My Twitter Feed

September 27, 2021

Headlines:

Truthout exposes the trials of Joe McGinniss

Since the manuscript of Frank Bailey’s memoir Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin was leaked in its entirety to the media by author Joe McGinniss, whose own Palin book will be out this month, the authors of Blind Allegiance (Frank Bailey, Ken Morris and myself) have been asked questions.  What’s the back story?  How did this happen? What was the motive?

Today, many of those questions will be answered for those who have been curious.  Matt Harwood from the top-notch investigative site Truthout has done a major expose of McGinniss – and not only his motives and behavior in the Blind Allegiance incident, but past ethical challenges as well.

You can read the expose HERE.

 

Comments

comments

Comments
262 Responses to “Truthout exposes the trials of Joe McGinniss”
  1. Floyd M. Orr says:

    I think this is the first time I have commented on Jeanne’s blog. Mudflats is listed in the Bibliography of my book, but as a blog that does not support any of the Babygate theories. As a three-year obsessive of The Palin Matrix and Babygate, I have read all the blogs and all the books, including Blind Allegiance and The Lies of Sarah Palin, and I have The Rogue on order. I do not support any of the infighting among the anti-Palin blogs, as I think it is all counter-productive to our cause of stopping the political career of Sarah Palin. A recent commenter at The Immoral Minority stated that Sarah is terrified that people will read the truth about her in my book. Anyone who is truly seeking the truth about Palin should read all the books about her, not just the ones supported by any particular cult. Thank you for your support.

  2. Elsie says:

    Over the last few days, I have read several links that show, in some detail, how McGinniss operates. I feel compelled to mention these findings here, even at this late date in the discussion.

    The Truthtout article that Jeanne referenced, “The Trials of Joe McGinniss”, was interesting unto itself, but a comment left there by “Keith O.” linked to something even more fascinating at http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/24.html

    I encourage you to read the report at the Tru T.V. site. It’s actually 29 pages, but you could start about page 20 just to read how McGinniss ingratiated himself into the accused’s life, sat in on the accused’s meetings with his own defense counsel, led him on with continuing expressions of sympathy about the man’s innocence, and intimated that McGinniss would represent the accused as a wronged man in the book he was writing. To protect HIMSELF right from the beginning of what became a three-year relationship, McGinniss had the man sign off against any later lawsuit following publication of the expected book. The care taken by McGinniss to gain total and complete access to the accused, and then write whatever book would sell the most copies, is eye-opening.

    Reference is also made to an essay, then later a book, by “New Yorker” reporter, Janet Malcolm, citing the “ethical concerns highlighted by the case (that) became the heart of (her) now classic dissection of the journalist-subject relationship, “The Journalist and the Murderer.” Her book addresses the psychopathology between, and ethical betrayals of, writers and their subjects. A review by “Publishers Weekly” includes the comment that “Malcolm suggests that journalist Joe McGinniss may have betrayed convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald in McGinniss’s bestselling book Fatal Vision.” (Amazon.com)

    I urge you to look at the info provided in the link to the Tru T.V. writeup, and then see that “Keith O.” concludes his comments back at the Truthout site with this:

    “My opinion:
    There is more to the MacDonald story than a simple analysis of MacDonald’s guilt. The heart of the issue goes to McGinniss’ journalistic integrity and the trust he violated. Whether you believe MacDonald innocent or not, the fact that McGinniss’ access to the doctor was predicated on his accurate telling of MacDonald’s side of the story and the legitimate holes in the defense raises serious concerns about the type of person Joe McGinniss is. That he would counsel MacDonald to tell his own family not to pursue interviews or other media outlets that might have told MacDonald’s story of innocence in order to preserve his own book’s vitality is despicable.

    “Whether MacDonald ever gets another shot in court to prove his innocence is largely irrelevant at this point because in the court of public opinion, McGinniss’ book has already painted the man as a monster. I realize that technically speaking a settlement offer is not an admission, but a $325,000 payout is telling. This is certainly the type of man that would not hesitate to illegally leak a manuscript that competes with his book. The almighty dollar is a powerful motivator. I wish some of the McGinniss sycophants and apologists on this board would take a hard look at the facts and McGinniss’ sordid history before they give blind allegiance (pun intended) to the man.”

    It’s all very interesting, indeed, and well worth your time to delve into these various sources of lengthy commentary on the background of McGinniss. Perhaps the noisy sycophants and apologists WILL finally begin to see clearly the facts related to this man’s history and rethink their own misplaced blind allegiance to him.

    I certainly have.

    • Amy1 says:

      Apart from the leaking of the manuscript, which I think should be taken to court, the place where McGinnis lost me was when I read his Ted Kennedy book. I thought it was going to be a bio, but I was dismayed at the lack of clear attribution of quotes/info in the book, and then I noticed the historical-fiction hallmark: McG telling us what various people thought, decided, felt, etc. Pah! I rarely read historical fiction. My interest is in the real thing.

      Then I read about some kind of disclaimer that had been on the book originally, but was taken off: something about dialogue in the book had been invented by McG based on what McG thought might have been said (thought, decided, felt). So this book was fiction. Entertainment.

      After McG’s sanctimonious rejection of the Palin Mar 14 photo as proof that SPalin was not pregnant as stated (something about having a higher standard for proof than the rest of us; that a photo or photos were not good enough as proof, although photos can constitute proof in court), I read in McG’s Ted Kennedy book that old Joe Kennedy might have ordered the lobotomy for Kathleen to keep her from talking about sexual abuse inflicted upon Kathleen by old Joe himself. I have never read that in any other bio about the Kennedys.

      What shocked me was McG’s putting that idea into his book based on conjecture rather than proof, yet finding that an exceedingly flat-profile photo (of unquestionable provenance) of Palin 5 weeks before delivering a 6+ lb baby was not adequate proof for his highness. And that none of the other Palin photos were either.

      So all of that, plus the leaked ms, plus the MacDonald/Malcolm controversy, plus the accusations of plagiarism, plus his odd behavior on his blog — all that forms the context in which I will learn what he has to say about Palin. It is still possible that his book about Palin is a good one, on its own merits apart from everything else. We will all judge for ourselves whether it is or is not, probably rather fewer of us reading from a purchased book than before we got to know McG.

  3. Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

    Come to think of it, I’m turning out to be A-OK with Joe McGinniss being such a goon on his own blog. As far as I’m concerned it’s his blog and he can do what he wants – just the same as Jeanne and any other blogger. However his tantrum allowed a lot of people to see through the falsehood of “the enemy of my enemy is always my friend” and helped get their head around the fact that he isn’t necessarily Mr. Nice Author With Ethics. I’m rather glad he threw in the towel with his blog – he showed a lot of his not so clean baggage while doing it, and that’s fine by me!

  4. sharon says:

    I just read joe’s most recent rant a few minutes ago – he’s taking shots at the bloggers again and he’s got himself all crazy and paranoid over palin and how she’s bigger then life itself, blah, blah, blah. It’s very discouraging to read some of the shit he puts out there when i was so into him at first. What a crybaby, arrogant piece of shit he turned out to be. Am not ordering his book and i’ve had it with this blowhard. And i have a feeling he wasn’t writing this book to expose her afterall. Maybe he made a deal with the devil….he said he’s friends with Roger Ailes. It’s all starting to stink …..something’s just off about this guy – something’s off about his bipolar responses on palin – he’s gotten pretty strange in the past few weeks. i think he sunk his ship opening that blog – people got pretty turned off by him. Maybe there’s so much more than meets the eye with this guy. Creep!

    • jc in co says:

      x2 Sharon. I’ll just read about his book on these “terrible” blogs he continues to bash on his whiney “no comments allowed” blog. As soon as he started getting snippy with the folks commenting on his blog I was put off. As it went further I decided he was somewhat deranged and I no longer made comments but out of morbid curiousity continued to read it daily. I’m in agreement that the chances of his “exposing” some great truth about palin are slim to none. He seems to follow the palin playbook regarding the more outrageous you are the more attention you’ll receive. As with palin it doesn’t matter if your behavior is good or bad just as long as you receive the attention you crave. And as with palin the craving for attention translates into how greedy you are. Both joe and sarah could care less how disgusting they act just as long as they can line their pockets.

  5. LaniN says:

    “Immense significance: a hoax unprecedented in America’s national politics”

    Get some history books. Jefferson had babies with his slave. Another had a questionable marital union (Jackson), while yet another had a baby without the “benefit” of marriage. Obama is the SECOND president without a non-american dad and questions about is birthplace. Roosevelt had his special person, Bush I had his CIA mistress, and Clinton had his honey.

    Get over the melodrama. Move along, nothing new here.

    • Amy1 says:

      I agree: lots of shameful things, lots of human frailty and deception. But NONE of the things you mentioned was crafted for the deliberate purpose of swaying an election, with the participation of enablers (McCain), megabuck supporters (Murdoch), and MSM (ignorers). None of the cases you mentioned were foisted upon the public, pushed into their consciousness, not once but repeatedly, for the purpose of political advantage.

      None of your items were actually hoaxes (“to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous” –Merriam-Webster). And tell me, isn’t the babyhoax a lot more vile than a president getting a blow job? For which he caught hell. Actually, he caught hell for lying about it. And rightly so.

    • Conscious at last! says:

      If you think, for one second, that Jefferson having children with Sally Hemmings is, in any way, equivalent to FAKING A PREGNANCY, then I suggest you watch a few old Sesame Street episodes where they review the difference between “empty” and “full.”

      SP was USING a LIE, the fake pregnancy, to get elected. SP was saying, “Look at me, I birthed a baby who has Down Syndrome, that is why you should vote for me.”
      The others- Jefferson, Jackson, Cleveland, etc. were concealing aspects of their personal lives(unrelated to their governing skills) that would have been unacceptable to the voters at the time. Which one of these things is DIFFERENT from the others?

      • Amy1 says:

        On top of that, if we imagine that SP had some reason to protect someone in her family as the motive for her faked pregnancy, she might have faked it but treated both pregnancy and Trig’s young life like a normal person would: shielding her children from the press, mentioning/showing them only on the rare occasion — the way all other politicians we respect have done. Do we know even the names of most other politicians’ children? If yes, then we certainly know only a tiny bit about them. Not so with Trig, who was paraded about like a trophy in settings that few mothers would tolerate for their v young child. Again, the issue is judgment. Fitness for office. Blatant in-your-face lying is usually not that well respected in a potential leader, and so it is with Palin.

      • LaniN says:

        “SP was USING a LIE, the fake pregnancy, to get elected.” Well, that certainly worked, didn’t it? Oh, wait, she and her buddy lost in a landslide.

        Meanwhile, massive voter suppression is underway in several states. I don’t care if some want to concentrate their time on looking at Palin’s belly in old photos, but others are choosing to work on halting the descent of this country into a banana republic. And those people deserve at least as much respect than those commenters who focus on the single issue of questioning the pregancy story. (BTW, you may have a keyboard problem with your caps lock.)

        Oh, you want hoaxes? How about weapons of mass destruction? And, yeah, that one is a bigger deal than any fake birth.

        • Amy1 says:

          LaniN — Sure, Palin and her pal lost, but that was not their intention. They added SP and her “pro life” stance to help them win.

          the WMD issue is exactly one of those that one wonders about when we see that the MSM is not covering something as (relatively) simple as the PalinBabyHoax. It’s not about Palin, and it’s not about the hoax in and of itself: it’s the larger issues clustered around it: who enabled it? who funded it? why no MSM coverage?

          (It’s usually not the act — it’s the cover-up and who knew what? and when? and unethically did not reveal it crookedness of it.)

          And that leads to your excellent point: what else are the MSM not telling us? THAT’S why we need to expose the PalinBabyHoax — to get a bead on all these other issues that threaten us.

          • LaniN says:

            And your limited viewpoint shows why the truth will never reach the light of day.

          • Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

            Amy1 – a lot, most, I don’t know how many – have seen or heard of the info. This isn’t the place to change minds, nor should it be. We have honored the author’s wish of not going into wild speculation, which has turned quite nasty in other places. Yes, this was awhile ago. It’s absolutely wonderful that there is an interesting online place to gather where constant conspiracies and hugely derogatory comments about Sarah’s personal appearance are not welcomed into the conversation.

            If AKM wants to bring babygate into the conversation, that is her prerogative as author. This is her place. I believe that if she decides there is an actual story then it may end up getting posted as such.

            There are more places to join others in this mission of proving the reality babygate than places of those who are just not interested, or have been turned off by the fanatical fervor of many babygaters. Spend your energy where it might make a difference, and that is not here. I’m not even sure I would care if it is proved – I’ve been so turned off by the obsessiveness of the people behind the push to believe it.

