The Post & Email has a new article up December 3, “BirtherReport.com Commenter Claims to Have Read Zullo Testimony Transcript.” So what’s the big deal? Birthers can read. I’ve read Zullo testimony transcripts myself—can I get my own article at the P&E?
What editor Rondeau is apparently saying is that JeffProv19_91 claims to have visited Tes’ web site, WYE, and read transcripts of Mike Zullo’s in-court testimony in the Melendres case, providing a link to what Rondeau says “is not functional for this writer.” The insinuation of Rondeau’s article is that an Obot has access to information that the general public does not, and that the evidence of that has disappeared.
The non-functional link is the easiest to put to rest. JeffProf19_9 himself explains it by saying:
Sorry the link got cut off.
The links that Jeff provides in his correction are excerpts from three days’ testimony from Zullo on November 10, November 12, 12 and November 13. There is an inconsistency though, as Jeff says: “The 10th is about 130 pages of Mr. Zullo taking the 5th,” and the link he posted to WYE is nowhere that long. What is confusing everybody is that the Jack Ryan Collection at Scribd contains a court document (ECF 1532-2) that Ryan labels as “ZULLO NOV 10 DEPOSITION TRANSCIPT” but which is really the November 9 transcript of Zullo’s deposition, which is a public document available to PACER subscribers for $3.00. It is not the testimony Zullo gave in court. JeffProv19_9 read a deposition transcript and excerpts from a court transcript, but he never found entire Zullo in-court transcripts at the hyperlinks he eventually posted at BR.
The transcripts, which are excerpted at WYE are publicly available for a fee, just as the ECF documents are available for a fee. The difference is that the transcripts have to be ordered, and they cost 9 times more than the regular documents, and the maximum chargeable page count of 30 does not apply. Sharon Rondeau can get a copy if she’s willing to pay $.90 a page too. (Court reporters make their living selling transcripts, which is why the entire transcripts aren’t posted.) After 90 days, the transcripts will be available at the lower price.
One denizen of Birther Report almost gets it. TonyUnplugged writes:
Sometimes the court makes the transcripts available for purchase and doesn’t release a free copy to the public for at least one month. I guess the court covers some costs by selling transcripts to the press.
Rondeau goes to some trouble to verify that JeffProv19_9 really did see things that were in transcripts (to the point of asking Zullo whether what Jeff says is accurate), and she tells us that the newspapers didn’t cover the testimony in sufficient depth to explain Jeff’s summary, but then jumps to the unjustified conclusion that Obots had special access to non-public information, put the transcripts on the web, and then took the documents off the web.
Carl Gallups jumped on the bandwagon next day on his Freedom Friday program December 4, saying:
Just two days ago, Zullo’s transcript, there was a link to it put up on the Internet by an alleged Obot, or at least a suspected Obot on one of those web sites. There was a link put up to what hasn’t even been released to the public yet, but yet the Obots have it. How did that get out? Yet now, you try to find that link, and it’s gone. Once it was exposed, BOOM. Snatched it down.
Commenter William at Birther Report makes up some rules for us:
How’d an Obot get this info not yet released to the public unless a connected DOJ member, personal or legal part of this case? Cant..
And while he’s making stuff up, William also said:
Who is the Federal employee Obot that has access to Inside DOJ records that posted the link, only to discover their error and quickly remove it?
- Tes is not a federal employee
- The records are not insider records. Anyone can purchase them.
- The excerpts are still there, and were never removed.
Instead of concocting a big conspiracy, she should have noticed the the hyperlink was cut off, and contacted the Court about obtaining transcripts. It seems much ado about nothing—just a typo and birther ignorance about how the courts work.
Update: A quick scan suggests that Carl Gallups has appropriated Tes’ excerpting work for his own web site.
Update 2: After notice of a copyright violation, the PPSimmons web site now attributes the cribbed excerpts (compilations) to WYE.