Orin Hatch "correction letter" to MTP - what's this all about?

[pinkpops]

"accidently used her name..."
Sorry, can't cut and paste from pdf - it was scanned as image,
probably to keep it from being widely distributed.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/pdfs/hatch_letter.pdf

[originalpckelly]

1. So he was talking about her Clinton appointed predecessor?

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

2. Here's a thread about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3202717

[pinkpops]

4. Thanks - Sounds like Hatch just makes stuff up as he goes

along. As your link points out, even his "correction" is incorrect.
I guess we will just have to wait for the next correction, and that sure sounds familiar.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. He said that Lam had no experience as a prosecutor and had taught at law school before

getting her position. Do you think Russert is going to mention this on air today? I think not.....

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. Tim just mentioned Hatch's letter, saying that Hatch made a mistake about Lam last week but

to read the letter, go to the MTP website.

Not good enough. He should have said what Hatch's mistake was!!!!!

[pinkpops]

9. Yes - Hatch was most emphatic in his original claim on

nationwide TV. The fair thing would have been to replay that then read the correction. The effect is to make the statements stand for anyone who doesn't go to the website and read the statement, which is very vague as to what was said and what is being corrected.

See link provided by babylonsister:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3202717

[tbyg52]

11. Thanks for the info.

I was wondering about this, as I was not listening closely just before he said that the retration letter was available on the website.

So that *was* all he said, and people without internet access, or people who expected an on-air retraction of an on-air lie are just high and dry--am I interpreting correctly?

If so, I think we should all scream bloody murder to MTP, for all the good it will do.

On the assumption that my interpretation is correct, here's their mailbox:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152 /

I'll be writing as soon as someone gives me a confirmation of the above.

[pinkpops]

12. youtube link to his MTP comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvtDAKPrTCs

I'm thinkin he used the letter to MTP to cover himself without publicly taking back what he said.
I'll use the mailbox link you provided to register my complaints too.

[tbyg52]

13. Thanks--

I'm on dialup, but I found the transcript a few minutes ago. Closed the page, and my connection is too slow to go find it again (all the news outlets seem to arrange to have their pages load as slowly as possible), but I quoted the relevant section (what there was of it!) here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=602893&mesg_id=602893

Edited for stupid typo.....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. what a fool and what a tool.

I wonder if he honestly believes that people will believe that shit.

It is like a 3d grader being caught stealing, then making up the most transparent "explanation" possible.

[splat]

7. not sinister to show the proof

it was scanned as image, probably to keep it from being widely distributed.

It was scanned as an image to show the original document. If it were merely typed, people would question its authenticity.

Why would your first thought be that showing the primary source is a bad thing?

[pinkpops]

8. point well taken but it wasn't my first thought -

my first thought was that it was not much of a correction.
The only way I could see the primary source would be if Hatch had sent it to me certified mail , signed in ink, maybe with a fingerprint or maybe embossed seal. In lieu of that it would have been nice if it had been shown in text along with the attachment.

Your paranoid friend

[splat]

10. But then there's no way to know if it's the same one they got :)

[DemReadingDU]

14. K&R