            That’s putting it nicely. My actual feelings are a little less nice than that.

  6. As Bill Clintin once intoned,”I feel your Palin.” When all is said and done when the books have come and gone,Ms Devon will still have Brian and her Mudpup family and Joe………..well who really cares. Not ME or MINE!

  7. leenie17 says:

    We all want Palin and her dysfunctional family to go away. We all want whatever influence she has on our political system and our country to stop. We all hope that all of the smoke, mirrors, glitter, mud, hype, flashing lights, diversions, arguments and slights-of-hand don’t get in the way of ending her time in the public eye, once and for all. However…

    Let’s put aside, just for a minute, our feelings about the subject of these books. Let’s put aside our personal feelings, positive or negative, about the various authors and bloggers involved in this scenario. Lets look at the bottom line:

    A complete, as-of-yet-unpublished manuscript somehow ended up in the possession of a successful author who has been in the writing/publishing business for many years. His own book on the same subject was being published at a later date.

    Regardless of what legal restrictions may or may not have been attached to the manuscript, regardless of the competence and experience – or lack thereof – of the authors, editors and agents involved, he KNEW that releasing SOMEONE ELSE’S work – in full – to the media and the general public was certainly unprofessional, clearly immoral and quite possibly illegal. In my entire life, I’ve never had a word of my own work published for profit but I know that much. I would bet that even the students in my elementary school know that much.

    He did it anyway.

    All of the other stuff just muddles the situation. McGinnis knew that what he was doing was wrong and he didn’t care.

    For those of you who say that the goal of destroying Palin is so important that we should ignore any unethical means that may be used to get there, please remember WHY we want her gone. She has no conscience, no sense of morality and is willing to use anyone and anything to attain fame and fortune. If we allow someone an ethical ‘pass’ merely because they may help us achieve our ultimate goal, we have become the unethical ones ourselves.

    We may feel a certain empathy towards a man who robs a bank to pay for his wife’s lifesaving medical treatment, and perhaps even applaud him for his devotion, but we don’t absolve him of responsibility for the crime.

    • Well said, leenie. I think that is what bothers me the most about Joe. He seems to have no conscience and a man who is so unethical will likely make other choices that don’t fit in my own moral code. And that’s the kind of person I never want to meet and certainly don’t want to support with my dollars.

  8. WC’s comments were too extensive to post here, so there’s a new blog post at http://www.wickershamsconscience.wordpress.com instead. Thanks to MarthaUnalaska for the terrific lead.

    /WC

  9. Conscious at last! says:

    Jeanne-

    This IS the perfect storm. After it clears, there is debris, but also a bright sun. With the light, there is new clarity. … and now I will move that light to a related matter of our mutual concern.

    Jeanne, a person as talented and intelligent as you are must realize, by now, the truth about babygate. You must also recognize its immense significance. The fact that you welcomed discussion of the issue on your previous post tells me that you might be inching towards it.

    Well I say- go, lady, go!!

    As many of us have suggested before, the issue can be broached as “The Rumors(Hypothesis) that Won’t Die,” or something like that. It’s a way to get the ball rolling. You’ll make a tremendous splash and you will receive a great deal of support. Cheers!

    • Amy1 says:

      Yessss! Agree 100%. Go! Talented and intelligent is the best start to writing up this sordid mess. And you know there are tons of people who respect what you say and how you say it. If we can help, just tell us. You can say “many people do not accept the photos as proof.” And you can also say “but they never want to comment why.”

    • Oxyclean says:

      Re: “You must also recognize its immense significance.”
      Can you elaborate on that? I’ve never understood the (after)birthers’ obsession with so private a matter when there is plenty of relevant & legit stuff to criticize that can be documented with more than conspiracy theories. Not to mention the fact that the truth to which Sarah readily admits is so much worse than lying to cover for your kid in a family matter that’s frankly none of our business in the first place. The conspiracy theory makes her look more sympathetic, not less so, as do the small number of folks relentlessly promoting it.

      • Amy1 says:

        Just to comment on your main points:

        Immense significance: a hoax unprecedented in America’s national politics, undoubtedly enabled by a presidential candidate and his staff (who hoped the hoax would contribute to an election victory), supported by our wealthiest (Rupert/Koch et al.), ignored by our MSM. This is immeasurably bigger than Edwards or Weiner or other run-of-the-mill hoaxes like The Hitler Diaries or art hoaxes, which affect relatively few people.

        A private matter: Not when the VP candidate makes it a public matter by endlessly parading a disabled child in front of us, making him a symbol of “family values” that were bankrupt in this and other ways. When a candidate uses an infant for electoral advantage, it becomes a public matter. When a candidate hoaxes us using an innocent infant, it is even more of a pubic matter.

        Other relevant and legit stuff that can be documented: Like what? Nothing much is happening along those lines, is it? Even after 3 yrs! The violation of campaign laws that Bailey’s book describes? Mat Su dairy issues? Housegate? The confiscation of Shailey Tripp’s property and the odd letter defending Todd against “prostitution ring” issues? The PAC irregularities? Tax irregularities? The setting up and harsh sentence of Levi’s mother? The 25 other issues? Crickets. No action. Zip. Zero. Nada.

        The Wild Ride: This would be irresponsible in the extreme, if it happened. But the Wild Ride exists only in retrospect. SP was not pregnant. She called off her reg accompanying staff; wore a fake belly somewhat smaller than the giant Gusty belly; did not have the conversations with CBJ as claimed; did not change her flights to earlier ones; and did not dribble even a drop of amniotic fluid. The Wild Ride was made up on the fly when a reporter asked for detail on Chuck’s report of broken waters.

        Conspiracy theory: It’s not a theory, it’s the fact of an excessively flat profile 4 weeks before the watermelon-sized Gusty belly, and 5 weeks before supposedly giving birth to a 6+ pound child. An unprecedented medical miracle, if it happened. But it did not.

        Sympathetic: Do you think America’s independent voters will find an unrepentant and accomplished liar sympathetic? A liar who hoaxed us? The folks who knew but did not speak up (enablers, supporters)? The MSM who failed to research it? I do not.

      • Conscious at last! says:

        Oxyclean- Sure, I will elaborate. Really, we have to look at what is right in front of our noses.

        The child(ren) known as Trig Palin – are not a private matter at all. SP has made Trig a very public issue, indeed a spectacle. When have you seen a politician, male or female, EVER BEFORE carry around his/her child constantly in public situations? If it isn’t Trig, then it’s Piper. These children are being used as shields and more. Have you ever seen a VP candidate accuse comedians, neighbors or writers of trying to abuse or peep in on their children?? This should raise some red flags. These children should not be part of her act, at all. So why are they there?

        Palin was put on the GOP ticket to appeal to the far right. Her claim to fame was her position as the governor of Alaska AND the fact that she “gave birth” to a late-in-life baby who has Down Syndrome. The GOP could use SP to court the right wing because she “chose life.” BUT both of these points, the two key reasons for her appeal are LIES! Palin did not give birth to any child in 2008. Palin was the governor of Alaska in name only. Todd Palin was the shadow governor. Moreover, Sarah Palin didn’t like governing and she didn’t know how to govern. The fact that she quit midway, for no obvious reason, should speak clearly to the point.

        If Palin became the VP, she’d be trusted with great responsibility at the level of national government. Yet, this person is dishonest enough and insane enough to try to pretend to be pregnant for 6 weeks and then “give birth.” That’s a little different than pretending you have hair on your head by wearing a toupee. I still struggle to wrap my mind around how absolutely crazy it is! That is why the issue is significant. Moreover, how many of Palin’s supporters would still be handing over their hard earned cash if they knew she lied about this “sacred” point on her resume???

        I will not spend any time here with the data, photos, etc. that illustrate conclusively for many of us that, indeed, SP lied about Trig as she lies about much else. These are all available online and I’m sure you know where to find them. I have only tried to answer your question about the importance of the issue.

        One last point: I wish we could stop using the term “conspiracy theory” to be synonymous with “crazy talk.” Conspiracies are simply plans made in secret by a small or large group of people. Sometimes they conspire to throw a surprise party. Sometimes they conspire to bomb an embassy. These things happen, they are real. Certainly everything cannot be explained by conspiracies, but they are part of the weave of life.

        Peace!

  10. Elsie says:

    I think the tide has moved on, but I just wanted to mention something I only now figured out for myself.

    On August 23, Jeanne wrote her post titled “Blind Allegiance Revisited – New Sarah Palin Bombshells from the Cutting Room Floor” which discussed in some detail what underhanded means Joe McGinness purposely used to sabotage their upcoming book and create difficulties for them in getting a publisher.

    Also on August 23, McGinness announced in his blog that he was closing comments as of September 1st due to the difficult time constraints of his important work in marketing his own book.

    After all, as he reports on August 26, he’s the professional paid writer as compared to the rest of the anti-Palin writers in the blogosphere; they are just obsessed, rank, unpaid amateurs. He just drips with smug arrogance. The more I read his comments, the more I see him for the arrogant ass that he truly is. When he lists various Alaskan bloggers, he’s careful to mention nothing about Mudflats….it is so apparent that he doesn’t want to give any credence to this blog. Well, tough, Joe…. we all know about it ANYWAY.

    I’ve met, dined with, and spent hours in the company of Jeanne. She’s a lovely, sincere, strong, moral, intelligent, creative woman. I count her as a friend. It offends me to see how poorly she’s been treated by the “professional” author. In the future, I hope that McG gets whatever he truly deserves in his own personal and business life.

    And, if Jeanne receives that to which she’s entitled, it will be accolades, joy, professional recognition of the BEST kind, and a long, happy, comfortable life.

    • jimzmum says:

      Elsie, great post!

    • pacos_gal says:

      You know I hate to break the news to ole Joe, I’m the only one who has ever written a book, but Ken Morris Has written books before, he’s been paid to do so and is actually considered a successful best selling writer.

      I think Joe reached a peak with his first book and would try everything, even under handed, unethical means to try and reach that peak again. His following books which might have been best sellers, never reached the same heights as the first one.

    • formerwriter says:

      hear, hear!!! i join in your toast to the awesomeness that is akm!!!!

  11. Wallflower says:

    I never planned to read McGinniss’s book on Palin because, generally, I don’t read books about her. The pro-Palin books are poorly written propaganda or hagiography; the anti-Palin books usually don’t have new information. I read Blind Allegiance because Jeanne Devon worked on it, and because it was a morality tale. The book gave me insight into why intelligent, caring, essentially moral people would end up following someone like Palin–and that’s exactly what I was reading it for. My opinion about the whole “leak” thing is that McGinniss felt threatened, both by Devon’s skill and authenticity as a writer, and by the book itself.

  12. LibertyLover says:

    Amazing story. One likes to think that writers are the most generous and gracious people in the world. The ones I have met have been. Sad to see that some (even those that “appear” to be the most “successful” ) can be threatened by “nobodies.” Funny thing about that though, every author before their first book is also a “nobody.” (Sometimes even after their first book.)

    So sorry for all of the trouble Joe caused AKM, Frank and Ken. Keep the exposés coming.

  13. Kath the Scrappy says:

    I think Joe Mc ‘assumed’ that Jeanne (being his BFF & all *sarcasm*) would have automatically delivered Frank Bailey to give him some insights. Didn’t happen. Instead Joe was stuck getting “annonymous” sources, like delivering gossip stuff, which is what I figure his book is all about.

    I think Joe McG ‘assumed’ that the Mudflats would automatically supply him with many buyers/readers – ain’t gonna happen Joe! So many posters I’ve read that stopped their pre-Amazon orders.

    I actually enjoyed reading “Blind Allegiance”. I think Jeanne & Ken were stuck with the boundaries that Bailey was able to go with – as well as editing choices the publisher they were forced into. It still gave more information than we were privvy to when the book came out.

    Thanks Jeanne & Ken for sharing the stuff the editors chose to clip. Interesting read!! Joe McG, I won’t bother to read or buy anything you have to produce period. Joe, you used these AK bloggers and your methods of unethical behaviour stinks frankly.

  14. lbts says:

    I cancelled my order for his book on Amazon. I’m sure if there’s anything interesting in it I’ll see it here on the Internet.

    It’s kind of ironic that Joe is writing a book about Sarah, because he’s just like her: the more you know about him, the less you like him.

    • Blooper says:

      I agree. There is no way in hell I will devote a penny to him or any of his past, current and future books. He may be all for bringing down Sarah, but that is not enough – he needs to show integrity and he has failed miserably in that department. Go away, Joe. Go away and find your next ‘project’. If I were Buce Springsteen I would be wary of Joe….

