The truth is that blogs need the MSM. I mean without the MSM, my blog would consist of such compelling topics as "My Dog Didn't Crap All Day" or maybe "I Should Double-Bag Apples When Walking To/From Store".

The MSM provides so much grist for the mill, we'd be lost without them.

While I accept the point here, isn't more like Blogs 6, MSM 2? (I'm being very conservative and only counting big stuff like Jayson Blair/NYT/Howell Raines, Rathergate, Eason Jordan, Trent Lott, "Stolen explosives", Swift Boat Vets, vs. Wahingtonienne DC sex blogger, and this.

CQ on AdScam is not yet factored in, and stuff like Patterico's relentless exposes of the LA Times as serial liars doesn't count in this equation.

Joe's right-- although i wonder what the other MSM point comes from.
I think the whole "blogburst for terri schiavo" was a blogverse failure, in that all the blogs supporting that meme complex seemed to fail to get their message across to the public. But i am not sure it was an MSM success, on the other hand.
Now there is a distinct attitude of petulance, like redoing polls and the "we lost unfairly and you-are-so-stupid" attitude.

No kidding.

Joe is correct, 6-2 Blogs is conservative. AdScam will likely make it 7-2, and no doubt we could easily come up with several other examples.

I stayed away from that memo story as I had a nasty suspicion it was indeed written by a GOP staffer. I didn't think it was promoted by the GOP leadership, however. Bloggers have to be careful not to get sucked into issues such as this. Just because Terri's name was spelled wrong, it wasn't on official letterhead, etc. doesn't mean it didn't originate from a GOP office. Granted the media took some liberties, but they can still poke a finger in the eye of bloggers for being a little too zealous.

I say pick your battles carefully. Rathergate was a slam dunk. So was Swiftboats. Easongate was a little more difficult, but we all were careful to ask for the proof before demanding action, and were willing to actually listen to Eason had he produced the evidence. Something like this memo story has too much room for error, and we should be careful not to come to conclusions too quickly.

6-2? 7-2? No offense, but who cares? Guys, how old are we all here? Can we do without the beancounting?

So the memo was circulated by the Senate Republican leadership as talking points when none knew of it? Baloney.

It's more like a draw on this one. The old media wanted the Republicans to be found to have ciculated the memo -- so they made the story up. When Frist and others denied even knowing about the memo, the old media just ignored them.

So how do the blogs lose? Looks to me the truth came out -- the old media lied about the authenticity of the memo plain and simple.

The staffer who perpetrated the hoax was fired, or resigned.

In this day and age when anyone can write anything everyone needs to suspect the source.

The blogs were correct in pointing out the memo was a fake -- it was not an official anything.

So it was produced by a staff member. OTOH, it wasn't produced by the Senate leadership (since Sen. Martinez isn't part of it), and the WaPo seems to have admitted as much. It still had none of the identifying marks of an actual leadership memo.

So seems like this one is a draw.

Sounds like one definition of "we" is "the right-tending weblogs," versus "the left-favoring mainstream media." So when it turns out that a a story is kinder to liberals than conservatives, as here, does that count as a loss?

I'd prefer to see "we" as "the postmodern-narrative-rejecting citizenry." No, the story isn't all about spin, selective presentation, or the journalist's favored ideology. Yes, there are such things as facts, evidence, and chains of causation.

If what happened has now become clear--and it looks like it has--then this should be seen as a win. I don't want this Schiavo memo to be used to smear "the Republican leadership." Or used to smear "the Democratic Senators." Martinez' aide penned it, now Martinez and his office are responsible for the fuller explanation. The blogosphere seemed to help keep the story from falling down the Memory Hole before all the key facts became known.

Per Bill Roggio (#5), perhaps, the lesson is to avoid hubris, and to avoid the logic of "if our allies are accused, and it seems like they didn't do it, well it musta been the work of our opponents!" So there is room for criticism there.

Here is the objectionable portion of the memo, in its entirety:

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

Apart from the fact that every word of this is absolutely true - and apart from the fact that the other side is openly making political hay and mixing it with anti-Christian bigotry, too - I suppose the point of this issue is that the person who wrote this memo cared more about politics than he did about the dying Terri Schiavo.

I guess that goes for all of us, right? I'd take that as a cheap and grotesque insult, if I wasn't so used to such things.

