|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
< BACK TO Fresh Intelligence Donaldson's Digits: Wrong Number THE GOOD NEPHEW Donaldson (Photo: Getty Images) What he didn't report is that Palfrey told him, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that her single telephone call to Donaldson had nothing to do with prostitution. Capriccioso found out about Donaldson's involvement from Radar. We were looking into the Donaldson rumor and stupidly asked Capriccioso, who claimed to have a relationship with Palfrey, to talk to her about it. We decided not to pursue the item for reasons explained below, so he picked it up for himself without so much as a "thank you" or heads-up. Palfrey told Capriccioso at the time—unequivocally—that Donaldson was not a client. She insisted to him that a female relative of Donaldson's—she thought her name was Ellen—had mixed up a digit when she gave Donaldson her number, and that the wrong number just happened to be Palfrey's. So every time Donaldson attempted to call Ellen, he unknowingly reached Palfrey's voicemail and left a message. Palfrey tired of the messages and called Donaldson back—once—to alert him to the error. This, Palfrey told Capriccioso, explains the single appearance of Donaldson's number in records of her outgoing phone calls. The explanation sounds preposterous to us, but it's what Palfrey told Capriccioso. Here's an e-mail he sent to a Radar editor reporting his conversation with her: "After receiving many calls from Sam Donaldson leaving pleasantries for his releative [sic] on her personal cell number voicemail in the mid-2000s, Palfrey herself decided to give him a call to relay what she assumed to be a mistake. 'Would you please tell your relative to give out the correct phone number?' Palfrey recalls asking Donaldson. 'I was sick and tired of getting these phone calls from people all over Washington asking for his relative.' When she talked to Donaldson, he was immediately panicked and asked how she got his number (she says she didn't tell him that she ran an escort service). She explained the whole story to him about her receiving messages that were obviously not intending for her." When Radar expressed skepticism, Capriccioso wrote back: "I pushed her hard on that—asked her if she had an affinity for Sam for some reason, and told her that many people would think it was such an odd coincidence that he dialed the wrong number ... she insisted that that was the truth." The only parts of the above story that made it into Capriccioso's post are the parts about Palfrey confirming a call to Donaldson and Donaldson panicking at the call. The innocent explanation Palfrey offered apparently wasn't relevant. Radar eventually dropped the item after being waved off of it by a source close to Larry Flynt, the porn magnate who outed Vitter and has been poring over the list. The source insisted that if there was anything to the Donaldson rumor, Flynt would have reported it. Given that, and Palfrey's insistence that Donaldson was not a client, we couldn't sully the man's name in the absence of any other evidence—even if we think Palfrey's story is bullshit. Capriccioso, who didn't return a call for comment, apparently didn't have that problem. Correction: This item originally reported that Capriccioso posted his item on Donaldson on Monday morning. It went up on Sunday night. 
I was shocked when I heard that Rob was going to be contributing to Radar. Most people who read blogs in DC know that he is completely unethical. So, thanks Radar for making it even more well known! Posted by: of_boston on November 12, 2007 5:55 PM Not only does he seriously lack ethics, but he bitches and moans constantly about how other d.c. bloggers lack "ethics." Posted by: doppleseth on November 13, 2007 1:28 AM Thanks for all the interest, folks. Big Head DC stands by OUR story 100% -- a story that Radar deemed good enough to copy and link to yesterday morning before John Cook decided to later write an error-riddled hit piece on Big Head DC later that day. As I've already told Radar's managing editor, there are several mistakes and outright lies in Cook's piece. For instance, I gave Radar three quotes yesterday regarding the Sam Donaldson story before they ran their odd second piece (which, incidentally, initially spelled Deborah Jeane Palfrey's name wrong in multiple ways before I alerted them to the errors), but they chose not to run them, and instead said I didn't return calls. My quotes still stand, and Big Head DC stands by our story. I plan to clarify more at Big Head DC once I hear back from Radar regarding their errors. Sincerely, Rob Posted by: bigheadrob on November 13, 2007 1:09 PM On Nov 12, 2007 11:34 AM, John Cook wrote: I need to talk to you about Donaldson. Can you call me or e-mail me a John *** On 11/12/07 12:28 PM, "Rob Capriccioso" wrote: John, The update you posted containing much off the record information Rob
On Nov 12, 2007 12:29 PM, John Cook wrote: I called you and left a msg You have my phone number. If you want to talk, call me. Posted by: John J Cook on November 13, 2007 4:21 PM Advertisement To how many different Radar writers did you expect me to give quotes, John:
Steve On Nov 12, 2007 12:09 PM, Rob Capriccioso wrote: -- http://www.radaronline.com/
