My previous post about the much-quoted "George Harleigh" (said to be a SIU political science professor who worked for Nixon and Reagan administrations) has received enough attention that I thought it merited a new post.

Clayton Cramer linked my original post and asked his readers for help in locating the mystery man. According to readers who've checked the relevant academic databases, there's nothing. Anywhere:

There's nothing by "George Harleigh" on EBSCOHost Academic Search Premiere, either.

[...]

Social Science Citation Index reports, for Harleigh, G :

"NOTICE

The author name you entered did not result in a match from the index. Hint: Check the spelling of the name, or remove the initials to broaden your search."

No change when the initial was omitted.

There's a Harley, G, who has published
" Zhang XF, Harley G, De Jonghe LC
Co-continuous metal-ceramic nanocomposites "

Doesn't look like political science.

JSTOR returns Harleigh Hartman and Harleigh Trecker.

Political Science Abstracts returns no hits for Harleigh

Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life returns no hits for Harleigh.

Dissertation Abstracts returns Harleigh Enid Wilmott, a biologist.

OCLC's "WorldCat" shows no titles by George Harleigh

GPO Access shows no government documents with author George Harleigh.

Amazing--someone became a professor at Southern Illinois University without a single published work, anywhere!

Philadelphia journalist Steve Silver has linked this post and is also asking questions about George Harleigh:

Calls by the blogger to SIU, and searches of Lexus-Nexis for published material by him, find no mention of Harleigh, and he's not mentioned on Google anywhere other than in providing quotes to blogs. Anyone ever heard of this guy, and have any evidence that exists or did exist? I'm figuring either he's real and everyone's wrong, or someone just made him up and his same few quotes have been recycled again and again for years, or there's some guy out there claiming to be a disgruntled former Nixon/Reagan aide.

The burden of proof, though, normally falls on those asserting that the person exists. In the case of George Harleigh, virtually all quotations and references to him originate with Doug Thompson, a self-described journalist ["newspaperman"] who runs the Capitol Hill Blue web site.

Which means at this point that the burden is on Mr. Thompson to supply evidence:

If "George Harleigh" is a pseudonym, that fact should be disclosed, and if there is a person calling himself "George Harleigh" whose remarks are being repeated, it falls on Doug Thompson to provide some evidence that this man is who he says he is.

Under the circumstances, until I hear otherwise, I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that:

Again, if my suspicions turn out to be wrong, I'll certainly acknowledge that with apologies to Doug Thompson and George Harleigh.

MORE: According to blogger Angry Bear, three years ago Doug Thompson admitted that he had been conned for the last 20 years by someone named "Terry Wilkinson":

The Capitol Hill Blue story cited below is a hoax--Capitol Hill Blue founder Doug Thompson now alleges that he was intentionally deceived by someone pretending to be Terry Wilkinson for the last 20 years (Thompson: "Erasing the stories doesn't erase the fact that we ran articles containing information that, given the source, was probably inaccurate. And it doesn't erase the sad fact that my own arrogance allowed me to be conned").

But that's because the references were erased. Another post has the full quote about the "erasures," plus more from Doug Thompson: If that is the case, then why were these words edited out of the post in question? Another post here -- same thing, Doug Thompson's apology from nowhere.

Editing the fraudulent character out of the post is one thing, but if we assume Doug Thompson was conned, admitted it, apologized for it, and vowed not to let it happen again, well, why would he censor such an important admission to his readers?

Might this not be seen as casting doubt on the sincerity of his admission?

Or am I missing something?

UPDATE: More on the Wilkinson "con" story:

On a forum for the CHB website, Doug Thompson, who runs CHB, was asked about the problems a Freeper had reported in trying to get information on Wilkinson. Here is the meat of Thompson's reply:

I've known Terry Wilkinson for 20+ years and his decision to go public was a painful one that I'm sure will bring recriminations. But he loves his country a lot more than any political party or politician. I've received some emails today regarding his comments and have forwarded them on to him. It's his decision as to whether or not he wishes to respond.

But I don't feed anyone's desire for a witch hunt. When we ran the stories about Bill Clinton's sexual assaults on women, we identified a number of the women. I don't recall anyone at Free Republican demanding "proof" of their identity although I did have a number of liberal media types hounding me for more information.

I didn't pander to them and I won't to anyone else. I stand by the stories that run on our web site. You are free to read them or not read them, believe them or not believe them. It's a free world. We've been on the web since 1994 and we will be here 10 years from now.