Glen Wishard (#10):

However objectionable the memo's text, style, and implications were, or weren't: Were they any more noxious 24 hours ago, when Power Line and others were calling it a likely Democratic dirty trick, as opposed to now? Sauce, goose, gander, and all.

AMac: "Power Line and others were calling it a likely Democratic dirty trick"

24 hours ago Power Line called the memo "questionable, if not fake" and said "Some already suspect that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick." The first statement was conjecture, not accusation, and the second was the truth.

Today they quote Mickey Kaus - Non-fake but inaccurate:

a) The memo was apparently not "distributed to Republican Senators by party leaders," as Allen's initial story, sent out through the Post news service to other papers, reported. It was--at least judging from today's account--handed to one Democratic senator, Tom Harkin, by one freshman Republican senator (who isn't in the party leadership); b) Allen doesn't explain why he told Howie Kurtz he "did not call them talking points or a Republican memo" when he had in fact done just that in the news service draft; c) Even the later, more "carefully worded" account Allen published in the Post itself was apparently wrong.

So who's playing rough with the truth, Power Line or WaPo?

Pick whichever one you want, but what is the larger moral that "the postmodern-narrative-rejecting citizenry" is supposed to take away from this? That all is hypocrisy, that Terri Schiavo's advocates are nothing but hypocrites - that there is no god but Politics, and Zogby is his prophet?

Glen Wishard (#12):

I think most readers of Power Line came away with the message that the P.L.s thought for a week or so--until the Martinez story broke--that the memo was a likely Democratic dirty trick. Your quote provides greater detail, without rebutting that contention. I don't think the site's authors would, for that matter.

To repeat, if the memo's content is now innocuous, then it was also innocuous when it was mistakenly thought to be Democrat-authored.

Kausfiles seems to have a good read on the situation, and one consistent with Power Line's take this morning, for that matter.

As far as your final rejoinder--yah, I mushed some 50-cent words into an awkward phrase. But hopefully the meaning still comes across--truthfulness exists, and it matters.

More from Kaus:

But certainly whatever legitimate valence Allen's 'memo' story had depended almost entirely on the impression that the memo revealed and represented the strategy of the GOP leaders who pushed the Schiavo bill. If all that was involved was a staff memo Martinez gave to Harkin, Allen's story was way out of whack. The memo wasn't close to being worth the play it got in WaPo or in Douglass' report. (It's not worth the current Senate investigation either. What's the crime--politicians considering politics?)

So what is the valence - and the crime - that Kaus is missing?

AMac: "To repeat, if the memo's content is now innocuous, then it was also innocuous when it was mistakenly thought to be Democrat-authored."

Of course, forgery is not a harmless thing just because it is innocuously worded. Obviously, an accusation of forgery is not insignificant, either.

But if raising the question of forgery is outrageous, that crime would be more impressive if the MSM had a simon-pure record of not trucking with forgeries. If this is comeuppance for Rathergate, it's pretty thin gruel - and may WaPo choke on it all the same.

If the best that their pride and conscience can salvage from this entire affair is that their integrity was unfairly impugned in the course of one minor sideshow event - all I can say is: How typical.

This evening (Thurs 4/7), I heard Andrea Seabrook's report on the memo on NPR's All Things Considered. She recounts the story as it is now generally known, although with the implied suggestion that the Republican leadership was involved with the production or distribution of the memo. At 2min 32sec, after describing how Martinez passed the memo to Harkin, she says, "But that doesn't seem to explain, actually, why several Republican senators' aides said they were familiar with the memo earlier, if it wasn't in circulation [unintelligible--before being given to] Harkin. "

Seabrook is reporting information that I haven't seen reported elsewhere--that Martinez' transfer to Harkin happened after Republican aides had already received copies of the memo. The listener isn't made aware that this is a new twist that Seabrook's adding to the story. It's more of a "those typically slippery Republicans" type of thing.

Are any other mainstream media reporters telling the story this way? Has any aide confirmed this claim on-the-record, or has any reporter asserted they have not-for-attribution sources supporting this timeline? The ugly alternatives are that Seabrook is confused, or that she is misrepresenting innuendo as fact.

Yup this ham handed flack deserved the loss of his job.

