February 13, 2006

The case of the senator and the masseuse / researcher

Lot's of stuff flying around in comments about this story, and perhaps not enough facts.

The story began when the recent campaign finance disclosure reports were filed. They list money taken in and spent by candidates from July 1 to the end of 2005.

Illinois state senator Mike Jacobs' report, under itemized expenditures, near the bottom of the first page displayed, lists, along with $4,616.71 spent at The Blue Ribbon Steakhouse and $6,084.17 at Johnny's Italian Steakhouse, an expenditure of $2000.00 to a young woman for the stated purpose of research.

It was then noticed that a woman of that exact name advertises her professional massage services at a downtown Moline massage establishment on a publicly available web page.

Could be she's an excellent researcher as well as masseuse. Or perhaps beating 1,000,000 to 1 odds, these aren't the same woman. It would be easy to clear it up.

So e-mails were sent to Senator Jacobs' staff and to him directly asking for any explanation of what sort of research this woman did. A staffer responded that he'd look into it, but other than that, there's been no further response from either.

Them's the facts. Make of them what you will.

~~~~~~~~~
Note: It's worthy of noting that some, though not all, of the thousands spent at steakhouses were for the purpose of fundraisers in order to bring in more money.

I wonder how much Rumler spent on pancake batter for his fundraiser. It would be interesting, especially to candidates and consultants, to compare the rate of return on lavish spreads vs. grassroots events.

70 Comments:

At 2/08/2006 9:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I admire the Jacobs campaign for not responding to this attempt at a smear. She is listed as a researcher and that's enough public info required. These repeated attempts to embarrass are a low-down attempt to ridicule a private citizen and these folks should be ashamed of themselves.

Enough already.

There are bigger issues to discuss in this race -- how about schools?
how about child abuse? how about the state's fiscal condition? how about whether we're actually going to see money for Western Illinois University (or whether it's more hot air)? How about our lack of health care for kids and seniors?
How about the instability of our pension system and hwo that affects our region?

These are issues. Invading someone's privacy isn't. It's a with hunt. It's what we expect of the right-wing Republicans, like Rove.

 
At 2/08/2006 10:18 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Or like something Jacobs would do to an opponent in a heartbeat?

I also note that Rove uses lies and distortion of facts. This doesn't.

This would be easily cleared up, yet despite my giving them the chance, they either could not or chose not to.

And as you apparently haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that I have covered almost all of the issues you mention and more, with the result that only a few people or none at all cared enough to comment on them.

As always, readers are welcome to contribute written posts concerning issues they feel should be covered. I'll await something from you on the issues listed above

 
At 2/08/2006 11:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about the Pig Plant? That is an issue! What does he say now about it?

 
At 2/09/2006 12:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, I've been waiting for this to gain some more attention. Jacobs has known about this for well over a week now, and the silence is deafening. I'm sure he's working on a way to cover it up at this point. Anyone taking bets on what the excuse will be?

It's a good thing you don't have an office Dope, because I'm sure that Mikey would be on his way there to yell at you like he did after the Rosa Parks story ran.

 
At 2/09/2006 12:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone thought to contact the masseuse directly if Jacob's isn't willing to offer up an explanation? There are many many people out there with more than one job, more than one talent. Maybe she worked temporarily for Jacobs - interim, part-time - whatever you want to call it. Just playing devil's advocate here.

As to the first post...I don't see this as a smear tactic by any means. Consider how you would feel if you contributed money to a cause just to find that your hard earned dollars were used to pay for the senator's massage at the end of a rough work week. There are many "frivolous" expenses that may not be necessary but are (to an extent) justified. Sorry bucko, but massages don't fall into that category!

I do however agree with the remainder of your post - there are far bigger issue that deserve attention and The Dope has done an outstanding job at providing fair discourse on many of those issues. But as for this one, Jacob's contributors deserve to know where their money's going - point blank! If he's fudging the details of his campaign expenditures, what else is he fudging?

 
At 2/09/2006 2:42 AM, Blogger Kankakee Voice said...

How's about NOT changing the subject? I want to hear more about the Masseause and her "research"!

Do Tell Dope...

 
At 2/09/2006 5:48 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Amen Kankakee... there's one commenter in particular that frantically starts demanding that we "look over there!" whenever something a little uncomfortable for Jacobs comes along.

