As promised, below is the analysis of Slager's methods/tactics/mistruths/misleadings this time around.  And as a special surprise, I actually compliment him for stating something accurately this time around!  However, as I was reading the article, I got to a broader point, and that point is "so what?"  Now, it's not a "so what" like some others on this site regarding Slager himself, but it's "so what" as in "so what if this is true?  What's the actual story here?"  As far as I can tell, Slager is reporting that the spouse of a town employee who is known to have been targeted by a possibly-illegal computer audit directed by a Board of Selectmen who claim to not get involved with decisions about town employees (remember, Brucie said "Any decision regarding town employees are made at the town administrator level") helped her spouse fight back against what appears to be a corrupt board.  Worst case, good for him for having a supportive spouse.  And that report is assuming that everything in the article is being truly and accurately represented, which we'll see below is, as usual, bunk.  Now, in Slager-land, this means that a vast right-wing conspiracy is forming to destroy the board.  It's a typical logic leap with nothing to support it, but it makes his position look better, and drives pageviews, so he runs with it.  Someone asked in another thread - is he a liar or a dope?  I think there might be a third option.  I think he might actually believe what he writes.  He does it with such conviction, and such a blatant disregard for contradictory facts, that he must think he's right.  I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the other options...

Additionally, this is another example of Slager running with a "news" story based on nothing but an uncorroborated quote.  He did the same thing with the library, and now he's doing it here.  If he had a history of being right about things, this might be acceptable, but the fact is that he doesn't, and it isn't.  Laying out allegations like this is a big deal, and he doesn't seem to think that it warrants any degree of confirmation before being printed.  It's really too bad he's sunk to this level. 

Now that I got that out of my system, onto the analysis....

The Observer has received an e-mailed allegation that Rep. Susan Williams Gifford wrote a letter of complaint regarding the interim town administrator’s audit of town-owned computers, forced her husband to sign it, and had it sent it to the office of Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, a fellow Republican.

This is a classic media tactic to allow someone to make an allegation against someone without actually making that allegation.  No offense to Fox News fans, but Bill O'Reilly does this all. the. time.  He likes to use a slightly different approach, often saying "Some people say that _____.  Now, we're not saying that, but the thought is out there".  I would ask Mr. Robert Slager if he publishes "news" articles based on email allegations from one individual, without citing any sort of supporting evidence, every time he receives an email with an allegation in it.  This is the flimsiest of a flimsy source to run a story on, and is another example of him changing the subject.  First nobody bought his attempt to create a racial controversy, so he changed the subject to the library, and tried to invent a controversy out of a third-hand quote from an anonymous source.  Now that nobody believes him about the trustees' finances, he's trying to create a political conspiracy.  And this is all from someone who actually wrote an article titled "Please stop changing the subject."  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Additionally, Slager will claim that he isn't the one leveling the allegations, but he is the one leveling them publicly.  The only possible way that this email would be newsworthy is if it were a law-enforcement agent who sent him the original message as an official statement, and if it is then Mr. Slager should report that fact.  If it's just a "Joe Citizen", as Slager states later in the article, there's absolutely nothing newsworthy about it without corrobaration from another source (ideally from multiple other sources, who are independent of the first one).  Slager has chosen to make the charges of one individual public, and is lucky that the libel laws say things like "known to be false".  He can argue successfully that he didn't know that these charges were false when he printed them, but no reasonable person would take the word of one email in a town this politically charged and assume that they're true.  Slager should have held off posting this until he was able to confirm the information (which likely means he would have never posted it).

The Observer has also learned that the District Attorney’s office quickly issued an administrative subpoena through its own office in June, rather than seek one through the courts, to confiscate all material relating to the audit from the computer consulting firm the town hired to disseminate information on town-owned computer hard drives.

This is often done when there are concerns about the speed at which a subpoena must be issued.  Such speed is often necessary when there are concerns that important evidence may be tampered with or destroyed before there are legal protections around that evidence.  Perhaps the DA had reason to believe that people involved in the audit were going to fudge the evidence to suit their needs?

This occurred days after selectman John Cronan requested the lap-top computer of Mark Gifford be searched.