Posted by: bigheadrob on November 13, 2007 4:49 PM Right, pretty vague information in those missives posted by Mr. Cook and Capriccioso. Here's what I have good reason to believe transpired, and from a source directly involved in the whole mess: Because of the salacious side of Ms. Palfrey's legal predicament, there is a class of journalists and bloggers who tend to fixate on the "prostitution" aspects, rather than the real story--the political side. But no, instead we have the usual laziness of trying to find the "big names," when that's not the real story at all. What's the real story? We don't know all of it yet, but outlines are beginning to appear. But that means work, real investigative work, not an easy fix like a Sam Donaldson. What of the others in the records of Ms. Palfrey's former escort service? The best example is one I and an anonymous commenter (I believe at Firedoglake) discovered in the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates back in July (yes, July!): one Ronald Roughead (703-836-0522, Cingular 2005) who is probably still employed by SAIC, one of the most successful contractors to the defense and intelligence communities, and who even have some tangential connections to the Randy 'Duke' Cunningham scandal. This connection come from associates of Cunningham's co-conspirator, Brent Wilkes. It should be noted here that former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was mentioned in the trial of Wilkes in recent weeks by Wilkes' nephew. Also, it should be noted that Mr. Roughead is brother to Rear Admiral Gary Roughead, current Bush appointed CNO of the entire Naval Fleets of the US! But, according to the LA Times, Gannett, USA Today, and sundry other outlets, this isn't newsworthy. Ask yourselves why Ronald Roughead is in the records. I have posted information about Mr., Roughead on Bigheaddc's comments section (of which I am now unable to access), and there has been no follow-up on it as far as I can tell. No, instead, we get Sam Donaldson and other such items of gossip--presumably to elicit more hits and more advertising dollars to Radar and Bigheaddc, the whole point of the rush to run the Donaldson pseudo-story. Again, what happened between Radar and Bighead? They wanted the SMUT, but Ms. Palfrey wasn't going to confirm it to Mr. Capriccioso, so he went and submitted the story anyway. But there was a problem of confirmation: Deborah Jeane Palfrey. She's not going to confirm it because there was never a story to begin with. Her assertions are true, while those of Radar and Bighead are not. They wanted a story that was an easy fix, didn't get it, and went and ran it anyway. Now they have to do the clean-up. The real job is find those culprits like Ret. Colonel Ronald Roughead (the people who expedite the atrocities of our day in the safety of the shadows), the real players with the security clearances who have called Ms. Palfrey's service (or vice versa). A great face-saving gesture on-the-part of Mr. Cook and Mr. Capriccioso would be to get-up and drive to 1200 First Street, Alexandria, Virginia where Mr. Roughead lives and confront him. You might want to break the news to his wife, however. Did he phone escort services in Iraq when he ran the IMN (Iraq Media Network)? Roughead is likely a propaganda chief, so maybe that explains some of the bumbling on the internet... Posted by: Matt Janovic on November 15, 2007 1:50 PM Matt, I appreciate your arguments, and Big Head DC is working on investigating many angles. But, plain and simple, your source is wrong. Th real story here is the ABC cover-up. Posted by: bigheadrob on November 16, 2007 10:59 AM Thanks for the civility Rob, but I strongly disagree. The real story is overarching and yet to be uncovered. As most of us have figured-out by now, you and Mr. Cook aren't going to explain the debacle over all of this in any transparent fashion. I find this whole affair disappointing and a very superficial approach to the scandal itself. Keep-in-mind that Ret. Col. Roughead and Shaha Ali Riza were both employed by SAIC for the IMN (Iraqi Media Network) at different times. In Roughead's case, we find his name in Ms. Palfrey's phone records, and in Riza's case, we have another scandal involving sex somewhere in the equation. But that's not the real story either. The real story could be that we have a number of highly-placed individuals in powerful positions who are compromised by either foreign agents and/or enemies within. Consider that Sen. Vitter is on the Senate Intel committee and had oversight over Randall Tobias, former head of USAID (a known CIA front). USAID is part of the State Department, an administration that Riza had a high-level security clearance at, as well as the Pentagon. This was all thanks to Paul Wolfowitz. Riza is a British subject, incidentally. Why would she get those clearances? Does she know Col. Roughead? Does she still work for SAIC? An awful lot of this story involves individuals with security clearances, likely violating the terms of those clearances. That's just one aspect of a truly sprawling case, and fixating on a quickie-story like ABC is missing the whole point of the scandal. Ultimately, it isn't about sex and the salaciousness, it's very possibly about political blackmail and information-gathering operations. There is a very good chance that institutions unknown were utilizing Ms. Palfrey's escort service to monitor and compromise specifically targeted individuals working within or as contractors for our intelligence and defense community. ABC is a dead-end, and safe, which is why I assume you won't even both to call or visit Col. Roughead. He should be watched and questioned. Granted, he's going to be reluctant, but I got him on the horn briefly. He lives in Alexandria, Va., just three miles from the Capitol bldg., presumably to lobby in some respect for SAIC, among other nefarious duties. Posted by: Matt Janovic on November 23, 2007 10:59 PM Rob, bluntly-put, I think you are simple. Posted by: Matt Janovic on November 23, 2007 11:01 PM |
    
 |
|
 |
|
 | ||||
Back
McCain's Mom Retreats from Mormon Slam