Actually, that tactic fits Rove more neatly, as every time things threaten to scorch Bush, we can be assured of some terror alert or similar attempt to misdirect people's attention.

 
At 2/09/2006 6:26 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

And to ANON 00:03,

I do have an office, though blessedly, Jacobs doesn't know where it is. But that hasn't stopped them from launching the equivilent of an obscenity laced tirade in dozens of frenzied comments.

I've not subjected you valued readers to them as they're pretty bizarre. But you speculate as to how they'll try to cover it up?

Here's a few of the ways they've tried:

Appear completely INSANE...

"YOU ARE THE DEVILS SON!!! I KNOW EVERYTHING. YOU ARE MY SHEEP!!! WHOSE BLOG DO YOU THINK THIS IS ANYWAY!!!
CLICK!!!
I KNOW WHO YOU ARE DO YOU KNOW ME!!!
YOUR TRUE MASTER!!!"

Invent a twisted straw man issue which doesn't exist and then argue against it as a means of distorting and distracting from the issue...

"To make this woman out to be a liar about the work she did is to step on the backs of working women. You sir are a pig."

and...

"You feel that you an anon figure hiding behind a curtain deserves a response. You must put down the pipe. You are a very disturbed man. The Rumler campaign needs to come out and denounce these allegations or they will pay the rath in the form of pickets from womens groups. You are nothing but a male PIG!!! "

(I might note that, despite the fact that Jacobs and supporters felt it was worth responding with hundreds upon hundreds of comments, when backed into a corner, they conveniently choose to suggest the blog doesn't deserve a response to my request for them to clarify this issue.)

And another attempt at the "straw man", turn the tables and confuse the issue tactic with an added (and ridiculous) threat...

"If you think you can defame a woman's business reputation and hide behind a curtain of anonimity, you are sadly mistake.

If you have anything, you won't have it much longer.

Look forward to seeing you in court."

(Now it's "defaming a business reputation" to point out that someone is listed as having worked for the senator? What does that say about the senator??)

Anyway, rest assured, they're still swinging hard and aiming low with their usual mix of lies, distortions, threats, and bully-boy attempts to intimidate, and I'm still giving it the attention it deserves, zero.

But blessedly, separating their garbage from sane and rational comments from the rest of you fine readers and commenters (whether you agree with my views or not) is a simple matter and I'll continue to do so.

 
At 2/09/2006 6:26 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

ANON 00:25

I think you say it best. It's a legitimate question, and one which could be easily settled by the senator.

Though he and his closest supporters have blanketed this blog with hundreds upon hundreds of comments, they now suggest that to expect them to respond to the blog's question is preposterous.

It appears that the blog consumes most of their time, yet when backed into a corner, they then conveniently choose to ignore it.

Contacting the woman in question may be the only way to settle the matter, though I'd prefer to avoid doing that. She's obviously done nothing wrong no matter what the story is, and shouldn't be bothered if it can be avoided.

She's welcome though, to come forward on her own if she so chooses. And of course, any media outlet is free to ask whomever they want, whatever they want.

I also agree that there are obviously a miriad of issues out there that are far more important.

Unfortunately, they're very broad and complex and writing a comprehensive post on them is next to impossible.

I have, however, posted and linked to articles on a variety of issues of importance to both the local area as well as the nation.

These, I've found to my disappointment, are usually the posts which attract the very least response. Whether that's a good barometer of the level of interest is anyone's guess. I hope not.

The old saw that I devote most of the blog to Jacobs just doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's just that those posts that do mention him attract the most heat, and that's nearly entirely due to the Jacobs supporters themselves. So for them to then complain of too much attention is truly ironic.

 
At 2/09/2006 6:37 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

note to commenter N.S.
Your comment was a bit over the line. Try to tone it down and re-submit.

 
At 2/09/2006 6:57 AM, Anonymous Ned Schneebly said...

Dope

How about just taking out the crooked weasel part and posting the rest?

 
At 2/09/2006 7:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the deal with all of the "master" remarks that jacobs comes up with? He has said this type of stuff about everyone that has opposed him (dope, rumler, boland..). Sounds like the talk of an 11 year old star wars fan.....not a state senator.

"YOU ARE THE DEVILS SON!!!". "I KNOW
I KNOW WHO YOU ARE DO YOU KNOW ME!!!
