The Burris Reveal
Dave Burris posted the rest of the story on the subpoena to Mike Matthews for the source of the Bill Lee photo. The short answer is that there was a threatening note sent to Bill Lee’s family that photos like this were going to start coming out starting this week. Here’s the quick analysis:
- There doesn’t appear to be a blackmail portion of the note, as there are no requests that would avoid the distribution of the pics.
- While there is an assertion that the letter had a false return address, I am not sure that the mail fraud charge would stick.
- Dave seems to have oversold this. There is no active investigation, thus no forthcoming subpoena.
Who has won this round? I think Matthews.
Tags: Blogosphere, Delaware
We need a scan of the envelop. What was the postmark and when was it received? Before or after the picture was posted on DWA?
This is so FSP!
My favorite line in Dave’s post: “I assume the U.S. Attorney, FBI or the proper authorities will be contacted, but let’s be honest. Mail fraud and intimidation of this sort aren’t exactly high up the feds’ priority list. So who knows when they’ll get around to it. That’s why I tried to get the source.”
Assume???? You know what I assumed, Dave? I assumed you actually had facts to back up your subpoena threat. I assumed this “issue” was already under investigation.
Well, live and learn, I guess.
It is my understanding that the letter was received before the posting by Mike. Mike may very will be revealed as an unwitting tool for the letter writer. I guess the question is, “Is Mike Mattews OK with that?”
He may be, but I’d be pretty pissed and would no longer accept tips from that person.
You have a point, LG. I just can’t believe that Dave couldn’t have leveled with Mike. I really can’t believe – given all the talk about subpoenas and the FBI – that there isn’t an active investigation going on and that Dave isn’t sure whether the authorities have even been contacted.
Who knows where this is heading, but if this was Dave’s idea of a “heads up” to a fellow blogger… Dave needs to work on his people skills.
The best part, if you believe it – there are 30 more pictures! Is this “non-profit week” or are we up to church week already?
I think Dave offered to level with Mike, after his (over-)reaction to Mike’s refusal. In this exchange, I don’t think either of them acted as the picture of maturity, though both acted defensibly.
Dave has, according to his response, had to deal with this type of thing before as the child of a candidate. He would, therefore, have a pretty short fuse in this regard. He was also pretty much universally savaged by every commenter, and probably felt that continuing to reach out to Matthews once things exploded would have prompted additional similar responses.
Mike felt threatened by Dave’s response, understandably. He didn’t respond to the making of nice-nice because he was pissed at the perceived threat. As such, he did what he could to make Dave as uncomfortable as possible as a retaliation.
Unless the Lee family feels like telling us more, I’d say the party’s over, check your scorecards and decide who won among yourselves.
Now that this is out (to a degree), I personally would like to see it divulged and the person whose name and address that appeared as the sender to raise tremendous hell. That’s where the claim of fraud has to originate.
As Dave did point out, this isn’t the first of it’s kind (first on postal mail, but it happened earlier on email). To let it go is a terrible precedent.
Now, on Dave v. Matthews. That was unfortunate and uncomfortable. As I leveled at Dana once, intentions are a bitch, especially to the one who intended them. That means the originator may have a set of intentions, but if not specifically stated, then they will be lost and likely be painful to the originator.
I sincerely believe that Dave, by knowing him and discussing this with him, had every intention of not using a level of bravado that he is accused of. However, looking from the outside, I can see where that was easily missed on the first email. From there, it all spiraled away. RickJ assesses this well.
My take is, the Lee family owns the complaint for the intimidation part of the mailing. To that, I suspect they respond, “Bring it, beeeyotch!” The person who was defrauded by having hisher name and address appear as the sender owns the complaint for fraud. I wish to all hell and back that goes genuinely public. Like I said before, letting it go sets a terrible precedent.
Rick, Smitty , why don’t you just bow down and kiss Daves ring? Just admit it, Dave made a fool of himself, again.
And one more question. Don’t you think if Lees family member received this letter they would of notified thier father? Lee stated on Tuesday (WDEL when Matthews called in) that he had no knowledge of it. Whole thing sounds weird to me… just curious as usual.
maybe Lee was drunk and didn’t remember being told?
anon./just curious?,
You are an ass. Please don’t presume that I don’t know who you are. If I were doing the investigation, you would be my first visit.
anon./just curious?,
You are an ass. Please don’t presume that I don’t know who you are. If I were doing the investigation, you would be my first visit.
I blame Burris for limp dick’s coward post.
Er…Geek, you’re not the limp dick coward in this case, I want to make that clear.
As I said why don’t you just bow down and kiss Daves GOP ring? As always, you spin and fail to answer the question.
Burris deceived Matthews into thinking the FBI was already investigating. That’s intimidation, bullying and immoral.
I also wonder if it’s illegal, making someone think they will be pulled in by the FEDS in case w/ them that doesn’t yet exist.
Hi, Limpy (that’s to #13).
Nothing to see here in regard to the fraudulant ID of the sender and the context of the email, Dana?
just curious, which question would you like answered, the one about Lee feigning ignorance or the one that you wrote as anon suggesting that Lee was drunk?
Either one is a hoot, coming from you.
Smitty, there may be a technical violation of the law here, but a false return address is a violation that doesn’t warrant much attention. Suppose the return address was the White House?
As for a false return email address, I get 3 dozen emails purporting to be from someone that they are not every day. these are pretty much crimes of annoyance, rather than crimes of malice. The implication of releasing a series of photo’s if you dare run for Governor, well it is mean, rotten and despicable, but it is almost standard fare these days.
