While we're playing in the dirt, here's an interesting Wikipedia edit that a reader has posted about on WW's site.

Apparently someone in the Associated Press has the affidavit. One sentence is quoted here.

When I read the title of the post, I thought you were referring to Ted Kennedy. Such a question would, of course, be rhetorical.

Indeed. Equally trustworthy.

With zero corroboration of Leonhardt's accusations, says, we can all see where the bar complaint is headed.

Yes, if there is zero corroboration.

But that remains to be seen.

The niotion that Leonhardt DID NOT tell Teddy K. is the proposition that is not credible.

That would require believing that Kulongoski's close friend and political confidant, upon learning this shocking and horrible secret about Kulongoski's #1 political patron, decided, when Kulongoski was planning to run for AG with the help of this patron, to withold this news from his good friend.

That simply is not credible. Nor, any longer, is Kulongoski.

Ted admitted early on that he had heard the rumor that Goldschmidt had an illegitimate child. I wonder who told him that, and when.

The sad commentary on all of this is that Goldschmidt is sipping wine in Southern France or Yamhill County. There should be no statute of limitations for crimes against children. Kulongoski does know now and he should do something to put this guy bars.

Of course Teddy knew.

There are other affluent people reading this who also knew about Neil because it was Ted who told them.

They're all shameless.

Aren't you?

I think he probably heard rumors, but did not believe (or did not want to believe) them to be credible. When I worked in local government in San Diego, I constantly heard crazy, crazy rumors about every local politician/talk-show host/celebrity. Crazy stuff. One of those rumors, in fact, was "Duke Cunningham likes to use hookers." I didn't believe that rumor, but years later it turned out to be true. I think the same situation is probably true with Ted. When you work in government, you hear rumors about everyone, trust me, and you generally disregard them as just that: rumors.

Yes, but unlike Ted, you're not denying under oath that you heard them.

It's even possible that Ted knew something about it before Leonhardt told him.

Yes, but unlike Ted, you're not denying under oath that you heard them.

Or be the state's Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, and Governor, in that order. And then appoint the perp to high governmental positions after being told of the things he'd done.

"Yes, if there is zero corroboration.
But that remains to be seen."
----

I am not a lawyer, but I thought that when a witness says something happened years ago, corroboration happens when investigators go and see who else that witness told way back when.

In other words, did Fred tell anybody back then about his behind the couch conversation with Ted? And now we know that he did tell his wife. And Margie was there, and saw them talking. And Kantor was also told.

BTW, that Wikipedia episode is great. Dave F. has his assistant change wiki to revise history.

Don't recall seeing Donna Zajon or Dave Frohnmayer being interviewed by state investigators about all of this. Would Frohnmayer be in trouble for not telling what he knew since he too is a lawyer?

Why do you mention a "lie detector" test? I have no knowledge of the facts at issue here, but I must say repeated mentions of one side or another "passing" a "lie detector" test tends to make me suspicious.

The National Academies have researched these things and concluded that they are basically nothing but astrology in a box -- they "work" only for believers and are otherwise worse than useless.

It seems to me the governor went the wrong way on this one. Couldn't he have said "yes, I heard that, but I didn't believe it?".

Just wondering.

astrology in a box

I'm sure it was a standard polygraph test. To some of us, despite their drawbacks, they do count for something.

Couldn't he have said "yes, I heard that, but I didn't believe it?".

I don't know if he could, but that is not what he has been saying.

*****In other words, did Fred tell anybody back then about his behind the couch conversation with Ted? And now we know that he did tell his wife. And Margie was there, and saw them talking. And Kantor was also told.*****

Then why does Fred say he doesn't have any corroboration for this? Just wondering.

And Kantor was told what, when. Again just wondering.

Greg C

I'd add cui bono here but the number of people who benefit from this depending on your viewpoint is mind boggling.

Doesn't Neil still do "consulting" work that can be construed as legal advice?

It would clearly fall within the "jurisdiction" of the OSB regarding an injunction.

It would also draw in any OSB member that "aids" in such unlawful practice of law.

Does Neil remain the primary target where the moves against Ted and Bernie represent mere collateral attacks?

the number of people who benefit from this depending on your viewpoint is mind boggling

Like who? Who particularly benefits if Ted is brought down? Nobody leaps to mind.

Just a comment. Mostly my post was just tryin to get at some of the conflicting information floating out there right now. Fred either has colloraborating testimony or he doesn't.

Now on the cui bono comment Ted certainly benefits if the Bar finds it's a he said, he said situation and there is nothing they can do. That gives him an incentive to lie. Democrats who might find themselves on the investigators lists also benefit from this as well. No one who is running for office wants it known investigators even thought s/he might have known anything about Neil's crimes.

On the other hand the longer this goes on and the deeper into the Democratic Party the investigators explore the more the Republicans benefit. That gives Republican supporters every incentive to toss out names like Ruth Ann Dobson's and suggest investigating deep into Neil's web of political supporters and hanger ons.