Hopefully, there will be some kind of confirmation or refutation of this story within the next few days, but I thought the information was interesting enough to at least make note of it. I'll let you know if I find out anything further.

UPDATE: This is more fun than I thought. Kevin Drum had a post discussing the CHB con job which refers to a "'CIA advisor' named Terrance J. Wilkinson" and which says:

YELLOWCAKE UPDATE....Yesterday I wrote a post about a story in Capitol Hill Blue in which a "CIA advisor" named Terrance J. Wilkinson claimed that he was present at White House briefings where George Bush was told that the Niger uranium story was bogus.

"I'm not sure how seriously to take this," I wrote, and it turns out that the answer is, "Not at all." Writing in Capitol Hill Blue today, publisher Doug Thompson says, "I've been had big time." Wilkinson is a fake and the briefings never took place.

Will John Ashcroft's goons soon be rousting everyone named "George Harleigh"?

My favorite comment predicts the end of the "right wing" CHB:

Goodbye CHB. danelectro: fascinating. It certainly explains this weirdness better than anything else I've seen, and CHB is, as you say, clearly a right-wing site: so why would they break a story trashing Bush?

(Is it just my imagination, or are there a lot of antiwar activists claiming to be "right wing"?)

UPDATE: Cache of now-dysfuntional Truthout post with the full text of CHB's original apology here. (Rather than clutter up the blog, I'm putting it below.)

Truthout.org's website appears to be functioning, so I don't understand why the CHB apology link is not.

MORE: In 2003 Glenn Reynolds discussed the CHB Wilkinson matter in at least two posts, and praised the bloggers who had linked the retraction.

. . .many bloggers who ran with the original story have noted it, including quite a few lefty bloggers who clearly wanted to believe it. They deserve credit -- as does Capitol Hill Blue -- for the retraction.

Stay tuned!

UPDATE: I have emailed Mr. Thompson with my concerns, and I'll note any response I receive.

UPDATE: as of 3:35 p.m. today (07/20/06), "George Harleigh" is being deleted from posts! Here's the cache of the most recently written post -- as it appeared yesterday:

It's not the first time the unwary President, who claims to be a born-again Christian, has been caught cursing. He called a New York Times reporter a "son of a bitch" to an open mike, told Wall Street Journal reporter Al Hunt "fuck you" in front of his daughters and, in a meeting with members of Congress, called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper."

"Like Nixon, Bush's private persona is much different," says retired political scientiest George Harleigh, who served in both the Nixon and Reagan administration. "Nixon cursed like a sailor when he was out of public view. So does Bush."

The U.S. president blames Syria and Iran for supporting Hezbollah guerrillas operating in southern Lebanon.

It's not the first time the unwary President, who claims to be a born-again Christian, has been caught cursing. He called a New York Times reporter a "son of a bitch" to an open mike, told Wall Street Journal reporter Al Hunt "fuck you" in front of his daughters and, in a meeting with members of Congress, called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper."

The U.S. president blames Syria and Iran for supporting Hezbollah guerrillas operating in southern Lebanon.

Bush also seemed to complain about U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan wanting an immediate ceasefire to stop the violence between Israel and Hezbollah.

Ditto with this article -- The Continued Madness of King George:

Yet Savage's story fell off the media landscape with a resounding thud as the rest of the mainstreamers, apparently kowtowed by Bush's threats to haul reporters and editors in front of grand juries if they dare write about his abuse of the Constitution and use of U.S. spy agencies to snoop on Americans, stuck with reporting on the President's latest road show to sell the failed Iraq war.

The revised USA Patriot Act emerged from Congress with a number of oversight provisions requiring the President to report to the Hill on a strict timetable. One of those provisions said the White House had to tell Congress just how the FBI used the expanded wiretap and surveillance powers granted under the act.

Some in Congress, like Senator Patrick Leahy, are pissed as hell at the President's claim that he is above the law.

Yet Savage's story fell off the media landscape with a resounding thud as the rest of the mainstreamers, apparently kowtowed by Bush's threats to haul reporters and editors in front of grand juries if they dare write about his abuse of the Constitution and use of U.S. spy agencies to snoop on Americans, stuck with reporting on the President's latest road show to sell the failed Iraq war.

