What bloggers are wondering about is a "pay-for-play scheme in which politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant get the support of Kos".
It all started in 2000 when the S.E.C. alleged "that "there is sufficient evidence to infer that the defendants secretly agreed to pay Armstrong for his touting efforts" on the financial Web site Raging Bull." Armstrong settled the case "in December 2003. That was eleven months after he and Kos started their political consulting business and six months after the two were hired by the Dean campaign at a rate of $3,000 a month."
After the New York Times article broke, bloggers began wondering about some other payments received by Armstrong and touted on Daily Kos.
Moulitsas has made things worse by not addressing them directly, instead sending an email to a select group (which was subsequently leaked) in which he says, among other things:
And Jerome's case, if it could be aired out, is a non-story (he was a poor grad student at the time so he settled because he had no money). Jerome can't talk about it now since the case is not fully closed. But once it is, he'll go on the offensive. That should be a couple of months off.First the stupid Armando "scandal" and now this. You'd think a blogger could handle the medium better.
[...]
My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story.If any of us blog on this right now, we fuel the story. Let's starve it of oxygen. And without the "he said, she said" element to the story, you know political journalists are paralyzed into inaction. Then, once Jerome can speak and defend himself, then I'll go on the offensive (which is when I would file any lawsuits) and anyone can pile on.
Ann Althouse reports on Kos' response to the leaked email (remember - one of his own leaked it). His response is...wierd, isn't it? A little off the deep end?
Comment Preview