Greg C

the number of people who benefit from this depending on your viewpoint is mind boggling

I think he's referring to the citizens of the state here.

...or not

Jack, there should be a third choice in your poll: "I don't have a clue". That would be my position and the position of most people who answered honestly. Lots of folks seem to want a particular answer but really only a very few people actually know anything.

Well, all this would be a much shorter process if all those "very few people (who)actually know anything." would come forward.

Whatever their desired outcome, "lots of folks" seem to feel that the truth is a reasonable expectation.

Don't ask, don't tell won't play here, I suspect.

*****I think he's referring to the citizens of the state here.

...or not******

Yes that group especially. When you rrellay stop to think about it except for those who love the game of inside baseball the best thing here would be for Ted to say something like:

"Yes now that I have had time to reflect back the almost 20 years, I vaguely remember Fred talking to me about Neil and some girl. But at the time I figured it was just another one of those rumors you hear about all the time in politics. I am certainly ashamed I didn't take some action to follow up then. Please forgive me my transgressions and pray for me."

Actually if Neil had said something of the same thing a couple of years ago we probably wouldn't be rehashing this now.

Greg C

On the other hand the longer this goes on and the deeper into the Democratic Party the investigators explore the more the Republicans benefit. That gives Republican supporters every incentive...
------------

But this is not just a Demo thing. Neil enablers were many and multi-party. Including Ron Saxton.

The Attorney General at the times was not TeddyK. It was Dave F., a Republican, (and current UofO President), who was running against the current Gov (Neil). And he (or his supporters) have recently tried to hide/revise the past, as the Wikigate has shown.

So saying (or implying) that this is just a Republican smear campaign against Demos is a bit weak. You have had better arguments.

"Actually if Neil had said something of the same thing a couple of years ago we probably wouldn't be rehashing this now."

Quite correct.

But also, Pres Clinton could have said: "I am certainly ashamed I lied/mislead when asked about Monica, but I felt it was between me and my family. Please forgive me my transgressions and pray for me."

That he did not, is a very telling clue about the person he is.

Same with the current Gov. It is his current behavior about this situation that is the most disturbing.

I assume that Greg means TeddyK when he writes about Neil in this sentence:
"Actually if Neil had said something of the same thing a couple of years ago we probably wouldn't be rehashing this now."

****So saying (or implying) that this is just a Republican smear campaign against Demos is a bit weak. You have had better arguments.*****

I am not saying or implying that this is "just" a Republican smear campaign. All I am pointing out is that the Republicans have every incentive to keep this going and involve as many Democrats as possible.

By the way in the interest of fairness this is the second time somebody has mentioned Dave Frohnmeyer in conjuction with this mess. As far as I know there is no evidence that the Republicans knew anything about Neil's crimes and until someone can show me some Dave goes on my list good guys who shouldn't get drug in unfairly.

Greg C

Right after the story broke, I remember speaking to a schoolteacher (and Yellow Dog Democrat) explain how "much older looking" the 14 year old babysitter was back in the day.

The schoolteacher was the mother of two daughters: an unlikely advocate of the "she looked 18 to me" excuse for sure.

If Goldy's apologists were willing to defend him decades later (remember the Oregonians "affair" headline), it seems likely they were willing to do so when the "gossip" circulated for the first few years.

only a very few people actually know anything.

That is so not true. Dozens, probably hundreds, of people can give you the victim's name, the illegitimate child's name... and there's probably more.

I have no connection to statewide politics or any of the parties involved in this seamy mess. But even I have heard the illegitimate child rumors, know the alleged name and the name of the parties allegedly involved. Jack is right. Its a gossip jungle out there.

Nancy and Jack, you are no doubt right about all this but that wasn't the question of the poll. The question was "Is Tedkulongski telling the truth?" As to that question, an honest answer by most folks would be "I don't know but I'm suspicious" or "I don't have a clue but I love kicking some Democrat ass about it" or "I don't have a clue but I hate all things Goldschmidt and this is more fun than I've had in years" or "I don't have a clue but am willing to let it all play out and see". The last is my response.

"By the way in the interest of fairness this is the second time somebody has mentioned Dave Frohnmeyer in conjuction with this mess. As far as I know there is no evidence that the Republicans knew anything about Neil's crimes and until someone can show me some Dave goes on my list good guys who shouldn't get drug in unfairly."
------

Greg,

Have you done your homework?

I think people are talking about Dave F. because they have read about WillyWeek reported Wiki changes (in short, somebody named MarlaRae, possibly Dave's former aid, changed the Wiki to delete the reference about his campaign against Neil, with Donna saying "May the best family win"), in hopes that people today would not realize what Dave and Donna knew back then.

