3 ms·

When you say 'recalling a conversation', you mean going over notes from the time he interviewed Ehrlichmann for a book. Given that Baum is a professional journa

by AimHere 10y ago

When you say 'recalling a conversation', you mean going over notes from the time he interviewed Ehrlichmann for a book. Given that Baum is a professional journalist, whose career depends on being able to accurately quote people, I reckon it's a bit better sourced that your phrasing suggests. Note also that Erlichmann's family based their denial of the Baum story partly on the notion that he never said anything racist in front of them - though his propensity for racism is definitely confirmed in the Watergate tapes.

titzer 10y ago
> Note also that Erlichmann's family based their denial of the Baum story partly on the notion that he never said anything racist in front of them - though his propensity for racism is definitely confirmed in the Watergate tapes. Look, I'm not really here to stick up for Ehrlichmann. After all, he did go to jail for some time for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. First of all, that already makes him the least reliable of witnesses, even if he really did say that. Second, he's an easy target for a journalist that wants to sensationalize their story, and instead believing him just because "he's a journalist" is not rational. Dan Baum has written about that interview before and there was never anything close to that damning of a quote. This is why I think this quote is total hogwash. It fits exactly what you want to hear deep down about two bad people: Ehrlichmann and Nixon. Too bad it's likely a fabrication, with zero evidence otherwise.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  > Look, I'm not really here to stick up for Ehrlichmann. After all, he did go to jail for some time for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. First of all, that already makes him the least reliable of witnesses, even if he really did say that. Second, he's an easy target for a journalist that wants to sensationalize their story, and instead believing him just because "he's a journalist" is not rational. Dan Baum has written about that interview before and there was never anything close to that damning of a quote. This is why I think this quote is total hogwash. It fits exactly what you want to hear deep down about two bad people: Ehrlichmann and Nixon. Too bad it's likely a fabrication, with zero evidence otherwise. "likely a fabrication" "with zero evidence otherwise" The burden of proof is on you to show that the quote is a fabrication, not on the journalist. Let's go through it, though. Going to jail for conspiracy and obstruction of justice makes him a criminal, but not necessarily a liar on techniques the U.S. government used against counterculture. Secondly, Nixon and his administration did outrageous things. You can hardly dismiss more allegations of outrageous acts as more-likely-to-be-fabricated because it fits pre-existing narrative. That's, like, the opposite of how priors work. "It fits exactly what you want to hear deep down about two bad people: Ehrlichmann and Nixon" -- YES! Nixon and Ehrlichmann were bad people and did bad things. Did they do what Ehrlichmann (allegedly) describes? Who knows, but it isn't an argument against their having done something horrific that they had other horrific policies. Nixon, you may remember, bugged a Supreme Court justice.
  - WhoBeI 10y ago
    So unless you can prove that something you read in the paper is a lie you must accept it as absolute truth? Seems healthy.. He had a good argument I think. Not sure if he's right but good argument.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      Journalists' livelihoods are dependent on not misquoting those who they interview. The claim was that the quote is a fabrication. How can the journalist possibly defend against this charge? It's requiring him to prove a negative.
      - AimHere 10y ago
        Actually, the previous poster's claim is worse than that. This journalist does have notes and so if it mattered enough, those could be subjected to forensic examination to see if they're consistent with the time period of the interview. The poster is basically denying something for which there is almost certainly actual physical evidence corroborating Baum's story, as well as apparently defaming a professional journalist.
        titzer 10y ago
        Sorry, no, questioning a journalist's claims is not defamation. The family thinks this quote is bunk, too. "We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN. "The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him," the Ehrlichman family wrote. "We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that's because we were not raised that way." from: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-r...

by AimHere 10y ago

titzer 10y ago

> Note also that Erlichmann's family based their denial of the Baum story partly on the notion that he never said anything racist in front of them - though his propensity for racism is definitely confirmed in the Watergate tapes. Look, I'm not really here to stick up for Ehrlichmann. After all, he did go to jail for some time for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. First of all, that already makes him the least reliable of witnesses, even if he really did say that. Second, he's an easy target for a journalist that wants to sensationalize their story, and instead believing him just because "he's a journalist" is not rational. Dan Baum has written about that interview before and there was never anything close to that damning of a quote. This is why I think this quote is total hogwash. It fits exactly what you want to hear deep down about two bad people: Ehrlichmann and Nixon. Too bad it's likely a fabrication, with zero evidence otherwise.

tanderson92 10y ago
> Look, I'm not really here to stick up for Ehrlichmann. After all, he did go to jail for some time for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. First of all, that already makes him the least reliable of witnesses, even if he really did say that. Second, he's an easy target for a journalist that wants to sensationalize their story, and instead believing him just because "he's a journalist" is not rational. Dan Baum has written about that interview before and there was never anything close to that damning of a quote. This is why I think this quote is total hogwash. It fits exactly what you want to hear deep down about two bad people: Ehrlichmann and Nixon. Too bad it's likely a fabrication, with zero evidence otherwise. "likely a fabrication" "with zero evidence otherwise" The burden of proof is on you to show that the quote is a fabrication, not on the journalist. Let's go through it, though. Going to jail for conspiracy and obstruction of justice makes him a criminal, but not necessarily a liar on techniques the U.S. government used against counterculture. Secondly, Nixon and his administration did outrageous things. You can hardly dismiss more allegations of outrageous acts as more-likely-to-be-fabricated because it fits pre-existing narrative. That's, like, the opposite of how priors work. "It fits exactly what you want to hear deep down about two bad people: Ehrlichmann and Nixon" -- YES! Nixon and Ehrlichmann were bad people and did bad things. Did they do what Ehrlichmann (allegedly) describes? Who knows, but it isn't an argument against their having done something horrific that they had other horrific policies. Nixon, you may remember, bugged a Supreme Court justice.
- WhoBeI 10y ago
  So unless you can prove that something you read in the paper is a lie you must accept it as absolute truth? Seems healthy.. He had a good argument I think. Not sure if he's right but good argument.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Journalists' livelihoods are dependent on not misquoting those who they interview. The claim was that the quote is a fabrication. How can the journalist possibly defend against this charge? It's requiring him to prove a negative.
    - AimHere 10y ago
      Actually, the previous poster's claim is worse than that. This journalist does have notes and so if it mattered enough, those could be subjected to forensic examination to see if they're consistent with the time period of the interview. The poster is basically denying something for which there is almost certainly actual physical evidence corroborating Baum's story, as well as apparently defaming a professional journalist.
      - titzer 10y ago
        Sorry, no, questioning a journalist's claims is not defamation. The family thinks this quote is bunk, too. "We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN. "The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him," the Ehrlichman family wrote. "We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that's because we were not raised that way." from: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-r...