"Frankly, I'm surprised," says political scientist George Harleigh, who worked in the Nixon and Reagan White Houses. "I thought the story would have legs and get much more attention. After all the debate in Congress over the need for the President to keep them in the loop he simply signs away one of the key provisions of the revised act."

The revised USA Patriot Act emerged from Congress with a number of oversight provisions requiring the President to report to the Hill on a strict timetable. One of those provisions said the White House had to tell Congress just how the FBI used the expanded wiretap and surveillance powers granted under the act.

No word from Doug Thompson.

MORE (04:05 p.m.): George W. Bush: An American Dictator:

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

Political scientist George Harleigh, who served in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations where Presidential power became major issues, says Bush's actions place the country on a dangerous course.

"Presidential authority, once assumed, is seldom relinquished. The Constitution prevailed when Richard Nixon ignored the laws that govern his actions," Harleigh says, "but this President neither obeys nor upholds his oath to support the Constitution. He sees the document as an obstacle to his power and has chosen to ignore it. If no one else is willing to uphold the Constitution then it becomes, as attorney general Alberto Gonzales has written, an 'outdated document' and places this Republic in grave peril."

Harleigh believes this nation faces more than a battle for which political party controls the White House and/or Congress.

"This is now a battle for the soul of America," he says. "The very future of this Republic may well rest on whether or not anyone can, or will, stop George W. Bush."

AND MORE (04:07 p.m.): The "heady atmosphere of Congress" quote from 1999 I mentioned yesterday has been scrubbed:

Does the heady atmosphere of Congress turn honest men and women into a criminal class? Or is elected office simply a magnet for those who lie, cheat and steal for a living?

It could be a little bit of both, say political scientists and Constitutional scholars.

Congress has always had its share of rogues and scoundrels:

· Adam Clayton Powell, the fast-talking Harlem Congressman who was re-elected even after Congress expelled him in 1967. Powell had survived charges of income-tax evasion (with a hung jury) even before his first election to Congress.

Does the heady atmosphere of Congress turn honest men and women into a criminal class? Or is elected office simply a magnet for those who lie, cheat and steal for a living?

It could be a little bit of both, say political scientists and Constitutional scholars.

"There's no doubt that politics attracts the glib, the fast talker and the con artist," says retired Southern Illinois University political scientist George Harleigh. "It's a natural place for those who think fast on their feet."

Congress has always had its share of rogues and scoundrels:

· Adam Clayton Powell, the fast-talking Harlem Congressman who was re-elected even after Congress expelled him in 1967. Powell had survived charges of income-tax evasion (with a hung jury) even before his first election to Congress.

But he was alive and quotable all these years?

Any readers who can help, please let me know.

I'm dumbfounded.

AND MORE: Here's today's version of "The Decider in Chief":

Decider-in-chief? A key statement to the arrogance that is George W. Bush.

"I decide what is best," he says.

For Bush the game has always been about power. Absolute power. Dictatorial power.

This is the American President who said: "it would be much easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as I get to be the dictator."

At the time some people thought he was joking. Those who know him knew he wasn't.

In 1999, while completing a profile of Harris County, Texas, Judge Robert Eckels, I interviewed a number of Texas political observers. Republican and Democrat alike agreed that then Gov. George W. Bush was stubborn, arrogant and used to having his own way.

And yesterday's (from the cache):

Decider-in-chief? A key statement to the arrogance that is George W. Bush.

"I decide what is best," he says.

For Bush the game has always been about power. Absolute power. Dictatorial power.

This is the American President who said: "it would be much easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as I get to be the dictator."

At the time some people thought he was joking. Those who know him knew he wasn't.

"Of all the Presidents I've served or observed, George W. Bush is the least receptive to the opinion of others," says political scientist George Harleigh, who served in both the Nixon and Reagan administration. "He has no interest in what others think and he doesn't listen to the advice of experts or professionals."

In 1999, while completing a profile of Harris County, Texas, Judge Robert Eckels, I interviewed a number of Texas political observers. Republican and Democrat alike agreed that then Gov. George W. Bush was stubborn, arrogant and used to having his own way.

I'm starting to feel sorry for "George Harleigh" -- a cyber victim who has outlived his cyber usefulness.

I have to go out, so I'll let Clayton Cramer speak for Mr. Harleigh:

I'm sure that somewhere in a virtual reality hell, "George Harleigh" is disappearing, while screaming, "I'm melting, I'm melting!"

Victim of a cyber meltdown . . .

UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds, for linking this post, and calling attention to the plight of the disappeared!