      • mistah charley, ph.d. says:

        I was considering buying McGinniss’s book, but have decided just to get it from the library (I am third on the waiting list – I don’t know how many copies they will buy – this is a county with 900,000 people). Partly I am feeling Palin Fatigue, partly I want to hang on to more of my money, but part of the reason is that I am convinced by what I have read that he has behaved badly.

  15. Irishgirl says:

    For anyone who is afraid that Palin won’t be exposed, hop on over to IM or AlaskaWTF and have a look at Nick Broomfield’s trailer from his film “Sarah Palin: You Betcha.” He is destroying her (and he’s funny too).
    The film premiers in Toronto on September 11th and I can’t wait for the reviews.

    Also too, latest polls show Palin is unelectable…and this from Fox news!

    “All in all, most voters — 74 percent — think Palin should stay on the sidelines in 2012. Just 20 percent think she should run for president.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/01/fox-news-poll-perry-overtakes-romney-as-top-gop-2012-pick-most-say-palin-should-1905707772/#ixzz1WmQpyltJ

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/01/fox-news-poll-perry-overtakes-romney-as-top-gop-2012-pick-most-say-palin-should-1905707772/

  16. Blooper says:

    After months – no – years of reading almost everything under the sun regarding all things that may discredit Palin past the point of no return, I have finally come to the conclusion that there is no one person or blog or publication that is going to be the nail in the coffin for Palin’s political career. I am convinced that what is going to bring her down will be a tidal movement of the general public and I think it may be happening as we speak (if it hasn’t happened already).

    I’m just saying this because I think too many people pin their hopes on a blog, or show, or movie, or a combination of things that may seem to be the ‘smoking gun’ but ultimately never even seem to have more impact than a grain of sand does to the hull of a boat. That is not to say that the anti-Palin blogs have no purpose and have had no impact… far from it… but I’ve watched carefully over the years that Palin was foisted on the unfortunate (and unsuspecting) lower 48 and can come to no other conclusion.

    So again, I’ve given up on any one entity dashing Palin’s political (or even public) hopes. But rest assured, her influence will diminish, and ultimately disappear (thankfully), but it won’t be because of any one person or website. It will be something called time (and common sense, and political apathy). I just hope it happens sooner than later.

    Wow, did I really just write this? (And know, this is not a criticism of my most beloved of websites, the Mudflats. I’m just speaking what is true in my soul. Thanks.

    • Blooper says:

      And as long as the Mudflats blog exists, I will fiercely defend it and its creators. It is a great blog and I am so thankful for AKM and Co. for creating and helping to maintain it.

      -Blooper Out-

  17. BearWoman says:

    Snoskred:

    I got the following warning on Norton when I came to this site:

    “An intrusion attempt by netboerse.cu.cc was blocked….”

    Has the site been infected by a rat?!

    You’ve got my e-mail.

  18. scarlet/oregon says:

    I have loved and recommended Mudflats from the beginning and always looked forward to AKM’s eloquent style of writing from the heart.

    So that said I’d like to say that the ‘leaked pages’ from Blind Allegiance gave me reason to buy Bailey’s book. I did not buy Dunn’s & have yet to order McGinniss or Levis so I’m not one who buys books, but rather waits to borrow them from the library. It was the leaked pages that caused me to buy it as I had no intention of doing so before they came out.

    Sadly I was disappointed as I felt Bailey played a martyr role throughout the book, leaving the whole truth out and still ‘pledging allegiance’ to Sarah in the end. I watched Bailey’s interviews and felt they too were short on truth and ending with ‘God-speak’ just like Sarah. I do believe Geoffrey Dunn nailed it in his recent overview of Blind Allegiance.

    Yes I read Truthout and I’m sure that if they wrote what Frank Bailey did under Sarah Palin’s guidance it would play out badly as well. That’s the problem with ‘payback’ … blaming back and forth takes us away from the goal.

    I love Mudflats and IM and Laura Novak and Malia and Palingates and Joe McGinniss and all the people who bring us closer to ending Palin’s reign of terror with their updates and humor and diligent work. So I’m saddened that closure has yet to happen with McGinniss because it’s exactly what $arah Palin loves to see.

  19. LoveMyDogs says:

    I have stopped myself from jumping into the fray for awhile now. Perhaps it is because I am a jaded cynic. Or perhaps it is because I am one year into writing a book of my own with a co-author. It is our first book and let me just say that we are terrified that someone might get a hint of what we are writing about and decide to publish it as their own. Not so much because of the money aspect but because of the “original thought” aspect of what we are doing.

    Nevertheless, I am jumping in now and I am going to do it as a sincere thought for AKM and Ken.

    Dear AKM and Ken,
    What Joe did sucks and was just wrong on so many levels. I am truely sorry that it happened. You have every right to air your grievance on your blog. It is, afterall, your blog. We all take part in your blog with comments but it does not belong to us. We are simply visitors. You tolerate our opinions and for that I am grateful. But our opinions do not guide what you do and how you do it.

    Initially, I was sad at what I perceived as infighting in the clan of Sarah exposers. And taking part in exposing her somehow made us righteous. With some distance, I see the reality that we are not one organism and that what we may share politically does not necessarily make us good people. Good people are so much more than what they feel about one bad person.

    One of the great things about the mudflats is that it is NOT all about Sarah 24/7. Even if she is the reason that many commenters come here. I, personally, have come to the conclusion that she is a waste of the air that I breathe and worrying about her 24/7 is an incredible waste of my life. That being said, I appreciate the efforts of all who have helped the country to see her for what she is (and isn’t). And the great irony is that she has done most of it herself.

    Now I am going to be the cynic. Despite the fact that all of the authors involved in this seemed to have the same motives for writing (that being exposing the fraud) there is also a very real business aspect involved (getting published and selling books). This means competition and when things get competitive, they can get very cutthroat (in any business). I am sad that you learned this the hard way. I am sad that unethical, win at all costs people exist on both sides of the political (and writing) spectrum. It would be so much easier if we could always be right and all of the people “with” us could be pure, untainted and ethical. It would be wonderful if every person that I have ever trusted in my life were trustworthy. Unfortunately, I have learned the hard way that people have to earn my trust. It sounds like you trusted and got burned. I wish I could put some kind of salve on the burn and help it to heal. But that isn’t the way life works.

    I do not see this post as vindictive. I see it as an author shining a light on her own reality. If anyone thinks that this will have the slightest effect on the karma of Sarah, that is heading towards her like an oncoming train, they take things far too seriously.

    So let your light shine AKM and pursue justice if you can afford it. Like big companies, big authors may think that they have the right to stomp on the new and smaller guy. Sometimes, they too have to learn the hard way.

    Sincerely, LMD

    • Blooper says:

      LoveMyDogs wrote: ” I, personally, have come to the conclusion that she is a waste of the air that I breathe and worrying about her 24/7 is an incredible waste of my life.”

      That is perhaps one of the most resonant things I think I have ever read read on this site. Thank you for saying that. I really, really am tired of wasting my time on Sarah. It’s time to move on… I’ve wasted enough of my neurons on her. Sigh.

  20. Baker's Dozen says:

    Mom was right:

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. Palin’s wrongs and McGinnis’ attempts to publish a book about it and crush the competition by unethical means doesn’t make a “right.” It is wrong.

    The ends do not justify the means. Yep, Mom. I heard you, and you were right again. Getting Palin does not justify unethical means.

    I’m with Jeanne and Ken. Expose unethical behavior. It is even more important to do when the person is on your “side.” The worst enemy for any righteous cause is always from within and always parades as being right or justifies immoral behavior. If they cover up bad ethics long enough, the left will become the new right. After all, how do you think the Party of Lincoln ever turned into what it is? It’s because they accepted and encouraged really bad morals, ethics, and acts.

  21. Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

    Sometimes it’s all about why you didn’t see the chain…

    “Two guys are out hunting, and while walking off the trails they come upon a huge hole in the ground.

    They are amazed by the size of it. The first hunter says “Wow, that’s some hole; I can’t even see the bottom. I wonder how deep it is?”

    The second hunter says” I don’t know, let’s throw something down and listen and see how long it takes to hit bottom.”

    The first hunter says “There’s this old automobile transmission here, give me a hand and we’ll throw it in and see”.

    So they pick it up and carry it over, and count one, and two and three, and throw it in the hole.

    They are standing there listening and looking over the edge and they hear a rustling in the brush behind them.

    As they turn around they see a goat come crashing through the brush, run up to the hole and with no hesitation, and jumped in head first.

    While they are standing there looking at each other in stunned silence, an old farmer walks up. “Say there! You fellers didn’t happen to see my goat around here anywhere, did you?”

    The first hunter says ” Funny you should ask, but we were just standing here a minute ago and a goat came running out of the bushes doin’ about a hundred miles an hour and jumped headfirst into this hole!”

    “No way! I had him chained to a transmission!” “

  22. Snoskred says:

    Here’s a hypothetical thought for all.

    I’ll buy Joe’s book on the day it is launched, on Kindle.

    I’ll then make it available to everyone at no charge. I’ll twitter a link to it for everyone to go and download, send it to the media, post it anywhere and everywhere.

    How will Joe like those apples? 🙂

    • Alaska Pi says:

      Am guessing, after he choked on his cigar, he’d be yelling in the phone for his attorney to stop you … 🙂
      Gotcha Joe!

    • jimzmum says:

      But, you would be lowering yourself to his level. Do you want that?

    • lisa says:

      You are cracking me up!

    • Dia says:

      Snoskred,

      Kindle doesn’t allow that. You can “loan it” to someone else for up to two weeks but during that time it isn’t available to you or anyone else. I think you can only loan your purchase once.

      There may be another way to bootleg off of Kindle but I haven’t heard of it.

      I guess a person could scan or type it into their website or blog then release it that way.

      You can read a lot of publications on “Google Books” and even though they claim an item may not have the whole book, I haven’t had any problem reading for free there.

      Joe turned out to be more vicious and petty than I imagined an author of his stature might be.

      Oh, well, feet of clay, I suppose.

    • bubbles says:

      Joe will have a ten pound baby. LOL.

  23. rebekkah says:

    This is disappointing to hear that Mr. McGinniss may be guilty in this way.

    When elected officials do wrong and need exposure, the media should do the job of exposing. Public servants need to be ready to do the right thing and call corrupt leaders out. But they don’t. So when decent journalists/writers take on the task, all of a sudden, everyone wants a piece of the action.

    Some authors see the content of their book as their personal prize. It means nothing more than a treasure trove of gold to them. It pays the bills. To conscientious authors, the content is worth the sweat and tears and risks regardless of the monetary rewards; the end result is to see corruption end and justice served.

    Sorry to hear about all this mess.

  24. grasshopper says:

    With McGinniss’ history of plagiarism, I’ll bet his eyes lit up when he saw all those Frank/Sarah emails, knowing he could easily spin their content into “an anonymous source revealed this…”, or “witnesses described that…”, if you get my drift.
    Seems like he takes his friends Murdoch & Ailes approach to writing; get the story any way you can.
    I’m still betting there is nothing in there WE don’t already know.

    • Dia says:

      I’m thinking he won’t reveal anything we don’t already have evidence of, either.

      In fact, I’m hoping AKM & Morris actually scoop him – wouldn’t that fresh hell torch his pants?

  25. aussiegal77 says:

    I did notice some weird behaviour at the McGinniss blog, most notable his berating of posters as being obsessive. Not exactly a kind response to people who grace your public blog. And then shutting down the comments was not really explained. I gave him the benefit of the doubt however and just thought hey, it’s his blog, he can do whatever. But this Truthout piece is indeed illuminating and sheds some light on the seemingly out of the blue weird behaviour.

    Apart from the weird comments – I did enjoy Joe’s posts and again, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see how Joe responds to the article from Truthout (if he chooses to).

    • aussiegal77 says:

      Have read the Truthout article all the way thru now.

      SIGH.

      Ken, Jeanne – I’m sorry you’ve had to go thru this. You both worked very very hard with Bailey on his book and you’ve been hassled for your efforts.

      Joe – Jeanne has already apologised and explained her actions. The agency did a monumentally stupid thing to send out the manuscript without a confidentiality agreement but you kinda took advantage of that. Can’t you find room in your heart to forgive? Surely, friendships should trump business squabbles?

      To all the authors – I really really hope you can all get together in person in the near future and patch up your differences. Please bury the hatchet. Please apologise to each other sincerely and please forgive each other without reserve. I know it will tough, emotions are high, accusations will fly – but please try to be adults about it and not let it devolve into bitter recriminations.

      The important mission is to expose Sarah Palin and to get as wide a readership for ALL of your well written & well researched books. Including Geoffry Dunn’s book! The main goal is to stop Palin from hurting and victimising MORE people, including her family and friends.