YOUR TRUE MASTER!!!"

Sounds like if he ever found out if the your identity he might come after you with a light saber......of course not until he left the massage parlour. :)

thank you,
local voter

 
At 2/09/2006 7:41 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Ned... OK... you got it. But it wasn't your opinion that Jacobs is a weasel that was too much (though it's pretty close). It was stating that he was guilty as a fact. I just added the word "suggests" instead.
No one knows as yet what the situation is, though you're welcome to your opinion, but it's a little soon to be stating anyone's guilt.

Here's Ned's edited comment.

Actions always speak louder than words. Unfortunately Mike your actions of not publicly responding to the "massage conspiracy" suggests you're a guilty man. Maybe your camp thought by not responding it would put out the illusion that you are not going to lower yourself to speak about such issues. However I beleive this strategy has backfired and you now look like a corrupt weasel. Hate to tell you this but the younger generation is going to have a huge say in the vote. This same generation is tired of crooked politics. You got busted and you would have been better off admitting to it. Didn't anybody ever tell you that the truth will set you free!

Posted by Ned Schneebly to The Inside Dope at 2/09/2006 06:32:28 AM

 
At 2/09/2006 8:24 AM, Blogger tiz said...

This is kind of an aside (and a drum I've been beating to death lately I realize), but I don't like seeing any democrat spending 6K at Johnny's Italian Steakhouse for a fundraiser. That's 6K that goes to Heart of America/Mike Whalen who will most likely get the GOP nod for Iowa's first congressional district.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the restaurant (or any other HOA restaurants) but if, for instance, Judy Barr Topinka owned a restaurant in Davenport I would at least hope Iowa Dems would avoid throwing campaign contributions that way.

Back on topic, $2000 might be enough to take ones entire staff out for massages. If I had donated money to Jacobs I might be a little peeved.

 
At 2/09/2006 12:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, I'm sure that Mike will come back and say that the Massage Therapist really was doing research for him, but shouldn't somebody ask Mike if he's ever received a massage from her? Maybe Two Rivers has receipts signed by Mike Jacobs?

The denying will come easy for Mike, but if the receipts exist...quick, fire up the shredder.

 
At 2/09/2006 12:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you're missing the point. There wouldn't be anything wrong, necessarily, with the fact that Jacobs got massages from a girl who he later hired to do research as well. A little iffy, but not a huge deal.

The problem would lies with whether she did any research at all, or very little. This would then mean that Jacobs is pawning off his massage bills on campaign donors and falsely reporting them as 'research' in his disclosure reports.

Jacobs failure to respond to a request to clear this up and the time it's taking might suggest that perhaps they're busy burning books, or perhaps creating some research in a hurry.

 
At 2/09/2006 1:18 PM, Anonymous Ned Schneebly said...

Dear Mike,

In case you haven't been keeping up with the latest post on this blog let me give you the quick 411 on what your public wants.

1. A debate talking about real issues. Please leave all smear tactics at home.

2. Insight on the allocation of campaign funds towards research.

I don't think that is to much to ask from a person who is in a postion of serving the community.

V/R,

Ned

 
At 2/09/2006 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enough, folks, let's move onto some real issues! My God, do you all know the saying, "beating an issue to death." Well you're all guilty.

 
At 2/09/2006 7:01 PM, Blogger Dissenter said...

This is a potentially interesting story. Then again, it may be nothing. To his credit, the Dope has presented it as such.

There is no question that this expenditure is not private. Any citizen donating or receiving campaign funds simply cannot expect that such payments will be maintained as confidential. They are, by their very nature and as a matter of law, public. I therefore reject the proposition that this information was presented in some "low-down attempt" to embarrass or ridicule a private citizen. If a person receives the benefit of campaign money, he or she simply must expect that the payment will be public, for all to see.

We then turn to the argument that it is somehow improper to question a public official's expenditure of campaign funds. Is there anyone who honestly believes that it is improper to scrutinize campaign expenditures? If it is so improper, then why is it that as a matter of law they are necessarily held out to public scrutiny?

There is a compelling reason that campaign funds are held to public scrutiny. It is an attempt to keep candidates for public office honest. It is an attempt, by the very legislature of which Senator Jacobs is a member, to ensure that those who donate to a candidate's campaign have the ability to know who their money, and their confidence, were spent. To suggest that we may not scrutinize a candidate's campaign expenditures is nothing less than an affront to the heart of the very campaign disclosure laws which Senator Jacobs swore to uphold and support.

