Horses Mouth January 23, 2007 9:59 AM

January 23, 2007 -- 9:59 AM EST // View Comments (2954) // Post a Comment

QUESTIONS FOR JOHN SOLOMON DURING TODAY'S CHAT WITH READERS.

Today at 11 A.M., Washington Post reporter John Solomon is taking questions from readers.

Here at TPM, as you know, we really enjoy having our way with old Solomon, mainly because of his history of hunting for Dems when the scent of wrongdoing is at best slight or at worst non-existent.

As you also know, the other day Solomon wrote a long front-page piece that seemed to suggest that there was something untoward about John Edwards' house sale last month, though it wasn't clear from the piece exactly what it was. There are plenty of outstanding questions about the article.

We thought a readers' chat might be a good place for readers to pose these questions to Solomon directly. So here are a few thoughts for queries that might be directed his way:

1) Many readers have complained that it isn't clear from your piece on Edwards whether he and his wife did anything untoward in selling their house. So can you clarify things by telling us in one sentence exactly what it is, if anything, that Edwards and his wife did wrong?
2) Given that not one, but two staffers at your paper -- reporter Jonathan Weisman and ombud Deborah Howell -- have criticized the piece, what is your reaction to the substance of their criticism? Do you think these in-house critics have a point, or do you think your colleagues are simply wrong about your effort?

3) In your piece on Edwards, you cited two unions who are at legal loggerheads with the buyer of Edwards' home. Your piece suggested that there was something untoward about Edwards' sale to someone battling these unions because he's courting their support for his Presidential bid. Yet an official for one of those unions didn't pass any judgment on Edwards' action. And you apparently didn't even contact the other union for comment. Isn't that an unforgivable omission for an investigative journalist at a top news org?

4) It's now known that officials at the union you didn't contact didn't see anything wrong with what Edwards did. Why haven't you done a follow-up story emphasizing this fact? And does this new info cause you to rethink the validity or news value of your piece in any way?

Anyway, those are a few suggestions for questions. Have at it, if you feel so inclined. The chat is here.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Update: More good stuff from AmericaBlog.

Update II: Here's my wrap-up on Solomon's responses to readers.

-- Greg Sargent | Comments (2954) | Post a Comment

COMMENTS:

Americablog has great write up on this issue:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/01/under-dc-law-it-could-have-been.html

Had Edwards refused to sell his home based on political calculus, he might have been breaking DC law:

Part C. Housing and Commercial Space.

Â§ 2-1402.21. Prohibitions.

(a) General - It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual:

(1) To interrupt or terminate, or refuse or fail to initiate or conduct any transaction in real property; or to require different terms for such transaction; or to represent falsely that an interest in real property is not available for transaction;

Posted by: Katymine
Date: January 23, 2007 10:33 AM

how about simply: the edwards piece, what was the point?

Posted by: trey anastasio
Date: January 23, 2007 10:46 AM

Mr. Solomon, for the record, did anyone on the Washington Post Company's board of directors or business side of the newspaper's operation propose, influence, promote or facilitate your hiring?

If not, would you care to identify who in the news operation hired you?

Posted by: jjohannson
Date: January 23, 2007 10:54 AM

In regards to your articles, are they based entirely upon republican supplied opponent research, or are you personally involved in manufacturing your articles?

Posted by: Greg Hanigan
Date: January 23, 2007 11:04 AM

It's 11:08AM and so far one question has been posted and answered (from the Mt. Lebanon, PA, questioner).

Posted by: Redbeard
Date: January 23, 2007 11:08 AM

11:11 and two questions, neither about the Edwards hit piece.

Posted by: Jack Harkness
Date: January 23, 2007 11:10 AM

11:11 AM, and still nothing about his big frontpage article.
I'm sure he's gotten a few Q's about it, but nothing yet except that 2nd question about money-and-politics, with Solomon's strange, irrelevant conclusion, "it's hardly a monopoly!"

Posted by: Redbeard
Date: January 23, 2007 11:13 AM

11:15 and now we have an answer:
because Edwards didn't file the name of the person who bought his house.

Hmmph. This is not exactly frontpage news.

Posted by: Redbeard
Date: January 23, 2007 11:18 AM

Solomon has now said twice in the chat that the article served the ends of "transparency" about Edwards' financial dealings.

Here's the followup: why does transparency matter if the deal is perfectly normal? Why do we care about the identity of a buyer who pays fair market value?

Posted by: mark
Date: January 23, 2007 11:20 AM

You know, if Edwards had sold to a liberal like George Soros, then Solomon would have spun it as a underhanded campaign contribution. But since a Republican bought it, it shows Edwards' political position has been undermined.

Probably Edwards didn't care who he sold the house to.

Posted by: Redbeard
Date: January 23, 2007 11:25 AM

I think the moderators are definitely trying to move past the Edwards story. 11:27 and only a few questions have come in. Personally, I've thrown a handful at Solomon, and I imagine I'm not alone. I'm guessing he really, really doesn't want to answer any more questions about his Edwards piece, which means there aren't many questions he's willing to answer...

Posted by: cfaller96
Date: January 23, 2007 11:28 AM

He keeps harping on the "transparency" issue, but doesn't say (1) why it is important or (2) how the issue was coming up by Edwards in the deal.

It sounds vaguely like "Edwards is a public figure, therefore EVERYTHING he does needs to be open and subject to inuendo.

Posted by: Perm Dude
Date: January 23, 2007 11:30 AM

Submitted (by me) and not answered by Solomon:

"In your original piece you wrote that "the names of the buyers were not publicly disclosed." Who was supposed to do the disclosing, and in what forum was that discolsing supposed to take place? Why did you use the passive voice in your article?"

