This new report appears to suggest that Congressman Kucinich was technically honest but concealing other information when he told me that the alleged incident did not occur.
We now have claims of other incidents:
1. We have third-hand reports via people not naming their source (except to say that he is male and “at a high level” in Kucinich’s presidential campaign) that AIPAC, NRA, and other unspecified groups either jointly or separately somehow told Kucinich to drop impeachment (or they would fund an opponent). We aren’t told how this was communicated or how the mystery man knows about it. We also aren’t told why six separate people would recount this man’s comments and refuse to name him, or – as is more likely the real question – why Hutch won’t name him.
While I don’t know where Cimperman’s money comes from, and Hutch does not indicate that he knows either, I would not be at all surprised if it came from AIPAC and other right-wing groups. In fact, that supposition is so easy that I wouldn’t be surprised if the mystery man was simply making the same supposition rather than reporting on a particular direct communication. He may have been, however, and I’ll ask Kucinich about it. There’s no indication here that Hutch has actually found out who Cimperman’s funders are.
Hutch says six people, three men and three women, have told him about the mystery man’s comments in Manchester, N.H. He does not say whether he spoke with them each individually. He says that one of them spoke on the record. It’s not clear who that is or what that means. Hutch mentions two people by name, Vin Gopal and David Bright. I know and like and respect both of them. Gopal is mentioned only to cite him as reporting a fact that is public knowledge. Bright takes us to point 2.
2. Hutch reports Bright as saying that three of Kucinich’s primary challengers will drop out. But this was probably quite honestly just speculation on Bright’s part. Either Bright knows intimately of a secret plot among the candidates, or he’s just guessing that the anti-kucinich corporate military powers will compel three of the challengers to cut and run. It’s a good guess. It’s not journalism.
3. One of the three female sources, who is not named, Hutch refers to as his “initial source.” I take this to mean that she fed him the story of the incident that he now accepts didn’t happen. Now she’s fed him another incident story, which he apparently accepts really did happen. Hutch says that mystery woman says that some unnamed person says that Kucinich “was told” by some unnamed and unidentified person or persons that “if he dropped his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, the Democratic Party would help his re-election and essentially guarantee his victory,” and “Dennis threw them out of his office.” Apparently this was more than one person, as suggested by “them.” Presumably “his office” refers to his office on Capitol Hill. Presumably the unidentified people are supposed to be representatives of Nancy Pelosi. This all sounds vaguely interesting. And then Hutch adds this: “The primary source says that statement was never made.” The primary source at this point could mean anything from God to a voice in somebody’s head, but my best guess is that it takes us right back to mystery man, the guy who was “at a high level” in the Kucinich presidential campaign. This sentence would seem to suggest that Hutch has spoken with him and chooses not to name him. This would further suggest that he is one of the six “sources” Hutch has spoken with, and his remarks were reported to Hutch second-hand by five, rather than six, other people. The sloppiness of all of this does not mean that no representative of the Democratic Party ever told Kucinich to drop impeachment if he wanted to win. I’ll ask him.
4. Then comes the most interesting new incident, I think. Hutch says that “another source” (this too may be one of the total of six and may or may not be one of the witnesses to the gossip in Manchester who may have totaled four) tells him that around the time that Kucinich announced he would introduce articles of impeachment on Bush, “he was called to Speaker Pelosi’s office” (by whom we don’t know, and we don’t have any idea how this source knows what happened there) “and told to temper his comments, and further threatened with the loss of his chairmanship” of a subcommittee. I can’t imagine how anyone would have come to know this, and it sounds very unlikely, but I’ll ask the Congressman about it.
5. Then comes an added reason not to take the “primary source” mystery man seriously. One of the women reporting his comments second hand (but not the others?) told Hutch that the mystery man “stated his belief that in addition to Dennis Kucinich, Congressmen John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler and Robert Wexler have all been threatened that there will be consequences if they pursue impeachment against Cheney and Bush.” He “stated his belief”? Did he provide any hint as to how he came by that belief, or who supposedly did the threatening? This srikes me as a “belief” that Congress is corrupt. I share that general sense. But it doesn’t establish that anyone in particular did any specific thing.
Hutch concludes from all of this that rightwing forces are mobilizing to defeat Kucinich, that Pelosi is wrecking our country, and that we ought to fund Kucinich’s campaign. But a lot of us concluded all of those things without any of these stories. That doesn’t mean the stories aren’t true, just that they aren’t prerequisites for taking action. My hunch is that this is all fiction.
Full Debunking of Kucinich-Pelosi-AIPAC Myth Coming Tonight
Vin Gopal, the “Primary Source” in Stuart Hutchison’s bogus story about Pelosi and AIPAC threatening Dennis Kucinich in his office, tells me he never said anything of the sort, but that he does know about AIPAC and corporate funders of Cimperman, Kucinich’s challenger.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.