We next turn to the issue of whether it is unfair to question this specific expenditure. A review the the itemized expenditures for the entire calendar year 2005 reveals a total of 180 itemized expenditures. There is but one entry for the purpose of "research," rendering the description of the purpose of the expenditure unique, at least when contrasted to the other 179 itemized expenditures in the D-2. There is, apparently, a person of the same name within the same city who holds herself out as a massage therapist.

These facts, considered in their totality, do not lead to the necessary deduction that Senator Jacobs has somehow improperly expended campaign monies. It is altogether possible that the person who received the monies is a different person, or the same person who legitimately performed appropriate campaign research.

But these facts, considered in their totality, do provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable inquiry.

I want to be very clear on this next point. It is not just reasonable for the public to question our elected officials. It is not just appropriate for us to hold our elected officials accountable. It is one of our most basic, important obligations as participants in a democratic republic. To suggest otherwise is not just evasive. It is repugnant to the essence of democracy.

So question the expenditure if it is deserving of scrutiny. Others might legitimately question the soundness of spending so many campaign dollars on fancy restaurants and nice dinners.

While I have not yet decided for whom I will vote in the democratic primary, I will say this. If Senator Jacobs, or persons authorized to speak on his behalf, attack those who ask these questions, an angry electorate should vote against him and in favor of a candidate who believes in the fundamental essence of an honest democracy.

 
At 2/09/2006 7:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at you .....
Judging
Judging
Judging


Only one can Judge and you are not one of them....

 
At 2/09/2006 9:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yor friend from the capital fax thinks this is a very negative and unfounded attack.

 
At 2/09/2006 9:52 PM, Blogger Dissenter said...

Yeah. Well I'm not a senator nor a political consultant either, but I know a thing or two about political damage.

 
At 2/09/2006 9:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, do you remember this!!!

Kneaded research?
I've been slacking off a bit latel

I suggest you think this over!!!

 
At 2/09/2006 9:55 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon above writes...

"Only one can Judge and you are not one of them..."

George W, is that you, you old devil.

Ok, lemme see. I'm not one of them who can Judge, right? So there's more than one who can? What? Oh, only one can Judge? Ok, I got it... But there ARE more than one who can Judge and ... no?.. only ONE ....

My head hurts.

 
At 2/09/2006 10:07 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 21:54...

Is that supposed to be some sort of threat? Nice try.

Or are you saying you'd like me to post it again?

I'm sure everyone will enjoy a good look at your thug tactics. It's so endearing.

 
At 2/09/2006 11:46 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 21:52

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It seems Rich Miller feels the story is some sort of "hit" on the masseuse/researcher.

I couldn't disagree more.

Unless you consider having any association with the senator to be some sort of public shame, I can't see how her reputation is under question in any way, shape, or form.

As I've said before, the woman has done nothing remotely improper or wrong no matter what the story is.

It's not she who filled out the finance report. She's done nothing wrong in the slightest, nor is that suggested or implied.

Nor is it some sort of "hit" on Sen. Jacobs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting massages. If the senator gets 5 a day, that's fine with me. I'd be jealous!

That however is not the issue.

At issue is clearing up what sort of research this woman performed for the senator in exchange for $2000.

IF... and it's still IF... the woman was paid the money for massages, then yes, it's an issue, as that would mean that the senator was spending money which donors gave for campaign expenses on massages, which may or may not be someone's idea of a legitimate campaign expense.

But beyond that, it would show that Jacobs dishonestly reported this expense as 'research'.

I think it's perfectly legit and far from some "unfair hit job" to simply ask for the senator or his staff to clear this up.

I'm left thinking that Miller simply didn't read the post that closely.

 
At 2/10/2006 12:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hi dope i have been trying to reach you. you are such a busy man maybe we should meet for a drink or a nice long massage.

 
At 2/10/2006 12:42 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Why not both? I think I could handle that about now.

 
At 2/10/2006 6:17 AM, Anonymous Ned Schneebly said...

Dissenter,

I couldn't agree with you more. Eventually all the facts will come out and it will satisfy everyones curiosity. For the time being though I'm sitting here like a little kid waiting for XMAS morning to see what Santa brought me.