      You guys are in a unique position to really make a difference. The 2012 elections are only a little over 12 months away and the sharks are circling around President Obama. I haven’t agreed with all of his decisions or political strategies in his first term but I am absolutely convinced that Obama should be re-elected. We’ve only just begun to undo the damage of the last 8 years. Let’s not spend our energies fighting amongst ourselves – let’s come together under the common goal of serving this country and our fellow mankind because God knows we have had ENOUGH self-serving, ruthless and immoral politicians in this country, haven’t we?? I mean, look at Perry and Bachmann! You KNOW they will be using the Palin Model to get away with being unqualified for the presidency. And you KNOW the MSM will be as idiotic and self serving as ever.

      Please patch things up and present a united front. We need ALL of you to pitch in.

      • LaniN says:

        This remark is in general, not particularly to the poster above. Statements like this have been made several times: “The agency did a monumentally stupid thing to send out the manuscript without a confidentiality….”

        That’s McG’s excuse. It is not true. As explained way up higher, no such statement is necessary for the protection of confidentiality nor is it usually made. To make a claim that anyone has free rein to distribute someone else’s work is false and a red herring.

        • aussiegal77 says:

          You are right! I missed irishgirl’s post above when I commented here and have been set straight. Looks like McGinniss had acted underhandedly. That pisses me off to no end. I hope there can still be reconciliation….but perhaps some distance is needed at this point….

  26. Oxyclean says:

    Snoskred: exposed as Windows user. 😉

  27. Snoskred says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen –

    Nobody is saying anyone has to take sides.

    Nobody is saying you can only buy one book or the other.

    AKM & Ken are entitled to tell their truth and to have it heard. That is what is going on here.

    Don’t like it? See the little cross in the top right corner of your screen? Click on that. All will be solved. 😉

    • jimzmum says:

      Thanks for all you do, Snoskred. I am sure you have had quite a day. I have fresh cranberry-oatmeal cookies in the kitchen. Want a few dozen?

      • Zyxomma says:

        Snoskred, if the answer to jimzmum is yes, I have some lovely organic white jasmine tea (hot or iced to go with your cookies.

        Or perhaps, after all your hard work updating The Forum, you’d like something stronger?

      • lisa says:

        I do! Fresh or dried cranberries and if so did you have to soak them?

    • Alaska Pi says:

      Well, I’m here on AKM’s side, even though nobody is asking 🙂

      Am not buying all this silliness about how AKM and Mr Morris should suck it up and take one for the team in order to take-SP-down or that somehow they are being petty and repetitive and all the rest of the hogwash getting sloshed around.
      There’s no ” team “. There’s a common desire amongst a pretty disparate group of folks, with equally disparate personal agendas ,
      to keep a spotlight on SP’s unfitness for public office and policy making. No team.
      And sure no team when it comes to Mr McGinniss, who comes across as a snotty smug puffed up primadonna in the Truthout article quotes of his emails.

      This set of events around the publishing of 2 books about SP is not about SP.
      It’s about ethical v unethical business practices amongst people in a work world .

      As Irishgirl said above ole whatzername has pretty much punched a hole in her own boat and the waters are nigh on to her chin, all of her own makiing.
      Am thinking the work of having to keep an eye her will be done before long .
      Thank heavens.

    • Moles says:

      Could not agree more. McG’s blog was created for one reason: to get hold of his readers’ information on Palin to further sales for his book. Fine, but his explanation of “The Leak” is almost comical if he expects it to be taken at face value. Not much is to be gained by throwing verbal rocks at those we disagree with; there are arguments within arguments here. McG’s behaviour, AKM’s response, Bailey’s omissions. All part of a central theme which is for God’s sake let’s see the end of Palin.

  28. Elsie says:

    Those anti-Palin fanatics who ridicule the blog owner for selective subject matter here in her own site need to move along and open their own blog and beat to death any ol’ horse of their choosing, ad infinitum, in their blogs. I’m pretty darn sure, though, that they will never garner the same readership in their little efforts elsewhere as Jeanne has here.

    In the meantime, I salute Jeanne and her partners for their long hours, weeks and years of hard work producing their recent book. Jeanne’s integrity, calm and intelligence is apparent in everything she writes and shares with her loyal readers here. It pains me to know a little of the hell she’s been through, as has Ken, due to the determined and calculated sabotage done them by Joe McG.

    Joe M is a real scoundrel to have sabotaged their efforts in the manner he chose to do. You couldn’t pay me to buy his book. What a jackass.

    Hang in there, Jeanne. I love ya, Hon. Don’t let the jerks get you down.

  29. just-a-friend says:

    I don’t know why people have the idea that writers are part of a big, loving, embracing club where they mutually support each other. I’m thinking of the world of newspaper reporters who would do anything to scoop each other. There was cut-throat rivalry involved in being the first to break a story. Today, it’s not the same. There is a smaller staff, and it is easier to repeat the story printed by the wire service.

    We have all seen the crowd of photographers, mobbing a celebrity or covering a significant event. The biggest of them, the ones with the sharpest elbows are probably the ones who get the photos. We have seen the reporters shouting questions at an impromptu news conference. There is no “You go first. Oh, no, you were standing before I was.” It’s a competition.

    That doesn’t justify any of the behavior that is being described in this story. However, we do not have the entire picture. Feelings have been hurt and friendships may have been betrayed. We have to wonder what the purpose is for each author to write about Sarah Palin: to expose her abuse of power and wrongdoing in office, paint a portrait of someone unfit for national office, a colorful biography of a person who generates instant attention, or just making money from a subject that people will want to read about. Bailey said that his purpose was redemption, however by failing to reveal everything that went on in Palin’s administration, it doesn’t appear to be full redemption. If the people reading hear want the truth about Sarah Palin to be revealed in these books, then there is little advantage in attacking the messenger. What should be important is the message.

  30. Samantha says:

    What a piece of work this Joe person is. When I first started visiting his blog, it was just for support. Because really, there was nothing new. Eventually, the blog got very strange. He berated posters, and created rules for them which he himself would break. Then came a serious of bizarre posts: One in which he threw Gryph under the bus, and another in which he ranted about obsessive posters. Most normal people were disgusted and left. The remaining groupies never “got” the fact that they were worshiping a man who was spitting directly into their faces.

    The Bristol Palin Child Abuse post was next, with his hysterical rant about McCarthyism. I complained. He backpedaled, but defended his headline by saying there’s no harm in a question, even if the question is suggesting an untruth. I responded by pointing out that he was using an accusation-by-question method of attack, ironically a McCarthyism tactic, while at the very same time using the spirit (and words…lol!) of McCarthyism to present himself as some kind of victim. Maybe in his heart he thinks he’s one, I don’t know. But after he asked that ridiculous question to the snotty Palin kid, “have you no decency?” I wanted to ask him a question too, only it would go something like this: “Have you no brain cells in your head, or is it full of rocks instead???.”

    I never got to ask the question because he closed the comments. (And, btw, he deleted the Bristol post). Joe’s nervous and anxious behavior and lashing out on his blog was inexplicable to me, but now I understand. And I also understand why he announced he was closing the comment section. Because the Mudflats and Truthout shyt was about to hit the proverbial fan.

    • justafarmer says:

      And now he is a fan club of only “me, myself & I”, blogging to himself.
      How sad that he’s all chuffed up over being mentioned in a Doonesbury cartoon. Guess that’s “gravitas” for him.

    • Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

      Why Samantha, I think you are giving him too much credit for forethought and schemability in your assumptions! He may just have needed a month to locate some help pulling that huge stick out of his butt.

    • grasshopper says:

      Now Joe is bragging about the “Fast Company” he is running with with his book’s mention in a Doonesbury cartoon. (No comments allowed).

    • Lidia17 says:

      Heh. Very true, Samantha. My favorite hyperbole of his was the “Rodney King” post, where he appeared to want to draw an analogy between critical blog comments and a sustained beating by law-enforcement. Or something.

      • Samantha says:

        God knows, Lidia. What was all that Rodney stuff about? And all his other hysterics? I notice that neither gypsyrose nor any of the other Joe-bots on his blog are making an appearance here. Maybe they’re embarrassed, maybe bitter, who knows what. But I don’t care, and I don’t plan on clicking on his boring blog either. I never even had it bookmarked anyway.

        As far as his book, I hope his big c*cktease is worth it and there’s some bombshell in there. But if I was a betting woman, I’d bet against it. It’s probably just more stuff we already know and has already been put out there.

    • lilly lily says:

      I became leery for the reasons mentioned above. I agree.

      Joe McGinniss seemed a bit off about his blog. He probably didn’t want it in the first place.

      I don’t know any of the parties personally and kept out of it.

      Sarah is my only real target.

      Bristol is a nothing. The Johnstons aren’t worth much except as foils, unless Levi actually says something to bring Sarah Palin down.

      I think this film opening in Toronto is well worth seeing.

      I’ll read anything anti Palin at the library.

      I don’t buy books about polititians, ever. Though I have a gift card from Barnes and Nobel.

  31. Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

    I do have a dog in this fight..his name is Ethical Behavior

    There are some wonderfully cool heads here today being very articulate and supportive of Jeanne & Ken’s dilemma, which is based in my mind as being entirely about my dog, Ethical Behavior. Thank you to many for the great reading!

    There are lots of posters here from other blogs and media forums – some familiar, some not. I welcome you all whether I agree or disagree with your comments. I think it’s cool to mix things up and blow out the cobwebs.

    What I don’t welcome is the belief that Ethical Behavior is only a convenient pet. You can snark all day long and give me a thousand naked pics of a non pregnant Sarah Palin and I don’t give a damm if the price is that I toss Ethical Behavior aside, or put him in doggie daycare – however momentarily.

    What I don’t welcome is the idea that the end justifies the means. Bring Sarah Palin down at all costs. Danger, danger! Have we not learned from our history lessons? There are many examples, and no matter how well intentioned those causes start out to be, they end badly.

    I do want my dog to win. I won’t loan him out, and I won’t drop him off somewhere else. It might be a longer fight, but when I go to sleep every night, I want him right next to me with his head on my pillow.

    • Nan (aka roswellborn) says:

      A handsome critter, that dog of yours. Sometimes inconvenient, maybe, but you really don’t wanna do without him.

      A fine dog.

    • AKPetMom says:

      How ethical was it of Frank Bailey to pick and choose what private email conversations that he wished to share in his book? Others were seeking said correspondence in regards to previous ethics complaints regarding the Gov, but Frank gets to use them to make a buck and to try to clear his name? I’m still on the fence about that.

      • Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

        That’s a good question – without more info I wouldn’t make up my mind yet. I have learned that assuming I know the whole picture, and actually knowing enough of the whole picture are not the same thing very often at all. I think a whole bunch of people secretly wished very hard that it (the email hoard) would just turn into Alaska-leaks, or any and all profits made by getting it into book form to reach a broader potential audience would go to an amazing charity or cause.

        I am not choosing to believe one player is ethical because I think the other is unethical. The decisions are not mutually exclusive. Each player has his/her own story and I almost don’t want to know more.

        I just wish the best possible outcome, and do not believe that righting a wrong, or opening it up for all to see and discuss is a bad thing to do – it does not help Sarah Palin, whether she giggles today or not. It does not change that a lot of people with different personalities are passionate about finding a sure way to convince the undecideds in this country that she’s a sh1thead politician. We can join in with discussion but we aren’t the players.

      • Alaska Pi says:

        If this concern grows from Mr Dunn’s recent article, Mr Dunn uses some interesting devices of (rhetorical) style and runs right up on, if not into, a number of contextomies
        http://fallacyfiles.org/contexts.html
        to flesh out his stance that Mr Bailey failed to fully account for issues surrounding the Petumenos investigation of Troopergate.
        Makes for some flash and glitter but maybe not much else…?

        • Ninufar says:

          Thank you AK Pi,

          I think you read the same article I did, and more carefully:

          http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/palin-redivivus/article_2460bf64-d41e-11e0-b538-001cc4c002e0.html

          And thank you Ms. Yard Sign for the reminder that there are more than two possibilities! I want to emphasize what I got out of Dunn’s article —

          1. hey, it’s quite possible to be a competing author and not act like a scumbag! note that Dunn knew about Bailey’s book from perhaps even before AKM’s involvement, and he kept his trap shut about it until an appropriate time!

          2. AKM is an ethical professional! Whether or not you agree w/Dunn’s conclusions, our hostess here used her writerly talents to help Bailey get his own story out. It’s out, and Dunn and others have the right to pick at it if they like. AKM also honored her promises. Contrast this with the creeptastic record of McGinniss, winning trust of informants, urging them not to talk to other reporters, and then singing a totally different tune at publication time.