This is about two things: 1) Who new what, when, back 15-20 years ago, and (as always) 2) The cover up behavior after the crimes.

Why would Dave's aid be changing Wikis about old history? Unless he wants to hide something. Dave is behaving almost as bad as TeddyK did running away from the press.

Since I was at the site, I thought I would save you the trouble and cut/paste for every one else who may not want to wade through old wiki edits...

This was what was cut from Dave F.'s wikipedia entry, by a marlarae (I have no idea who marlarae or other wiki editors are):

"Frohnmayer was the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] nominee for [[Governor of Oregon]] in 1990. Popular [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] incumbent [[Neil Goldschmidt]] withdrew after Frohnmayer's campaign manager, Donna Zajonc, said "May the best family win" at a news conference, and Jeff Mapes reported it in the Portland Oregonian. Zajonc's statement was a cryptic allusion to Mr. Goldschmidt's sexual relationship with a minor. The sex scandal did not become public until May 6, 2004, and Frohnmayer has never explained when he learned about it, or why he did not inform the authorities.http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=81602 He and Goldschmidt had been classmates at [[University of California, Berkeley]] law school. Frohnmayer lost the election to [[Barbara Roberts]], the Democrat who was nominated after Goldschmidt's withdrawal. http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3028/5091/ "

Ok maybe I am being thick here but as I understand it:

1. Donna Zajonc made a statement "May the best family win." during the 1990 campaign just before Goldschmidt resigned.

2. Someone later changed Wikipedia to read in part "Zajonc's statement was a cryptic allusion to Mr. Goldschmidt's sexual relationship with a minor. The sex scandal did not become public until May 6, 2004, and Frohnmayer has never explained when he learned about it, or why he did not inform the authorities."

3. Someone then went in and deleted the above statement.

Some people are now interpreting the above to indicate that:

1. Donna Zajonc's statement in fact WAS a cryptic allusion to Neil's crimes. AND

2. Dave F's supporters are trying to hide the fact by changing the comment on Wikipedia.

Is that right? And this is proof that we should what? start investigating Dave F and Donn Z?

Greg C

Greg C: Hell Yes we look at anybody that got near Neil and climbed from it.

This is the worst kind of crime next to murder, against a kid, violating not only her, but voters who voted for any offical in the state that knew about it for sure and did nothing....if Bernie's going down, so should anyone who knew.

an honest answer by most folks would be "I don't know but I'm suspicious"

No, you can know. You can believe Fred Leonhardt, a good and honorable man, and therefore know.

You can believe Fred Leonhardt: NO DOUBT!

Jack, can we unite as a city to start to clean up this place?

How does "may the best family win" imply the other family includes a rapist?

Well, if Mr. Leonhardt is such a good an honorable man, why did he wait nearly twenty years to go public with this knowledge. In fact, it was after he wasn't given a job he was seeking.

I've spent most of my adult life in court settings. One man swears one thing and one another. No real way to corroborate either. In that case, you look to motivations. Leonhardt's long delay in coming out and his disgruntled frame of mind work against him.

Jack, you are in the I hate all things Goldschmidt camp and your bias is plain. It may prove out exactly the way you say but I doubt much of anything regarding Kulongoski is ever proved one way or the other.

If there are two things I know about Ted Kulongoski, they are that (a) he kissed Goldschmidt's hindquarters for decades in exchange for a political career, and (b) he is sometimes not truthful.

And the third thing about Ted is: He appointed Neil Goldschmidt to President of the State Board of Higher Education. In 2003. And he did this after the rumors that he heard were widely known by many people.

And that is when Fred L. said enough already.

Oscar, either you are very very clueless, or intentionally much worse.

Regarging your comment about Fred, "wait 20 years"? He hardly waited 20mins, when he heard he went to his higher ups right away. They did nothing. So he vowed to never let Neil get another major political post.

When (in 2003) TeddyK allowed Neil to twist his arm and appoint him President of Higher Ed Board, Fred went to the press. They (the Oregonian) did nothing back then, but WWeek did something.

The rest is history. Well, it all is history. Try reading it sometime.

So, as early as 1990 Goldschmidt's political opponents knew. It only stands to reason that his friends had to know earlier than that, some of them much earlier. The further you are able back that knowledge up timewise, the closer you get to having been able to prosecute Goldschmidt if one of them had done the right thing then.

At the time, I believed that Donna Zajonc's "May the best family win" comment was a thinly veiled reference to the Margie Goldschmidt/Bernie Giusto relationship (the rumors about which were so widespread even I had heard them, and which we now know were true) and other, less specific rumors of Neil's own infidelities.

I never heard anyone in Republican party circles even hinting about an earlier scandal with a minor child, and I guarantee you that if I had heard it, I would have remembered it.

I'm not that well-connected, but all the scandals I heard about at the time in connection with Mayor and Governor Goldschmidt related to women well above the age of oonsent.