 
At 2/10/2006 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More questions that should be asked and answered:

Did Mike ever receive massages in his legislative office?

Has anyone witnessed such an event, or seen a Two Rivers vehicle coming and going?

 
At 2/10/2006 2:33 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Woah there... I don't know if it's time to call in Sam Spade just yet.

I'm sure the good senator will give someone an explanation sometime. -cough-

 
At 2/10/2006 3:40 PM, Anonymous daze said...

Has anyone thought that maybe this person acutally did research? The blog seems very opinionated on very few subjects.

 
At 2/10/2006 4:33 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

daze writes; "Has anyone thought that maybe this person actually did research?"

Yeah. Read the post.

 
At 2/10/2006 4:43 PM, Anonymous libellawyer said...

This dog ain't gonna hunt!

 
At 2/10/2006 10:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the lack of mainstream press along with Rich Miller discounting it speaks volumes about the validity of such negative campaign tactis from the Rumler camp.

 
At 2/10/2006 11:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The key to this race is which candidate knocks on more doors.
Voters know neither candidate, which will put a premium on the door-to-door action. All this media stuff and media hype is secondary.

 
At 2/11/2006 2:10 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 22:29

I can assure you that the Rumler campaign has had nothing to do with anything I've written on the matter. As always, I don't know who the comments come from, but then neither does anyone else. So I'm not sure it's fair to state that the Rumler campaign had anything to do with this.

and ANON above.

What you say is true about shoe leather politics. And I suppose by saying voters know neither candidate, you mean that they don't know much about where they stand, etc.
But it's clear that Jacobs has vastly better name recognition, and that often trumps other factors. It would be nearly impossible to have lived in this area and not be familiar with the Jacobs name.

 
At 2/11/2006 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant what I said - voters by and large know neither candidate.

 
At 2/11/2006 9:58 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You've got to be joking. You think noone knows the Jacobs name? No one knows who Mike Jacobs is?

Or as I said, are you saying that no one knows much about their views?

I sorta doubt any poll would back up your assertion.

 
At 2/11/2006 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, I mean what I said - by and large voters don't know these candidates. They may have known the father of one of the candidates, but they don't know this candidate and they certainly don't know his young challenger.
Name ID is another issue, which you keep bringing up. Sure, certain names in the area have higher name ID than others.

But, as I have said three times, by and large neither candidate is known by the electorate. Door to door is the only way to change that.

 
At 2/11/2006 1:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Rumler camp surley hasn't come out against these accusations tword this innocent women. His silence shows that he is behind them.

 
At 2/12/2006 2:20 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon above. Sorry to say it, but you're way out there in your suposition.

First of all, you've been attempting in dozens of comments (which were properly dumped) to somehow twist this into an attack on the professional masseuse who is listed as having done $2000 worth of research for Sen. Jacobs.

You can try all you can, but anyone with any sense isn't going to buy it.

The woman is not even a part of the story. The story is whether Jacobs recieved real research for this money, or not.

This has nothing to do with the woman whatsoever, and whatever she did, she's certainly done nothing wrong in the slightest.

If you're trying to suggest that a trained, professional masseuese is somehow being smeared by revealing that she's a trained, professional masseuse, I'd say you're wrong.

It's a great profession and requires a lot of training and skill which truly helps a lot of people and contributes to their health and well-being.

If anyone's a sexist who is trying to harm the woman, you are, by blatantly trying to deflect the story from Senator Jacobs, where it clearly belongs, to this innocent woman.

And clearly, nothing in the story suggests that Rumler or his campaign had anything to do with it.

Please, give your dis-information campaign a rest and spend your energy helping Senator Jacobs explain the situation.

It would be a cinch to make the story go away. We're all waiting.

 
At 2/12/2006 7:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The exact cost of these two fundraisers was $10,044, the reciepts being $76,119.The difference being $66,000. Rumler pancake feed cost probably for the hall and the batter $150. Lets say he got a great amount of money from Boland and the other 20 people lets say he brought in $1,500. The difference being $1,350. Rumler would have brought in 9 times the cost of the event as opposed to 6.57% for Jacobs Rumler wins on this front. Jacobs would have brought in $64,650 more money. Is this what you were asking?