          I used to work in a world where intellectual property was *everything*, so I was pretty appalled by the commenters at truthout who say she (AKM) should have broken her non-disclosure agreement. The only way I could stand reading the comments was by examining their expository style to see which might be from sock puppets. Lots o’ self-importance on display!

          Peace all…

      • Lidia17 says:

        I agree. I don’t think this Bailey book project did Jeanne any favors. The whole premise of it is unethical in itself. The main attraction of the book was the release of a [tiny fragment of a] cache of e-mails that should have been opened to the public long ago. Even if one were only to read between the lines of the book, it’s clear that Bailey did many unethical and even illegal things, and that his book covered the minimum necessary to ask for, and receive, a slap on the wrist in the court of public opinion. If, as Mr. Dunn suggests, Troopergate might be re-visited, I have hopes that Mr. Bailey will receive a more concrete punishment.

        http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/palin-redivivus/article_2460bf64-d41e-11e0-b538-001cc4c002e0.html

    • physicsmom says:

      Martha, my only concern about what you said is that you seemed to call Baby Hoax believers unethical. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but the line about “naked pics of a non pregnant Sarah Palin…” and tossing Ethical Behavior aside is troubling.

      • Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

        I don’t give a damm what Baby Gate Hoax believers believe. It’s clear that I did not call them unethical. Many of those believers have been practicing unethical behavior in my opinion, not through what they believe, but in shoving it down every one’s throat who has already said “Enough, I don’t go there. I have other fish to fry, have fun.”

        At all costs, they want to bring Sarah down. That’s fine, too – it’s an individual choice. Many of these posters are crossing the line, repeating their mantra, going back to places to sell their wares where they have already been told it’s not welcome, getting angry if they can’t deposit their load, leaving sarcastic and snotty comments for posters who didn’t give them the time of day, then they run back to their blog and whine. Period. It’s all over the Internet and has been for quite some time.

  32. Irishgirl says:

    The McGinniss defenders have become the very thing they despised – bots. They are so full of hatred towards Palin that they are willing to go to any lengths to bring her down. Doesn’t that just remind you of a certain website that dislikes the black man in the White House? They have lost all sense of decency and fair play and they should be ashamed of themselves.

    I despise Palin and I am not a Bailey fan but I can distinguish wrong from right. What Joe did was wrong on so many levels. His book probably won’t make a damn bit of dfference. Palin is unelectable and she has managed that all on her own.

    If I had spent two years writing a book and it had been leaked, I would be fecking furious.

    Go Levi!!!

    • Samantha says:

      I hope they like the taste of crow. Because now they know they were being used, and his convenient closing of comments to work on projects is now about as believable as Sarah Palin suspending her bus tour because of jury duty. It hit the fan and he knew it was coming.

      I completely agree with you and Martha. I don’t sell out my principals so that someone else can make a buck on a book, when in the long run it ain’t gonna matter. McGinniss ginned up as much Palin hype he could on his blog to keep her relevant and allow his book to make money. She’s going down, and it will have nothing to do with his book, in the end.

  33. fawnskin mudpuppy says:

    i would like to address an issue that has been bothering me for some time and that really relates to the comments on this thread.
    a few of you have posted your comments about this dust-up and found that most of us regular mudflatters don’t quite agree with you.
    this does not mean that you haven’t the right to express your opinions. i think that we all respect those thoughts.
    what does bother me is the going between blogs with your gripes about how you are treated here and how mudflats censors comments. as far as i know that is simply not true. i know that for a long time certain words and phrases were not allowed (we all know what they were) but i honor jeanne’s decision to not allow talk about the palin family members at that time.
    what is true is that other blogs that you frequent do censor…infact, i have been banned from posting on one because i defended jeanne and regina.
    here, at least, you get to express your dissension which, for me, is important in an ongoing conversation.
    jmo

  34. Bob says:

    This is not about Sarah Palin, people. It’s about ethics and a well-known author screwing over another less-known author. It’s like stealing. Why aren’t you suing McGinniss, Ken and Jeanne?

  35. rm says:

    Fox’s The Five Speculates That Fox’s Sarah Palin Is Attending World Economic Forum For Money

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201109010017

    • mistah charley, ph.d. says:

      Despite what the tv talkers say, Palin is not going to the World Economic Forum, a non-profit organization best known for its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, it is the World Knowledge Forum meeting in South Korea.

  36. rm says:

    What Would You Like To Hear Sarah Palin Say ?

    LOL

  37. Ripley in CT says:

    I am and will always be a big supporter of AKM, and now of Mr. Morris. Thank you, Mr. Morris, for helping to deflect the inevitable criticisms from the one-talking-point commenters. There are a multitude of infractions that Mrs. Palin is guilty of committing, and the ones that can be proven are the ones that will keep her away from any public office. Thank you for exposing her.

    Insofar as Mr. McGinness’ behavior; I find, and found, it appalling. Kudos to Irishgirl for re-posting MidnightCajun’s comment, as he has said it time and time again, having it fall upon deaf ears all over the internet blogs. I heard it loud and clear, well after I made my decision on the character of the man who betrayed AKM’s trust. I’m a Scorpio; the one who breaks my (or my friend’s) trust is dead to me once I find out. It serves me well.

    AKM, keep on doing what you’re doing, not that you need any encouragement from me. You have a decent, caring and chivalrous co-author there, in Mr. Morris, and I encourage more collaboration with him in the future 🙂

    It gets easier.

    • Amy1 says:

      Agree. In all my reading on the blogs, I have always seen AKM’s reputation come out sparkling. I hope you sue, for actual and punitive damages. I hope you are looking into it and just haven’t commented on it (no need to). Such a suit would be a real slog, but it would repay you and also publicize both books. Mainly because of McG’s spotty reputation re the alleged plagiarism of Manchester and the controversial Malcolm point of view. In fact, I bet they’d settle out of court to avoid the publicity due to what I find to be very damaging admissions by McG.

      Anyway, I’m glad you posted the link — I would otherwise have tried to find it myself.

      And now, let’s get on to the next Palin item of business.

      (And please tell us the whys and wherefores of your refusal to address the hoax. On Laura’s blog, Scharlott has just said “. . . it was pragmatic to be cautious because the alleged wrongdoing in this case borders on the unbelievable – it’s breathtaking to think a woman capable of such a staggeringly devious hoax could have gotten within a heartbeat of the presidency. I was concerned last April that if I came across as too cocksure there was a hoax, I could be dismissed as a partisan or a lunatic.” Perhaps this was your reasoning too?)

  38. ks sunflower says:

    I just want to repeat my support for Jeanne and Ken. I appreciated the link to the expose on Joe because it is important to understand what motivates people and how their character is revealed through their actions. They have to right to educate us in the back story of this incident. After all, Joe is wasting no time in trying to undermine them in an effort to hoist his flag in the marketplace.

    I note that Jeanne has done this simply and with taste. No nasty allegations, no back-biting or mud-slinging. By providing the link, we are allowed to research, consider what we find, and draw our own conclusions.

    Jeanne has always emphasized research and reason. Her posts and those of her guest hots have always been civil We, the readers, have often veered a smidgen here or a tad there in our enthusiasm and passion on certain issues, but Jeanne has always shown integrity to her standards – and high standards she does indeed have.

    It’s why she has been able to expand and deepen this site. I don’t know how many volunteers it must take to handle the main page and then all the threads, but it is an impressive testament to how many of us trust her and those she selects to guest blog.

    We are a community of kindred spirits who come from a diversity of backgrounds, viewpoints and motivations. However, we all share an intense desire for truth, for honor, and for making our country the best it can be through an inspection of and discussion about dirty tricks, half-truths, and misrepresentations.

    To imagine that Jeanne or anyone closely working with her would ever stoop to the tactics alleged to Joe McGinnis, is to beyond my capability. Having read this blog for several years I think we would have detected that tendency before now. Jeanne is a daughter for whom her mother’s pride was justified, an intellect that is honest and capable of piercing the darkness of smoke and shadows inherent in the manipulations of ambitious politicians and lobbyists, and a thinker whose analysis and presentations draw us back again and again because her message resonates with inner compass. We trust her because we’ve come to know her over these years.

    I also trust bloggers such as Jesse over at the Immoral Minority, but for slightly different though similar reasons. Truth finds its own way. I look for integrity and intellect and trust only those who consistently strive for truth and admit when they are wrong. Both Jeanne and Jesse do that. I do not know about Joe because I have only taken to reading his blog recently but have been appalled one too many times by the way he treats his readers. It does not diminish any truth he may hold and expose, but it diminishes his impact. The lesson is his to learn, not ours.

    • ks sunflower says:

      er, third paragraph: “guest hosts” not “guest hots” though some may indeed have been hot, that is not for me to speculate, even inadvertently. A simple typo, nothing more.

    • NEO says:

      Sunflower, I like what you say.

    • jimzmum says:

      I have lost track of how many times I have thanked you today. Add another one, ks.

    • Pinwheel says:

      Ah, KS Sunflower, Thank you for making these comments. Yes, truth will out.

    • leenie17 says:

      Well said.

    • physicsmom says:

      I so agree. I’ve followed many Palin blogs over the last 3 years and each takes a different slant which contributes to the whole. I’ve always respected Jeanne’s rules and gone elsewhere to discuss that which she didn’t want to. Similarly, I don’t understand all the vitriol about Bailey’s book. It’s HIS book and HIS story, and even his co-authors don’t have the right (or the ability) to force him to include more than he is comfortable doing. Does that make him disingenuous? Yes. Does it make Jeanne and Ken disingenuous? No!

      Jeanne and Ken have access to information that was not included in “Blind Allegiance,” and have chosen to release it now. Some would have liked to see it sooner, some want ALL OF IT NOW! Too bad. It’s not your decision. I don’t think there’s been a sinister cover-up, nor do I think it’s part of a vengeful scheme to affect Joe McG’s book sales. Why are people ascribing nasty motives to our AKM?

      In the long run the disputes between the authors and bloggers will not mean anything in the downfall of $arah Palin, which is coming surely as the sun rises in the morning. In the meantime, they are entitled to obtain legal redress for the wrongs done to them, if they Choose to pursue it.

      I wish everyone would please calm down. Namaste.

  39. Dianna Albertson says:

    “lead to a book that would come out at the same time as MINE and detract from the attention paid to MINE by diluting it, thereby hurting MY sales, thereby taking money out of MY pocket in order that she might have more to put into hers.”

    MINE, MINE, MY, MY

    My, my indeed. ME, ME, ME!

    Everyone needs to be upfront with Joe because Only Joe should have money in his pocket or else… watch your back.

  40. blue moose says:

    Whew, I sure am glad I didn’t buy either book. Mr. Bailey left to much on the cutting room floor, He was to easy on the quitter. considering she is the queen of vindictiveness.

  41. FrostyAK says:

    Keep up your bar brawl, and only $P wins. Enough, in this case, is too much.

    Playing the continual victim is just SOOO Sarah-like. And no, I am not defending Joe. Mistakes were made on both sides. I just find the whole thing so childish.

    • Ken Morris says:

      How is someone violating copyright law, destroying the efforts of three people for 2.5 years each, and then misrepresenting the facts rise the level of childish on the aggrieved party’s part? It is equally not childish on McGinniss’s part because most children wouldn’t conduct such personally vile behavior.

      Jeanne made one big mistake: she trusted and aided Joe McGinniss for years, assuming he was a friend. It seems you are implying that by not breaking the law and violating her non-disclosure agreement (without ever breathing a word to me or Frank and, BTW, refusing to read any part of his or Dunn’s book for fear it would be a breach of confidence) she made a mistake.

      How can you possibly be so upset with Sarah that you dismiss equally vile behavior and tactics in Joe M. just because you like the shine of his boot (the one that kicked us, by the way)?

      Finally, we are not “playing” the victime here. We were the victim. In my case, three very important charities got short-changed because we lost three to four highly interested publisher immediately following the leak and we lost all the marketing opportunities when the book came out that Joe so proudly touts on his own blog. He writes endlessly about how vital it is to keep the contents secret ahead of publication, Why do you think he does that? Because he knows leaks kill a book.

      So, if you would like to reconsdier what is SOOO Sarah-like, please do factoring in the facts.

      • FrostyAK says:

        My impression was that you 3 HAD NO PUBLISHER prior to the leak. Was that a false impression? It might actually have been on this blog that I read that tidbit. Maybe not…

        Fine, you are the victim, the only victim. Everybody was and is mean to you. And $P wins once again.

        When I see you have instigated a lawsuit for damages against McG, I will then follow it to it’s conclusion. If you win, I will publicly apologize for saying ” Playing the continual victim is just SOOO Sarah-like.” Jeanne can see my email and notify me when I need to make said public apology.