Posted by: Jack Harkness
Date: January 23, 2007 11:32 AM

"Is it tough pretending to be an investigative reporter in an opposition researcher's clothes?"

Posted by: BW
Date: January 23, 2007 11:36 AM

my question, not posted:
I am sorry Mr. Solomon, but your description of why the Edwards Real Estate transaction was reported doesnt hold water. To take your last comment, you list 4 other real estate deals in the news - but two of them, Obama and Reid (not coincidentally, both democrats) were shown to be lawful transactions. (Obama entered into an arms length transaction and bought a strip of land from his neighbor at market value; Reid used an LLC to hold title to real estate - as an owner of real estate i can attest to the total commonality of that practice). Cunningham, on the other hand was convicted for taking bribes in the form of purchases of real estate for far below market value, and Hastert used his office to steer federal projects (highways) by land that he owned, markedly increasing its market value.

How do you equate the lack of evidence to suggest improprieties with Obama/Reid and now Edwards against the conviction of Cunningham and the Highly questionable Hastert deal?

Posted by: melandell
Date: January 23, 2007 11:36 AM

Oh man, y'all are clogging the tubes this morning! 11:40 and only 7 questions asked and answered. You have to wonder how many Edwards questions are being dodged over there...

Posted by: cfaller96
Date: January 23, 2007 11:41 AM

I hope he's buried alive under 8 billion "you hack" e-mails.

Posted by: TMU
Date: January 23, 2007 11:43 AM

He's moved on to Hillary. Obviously the comments are slamming him. It would be fun to be able to read what questions are being rejected, because mine on comparing the various real estate deals hasn't been answered. My guess is that he'll never do another chat, because this subject will come up again.

Posted by: Beth
Date: January 23, 2007 11:48 AM

Now he's said he gets his news tips from the Style Section. Priceless!

Posted by: Perm Dude
Date: January 23, 2007 11:53 AM

I asked if he could provide an example of another story he did on "transparency" that involved a Republican politician. Alas, like all my other questions, no touchdown.

I know I should feel great shame in overloading Solomon and his moderators, but I don't.

Posted by: cfaller96
Date: January 23, 2007 11:56 AM

Looks like Solomon's entire defense rest on his word that Edwards was not immediately forthright about matters of public record, and was not transparent about the transaction BEFORE he filed his financial disclosure statement.

What was Edwards supposed to disclose that isn't a matter of public record? And how was he supposed to disclose it, before he filed the disclosure?

Posted by: Memekiller
Date: January 23, 2007 11:57 AM

And Solomon's slinked off with his tail between his legs. However, you can still e-mail him your unanswered questions at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/john+solomon/ !

Posted by: Jack Harkness
Date: January 23, 2007 12:06 PM

And one more question about George Tenet, and (big sigh) he's done with us nasty, nasty bloggers. Phew!

I'm betting he got the message, though...

Posted by: cfaller96
Date: January 23, 2007 12:06 PM

What I took away from that chat is that Mr. Solomon doesn't understand the whole concept of corporate entities.

Maybe the Post should put him on the Style beat.

Posted by: kc
Date: January 23, 2007 12:28 PM

Re Katymine @ 10:33 on illegal to refuse buyer in DC:

Amazingly, Solomon did take a question asking exactly this (the very first question) yet he didn't answer it!

Here's the question and the "answer":

Washington: A quick question about the Edwards story -- leaving aside the politics for a moment, wouldn't it have been against D.C. law for Edwards to refuse the sale? I didn't think you were allowed to accept or reject a sale for political reasons, and I was wondering why this wasn't mentioned in the story (if true).

John Solomon: Thanks for this question. Certainly there's been lots of discussion in the blogs about this story and let me try to address the core issue. This wasn't a story about whether John Edwards should or shouldn't have picked the Klaassens as buyers. It was a story about the transparency of the deal. Those who aspire to the highest office in the land are required to disclose their financial dealings to the fullest extent. That isn't a political requirement or some media-driven imposition. It is encoded in the federal campaign law. When Edwards' campaign first disclosed the deal, much detail was lacking about the deal _ most importantly the name of the buyers. Such information is critical to the transparency of a transaction involving $5.2 million that occurred on the night before Edwards launched his candidacy. Our story simply filled in the missing blanks.

(And re the "answer" note that as Solomon later concedes, Edwards' filing date hasn't come yet and so he hasn't filed yet. Duh.)

Posted by:
Date: January 23, 2007 12:40 PM

The Gary Hart principle: Now that John Solomon has denied that his source(s) were GOP operative(s) on this and the Reid stories, he's fair game I would think for other reporters to try to dig out his source(s) (if he's not telling the truth).

Posted by: crust
Date: January 23, 2007 12:48 PM

Re my comment at 12:40, actually it was the third question. I meant the first story about Edwards.

Posted by: crust
Date: January 23, 2007 12:50 PM

Re kc's comment at 12:28: It's interesting how Solomon's confusions about corporate entities are different each time. Somehow his confusion is always in the direction he needs to convert the non-story at hand into a story (both in the Reid and Edwards cases).

Posted by: crust
Date: January 23, 2007 12:54 PM

Edwards DID disclose the buyers (P St LLC). I'm still trying to understand how Edwards is responsible for finding out the major stakeholders in a corporation as part of campaign finance transparency.

Posted by: districtdemocrat
Date: January 23, 2007 1:01 PM