Whether the word "promise" was used or not, the main point still stands: an election law expert certainly had some kind of bizarre concern (Pepper was amused at the query and said "Do you know something that I don't know?") that a genuine 9/11 investigation may well reveal Israeli involvement. Good on Barrett for clarifying that the man did not refuse to support NYCCAN. However, even though the double negative was clarified ("did not refuse"), this does not necessarily affirm the positive: that the man did support the initiative. As it stands, the anonymous professor might have been non-committal.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

The natural inference is that the election law expert was concerned how an investigation might affect Israel, if he's asking "whether or not the Israeli activists or operatives were in any way going to be brought into the limelight"- and just asking the question indicates he's considering that as part of the equation, and not simply considering issues of truth and justice, how to conduct a proper, impartial investigation, how to draft the petition and conduct the initiative so that it has the best chance of success. It seems likely this expert is the "most experienced election lawyer in New York City" that was referred to in an NYCCAN appeal- it certainly wasn't Dennis P. McMahon, who is not an election law expert.

I disagree with your characterization that it is "Good on Barrett for clarifying that the man did not refuse to support NYCCAN"- correcting the record is the minimum he needs to do, for his own credibility. It's bizarre that Barrett would even post the original claim he made on his blog, given that he conducted the interview himself- it took Walter to correct him on his own interview, when he asked the question heard the answer and had the audio? And I just checked again; the 'inaccurate' info I pointed out is still there. Asking the question was fine- and it turns out there was some basis for the 'rumor'. I would like to know how it got started; almost certainly it was someone who was aware of goings on at NYCCAN- what was their motivation? I wonder if the way they characterized it had anything to do with Barrett's interpretation... I'm going to email him and ask, and bring this thread to his attention.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

from erik larson <@gmail.com>
to Kevin Barrett <@merr.com>
date Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:59 PM
subject Re: 'Rumor' about election law expert

Hi Kevin, just following up to make sure you got this.

Erik

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:24 AM, erik larson <@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Kevin,

I listened to your interview w/ William Pepper; I had not heard the 'rumor' about the election law expert that NYCCAN had conducted, and was wondering what additional info you can provide on that, such as where it originated (someone at NYCCAN seems the most likely source), how you heard it and what else was said.

To be fair, I also want to bring your attention to the thread at 911blogger, where I've posted a couple of critical comments, including a link to a thread at truthaction that is used to document certain of your own statements and actions, which have caused many, including myself, to be wary of you.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21679

I don't think we've communicated before, and I'm very interested to see how you respond to this email- if you would, an 'on the record' response would be great, and I will post it in the thread at 911blogger and truthaction.

Thanks!

Erik

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org