The fact that he's still writing "lap-top" and not "laptop" shows how out-of-touch Slager is with current-day technology and processes.  Not a big deal, but just another hit on the credibility scale with these types of topics.

Cronan’s request, made during an executive session meeting, became public when the audio of the meeting was illegally broadcast live over the internet. Executive session meetings are by law confidential until the issues discussed are resolved.

It's interesting that Slager has begun adding this second sentence to his endless repetition of the accusation that the meeting was "illegally broadcast".  If it was illegal, Robert, who should be charged with the crime, and what is the crime?  And seeing as you're being oh-so-cooperative with law enforcement, as we'll see in a minute, how come you haven't gone to them to press charges?  The facts are that no law was broken, and the meeting participants had an option to fix the technical problem that caused the internet stream, but didn't.  Slager likes to repeat this charge, presumably because it makes the BOS look like "victims" in the whole thing, and draws attention away from the ridiculousness of what they were discussing.

Cronan offered a business card from Callahan as evidence of their conversation.

I'm not saying that Cronan didn't talk to the investigator, but if having a business card is evidence of participating in an investigation, I have personally been investigated by several hundred individuals over the past 5 years alone.

Observer Media received an unsolicited e-mail from a Wareham resident who allegedly witnessed Susan Williams Gifford discuss the computer audit and her attempts to stop it. According to the e-mail, the state representative boasted about writing the letter of complaint and forcing her reluctant husband to sign it.

I wonder if Slager will tell us how many emails he gets, and how many turn into "frontpage news".  This seems like a pretty good Mythbusters episode all set to roll, to experiment with what makes the cut for a frontpage news email.  Now, BEFORE THAT GETS MISINTERPRETED, I realize the Mythbusters guys blow up most of their experiments at the end of the episode, but I am NOT suggesting that the Discovery Channel blow up Slager's computer.  I've seen how he takes things out of context (or makes them up) and way overreacts, and I just want to make sure that doesn't happen here.  I am NOT suggesting that Adam Savage blow up his lap-top, or his desk-top, or his speak-and-spell, or whatever it is he uses.  Seriously, though - it's uncanny that the one email he chooses to base a "news" article on is from a source he won't name, but does confirm is not connected with town government.  If I were to send him an email saying that I heard Bruce Sauvageau talking about how much he enjoyed clubbing baby seals while on vacation, would that be frontpage news?  This whole article is absolutely ridiculous.

The author of the e-mail sent a second one to the Observer, asking the information not be used for publication for fear of personal safety and the safety of family members. After consulting with counsel, the Observer has decided to publicly reveal a portion of the e-mail that will not identify the author (who is a private citizen unconnected to town government). The Observer has made this decision after being told by counsel that the company could face obstruction of justice charges by withholding this information from the authorities.

Taken from my earlier comment...
So let me get this straight.  Slager's counsel said "if you withhold this from the authorities, you could get in trouble".....and he published it on his blog publicly?  That's patently irresponsible.  If that was the advice he got from counsel, then he should have sent that information TO THE AUTHORITIES, not published it online.  Also, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't obstruction of justice only apply it someone is being questioned in the course of an investigation?  Wikipedia seems to think so: "Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, who is not a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers...Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if he was under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence."  So does this mean that Slager has been questioned in the investigation, and chose to respond to those investigators by publicly posting information on his blog?  Does it mean that his lawyer is nuts?  Does it mean that he's making stuff up again?  Who knows....

The portion of the e-mail we have chosen to print is as follows:

Some people would say that Slager might as well have said "The portion of the e-mail that supports our agenda is as follows:"

“(Susan Williams Gifford) proceeds to tell us that they (her and Mark) filed some type of complaint with the state against the town (BOS?) regarding the audit of his department and she was bragging about how she did all the paperwork for him and “made” him sign it because he wouldn’t have done it if she hadn’t done all the paperwork that “forced him” to file a complaint, etc. All the while I stood there and smiled, thinking to myself “I don’t think she should be standing here telling us this stuff.”