Welcome all; I appreciate the additional insights.

UPDATE (07/21/06): My thanks to all the commenters for providing helpful information!

While I still haven't received a reply to my email to Doug Thompson, I'm intrigued by Editor William D. McTavish's "report and apology to our readers" which has appeared at Capitol Hill Blue. It is dated July 17, 2006 at 11;05 a.m. and states:

Three months ago, we asked a panel of fellow journalists to assist us in a review of of stories published on this web site over the past 12 years and asked them to assist us in determining any which they felt might be poorly sourced or based on questionable sources.

That review is complete and we are in the process of deleting or modifying some stories which our panel felt did not satisfy the criteria established for responsible journalism.

Is there any way to verify the July 17 date and time of the "apology"?

While I haven't checked each story, I notice that in the case of "The decider-in-chief: A drunk with power", Harleigh is gone, but without the explanation.

And the "goddamned piece of paper" story seems to have disappeared entirely. Why no explanation?

In all, 329 stories were modified or removed from our databases of 25,000 plus articles because of problems encountered when we went back to check on sources or to verify the identity of those quoted. As editor, I was tasked by the publisher to apply new, higher standards for publication of material on this web site and to apply those same standards to stories published in the past.

Most modifications were clarification of source material. Only 12 stories were removed from the archives. However, the modification of 83 stories involved a "named source" we have quoted a number of times and who claimed to be (1) a retired political science professor and (2) a former official in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

Then there are the "emails":

In 1998, our former editor, Jack Sharp, began receiving a regular, almost daily, email "newsletter" from a "Professor George Harleigh" offering quotes, observations and commentary on current political events along with permission to use those comments as we saw fit. "Professor Harleigh" claimed to be a retired political science professor from Southern Illinois University and offered, as backup, links to a number of web sites and news publications that quoted him or used material furnished by him. We checked the web sites and other news publications and found him quoted often so we began using his material in selected stories. Since 1998, we have used quotes from "George Harleigh" in 83 stories on our web site.

Recently, we received an inquiry from Southern Illinois University saying they were trying to locate the "George Harleigh" who claimed to have taught at their institution but said they did not have any record of a "George Harleigh" or even a "Harleigh" ever teaching at the university's campuses in Carbondale or Edwardsville, Illinois. That inquiry led us to investigate further and we found that "Professor George Harleigh" may be a fictitous name.  We talked with other web sites that have used quotes from the same source and all, like us, received the quotes in an email newsletter format. The newsletter email currently traced back to a qmail account. We also posted inquiries on bulletin boards and other blogs. When we received today's newsletter we immediately mailed back and asked for additional information. We did not receive an answer and followup emails bounced back as undeliverable.

Regarding the "inquiry from Southern Illinois University," why isn't the University official who contacted them named?

This raised enough questions in our minds to remove any quotes by or references to Mr. Harleigh from the 83 stories, including one published today. None of the stories originated from information supplied by him and, in no case, were his comments the central focus of the story, so we did not feel the need to remove any stories or mofidy their original intent so they remain in our archives without the quotes from "Harleigh."

All quotes attributed to Mr. Harleigh came from the daily newsletters he sent and were unsolicited. They were, however, timely and often fit into stories we were developing and we used them. That was our mistake. It was a foolish, lazy practice that should not have happened.

This is the second time in 12 years of publishing this web site that we have been burned by a source who turned out to be not who he claimed. We're human. We make mistakes. When we find out we were wrong we try to move quickly to correct those mistakes. We apologize to our readers for allowing this to happen and we will no longer use quotes from unsolicited sources and will take greater care to make sure the sources of quotes we do use are legitimate. We will be adding a link to this report to all stories modified but please bear with us while we complete that time-consuming task.

I know I shouldn't judge others by my standards, but considering it's the second time, I don't think they're being very forthcoming.

And quite frankly, I'm now wondering . . . Did anyone ever verify the explanation of the Terrance Wilkinson matter?

MORE: This is getting so absurd that I'm now wondering how to find out more about the editorial background of William D. McTavish. Can't find much, except that he was called a Republican in UK's Telegraph. According to Capitol Hill Blue:

Reporter and columnist Bill McTavish is a registered Republican and a veteran who served three deployments in Vietnam

Back in 2004, when people cared about these things, The Annoyed Army was scouring to find him. He was called "elusive" One commenter said

For an accomplished journalist he doesn't seem to have written anything that shows up on the Internet, except CHB.