 
At 2/12/2006 11:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you say something enough it might come true. So close your eyes and click your heels together and say there is no place like home. There is no place like home!!

 
At 2/13/2006 1:12 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

More or less, yes. I wondered what the percent of return was between the two fund-raising strategies.
So the pancake breakfast brought in 900% returns while Jacobs' multi-thousand dollar effort returned 6.57%? Am I reading that right?

 
At 2/13/2006 11:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's suppose that you are a dentist and a politician hired you to do research - does that mean that the dentist performed a root canal on a political candidate and he wanted it hushed up? I believe from what I have seen that the researcher happened to have a day job. Could that be it? Not near as much fun but potentially the truth?

 
At 2/13/2006 11:46 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I'll repost the following paragraph from the post above as apparently you skipped right past it:

"Could be she's an excellent researcher as well as masseuse. Or perhaps beating 1,000,000 to 1 odds, these aren't the same woman. It would be easy to clear it up."

The fact is that anything is possible, but the situation is clearly one which can be reasonably questioned as to whether there was any research performed.

Was there?

I asked the senator and his staff. They refused to ssy. Nothing but silence.

I'll let people make up their own minds.

 
At 2/13/2006 11:59 AM, Anonymous Thinkingoutloud said...

Senator Jacobs' campaign report seems pretty clear to me. He paid $2,000 for research. This certainly explains why no legitimat news source has run what Rich "The Blogfather" Miller termed an "ufair hit."

I hope the Dope never meets this woman's fiance in a dark alley. Imagine what YOU would do if someone smeared your daughter in this way?

I for one would sue! What would you do?

 
At 2/13/2006 2:33 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You just can't stop, can you?

I'm glad you're so willing to be a gullible sheep and believe whatever you're told by a politician.

Thank God we're all not like that.

For you, the fact that someone typed the word "research" to explain this expenditure is all the proof you need.

That's fine. But forgive myself and many others if we dare to be skeptical.

No one has slandered this woman.

Everything in the post above is absolutely true and indisputeable.

Where is this slander you're so bound and determined to find?

Are you convinced that merely being associated with the senator in any way at all is somehow a black mark on one's character and therefore slanderous? You must not think much of senator Jacobs.

I'm going to say this one more time. Pay attention.

This woman has done nothing wrong, nor is it suggested in any way that she has. (unless it's in your dirty imagination)

IF she did research for Jacobs, then where's the libel? (slander is not correct FYI)

IF she didn't do research and instead the money was for massages, where's the libel?

The woman is a well-trained, serious, and professional masseuse. I wouldn't hesitate to get a massage from her, and after reading her page, I just might. I hope this whole thing brings her some extra business. That would be a good thing.

Yet you apparently think that simply noticing the fact that she's a professional masseuse is somehow libelous. What does that say about YOUR mindset? Seems a bit old-fashioned and ignorant to try to argue that noticing that a professional masseuse is a professional masseuse is somehow libelous, I must say. You are the one trying to imply it's somehow shameful.

No matter what the situation, or what happened or didn't happen, the woman's conduct and/or reputation is not in question, period.

It's very simple.

Whether research was done or not is in question. Whether the senator received massage services for this money is in question. And whether the senator then reported this as "research" is in question.

The senator has been silent on this issue.

But the woman has nothing to do with it. She's not responsible for whether or not there was any wrong doing in any way, shape, of form, despite your efforts to suggest otherwise.

As a matter of fact, your continual attempts to drag her into this and shift the focus away from the senator and place it on this inonocent party is an attack on her reputation, not anything I've written.

You've repeatedly attempted to pretend that the woman is the one who should be embarassed, as if she's been libeled. Yet it is the senator who is clearly the one who should be embarassed here by his inability to explain this away, not someone who had nothing to do with it.

You're trying like hell to pretend the woman has been revealed to have done something shameful. If you think so, it's all in your fevered imagination, because you clearly didn't see it here. The woman hasn't done anything wrong in the slightest and that's clear to everyone but you, apparently.

You do this to attempt to shift blame away from the senator where it properly belongs and onto an utterly innocent party.

Nice.

But just knock it off.

I've dumped many of your bizarre attempts to suggest the woman is to blame and will dump the many more I'm sure you'll send.

By the way, I'm not worried in the slightest about any suit. Truth is an absolute defense to libel.