If it had not been a dolt that crafted that note, the instant they began to flog it the author would have gone on the offensive.

I would have said, Damn straight, im against NAZI Euthenasia, affidavits and things like this

Upon seeing the CT slice I was shocked that, yes there was severe atrophy, yes, there was severe damage, and yes the cortex was markedly thinned, but the CT itself did not reflect the descriptions I'd heard; and worse, I have seen many old and debilitated nursing home/assisted living patients as well as younger patients with chronic brain damage, with similar or worse atrophy. And not all of these patients were nonfunctioning.

That same CT slice was used as a visual graphic on television and in the newspapers -- by the same group of experts -- to demonstrate why Terri Schiavo was suitable for euthanasia. I objected to this strongly as, to me, the implications for all the other patients with similar or worse CT scans was morally and ethically frightening (talk about slippery slopes!).

and this

3. How does one develop NONCOMMUNICATING HYDROCEPHALUS in ONE MONTH? By a blood clot obstructing the CSF outflow from the brain at the Foramen of Magendie.

4. How does one get #3.

BY BEING HIT ON THE HEAD AND SUFFERING INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHAGE.

So Terri WAS HIT ON THE HEAD OR DROPPED ON HER HEAD DURING LATER FEBRUARY OR EARLY MARCH WHILE IN THAT HOSPITAL.

and this

I see all the classic signs
1. Enlarged ventricles
2. Rounded, bulbous front and back ventricle horns
3. "Pressure" effect on the occipital lobes of the brain (which, by the way, do not -- on this image -- demonstrate the atrophy seen everywhere else)

People with untreated hydrocephalus OFTEN SHOW IMPROVED MENTATION WHEN THE OBSTRUCTION IS RELIEVED.

So, if the other images bear out my impression from this one slice, then Terri MUST have a follow up CT or MRI or BOTH and if she is hydrocephalic she needs to be shunted, because there are possible positive therapeutic implications that no one can deny.

If they proceed as is, with that image out there on the internet, the person(s) who pulled that tube had better be aware that they are in jeopardy of actuating a death when there were standard medical procedural methods that had yet to be deployed.Here's what they can look forward to at the trial:

Dr. Boyle: ONE MUST REPEAT THE CT SCAN

Tube-Puller: Why?

Dr. Boyle: BECAUSE SHE MAY HAVE HYDROCEPHALUS.

Tube-Puller: O come on, that's ridiculous.

Dr. Boyle: MAYBE. BUT SHE MAY HAVE HYROCEPHALUS.

Tube-Puller: O come on. So what?

Dr. Boyle: HYDROCEPHALICS CAN IMPROVE WITH SHUNTING.

Tube-Puller: But she was brain dead. You're insane

Dr. Boyle: MAYBE. JUST REPEAT THE CT SCAN AND PROVE ME CRAZY.

Tube-Puller: we can't do that

Dr. Boyle: WHY?

Tube-Puller: She's dead. I pulled out her feeding tube.

Dr. Boyle: DEAD? HOW DID SHE DIE?

Tube-Puller: Dehydration. Starvation.

Dr. Boyle: I'M SORRY FOR HER. I PITY YOU.

Tube-Puller: Why?

Dr. Boyle: I CANNOT CHANGE WHAT IS ON THAT FILM. SHE MAY HAVE HAD HYDROCEPHALUS. IF SHE DID, SHE MAY HAVE EXPERIENCED IMPROVEMENT WITH SHUNTING.

Tube-Puller: That's a lot of maybes.

Dr. Boyle: THAT'S ALL TERRI HAD. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE PULLED THAT TUBE. YOU ARE CULPABLE. I'M AFRAID IT'S MURDER.

Tube-Puller: that's idiotic. I only did what I was ordered by the courts to do.

Dr. Boyle: I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE. IT DOESN'T FLY.

ONE MUST REPEAT THE SCAN. PUT THE TUBE BACK AND REPEAT THE CT SCAN.

And This

I HAVE SEEN MANY WALKING, TALKING, FAIRLY COHERENT PEOPLE WITH WORSE CEREBRAL/CORTICAL ATROPHY. THEREFORE, THIS IS IN NO WAY PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT TERRI SCHIAVO'S MENTAL ABILITIES OR/OR CAPABILITIES ARE COMPLETELY ERADICATED. I CANNOT BELIEVE SUCH TESTIMONY HAS BEEN GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF THIS SCAN.