Chuck, you seem to enjoy posting stuff from William D. McTavish, but as I look through Google, he seems to have sprung from whole cloth in 2004, (as far as Google is concerned he only exists at CHB... and as a baby that lived to age 2 months back in 1910 :tinfoilhat: ) and APNews.com, returned no bylines by him... made me think, is this actually your pen name?

MORE: This gets more and more bizarre. It turns out that "Bill McTavish" issued a similar apology and retraction in May:

Please allow me to introduce myself to you, the readers of Capitol Hill Blue.

I'm Bill McTavish, the new publisher of this web site, effective immediately. I'm the head of a new team that takes over Capitol Hill Blue and, we hope, takes the web site in new directions.

When I was asked to take over as publisher of CHB, I insisted that I have the authority to review past articles published on this web site and remove any that I, and others, felt did not meet established standards of impartial journalism, were poorly-sourced or just plain speculation. I brought in journalists I respect and asked them to go through the archives and identify stories where they considered the sources questionable or the facts hazy. As a result of their review, we removed 217 articles from the database archives of more than 25,000 stories.

Gone from the site, for example, are speculative articles on President Clinton's sex life, Mrs. Clinton's sexual preferences, President Bush calling the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper" or various and sundry conspiracy theories.

Gone too are articles where a recheck of sources did not, to my satisfaction, pass the smell test. Some of the articles removed included columns written by our founder and publisher. I'm not saying these stories were wrong, although I had doubts about some of them, but they were not sourced to my satisfaction and were never verified by additional sources or other publications. Even though they have not been proven wrong (or even denied by the subjects of the story) they did not, in my opinion, pass the standard for verification that now exists for this web site. I may have missed some but if and when someone brings such articles to my attention we will review them, apply the same standards to the others that were removed, and remove them if they fail to meet those standards.

I have brought in a staff of veterans and young professionals to beef up our news coverage and provide a balanced product. Callie Houston now runs our blog, Fred Hylton oversees the editorial product and we have a staff of reporters, researchers and fact-checkers to review every story. We subscribe to Reuters, AP and Scripps-Howard news service to bolster our news coverage. Our popular discussion board, ReaderRant, continues as an independent web site run by a talented and dedicated group of administrators and moderators. They know how to do their jobs and will get no interference from me.

I consider the past exactly that -- the past. This web site made some mistakes and decisions were made to run with stories that showed, in my opinion, poor judgment. We will remain non-partisan in our approach to news but our goal is news based on fact, not speculation, and truth, not wishful thinking. We will continue to ask questions that need to be asked and hold all elected officials to an equal, non-partisan standard. I don't expect you take my word that everything is hunky-dory but I do ask that if someone links to something from our site that it be considered for the content and not simply dismissed because someone may have considered the site questionable.

To answer a question I am sure you have: Yes, Doug Thompson still owns Capitol Hill Blue but he has stepped away from any involvement in the editorial product and now invests his time and resources in a new project aimed at campaign reform. If, and when, he chooses to write columns or articles for this web site they will be subject to the same review, editing and fact checking as any other writer or source.

He has tasked me with the goal of improving CHB and restoring its reputation. Some of the articles I removed from the archives were either written by him or approved by him and he did not object. Recently, he published a public apology to his readers and then asked me to fix the problems. My first step was to clean up the product. My second step is asking those of you who had questions in the past to take a fresh look at what we do and make up your own mind.

If you have any questions, comments, gripes or vents, please feel free to contact me publisher@capitolhillblue.com.

William D. McTavish
Publisher
Capitol Hill Blue

AND MORE: I verified the existence of at least one real William McTavish.

UPDATE: Clayton Cramer has more, and links to an important post at McKinley's America which makes what Cramer quite properly calls "a legitimate request":

I suspect that no bulletin board or blog postings were made.

CHB says they were receiving these newsletters frequently, including yesterday. They should provide a copy of as many of these newsletters as they have available, including the full mail headers (which can be used to determine the actual originating IP address and could lead to the revelation of the fraudster-- if he wasn't made up in full cloth).

This seems like a legitimate request. It would certainly establish that CHB was the victim of a fraud, and not the orginator of it.

MORE: Under the circumstances, it seemed relevant to me to ask who is Doug Thompson. New post here. (I'm still not sure I know. Although I'm sure I know even less about Mr. McTavish.)