 
At 2/13/2006 2:34 PM, Anonymous thinkingoutloud said...

Senator Jacobs reported the expenditure as "research," not "massage."

If you posses any fact to the contrary please state them. If not please remove these posts as they are totally untrue and defamatory.

 
At 2/13/2006 2:43 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Cite one thing that's not true and I'll take it down.
Otherwise... stop wasting everyone's time.

You guys really ought to get your act together on this effort to protect the senator.

You're all over the map grasping at straws. First you try to use the woman in the story as a sort of human shield for Jacobs, twisting things to suggest that she's been slandered as if something shameful had been revealed,(What?)

Then you start with the legal threats... slander, libel, defamation... you can't make up your mind, then you launch attempts to say that your polling shows that no one cares about the masseuse thing, and write comments saying that it's a nothing story, no one cares, and it will soon disappear.

Next you write in saying that blogs in general are nothing serious, don't have any influence or effect, etc.

Well, which is it? Is it serious? Or nothing? The senator could clear the whole thing up in an instant if he chose to.

You argue it's not worth your attention, and then give it an amazing amount of attention.

I hope you run a better election campaign than you run your attack campaigns.

 
At 2/13/2006 9:02 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

To the person who fancies themselves Inspector Clouseau and is really excited because he or she noticed that I'd posted something on this story for about 5 minutes in the wee hours of the morning last week. What's your point?

I did say that I'd never posted this woman's name. I guess I should have said that it's not posted on the site, not that it matters, as her name is easily available in Jacobs' campaign finance report in the public record.

I had it posted for about 5 minutes or less before sunrise one morning before taking the post down. The reason I took it down was that I decided I should give Jacobs a chance to respond before posting the story.

When I put it back up after getting no response from Jacobs, I decided it wasn't necessary to print the woman's name here, since it's available in both Jacobs' public campaign finance report and the page advertising her services.

So... don't get too excited.
All that info you're so proud about digging up isn't worth a picher of warm spit, as the saying goes.

 
At 2/14/2006 7:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, I'm sure that you made this clear a long time ago, but something just hit me: You asked the Jacobs camp, point blank, to clear this up. THEY HAVE NOT CLEARED IT UP. I believe that's called avoidance, and people don't usually avoid things that they can clear up lickety split.

 
At 2/15/2006 12:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As long as we're citing Rich Miller, here's his views on anonymous blogging.

 
At 2/15/2006 6:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great news! way to get this back onto your sight front page!!

 
At 2/15/2006 12:07 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Not a problem.

I would have been happy to let it drop off the page, but it was yet another of your little taunting comments that prompted me to make sure it stuck around a while longer.

Thank yourself.

And instead of just issuing dozens of misguided and ill-informed threats that change daily, why not contact me by e-mail if you're the least bit serious?

I'm not going to respond here.

 
At 2/15/2006 5:14 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

It keeps getting better. Now this crowd is sending comments maitaining, "Polling showed that this message actually helps Sen. Jacobs."

Man, they must be doing a poll every damn day! Can you imagine the money they're frantically spending to figure out what the hell they should do? You'd think they could figure it out on their own.

But the best? Get a load of this... I can't wait!
"Women were irate with this kind of tragic stuff. You will see it in ads coming soon."

Boy, that's good news. Can't buy that sort of stuff.

But if the issue actually helps Jacobs, why are they threatening phoney lawsuits, sending in endless threats and attempts to blame the woman, and now running ads to try to dig out?

Doesn't matter I guess.

 
At 2/15/2006 5:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well from a lamens view I can see wherew when some one attacks some one and there is no basis for the attack then when you tell people that someone is attacking you falsly then it gets women especially upset with the attacker and lends sympothy to the attacked. In ads you have a one sided arguement and the person doing the add is in the position you are in with this blogg. Hope this helps.

 
At 2/15/2006 5:48 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

OK, let's get this straight.

Who exactly was "attacked" here?

I asked a question of a public official. Is that an "attack" in your opinion?

$2000 was listed as being spent for research in Jacobs' disclosure filing. It turns out that someone of the same name is advertised as a professional masseuse on a website.

Isn't that a reasonable basis to ask what sort of research was performed?

Or are all citizens supposed to unquestioningly accept everything they're told or that is reported by all politicians?

