Rep. Mike Rogers' Staff Insists They Never Said I Defamed Him... And Then Reveal The Reporter They Apparently Never Said It To
from the um... dept
I'm beginning to wonder if Representative Mike Rogers needs slightly more competent staffers (note to my new friends in Mike Rogers' office: that is a statement of opinion). As you may recall, earlier this week, I wrote about how a reporter had told me that, when he questioned Rogers' staff about certain comments I had made concerning Rogers' views and actions on cybersecurity and internet surveillance, they had claimed that my comments were defamatory and that they "could" sue me for them. That got a little bit of attention, because, you know, when a former FBI agent, now elected Congressman, who's in charge of the House Intelligence Committee, makes an implied threat designed to intimidate a critic... that's really not a very good thing.The folks over at The Daily Dot followed up on the story, and asked Rogers' staff to comment on the situation, and got back something rather incredible:
Kelsey Knight, a spokesperson for Rogers, denied that anyone on the congressman's staff made such comments.It's important to note that, throughout this process, I never once named Behnan or his publication. I didn't even mention to my own colleagues who the reporter was. So... Rogers staff did not claim that my comments were defamatory to Behnan... but they magically know that Behnan is the reporter they didn't make the claim to? How does that work?
"Nobody made this claim," Knight told the Daily Dot.
Knight went on to identify the reporter the comments were supposedly made to, Christopher Behnan of the Livingston Daily. Behnan would not comment on this story, but referred the Daily Dot to Rogers' chief of staff, Andrew Hawkins. The Daily Dot reached out to Rogers' office for a direct comment from Hawkins, but had not received a response as of late Thursday afternoon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, mike rogers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Uh Oh!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh Oh!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perk #13 of Honesty: Never having to deal with shooting your own lies in the back
Brilliant, just... brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOH..
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Practiced Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again, given this blunder, we might hear from them again in due time as an actual Representative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The staffers, I'm guessing, probably don't talk to reporters all the time about Mike Masnick from Techdirt. They did not deny talking about Mike Masnick or Techdirt at all. So if someone said to them "hey Mike Masnick from Techdirt says you were threatening him via some reporter" and they had talked to only one reporter about Techdirt recently (maybe ever), which reporter are they going to think it is?
I also love how this post elevates the threat...now it's not coming from some low-level staffer, it's coming from the congressperson himself. This is a common Techdirt line of sensationalism, though...any offhand comment made by the lowest level employee of any organization is taken as the official position of the organization as a whole. As long, of course, as the organization is on the outs with the groupthink and the comment isn't flattering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come on, guys... TRY to disguise it, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trying to prove that these points apply to a crooked individual though... that's the hard part. Even if it is just a big misunderstanding, that doesn't help the case of someone with quite the sordid history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The staffers, I'm guessing, probably don't talk to reporters all the time about Mike Masnick from Techdirt. They did not deny talking about Mike Masnick or Techdirt at all. So if someone said to them "hey Mike Masnick from Techdirt says you were threatening him via some reporter" and they had talked to only one reporter about Techdirt recently (maybe ever), which reporter are they going to think it is?
I also love how this post elevates the threat...now it's not coming from some low-level staffer, it's coming from the congressperson himself. This is a common Techdirt line of sensationalism, though...any offhand comment made by the lowest level employee of any organization is taken as the official position of the organization as a whole. As long, of course, as the organization is on the outs with the groupthink and the comment isn't flattering.
Bang! Nailed it. More self-agrandizing. Doubtful the congressman knows who he is or even gives a shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think the problem could be the journalist too since communication is a nimble subject where even missing a single word can change the meaning completely. I do not doubt the journalist has heard these things:
"They felt I was "an extreme liberal" and that I was using "liberal" talking points to attack him."
That is the standard defence from a conservative. "They all be commies!" etc. Distancing Mike from conservative values is probably a way to try to quell some of the conservatives internal discussion on the subject.
I think the staffer may have said that some of Mikes statements might be of defamating character. It would be unbelievably stupid to threaten to sue or even mention the word.
Politician gods and their disciples are religiously holding on to a far outdated reality so I would not put it past a staffer feeling hurt by the statements about his/her god that the feeling of blasphemy might have gotten the better of the person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 1st, 2013 @ 5:38pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So that leaves us with two possible scenarios. Christopher Behnan is lying, or Kelsey Knight is lying. For Mr. Behnan, he would have to have asked Roger's staff about Techdirt, found the response insufficiently inflammatory, and lied about their response to Mike Masnick to... what? Try and fan a feud for him to report on when there's a million other things to report on? What benefit would he gain from lying? Kelsey Knight on the other hand would need a random staffer, perhaps themself, perhaps someone else, to shoot off their mouth and make boasts about possible defamation suits in a conversation they forgot was not confidential. Leaving Kelsey to lie about something that could be construed as a threat to sue, and therefore grounds for a lawsuit against the Representative's office, all because of some low ranking staffer with a poor grasp of the law spouting off a non-official position.
Now, I'm sure you'd ask that if it was a matter of some low staffer spouting off, why wouldn't they just admit it was a faux pas by a staffer, promise he'll be dealt with, and end it with an apology? Well first of all, that would require they apologize, representatives and their offices are big on doing that to people they don't think much of. Second, they may not wish to actually discipline the staffer in question. Third, it may be an option they've discussed, and would like to keep available, and apologizing for it now would hurt their case later.
The bottom line is that it's difficult to imagine why Behnan would want or need to lie about his conversation, and it's easy to imagine why the representative's office would want or need to lie about the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps this is true. However, I will say that *if* Behnan is the one who made up the defamation claim when he told me, he's in the wrong business, and he should be acting in Hollywood. We had a long conversation about other things, and he only brought that up at the end, first *checking his notes* to see what Rogers' office had said in response. He didn't just toss it out there -- he checked his notes to make sure what he was telling me was what they had told him.
In terms of credibility, I see little benefit for Behnan to have made up the claim that Rogers' office told him that it was defamatory -- and I could see plenty of reasons why the office would claim my comments were (even though they were not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You know, puting a bullet in the furnace reflects badly on your mother."
To which one student replied:
"I didn't put that bullet in the furnace, and you keep my mother out of it!"
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How indeed?
That's classified. Nothing to see here, citizen. Move along now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"How does that work?" Maybe they asked Behnan if he'd told you that!
You sure are attempting to gin up your own relevancy and victimization, despite lack of any proof, let alone a lawsuit, with 3rd mention of this NON-STORY in as many days. Going with the old "Reverse Streisand Ploy", eh? EVEN IF all you wrote is true, SO WHAT? People often make remarks that are just blather.
Video or didn't happen.
[Hmm. Failed post attempt, fine as thought of some to add.]
And YOU have NO actual knowing whether happened or not, MIke! You're going sheerly on trust of whoever -- you've not yet stated a name, very coy. So not only do readers have to believe your account, but even if your own first hand is true, YOU rely on an unsubstantiable account. ... And though I can't imagine why they'd bother, it's even possible that you're being set up.
The really key point here is that Behnan thus far does NOT back up you up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's obvious
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
House Intelligence Committee
They have been so inept at doing so, even revealing their own lies to Congress while telling other lies, you have to wonder if that is a learned skill from their "leaders" on the Committee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]