffer didn't send the allegedly fabricated "Climate Strategy" document, the screen catch of the email would show this. How strange that Joe Bast doesn't want to plaster the evidence of both his own innocence and this hoaxter's trick on the Internet.

Feb 19, 2012 at 11:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterSnapple

Snapple...I wonder if DeSmogBlog would do just as much?

How about...no "screen catch" will prove a thing? As if it'd be difficult to fake a "screen catch".

Feb 19, 2012 at 11:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

Bast admits that a staffer emailed Heartland's whole board package to a stranger.

Why doesn't Joe Bast just post the email that was sent from his office? Lets see what was attached and whom it was sent to.

In any case, FBI Special Agent Royden Rice of Chicago says they have not been contacted and that this isn't something the FBI has any legal basis to investigate.

Feb 19, 2012 at 11:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterSnapple

What would a screen capture prove? It would be easy to fake a screen capture (and the screen capture would be taken today, not at the time the email was originally sent), and you would surely point that out next...

Besides which, maybe there is other info in the email (potentially info leading to the person who called themselves "Heartland Insider") which Heartland are keeping to themselves for now.

Oh, and you misquote Rice - plus I'd point out his comment was made on Thursday, i.e. almost 4 days ago. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73002.html

Feb 19, 2012 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterCopner

Yes, I agree it would be interesting to see who sent what to whom.

As for the fake document, HI has repeatedly said that they did not have anything to do with it.

Feb 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>