        I am only in this game only to bring out the WHOLE truth about the WGE. Leavings from the cutting room floor make me wonder why they had to be cut. They make me wonder how much Bailey actually told his co-authors, and what he witheld. And why…

        • Samantha says:

          Wasn’t the point of shopping the manuscript around to get a publisher? It was at that point the book was leaked and many publishers backed out. That was what I got out of the truthout report.

    • lilli says:

      Boy do I agree with you..How is this arguing back and forth getting anyone anywhere? Everyone is choosing up sides like a playground game, it’s ridiculous. Sarah’s probably getting a big laugh out of these blogs and commenters at each others throats..it’s what she want’s and we’re giving it to her. Joe did wrong, the 3 authors should sue if they have grounds for a lawsuit..
      Has anyone asked why these new revelations on the Palin’s were not in Baileys book and all of a sudden are coming out? Sounds a little Palin revenge-fullness to me.

      • jimzmum says:

        Did you not read the original post when these were revealed? It is here on this blog. Read it and learn.

        • lilli says:

          The new revelations weren’t relevant to Baileys book so they weren’t included..I get it but why wait months later. I am in no way defending Joe, I think he was an a$$ to the commenters and potential customers on his blog the past few weeks and since suspected this would come out I think we all know why he closed comments. If he has cost the authors money then they should sue. I was commenting at Mudflats when Jeanne started and left because of the “not allowed to talk about this and that”, all of a sudden all hell breaks loose and everything is allowed..weird.

          • Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

            I have never understood why people expect to have whatever rights they want on a blog. It’s personal, it’s the blogger’s space. I enjoyed staying here for the same reason you left. I didn’t enjoy other blogs where it was discussed constantly. I like conversation and speculation, but not conspiracies and assumptions. I chose not to spend my energy there – any of it.

            We are guests, unless the blogger accepts us as collaborators, contributors, etc. Why go to the library and have a loud conversation when there are so many more places to have the loud conversation than all the libraries combined? Jeanne can concentrate on whatever aspects she chooses, and choose to leave out whatever she pleases. What can you change by hanging onto it all this time?

          • bubbles says:

            unbelievable. Martha UYS you are worth your weight in platinum. had to post above you but thanks. i absolutely agree.

  42. WakeUpAmerica says:

    Joe’s deliberately hurtful remarks to you, AKM, make him sound like a petulant 8th-grader who is trying to defend his indefensible actions. What arrogance on his part to pretend that you betrayed your friendship with him when you refused to violate the non-disclosure clause of your book contract! Joe obviously does not respect the boundaries of friendship. What an arrogant ass!

  43. Cassie Jeep says:

    If you’ve been sloshing around The Mudflats for about three years, then I think that says all you need to know about our friend AKM.

    Her humor, insight, honesty and CIVILITY are what keeps us coming back.

    I can never know what Mr. McG’s motives were, but I must assume there were motives since, otherwise a clear apology would have sufficed, had it been a gross error.

    I bought “Blind Allegiance”, read it, and shared its messages. I will NOT buy Mr. McG’s book (since I choose to not patronize someone who has offended my friend, AKM) but I will likely read it when it becomes available at my library. I think I will know if it’s a whitewash. I’ll recognize any “soft filter” mostly because of my three years here, at The Mudflats.

    Calm down, everyone. Remember: CIVILITY.

    I don’t ever want to be a raging lunatic like SWWNBN seems to be at times, and I certainly don’t want to be that way here, at The Mudflats where I’ve always felt safe, warm and nourished while offering not much but “muddy footprints” across the floor.

  44. CG says:

    Really?! It just goes on and on, doesn’t it?
    Time for someone else to write a REAL book…

  45. beaglemom says:

    I just hope that no one loses sight of the objective here, keeping Sarah Palin from elective office anywhere and at any time in the future. The Geoffrey Dunn book, the Frank Bailey book and the Joe McGinniss book will all help reach the goal. Good grief, maybe even Levi Johnston’s book will help!

  46. LaniN says:

    Those wholehearted supporting McG’s behavior may have a little surprise when they get his book. He’s already ridiculed his “good friend” and information source Gryph by pointing to one of his posts as proof of “nuttiness” by anti-Palin bloggers and commenters. He’s already slammed many regular commenters at this own blog. He’s now tidying up that blog by removing at least one post and several comments.

    He is not your friend. He is not a friend to AK bloggers and those who follow them. He is a talented writer who writes explosive books and doesn’t care who gets hit by the schrapnel. When he started contacting the AK bloggers and others with information, the warning went out to “watch your back” and not trust the come-on and promises of trust.

    • Blooper says:

      I agree LaniN. Joe seems like a carpet bagger – swoops in when the getting’s good and to hell with those he’s used when they are no longer useful to him. Hmm… sounds a bit like someone else we know, doesn’t it?

    • Amy1 says:

      I thought I noticed some comments deleted too, but I thought it might be my imagination. I suspected that some of McG’s own comments were missing. I was looking for a particular one and didn’t find it. I could have missed it. Good to hear someone else noticed it too.

  47. NEO says:

    My thoughts, Palin is not going down, she is already out. Splat!
    Joe is a jerk. Leaking the manuscript was a crap thing to do and he knew it.
    Thanks to AKM for tying the loose ends up for her readers.

  48. lisa says:

    This is beginning to seem like a feeding frenzy.

    Whenever there is money involved level heads and honest hearts are challenged and sometimes insanity prevails.

    I hope all can eventually be set right.

  49. Anjaak says:

    I’m very sorry about the problems with Joe. I certainly don’t agree with what he did & the acts that followed.(e-mails & such)

    But I can’t believe that the leak hurt the sales of “Blind Allegiance”. If anything, it stirred up more attention for Bailey (a no name Palinmonger) because it was such an unbelievable move. Leak a whole book? That is crazy! It made the news & caused a lot of chatter.

    Kudos for Morris & Jeanne for trying to make Bailey somewhat readable. But as I have said before, Bailey is a unlikeable character & as cardboard as Captn’ Crunch without all of the sweetness. Disingenuous & insincere are the two words that most come to mind. He wants forgiveness for all of the things that he did without giving up all of the goods on Palin. He is still in love with her. It made me laugh that he went onto all of the conservative shows & he couldn’t believe when they cut him off & tried to berate him. His was just clueless. Another of Sarah’s deers in the headlights.

    Thank you Mudflats for all of your good work. You deserve a prize for having to deal with all of this the last couple of years.

    • LaniN says:

      ” Leak a whole book? That is crazy! It made the news & caused a lot of chatter. ”

      It was posted on line. Many downloaded it and publicized throughout the blogoshere where it could be read for free. Some people even came here to encourage readers to get it for free before publication. They saw nothing wrong with that, one even insisted that AKM had a duty to provide her hard work for free to bring down palin.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if that same person is now one of those claiming AKM and the other authors have no right to sue – must permit McG’s wrongful actions and accept the damage done – because they might interfere with his attempt to expose Palin. (Mind you, none of the joebots have read the book yet.)

  50. Amy1 says:

    Joe acted poorly; yes three three authors ought to care and perhaps sue to recover damages. But let’s keep our eye on the Palin BabyHoax.

    I’d still like to understand why this site, Shannon, and others refused to comment on it.

    • Oxyclean says:

      Because that stuff is our side’s version of the birthers. There’s enough legit criticism to be made of our former Governor without having to destroy our credibility on that kind of nonsense, and I’m glad Shannyn, Jeanne et al are smart enough to realize it.

      • Amy1 says:

        Thx for replying Oxyclean: I don’t understand. Are you saying the accusation of a hoax is a false accusation (like the Obama accusation was false)? Or that it’s true but it’s not a legit criticism?

        • Oxyclean says:

          I’m saying that it’s not only bogus, but that such a “hoax” it would have been more morally defensible than what she actually did when flying from Texas to Alaska as her water was breaking so Trig could be born on Alaskan soil.

      • ks sunflower says:

        The allegation that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy to gain support to launch her national political career is not “our side’s version of the birthers.”

        While it is true that there are numerous other reasons for Sarah Palin to be thoroughly discredited as someone unworthy of being President, it is important for this story to be investigated because she could not have and did not perpetuate it on her own. Either expressly of impliedly many may be guilty of empowering what may turn out to be one of the most egregious hoaxes of our democracy.

        It is that possibility that pulls my attention to this story. To turn away from it is not smart, it is intellectual cowardice. If, when all evidence is in, it turns out that her pregnancy was legit, then so be it. Apologies will be in order.

        However, if, as it is beginning to seem, there is enough credible evidence to sustain this allegation, then it must be exposed for the disrespectful and sadly tragic incident it is.

        I question whether Shannyn or Jeanne turned away from this thread of Palin’s tragic tale because they thought it was akin to incredibly wild stretch of imagination that the birthers have to embrace to encompass decades of deception and some mystical way of knowing that a child will be President in some mystical future. In Sarah’s instance, there are easily verifiable facts, photographs and witnesses, who, if ever put under oath, may have no choice to but spill what they know. Only a few years have elapsed, and almost the entire thing took place on a national stage.

        I may be wrong, but I think Shannyn and Jeanne had their hands full with so many other, easier to prove.disprove that until more details emerged (as they have in recent months) that they did not feel compelled to follow this thread. If I am wrong in my assumption as to their motives, I welcome their clarification.

        They’ve done a wonderful job in bringing forth all those other pieces of evidence that prove Sarah is incompetent and unstable. This will just be the final piece of the puzzle. It is not the only criteria to reject her; but it is critically important if the national media has failed to follow-through on an important story.

        • ks sunflower says:

          The following should have read thusly: “I may be wrong, but I think Shannyn and Jeanne had their hands full with so many other, easier to prove or disprove issues that . . .”

      • Lidia17 says:

        Oxyclean, I understand your sense of loyalty, but I think you are doing the people you mention a disservice. Far from looking “smart”, they are going to look as foolish as everyone else in the MSM when the real truth about Mrs. Palin is more widely revealed. Frank Bailey certainly knew about the Trig hoax, and I have no reason to doubt that at one point he possessed e-mails that will confirm this.

        It’s one thing for someone to have remained neutral on this score for personal political reasons—quite another to insult and trash the Trig-Truthers as “tin-foil hat wearers”. Joe McGinniss is similarly high-handed and contemptuous, for reasons unknown. Perhaps he wants to have a monopoly on all shocking Palin revelations… who knows?

    • fishingmamma says:

      I don’t care which person gave birth to what baby of where that baby is now. It is irrelevant to the fact that Palin is ill suited to govern.

      • fishingmamma says:

        “or Where that baby is.” sheesh.

      • jimzmum says:

        I think it is important to keep pushing on easily-proven misuses of power, ill-gotten gains if you will, and the under the table gladhanding that seems to have been so blatant. Not to forget Mayor Palin’s obvious mental difficulties which are becoming more and more evident. These are what will silence her. These can be easily proven to the MSM. It should be obvious that the MSM wants no part at all of Babygate. So, go another way. Go in with stacks and stacks of hard proof of underhanded actions when she was pretending to govern. Go in with names, dates, and amounts when you can find it.

      • Amy1 says:

        I can respect that you do not care. In a sense, it is good to pay no attention to such a sordid matter.

        But unless there is some credible explanation for that Mar 14 photo of an exceedingly flat profile, there is no alternative except to admit she hoaxed us!

        A hoax that was intended to affect a presidential election is a big deal. A hoax that was enabled by McCain et al; supported by big Murdoch/Koch money; ignored by the MSM. This is a very big deal. A national travesty. Esp as Palin is still attempting to “energize the base,” her true expected role rather than ever governing. She may be over or almost over, but don’t you think a hoax of the electorate that remains unrecognized after 3.5 yrs is worth as much light on it as the three authors being harmed by McGinniss?

        The difference is we have McGinniss’s admission in his own words. He sent the ms to media (more than one), and he intended to use the emails to loosen tongues in his next interviews (stated in the letter from his lawyer). We all know now. I wasn’t sure before, but I appreciate knowing all this now. Good that the link was posted. The next step is legal action by the three writers.

        And now we can get back to Palin.

      • Alaska Pi says:

        correct

      • Sirenoftitan says:

        To quote Ripley “like”

  51. Kalena says:

    I’m very sorry the manuscript was leaked but was discussed/debated long ago. I think it would be more productive at this point to get to more of the “bombshells”…folks just want Palin out of the political discourse.

    • Nan (aka roswellborn) says:

      Yes, it was discussed and debated long ago. And it was dropped.

      However, when someone else writes something that vindicates what she had said at the time of the incident, it’s surely understandable if she pointed a link to that vindication.