To suggest that it's an "attack" to dare ask a question of a public official is what is the outrage here.

You can disagree, but that's my view, and I'm in no way apologetic for simply asking for an explanation, an explanation, of course, which has not been given as yet.

I suggest you go upthread and print out dissenter's comment. Perhaps you could read that several times and something might sink in.

 
At 2/17/2006 8:29 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

A little note to the absolute dunce that insists on sending threats of legal action once or twice a day.

1. Making public information that is publically available in Jacobs finance reports as well as advertised on the web is hardly a crime. You know this, I know this, yet you continue your BS.

2. There's been nothing "false" reported whatsoever. You know this, I know this, yet you continue with your utterly idiotic attampt to try to ... what? Intimidate me? HA!
That's a good one.

 
At 2/17/2006 10:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying that the the woman did the research Jacobs paid her to do? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying the woman did something else other than research to earn her money? Please advise DOPE as the lawyers are waiting.

Can't wait to see your shinning face in court!

 
At 2/17/2006 10:50 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Listen, you brain damaged pantload, if you had the common sense of a turnip, you wouldn't need to be constantly asking me to "advise" you.

The reason you can't figure out whether I'm saying she did reasearch or didn't is because I haven't said either way, moron. I'm simply asking a question.

WHICH IS IT? Is reporting what she did for the $2000 as research correct, or not? If so, what sort of research did she do?

I'm just asking for a little bit of honest openess on the part of the senator. Is that what's got delusional lawsuits dancing in your head?

WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE SENATOR FOR THE ANSWER (that is, if you're not the senator)

So far, he either can't or won't give the answer to your question.

Now go talk to a real lawyer who'll tell you to get out of their office and take your laughable ideas with you, or shut up. I'm sick of your idiocy.

 
At 2/17/2006 11:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lawyers are waiting???? Dope - i hope you are getting atleast a good laugh out of their comments!

 
At 2/17/2006 11:33 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're right, it kind of sounds like "operators are standing by", doesn't it? Ha!

But what they don't say, is that if lawyers are waiting, what they're waiting for is anything which remotely justifies a lawsuit.

They'll have a long wait, I'm afraid.

If they have a lawyer, which I doubt, it must be Lionel Hutz, the "law talking guy". Any decent attorney would have told them to knock it off long ago.

It's just more of the same... stupid, ill-considered, ridiculous threats. Typical chump bullying attempts from the usual suspects.

I have been advised however, that I may have a case for harassment, especially in light of the new anti-harassment laws which expand them to include online communications. Their repeated and incessant threats and harassment fit the definition exactly.

But I'm afraid I'm not the sort of spineless boob that resorts to such things.

I don't threaten lawsuits or run crying to a lawyer every time someone pisses me off. If I did, I'd be calling them 50 times a day! haha!

 
At 2/17/2006 2:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That would be something else dope. If you take them to court, they'd check the IP address and trace it right to the Senator. How would he distract the voters after that one. "Hey, is that the light rail!"

 
At 2/17/2006 2:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe he hasn't offered an excuse yet. Maybe they can't decide between:

The dog ate the research.

We were conducting a clinical trial that studied whether or not a massage once a week could keep Senators from making a ridiculous comment to the press every week.

A carp ate the research.

 
At 2/17/2006 6:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You think the DOPE will show for court, or fell the country?

 
At 2/17/2006 9:33 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I'm not sure I'd want to "fell the country" but I'm pretty sure you should show up for alcohol treatment. Something tells me you're in need.

 
At 2/23/2006 9:10 AM, Anonymous F. hayabusa said...

Dope,

Just curious if you have a scheduled court date yet. Keep the juice running on this topic. Sen Jacobs owes the public an explanation on this one. Could someone inform me what "felling the country" is all about. It sounds interesting.

 
At 5/30/2006 7:21 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Well... it's now May 30 and still no court date. Never even heard from Lionel Hutz, the "law-talking guy" who apparently was giving them legal advice.

As to "felling the country"... maybe that's sort of like what we did in Iraq? I'm not sure. You'd have to ask old anonymous.

Jacobs never did offer any explanation for this story. But he's still very sore about it. He thinks I "alledged" that he had an affair (of course utterly untrue, as is plain to anyone)and says my report was "false".

I've challenged him several times to name or point to anything I've written which is false. He's not been able to do so.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home