AND MORE: The plot thickens into a veritable hall of mirrors. Here's a wild tidbit. Apparently CHB has an "ombudsman" named Sandra Riley, who promised to crackdown on the elusive McTavish (and another reporter, one "Teresa Hampton"):

September 8, 2004
Teresa Hampton and William McTavish fired
by ombudsman Sandra Riley
on Capital Hill Blue

A problem with unnamed sources brings Hampton’s July 28 story, Bush Taking Anti-Depressants into question. While she quotes Dr. Justin Frank on his analysis of the President’s behavior, she does not offer any corroboration to the conclusion that White House Physician Col. Richard J. Tubb actually prescribed any anti-depressant medication to Bush. For that reason, the story was pulled.

I also killed a July 29 story, Sullen, Depressed President Retreats into a Private, Paranoid World, by Hampton and former CHB reporter William D. McTavish. Again, the only quoted source was Dr. Frank and the quotes were repeats of those from earlier story. His quotes did not back up the claims by unnamed sources.

This makes two stories removed from the CHB archives. A common thread in all three is that they were authored in part or in whole by Hampton, who was recently relieved of her duties as editor because of a lapse in judgment over publication of a column that reflected a personal agenda by the writer (McTavish, who was also fired).

Because of this, our publisher has asked me to go back over all articles written by both Hampton and McTavish. I am doing so and will report to our readers when the review is complete.

Has a familiar ring, no?

Note: the quoted CHB text in the the link the blogger no longer appears in the link.

MORE: Yet another old CHB link confirming that "McTavish" was "fired."

Is this a game of cyber musical chairs?

AND EVEN MORE: "Editor" Teresa Hampton, btw, is interesting in her own right. According to her former biography, she not only co-authored the "award-winning All the President's Women series" (sorry, can't find the series or the award) but graduated from "Southern Illinois University."

I just have to ask: was "George Harleigh" one of her "professors"?

MORE: In Februrary, John Hawkins wondered whether the CHB site might not be sock puppetry:

I wonder if Thompson actually makes up like names for these fake sources? Like ya know, Mr. I. Friend the Secret Service Agent or White House Aide Puff'N'Stuff? Better yet, maybe he makes little puppets out of socks, puts them on his hands, and asks them questions. "Mr. Socko, you saw Cheney drunk, didn't you? Of course you did! That's a good Mr. Socko!"

The fact that there are actually bloggers out there linking to this moronic fraud for reasons other than to laugh at him, even if they are on the left, is a stain on the entire blogosphere. Even liberals should know better than to buy into this sort of garbage...

I don't think there's any way to know who anyone connected with CHB is. (Including Doug Thompson.)

MORE: In March, Doug Thompson not only called Glenn Greenwald a "prominent New York litigator," but he recounted his personal tale of oppression at the hands of Alberto Gonzales:

"The significance of this cannot be overstated," says prominent New York litigator Glenn Greenwald. "In essence, while the President sits in the White House undisturbed after proudly announcing that he has been breaking the law and will continue to do so, his slavish political appointees at the Justice Department are using the mammoth law enforcement powers of the federal government to find and criminally prosecute those who brought this illegal conduct to light.

"This flamboyant use of the forces of criminal prosecution to threaten whistle-blowers and intimidate journalists are nothing more than the naked tactics of street thugs and authoritarian juntas."

Just how widespread, and uncontrolled, this latest government assault has become hit close to home last week when one of the FBI's National Security Letters arrived at the company that hosts the servers for this web site, Capitol Hill Blue.

The letter demanded traffic data, payment records and other information about the web site along with information on me, the publisher.

Now that's a problem. I own the company that hosts Capitol Hill Blue. So, in effect, the feds want me to turn over information on myself and not tell myself that I'm doing it. You'd think they'd know better.

I turned the letter over to my lawyer and told him to send the following message to the feds:

F*ck you. Strong letter to follow.

I looked around, and found the new expurgated version of the story -- the same article (titled "Bush declares war on freedom of the press") but minus the personal tale of oppression. (Better peek fast, as it too, will probably disappear.)

What happened to the security letter which got him all the attention?

Does that mean Doug Thompson found out that he -- Doug Thompson -- was unreliable in his own account?

(Just thought I'd ask; maybe it will.)

UPDATE: Capitol Hill Blue made easy -- with a convenient flow chart!

UPDATE (07/24/06): The search for missing persons continues!