      Why are so many folks criticizing the woman who merely pointed out the article? She shouldn’t have given the link? Whyever not?

      • Kalena says:

        Nan, I wasn’t suggesting that Jeanne didn’t have the right to post that link. I’m just saying that, imo, posts aimed at getting SP out of the public’s and media’s interest are more important at this time than a rehash of an unfortunate situation. No disrespect or criticism of Jeanne!

        • I don’t have a dog in this fight,however,Jeanne and Ken have a serious beef that needs the light of day. Moving on to something else is not gonna clear this up. Someone or several someones may lose a significant amount of money because of what might be unethical actions from parties that certainly should know better. If these situations aren’t addressed in a timely manner,when do you suggest would be more appropriate? When the statute of limitations expire? People get tired of these ordeals and want to move ahead,especially if they are the perpetrators. I am willing to wait and see how this plays out before burning anyone at the stake.

          • Kalena says:

            This serious beef happened in Feb and has been discussed in the media and on the blogs again and again…when it happened, when the book came out and when Joe McGinniss started promoting his book. Obviously it has seen the light of day. If any lawsuits were filed because of it I’m sure, by now, they’ve been initiated and you don’t have to worry about any statute of limitations.

            I can totally understand the authors wanting to feature this new article as vindication. All I’m saying is that I hope this doesn’t become a focus and cause more infighting between those working to make sure Palin is never on the political stage again.

          • The Tundra Tart isn’t going anywhere fast. I don’t worry about legal issues as I have no stake. I would like to know more of what is happening in this case. Snooki is so “yesterday’s news”. Sounds like Mr. Mcg. may not be as devoted to slaying the dragon as he portends,IMHO.

        • Amy1 says:

          I think Joe’s behavior was outrageous and actually criminal (copyright violation, by his own admission), and Joe’s attempt to justify it vile as well; It will color my reading of his work forever more. I think the three writers ought to sue to recover damages, but real and punitive. I think you were right to post the link to the truthout.com article.

          But I really really want to move on now to your next bombshell and to understanding why you chose to omit the Baby Hoax in your posts and discuusion until now.

          • physicsmom says:

            I agree! I’ve been a mudpuppy since the beginning and support Jeanne 100%. It took me a long time to come around to believing the baby hoax story, but I do now, so I’m also interested in knowing whether Jeanne has changed her own mind about it, or just decided to let her commenters explore it.

        • Nan (aka roswellborn) says:

          We’re good.

          Glad the truth got out (pun totally not intended, but it’s late/early and I’m not at 100%) Anyway, glad the truth is out there officially now, and Palin really isn’t going anywhere. She’s so invested in the persona she wants the world to think she is that she’s going to stick it out … right up until she quits. Again.

          May that be soon!

  52. Forty Watt says:

    Thank you for that Irish and of course, midnightcajun.

  53. Oxyclean says:

    Looks like the Joe-bots are out in force today. 🙁

    • jimzmum says:

      Sadly so. Blogs are full of essentially the same posts from a Baker’s Dozen.

      • Ripley in CT says:

        **like**

      • Baker's Dozen says:

        From a Baker’s Dozen? What blogs? It isn’t me–this is my first post today. I hope someone isn’t usurping and sullying my alias!

        I’m with Jeanne and Ken. When someone knowingly does you wrong, they aren’t on the side of good. There can be many facets to both good and bad, and just because someone agrees with you politically doesn’t make them good.

        One of the reasons people think there’s no difference between republicans and democrats is because there’s crooked politicians on both sides of the aisle. If democrats truly want to earn the trust of the people, they’ll hold their own accountable.

        It’s the same here. Ken and Jeanne are trying to hold Palin accountable. Exactly how much credibility do they have if they don’t hold those on the political left to the same standards as they hold Palin?

        Call for the truth. It is, ultimately, the only side that wins!

    • Blooper says:

      Awesome, I love that term… Joe-bots! 🙂

    • bubbles says:

      are they ever! even “mudpups from way back”. disgraceful.

  54. Pella says:

    I have to imagine Joe knew these articles were about to be published, and that’s the real reason behind turning off the comment function at his website.

  55. Irishgirl says:

    I’m posting this very long comment from a published author in its entirety. He/she commented today at Political Gates and made some very valid points. I hope the author “midnightcajun” does not mind me reposting this.

    “Long post, but I feel a need to set the record straight regarding some
    serious misinformation about publishing norms and protocol that has been
    repeated in the comments sections for several days now. I am not trying to fan
    flames or take sides, only set the record straight. This is my business and has
    been for decades; I know what I am talking about. I have written and published
    more than a dozen books; I know and speak regularly with many NY agents,
    authors, and editors (yes, at Random House!); and while I’m not as huge as Joe,
    I do hit the bestseller lists.

    Fact: Yes, it is preferable to sell a book on synopsis
    before actually writing the entire thing, but these days it’s very difficult.
    I’ve sold both ways. Even established authors find it easier to make a sale—and
    get more money—if they go out there with a finished product. So Jeanne and Co.
    did not do something “stupid” by writing their book first; actually, it was
    smart, since if it hadn’t been leaked they would have sold the book for more
    money. Publishers will pay more when they can see exactly what they’re buying.

    Fact: Devon and Bailey signed with a respected agent, Carol
    Mann, who followed industry protocol: she contacted editors and, when they
    expressed interest in the product, sent them the manuscript. Carol did not do
    something “stupid” by sending the book to editors. That’s her job; this is the
    way it’s done. They used to go by paper, now it’s virtually all email.

    Fact: Manuscripts sent to editors are not supposed to be
    passed around, but they are sometimes slipped to someone else (usually agents
    and authors, but sometimes even other editors) “under the table.” This is done
    for a variety of reasons; sometimes to get the recipient’s opinion (Is this
    manuscript worth buying? Does this author know what he’s talking about?); less
    scrupulously to alert a friend to the circulation of a product that might be
    competition or of interest in some way. But there is a level of trust involved
    that was seriously violated here; what happened with Bailey’s manuscript—the
    way it was blasted all over the place—shook the industry. No one has ever done
    this before. It’s just appalling.

    Fact: A manuscript’s copyright protection is in effect
    whether it is explicitly stated or not. Manuscripts are NOT typically sent out
    with legal paragraphs and confidentiality clauses attached; to do so is not
    only the sign of an amateur, it’s also insulting to the recipient. Joe’s ridiculous
    assertion—that what he did was okay because he received the manuscript without
    a confidentiality clause but sent it on with one—raised a titter of incredulous
    laughter from all of us familiar with the industry. Of course it came without
    such a clause; that in no way altered the fact that sending on a manuscript to
    multiple sources outside the industry is an egregious violation of trust and
    industry standards.

    Fact: Bailey and Devon were hurt by the leaking of their
    manuscript. The explosive bits were all over the place; editors who had been
    considering buying it backed out, saying they were no longer interested since
    the book would be old news by the time it was published. The authors ended up
    selling to a smaller press that had no money for promotion. The manuscript was
    rushed into print without required editing (all of you complaining about how “poorly written” it was need to remember that). Tens of thousands of copies were
    downloaded free from the internet, cutting into sales. Less sales=lower NYT ranking=less
    attention. To suggest that they deliberately leaked the entire manuscript
    themselves is just silly. No one leaks their entire manuscript in the hopes of
    getting a sale; there is no quicker way to destroy a sale. To see how damaging
    leaks are, you have only to look at the embargo placed on McGinniss’s own book.
    Ironic, hmmm?

    Many people seem to think the manuscript was sent to
    McGinniss by Carol Mann, the agent. This is not true; it was sent to McG by his
    own editor, Charlie Conrad, who got it when it was submitted to Crown for
    consideration. I do not know if Charlie agreed with Joe’s decision to send
    it out all over the place; but Charlie paid Joe a big advance and Charlie would be hurt if Joe’s book didn’t perform. People in New York know Joe. There are a lot of stories out there
    about him. Malcolm’s book and article are only the tip of the iceberg (and remember that Joe’s online “rebuttal” to her work is, um, not exactly disinterested).

    So to all those who keep saying what happen was Jeanne and
    Co’s fault, that they were stupid, or conniving, or unprofessional, or
    whatever, all I can say is, NO! None of that is true, and saying something a
    million times does not make it so.
    They followed the correct protocol; Joe has admitted he leaked their
    book. We now have his emails, which are quite damning. Leaking books is a serious
    violation of trust. There is no way to whitewash that. I personally hope good ole Joe eventually gets reamed over this. Yeah, I’m mad; this is
    my business.

    I’ve never subscribed to the theory that
    because someone is my enemy’s enemy I must automatically excuse their crimes in
    the pursuit of a greater good. Go to http://www.truth-out.org/trial
    and read via his own emails just what a piece of work McGinnis is. “

    • Pella says:

      Thank you for re-posting midnightcajun’s excellent synopsis of how the industry works!

    • jimzmum says:

      Thank you, IrishGirl. What a lesson is to be learned from your post. I hope all will read and contemplate the words you quoted.

    • Ken Morris says:

      This is a brilliant analysis of publishing protocol. I have two other published books and always understood the copyright law. What we sent out was protected. Joe knew that. His publisher knew that. I can find no other instance, ever, where this willful breach of trust in this industry has ever happened before.

      People who, as I predicted, are now surfacing to defend Joe and attack the messenger, are doing exactly what Sarah Palin always does. Distort the truth (remember when she claimed the Branchflower report exonerated her?) and do so over and over again until that’s all people remember.

      Is exposing inappropriate and unethical behavior restricted to those who hold political opinions opposed to our own? I applaud Truthout for wanting to tell the truth(out). Joe McGinniss steals people’s trust (he had Jeanne wrapped around his finger: she helped him repeatedly over the years and asked nothing in return. How did he reward her?). Do we allow him to continue to throw people under his bus because we like to read his end product or believe it serves our political agenda? Or do we hold him and his ilk to the same ethical standards we demand of the Sarah Palin’s of this world? Do we tolerate Palin-like behavior in him but not others?

      Jeanne and I have been attacked since this article came out. Why? For the simple reason we shared the truth with the reporters. Why did McGinniss only respond through attorneys who threatened to sue in an attempt to destroy this story? Or his publicist who, likely unknowingly, made statements later shown to be false when Joe’s emails were reprinted?

      This isn’t sour grapes any more than writing the truth about Sarah Palin is sour grapes. I never was going to take a dime on our book. That after legal fees I ended up losing money isn’t even the issue. As Sarah once said–without an ounce of self-realization–bad behavior ought to have bad consequences. People who abuse our trust ought to be exposed if for no other reason than to prevent them from continuing to do so.

      • Blooper says:

        Well said, Ken!

      • pacos_gal says:

        How many authors even well known ones are thinking twice before submitting any kind of manuscript to Harper Collins now based upon their unethical behavior within the ranks of sharing a manuscript with their author?

        The publishing world is indeed abuzz as midnight cajun said about this standard of behavior.

        Even when you do everything right, slime can still slip in through the cracks.

        Joe isn’t much different than those whom he uses.

      • Extremely well said,sir.

      • Samantha says:

        Well said. And I was also thinking that, that McGinnis was crawling around Alaska using EVERYONE as a source, including bloggers and other people that no doubt he contacted through the tireless work of bloggers, all to his benefit, all for his profit. And instead of “thank you” he said “eff you.”

        You know, I watch football and there was one game where a guy was running the ball back for a long gain, possibly a touchdown, along the sideline. An assistant coach on the opposing team stood up close to the line and leaned in, slightly sticking his knee out and causing the runner, in full stride, to go head over heels into the turf. It was a dirty play. And eventually, the guy was fired. Joe McGinnis reminds me of that guy.

        • Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

          Actually, he missed a couple of opportunities right in front of his face – some opportunities that I would have expected an investigative journalist to be curious about. He might be one by trade, but he’s not a “crack” one or would have followed some other leads as well.

      • Lidia17 says:

        Ken, your self-defense would ring less hollow if Bailey’s book really had been “the truth”.

        I really couldn’t care less about the e-mails between AKM and JMcG. I want to know about the thousands of e-mails that Frank Bailey is still sitting on, and which are the rightful property of the people of the State of Alaska. Let’s see those, and then we might all better judge the “truth” for ourselves, without having to rely on squabbling and egotistical gatekeepers.

        • Martha Unalaska Yard Sign says:

          “(Let’s see those, and) then we might all better judge the “truth” for ourselves, without having to rely on squabbling and egotistical gatekeepers.”

          That pretty much sums up how I feel about babygate, babygate pushers, and the blogs where it is constantly bandied about. I will make my own decisions, as will most – if info is provided it doesn’t need to be shoved down people’s throat to make a difference.