So this is the "source" that he's basing a "frontpage news" article on?  No corrobaration from anybody else, no documentation supporting his claim, no quotes from the alleged "forcer" or "forcee" (although he claims to have tried).  This is responsible journalism?  THIS is what he wants people to believe is independent reporting?  Come on, that's just ridiculous.

Observer Media has saved this e-mail on disk, several copies of which now exists outside the jurisdiction of the Plymouth Country District Attorney’s office. Observer Media has also contacted the Attorney General’s office with this information.

I have no idea why he would publicly state how he's trying to bypass the DA's authority, but it's an "interesting" statement to make.

The Observer can find no evidence that any targets of the town’s investigation into alleged corruption were called before the Grand Jury. The District Attorney’s office will not comment on the investigation other than to say it is in their hands now.

Well, this says to me that it's the people conducting the original audit that are the subject of the grand jury investigation, no?  Maybe it's a sign that THEY did something wrong?  But no, we can't have Slager making any logical conclusions that are bad for the board.

A call to Assistant District Attorney Bridget Norton Middleton regarding Gifford's alleged complaint was not returned prior to the publication of this story.

Stuff like this amuses me.  He's making a blog post on a website based on an email.  He held off publishing something else based on an email for weeks, but this just HAS to go out the door without delay?  He most likely won't note when it's updated, so why not just wait until he has some more information.

Of the four people called to testify before the Grand Jury, none were read Miranda Rights

This is a blatant, completely transparent attempt to make the DA/grand jury look bad, and make the BOS look sympathetic.  Simply stated, witnesses before the grand jury aren't under arrest, so they don't get "Mirandized".  A 15-second Google search by Mr. Slager would have turned up United States v. Wong (1977) where it was determined that grand jury proceedings don't require notification of Miranda rights.  Witnesses may still invoke the fifth ammendment against self-incrimination, but they do not need to be "Mirandized" first.  Additionally, prosecutors can offer immunity to witnesses in exchange for their testimony where they may have previously tried to use the fifth amendment to avoid testifying. 

According to sources, the District Attorney’s office will not provide town counsel the reason the computer information was seized, under what authority it could do so, why a Grand Jury was called, what the Grand Jury is investigating, how long a potential investigation will take, or when the town can expect to have the computer audit information returned.

Again, most of this falls into the category of trying to paint the DA negatively.  Grand jury proceedings are confidential.  Neither the DA, nor anybody else with knowledge of the proceedings, is allowed to talk about them.  The rest of the sentence is pure hypocrisy - after supporting the BOS's taking of the information, at a great and still unknown cost to the town, without their stating why it was taken, under what auhtority, how long the investigation will take, how much it will cost, or what, specifically, they are investigating, he's calling out the DA for not giving the town full information?  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. 

The records were confiscated without the knowledge or approval of town officials, according to a source.

Sort of like how they were originally copied without the knowledge of town employees?  Also, if these records were being processed according to standard chain-of-custody and other procedures, they should have been locked in a safe requiring sign-in and sign-out every time a record was retrieved or returned.  Now, if it's being seized by the state, no such "approval" is required.  Whoever had the records under lock and key should have notified the town, though.  That is, assuming they were being properly protected.  If the state was able to get at the records without the town knowing, then that implies that the records were easily available, and not properly protected.

The Department of Revenue responded by saying all such information was considered public records and that the town had the legal authority to review it.

Wow, I have to admit, I'm actually pleased with how he wrote this.  It took close to a month of me berating him about misreprestenting what the DOR's letter said, but he got it right here.  Good job Rob!

State law allows selectmen to investigate any department in town government.

State law also allows the state to investigate corruption in the towns.  Federal law also imposes restrictions on copying/transport/protection of many types of data.  Various industry standards can impose fines for other types of data.  Slager finally stopped saying various versions of "The DOR verified that the audit is legal", as discussed above, so this appears to be his new crutch.

Mr. Slager, you do a disservice to the people of Wareham when you write such blatant misinformation. I realize you will not run a correction on these matters because that runs counter to the editorial objective of the Wareham Observer, but I thought I would bring the matter to your attention nonetheless.