Obama in the native garb of his Father’s home country or Bill Lee with the official drink of the natives in Dewey beach. Same thing.
No way, Geek, you’re not saying what I think you are…are you? I guess I was incorrect with the email I had sent you.
… the sender and the context of the email, Dana?
Not “email,” but “mail.”
“Nothing to see here in regard to the fraudulant ID of the sender and the context of the email, Dana?”
Those are questions for the FBI, not Jr. Detective Dave Burris.
As for the context, where I come from the ends don’t justify the means. Burris lied. He wanted to make himself into a hero by finding out the “source” on the FALSE assumption that whoever gave it to Mike must have been the person who sent it to Lee’s relative.
Burris lied; end of story.
The implication of releasing a series of photo’s if you dare run for Governor, well it is mean, rotten and despicable, but it is almost standard fare these days.
I tend to disagree here. I read it as an attempt to blackmail. A clumsy attept maybe, but an attempt.
In a way it is an attack not jusy on Lee, but an attack on out system which depends on good people being willing to run for office.
We all die someday. End of story.
Hi Tom! Thanks for running into my graduation at Wesley for two minutes to speak and running off the stage in the middle of the honorary degree recipient’s speech! We were all jealous looking for similar exits!
What a snooze fest and anyway, I had some girls waiting for me in the limo.
This is me doing a Dana Garrett impression:
‘Who does Dave think he is, trying to determine guilt or innocence? That guilty bastard.’
Don’t forget to tip your server.
You are a ladies’ man, Tom! That’s why you love yourself some HRC!!!
RickJ,
When Burris said to Mike that an FBI investigation is going on when it wasn’t, did he lie?
Did Bill Lee know about this or not? Did he lie on WDEL?
How do we even know that one Lee’s relatives got this? We only have Burris word on it–the word of someone who said a FBI investigation was going on when apparently it wasn’t?
Why should anyone take his word for it now or for anything for that matter?
He said that? I must have missed that.
who’s dave burris?
….what no pink postcards involved here ? ???
Maybe the envelope was pink……..
Ask the Dave Burris sheeple if their god lied–to give a straight up or down answer to that question–and they are nowhere to be found.
LOL. How predictable.
Oh you silly self-important, important-to-none big fella’. You see, I come home from work, spend time with the family, and then, if time permits, I come online to see your focused destruction raging.
I know it must kill you that I do in fact have discussions with your nemesis over the phone or email, but I do. I don’t need to flog him in the public eye, nor do I desire to.
You? This is your level of a playing field, so here it plays out. Also, the thought of calling or emailing you nauseates me. Your now obvious need to document E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G has convinced me that nothing is private with you.
So, if you ever wonder why you are defended against unevenly (here and not off-line), now you know. There’s no point as there is no off-line with you. I don’t trust you with seemingly private communications.
When did Burris say there was an investigation going on?
Did he say somewhere that there was an investigation in progress, or is this another Dana Garrett alternate reality creation?
Looked to me like he said if there was a subpoena, it would come from that direction. ‘If’ being the key word.
Funny, the old Dana Garrett would have latched on to the perpetrator trying to intimidate a candidate and railed against him until the cows came home.
The new Garrett is blind to anything but Burris.
“So, if you ever wonder why you are defended against unevenly (here and not off-line), now you know. There’s no point as there is no off-line with you. I don’t trust you with seemingly private communications.”
All smoke and distraction. Did Dave Burris DECEIVE Mike Matthews into thinking that there was an ongoing FBI investigation or not?
Did Bill Lee deceive the WDEL audience when he denied knowing anything about this matter or not?
Stop shifting the focus like you always do.
Answer the questions.
First Mate,
What an awful spin job. Burris CLEARLY led Matthews to believe that there was an ongoing FBI investigation and the only question was IF they would subpoena him. The implication was NOT if there was an investigation.
Nice try, asshat.
“I know it must kill you that I do in fact have discussions with your nemesis over the phone or email, but I do. I don’t need to flog him in the public eye,”
Smitty,
Your claim to have called Burris w/ the suggestion that you privately rebuked him for his actions is TOTALLY BELIED by the defense that you & RickJ have given him on 3 blogs on this matter since Burris posted his “The Rest of the Story.” Anyone who got on Dave about this in private wouldn’t be defending his actions in a public forum unless they were themselves hypocrites and liars.
My hunch is that the only conversation you’ve had w/ Burris privately is about how best to present this and play it in order to save his butt from being discredited and humiliated.
If you really were bothered by Burris’ manifest deception and intimidation, you wouldn’t be defending him on the blogs and by trying once more to shift the focus onto me.
Besides, a real friend could say, “Yes, my buddy lied and acted like a bully but I still care for him.”
But you can’t criticize Dave Burris w/o getting on his shit list and being excommunicated from his shrinking inner circle. That’s why you aren’t stepping up and saying publicly what he did.
I told you it was idiotic to think you could safely hitch your wagon to Dave Burris’ star. Now you should know why: Dave Burris has no star, only a flicker. There’s nothing to hitch onto. He is rapidly making himself into a has-been that never was.
Attack the messenger. Dave Burris should not be the issue. The silly person who did this should be. What type of politics we are playing in this state should be.
Anyone smell a Rovian setup? The Lee campaign could have sent those photos in an attempt to discredit both Matthews and the fake sender, and create sympathy and GOP unity for Lee.
Not that I’m saying that IS what happened, it just reminds me of the CBS memo setup that Rove used to break Dan Rather.
Matthews has nothing to fear if the FBI has started an investigation based on their record they couldn’t find sand in Fenwick Island