      • Melly says:

        I question only your timing. Why did you release the cutting-room-floor material now instead of sooner? Or later? And why the Truthout article just now instead of…etc. Is this tit-for-tat? Joe ruined your sales, so you want to undermine his credibility and maybe hurt his sales?

        It’s also my understanding that Frank B retains many emails that were never included in Blind Allegiance. If true, were you OK with that from the outset? Do you have plans for those emails. What is your relationship with Bailey now? Just some questions flying through my confused, aching head.

        • Weren’t those emails withheld on advice of lawyers, or something to that effect?

          As for the timing of the Truthout article, you should ask them, not AKM or Ken. That timing was not their choice.

          I don’t think they are undermining Joe’s credibility. He did that himself when he knowingly leaked a manuscript that wasn’t his to make public. He has no credibility anymore.

    • BigPete says:

      Hey! Irishgirl!

      Good post. Hope you don’t get into any trouble for reposting!

    • Samantha says:

      Terrific explanation of the business. Thanks for informing us. And I like your comment: “I’ve never subscribed to the theory that because someone is my enemy’s enemy I must automatically excuse their crimes in
      the pursuit of a greater good.” I said the same thing on Joe’s blog. I said that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The response I got from a Joe-bot was, what are you talking about. LOL.

    • Moles says:

      Great article Irish. Hopefully it will stop people going off half cocked. 🙂

    • physicsmom says:

      Thanks for reprinting this IrishGirl. It is excellent information we all needed to know.

  56. Ennealogic says:

    Jeanne – vindictiveness doesn’t become you and that’s what this looks like. That’s what the original blog post by Mr. Morris looked like, you know, the one you put up over and over in the top spot. That’s what it looked like when your outrage was memorialized in the pages of the published edition of Blind Allegiance.

    Honestly, it’s just not becoming. It’s disturbing. Is this really the right thing to do?

    • Thomas says:

      Please tell me you’re kidding. Joe’s behavior, which launched this whole controversy and with which he has targeted other authors long before Jeanne, isn’t “vindictive,” “unbecoming” or “disturbing?” But Jeanne is those things for having the nerve to notice it?

      • Ennealogic says:

        Hey, I’m a ‘mudpuppy’ from way back — I’ve looking at a little moose that Jeanne gave to me in person during a Mudflats meetup. I’m just calling it like I see it. In my opinion, it was time to “let go” of this incident several months ago, if one wanted to stay on the high road. Please allow me that. Thanks. 🙂

        • Thomas says:

          Is calling Jeanne names like vindictive, unbecoming & disturbing your idea of “the high road?” But to the topic at hand, did you actually read the Truthout piece before weighing in about it? It’s well sourced & documented, and quite damning per Joe’s own words.

          • Ennealogic says:

            Yes, I read the whole thing. I also read Joe McGinniss’ explanation re: the leaking (provided as a comment on a thread in his own blog) and I also read his rebuttal to Ms. Malcolm’s piece (link is available on his blog site).

            I was able to put myself in his shoes and feel how he must have felt when he discovered that he’d been sharing confidential details about his own book with his good friend Jeanne, all the while not realizing she had not shared her own writing endeavor with her good friend Joe.

            I will not excuse what he did in sending the manuscript to certain others – but I also will not ascribe unsavory motives to that act. There is simply insufficient evidence to warrant that. It might at least give you pause if you read his explanation.

            Holding grudges and broadcasting those grudges over and over again (apparently there is no ongoing litigation now to prevent this rehashing) seems a smallish, mean thing to do and I thought better of Jeanne in that regard. That’s all.

          • scout says:

            Ennealogic:
            go back from whence you came
            your unethical stance is no different than that of the palin

          • Ennealogic, aren’t you are the same person who now writes for (and is possibly a co-editor on) Politicalgates? Yup…those are the same people who (in my best Kathy Griffin voice)…allegedly…helped provide perhaps 100,000 copies of a copywritten manuscript to the general public…allegedly.,..in cahoots with Joe McGinniss.

            You can read all about them over at Truthout.org.

            Ennealogic, it’s so cute the way you try and portray yourself as “just a commenter!”

        • The way I see it is that Joe, in acting without any hint of ethics and then showing no remorse, is acting like a bully. It shows through in the emails that he sent, especially the insensitive remark about Jeanne’s mother. And the only way to get a bully to stop is to confront them, and sometimes that has to be done in the public eye. Joe sounds like the sort of person who believes all his fame and has used it through the years to further himself.

          I no longer have any interest in his current book, any past books or anything he writes in the future. He can write whatever he wants, but I still can make the choice to spend my money supporting authors that I respect.

        • Really? I’ve been here every day since 2008 and I don’t remember you at all.

    • Pella says:

      Joe’s sabotage and arrogance is what’s unbecoming.

    • Nan (aka roswellborn) says:

      First, the article was written by and published by someone from a completely different website.

      Second, there has been a LOT of comments about “how dumb is it” to send a whole manuscript, how clueless to think they could write a book… etc ad nauseum.

      It is absolutely within AKM’s rights (and Ken Morris and Frank Bailey, too) to defend themselves against slurs against themselves. All AKM did was to provide a link to an article that went into more detail than SHE had done at the time the whole “leak” thing took place!.

      Jeanne Devon is not the one that wrote the article but she certainly is within her rights to point to an article that backs up the little she did say about the whole thing back when.

      So, when it wasn’t AKM that wrote the article – to point fingers and say “this doesn’t become you” is just a little disingenuous.

    • Samantha says:

      Frankly, I applaud them for shining a light on the festering cesspool that is Joe McGinnis. And I say this as a person who could care less that he was an author, whether he was nice or not, or liked or not. All I cared about was he was writing a book hopefully which would expose Palin. But come on….there comes a point where you can’t hold your nose anymore. I’m disgusted.

    • luckycharms says:

      Vindictiveness? Hmm. I would have to characterize Joe’s actions as vindictive. Jeanne couldn’t share the information even if she wanted to. And nothing that Joe may have said to her ended up in the book. So what were the results of her “betrayal?” Nothing in the real world. The results of McGinniss’ betrayal? Incredible fallout for his own editor who was betrayed by Joe, fallout for the industry, for his publisher, for Frank Bailey, for Ken Morris, and for himself. All because someone didn’t share a secret that they had legally agreed not to share?

      McGinniss flew off the handle, and made a really bad and vindictive decision which he refuses to own. Mudflats has done nothing but support McGinniss and Dunn both. This whole situation is Joe trying to cover his ass for something he knows was unethical.

      Frankly, I’m completely stunned at this whole “get over it” and “blame the victim” mentality. A purposeful attempt to nullify years of work by three people (two of whom he didn’t even know I think) is a bit much to ask someone to “get over.” I think that there is a legal case against Joe and his publisher, and I think he knows it. McGinniss’ worst enemy is McGinniss.

  57. HappyPlace says:

    To the by-now predictable conspiracy theorists pimping the idea of a secret Palinista plot that somehow made Joe do what he did—conveniently excusing him from the vain, greedy & unethical behavior documented in the Truthout piece—I get why it’s convenient to be in denial re: someone whose disdain for Palin we share. But did you actually READ the above piece before going there again? Seriously, did you? This is a now well established pattern that precedes by decades the time anyone even heard of Palin. Read JOE’S OWN WORDS about what a “whore” Jeanne is, because hers is “a book that would come out at the same time as mine and detract from the attention paid to mine by diluting it, thereby hurting my sales, thereby taking money out of my pocket in order that she might have more to put into hers.” Did Palin make him write those words, admitting his attempted sabotage is all about money & sales?

    • BigPete says:

      Money out of my pocket

      “a book that would come out at the same time as mine and detract from the attention paid to mine by diluting it, thereby hurting my sales, thereby taking money out of my pocket in order that she might have more to put into hers.”

      As an “author” he has a pretty charmless, bitter, and self-righteous writing style. You could be forgiven for assuming he’s a bit of an a-hole!

  58. Millie says:

    I feel badly that this is going on….authors at each other throats. It continues to show that everthing involving Sarah Palin turns to crud. I’ve purchased and read the Bailey and Geoffrey Dunn books and I’ve ordered and plan to also read those of Levi and Joe. You ALL have a place in the big picture of Sarah Palin as far as I’m concerned.

  59. laingirl says:

    It looks like ole Joe went to the “Palin School of Friendship and Ethics.” I’m very sorry that Jeanne and Ken had to go through all of the hurtful BS. With that, I’ve decided that I will not be spending any money on Joe’s book. I may end of reading it, but I will not put any money in his pocket. He seems to have a real problem.

  60. Redwood Palinizer says:

    Wow, McGinniss sure sounds like an ass to me. His scathing comment about the death of your mother is completely despicable and enough to show me his true colors.

    I am sorry about the loss of your mother. She must have been very proud of you, AKM.

  61. teutonic13 says:

    I still think we are ALL GETTING PLAYED.

    At a time when Palin’s ship should be sinking, we are at each other’s throats, which is dead on what happens whenever Palin is cornered.

    Controversy flies about, and poof- smoke and mirrors replace good judgement and better instincts.

    People are taking sides and their eye is off the prize.

    Think about it.

    I will reserve judgement until Joe’s book comes out. If it is truly damning to her, then yes, this campaign of divisiveness would make sense.

    What does Palin do when the Feds are knocking? She calls an investigation on herself- that she can buy off.

    Is that happening here?

    • HappyPlace says:

      Did you even read the Truthout piece at the center of this post? Or are you too eagerly in denial and too busy floating all-too-convenient conspiracy theories that magically excuse Joe’s abhorrent behavior and blatant professional misconduct?

    • I read the expose and I’m not at anybody’s throat. Please take me-mike from iowa-off your list of everybodys at everybody’s throat. Thank you.

    • Lee323 says:

      teutonic13: “People are taking sides and their eye is off the prize.”

      No. The real “prize” should be demanding and upholding high ethical standards, in general, in our culture and politics.

      Consider a parallel of an admittedly greater scope, but similar ethical dilemma:

      Our country had its collective eye on the supreme “prize” of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. Did the stakes of that prize justify using unethical torture to obtain it? Didn’t we lose something precious in our national collective conscience and international reputation by resorting to unethical means in trying to obtain our ends (prize)?

      If unifying against Sarah Palin requires turning a blind eye to unethical behavior by anyone but Sarah Palin, count me out. Mrs. Palin is only an outlandishly publicized symptom of what have become the reigning messages in this country: “Win at all costs;” and “The ends justify the means.”

    • Raven Woman says:

      Need to agree with Teutonic. I always felt that the main point was to expose SP and not allow her charade to continue on the Prime Time for Presidency trail. I am disappointed that this blog trashing an author ..who trashed the bloggers has to be played out. It has become about vainglory and money…which I thought was the issue with Sp. Feels like we have lowered the standards, and are playing hypocrites in the process. Perhaps, it really is about the money and recognition, because after all without Palin there would be nothing to blog or write books about..We have created and maintained the show, through our own participation.

  62. Barbara says:

    McGinniss has plagiarized an author, William Manchester author of “The Death of a President” so it’s not too surprising he’d stoop to this new low. He’s also BFF with Roger Ailes of Fox News. Anyone who brags about their friendship with Ailes is suspect in my book.

    Roger Ailes gives Palin a voice on his network. McGinniss writes a mediocre book with no new revelations in it but it does serve to make sure no other authors get large advances to write Palin exposes. McGinniss is happy with his money, Ailes is happy Sarah emerges unscathed. Win/Win.

  63. Dis Gusted says:

    the same person that sent the manuscript to McGuinness also sent the manuscript to the rest of the media. Blaming it on Joe is misleading at the very least.

    the Palins told you to write that. Correct?

    • Cortez says:

      The same person? Their agent sent it to publishers. Which, while this was a little out of the ordinary, is a typical way to shop a book around. The publisher gave a copy to Joe. As a writer, Joe knew that the status of the manuscript, and the ethical implications of passing it on to the press. Now, as to the agent that sent the entire manuscript, without any confidentiality clause, that person probably has some questions to answer. But Joe still knew the ethical issues of passing it on. And he disregarded those issues for self benefit.

    • Jessica Clemons says:

      Based on the information, I just put in my pre-order for his book. Now I know it won’t be as softball as blind allegiance.

  64. teutonic13 says:

    Is everybody getting played by a more hidden 4th party?

  65. fawnskin mudpuppy says:

    gotta take courage to get this out, ken and jeanne.
    thanks for putting yourselves in the line of fire.

    • reallyanon says:

      I guess the only right honorable thing to do will be to make sure it gets to a torrent site soon as it hits the shelves…. mischievous grin 😉

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...


Leave A Comment

%d bloggers like this: