When all of this crap began back in 1999, I was a political consultant for several Democratic candidates, as well as later being a senior consultant for Janet Reno in her run for Governor. I bought the document package from Marty Heldt and we subjected them to the most thorough investigation one could imagine. Why? Because if there was anything there, we damn sure wanted to use it. But guess what? Only two of those documents proved to be authentic and they were not even related to the charge being levelled. Many of them are so blatant in their alterations it is almost funny. Several purport to be signed by real live military personnel, yet they don’t even know the proper format for a military date.
This is a newsgroup posting from a writer who identifies himself as Brooks Gregory.
I won’t go as far as others in openly speculating the connection between this comment, posted Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:27:57 GMT, and what it may suggest as to the possible source of the forged CBS memos, or even if they might have been the same ones. Time will tell.
Hat tip – Dean Esmay who rightly cautions about open speculation and naming names. But, the internet is a big place – and a tool available to anyone with a few google search skills. It’s not a drawer in someone’s bedroom, so I don’t know how you keep speculation from occuring – or even argue that it’s unethical, when so much of it occurs in the editorial pages of America’s most respected newspapers.
Wizbang notices that Marty Heldt has been popping up a lot elsewhere.
Who do Salon and David Brock’s Media Matters trot out as their rebuttal witness against the forgery charges? None other than “independent researcher” Marty Heldt.
Plot, thickened.
>>>When all of this crap began back in 1999, I was a political consultant for several Democratic candidates, as well as later being a senior consultant for Janet Reno in her run for Governor. I bought the document package from Marty Heldt and we subjected them to the most thorough investigation one could imagine. Why? Because if there was anything there, we damn sure wanted to use it. But guess what? Only two of those documents proved to be authentic and they were not even related to the charge being levelled. Many of them are so blatant in their alterations it is almost funny. Several purport to be signed by real live military personnel, yet they don’t even know the proper format for a military date. — Brooks Gregory 2004-01-28 08:27:57 PST” at Google Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc.
1.) Brooks Gregory doesn�t exist. He never contacted me. He certainly never purchased documents from me. He never worked for Janet Reno. Brooks Gregory doesn’t exist.
2.) I received my documents via the FOIA in the summer of 2000. I posted them to my website shortly after receiving them. They are still on my site, freely available to all, displaying the same lousy scanning job I did with the old equipment I was using at the time. (http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet )
One need only look at the documents released by the White House last February (available here: USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm ) to discern the fraudulent nature of the “Gregory” claims.
There were very few documents I received in 2000 that were not released by the White House in February. Likewise, there were only a few that I had which were not released by the White House in February.
From this mornings news reports I understand that yesterday’s release included the orders for May and June — which I received in 2000 but were not included in the February release. I also note that the PR release which mentioned “gets high from flying” was included in last nights release. This, again, was a document I received in 2000 but which was not released by the White House in February.
These last releases provide complete validation for all of the documents I received.
Martin Heldt