The worrisome, no alarming thing, for me, was that I heard a bioethicist and several important figures on the major media describe Terri's brain as MUCH WORSE. One "expert" said that she had a "bag of water" in her head. Several experts described her as a "brain stem preparation"

These statements are wholly inaccurate. This is an atrophied brain, yes, but there is cortex remaining, and where there's cortex (?life) there's hope.

If you starve this woman to death it would be, in my professional and experienced medical opinion, the equivalent of starving to death a 75-85 year old person. I would take that to the witness stand.

This issue is far from dead, it isnt even started yet.

The hydrocephalic condition explains her good and bad days, her variable alertness, and why she exhibited the classic symptoms of brain stem pressure.

Im convinced this woman suffered 14 days of agony, the proof is all over the place. and the fact that the old finding of fact was never examined, that she was dehydrated to death at the point of a government gun is as huge as anything since 1938 NAZI germany.

Raymond:

From CodeBlue, whom you quoted, about his observations:

"First, this was the only slice available. Second, it was the same and only slice everyone other expert was commenting upon. The University of Miami bioethics webpage thought it was appropriate to use that single slice on their web page as a testament to Terri's brain damage. Third, I made observations, not a diagnosis. Fourth, this was a scan done in the remote past."

It is sad that this unfortunate case is being used to fuel so much machination against the courts.

"Strong views and a good will" are cited by the same CodeBlue as his leading recommendatiion. A bit of good will wouldn't hurt any of his followers.

The kind of good will when you thirst a disabled woman suffering hydrocephalus to death at the point of govt guns while her mother and father are not even allowed to put an ice cube to her chapped lips ? where the body is creamated after barring the families pathogist from observing the autopcy ?

No. the "good will" here is utterly, totaly, one sided, and the nazi judge who wouldnt even accept the affidavits from the nurses showed about as much good will as nazi medical authority Authur Guett.

There is no rationale to exuse what happend here.

Only the same rationales of the nazis, and Peter Singers Postmodern utilitarian Euthenasia Bioethisists, who have now found the Leftist "solution" to the social security bubble.

They are wasting no time either, it happening again.

In her living will, Magouirk stated that fluids and nourishment were to be withheld only if she were either comatose or "vegetative," and she is neither. Nor is she terminally ill, which is generally a requirement for admission to a hospice.

Magouirk lives alone in LaGrange, though because of glaucoma she relied on her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, to bring her food and do errands.

Two weeks ago, Magouirk's aorta had a dissection, and she was hospitalized in the local LaGrange Hospital. Her aortic problem was determined to be severe, and she was admitted to the intensive care unit. At the time of her admission she was lucid and had never been diagnosed with dementia.

Claiming that she held Magouirk's power of attorney, Gaddy had her transferred to Hospice-LaGrange, a 16-bed unit owned by the same family that owns the hospital. Once at the hospice, Gaddy stated that she did not want her grandmother fed or given water.

"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

With Peter Singers nazi bio-ethesist in charge, you better suck up to all those who might find themselves in authority over you.

You might end up like this woman, doped up, drying up, and soon. dead meat.

Life is precious, and using protracted torture to advance a cause is despicable.

When our puppy was hit by a truck about 40 years ago, our Dad put the puppy out of its misery. We children treated him like a monster for awhile. But we grew up.

Recently my children's lovely pet developed cancer and in addition to suffering, threw up everything he ate, so out of kindness we had him put down, as was recommended. The children were old enough to understand, and asked me to go ahead and leave the room because I broke down. My son stayed and held Blackie's head in his lap telling him "Good Dog" until the vet told him "He can't hear you anymore".

Such humanity toward a human being was absent in all the protests and political debates over Terri Schiavo's sad end.

Wondering what 14 days without water will feel like ? the last big fight with the son in law have you shopping for a stealth iv pump fed 20 gallon canteen ?

Buy your family one of these and a dark tattered cloak, at least it will be quick.

Via Classical Values

(His punchline is better than mine)

Such humanity toward a human being was absent in all the protests and political debates over Terri Schiavo's sad end.

Both that and intelectual honesty is totaly missing from the death cultist.

Ive shot my own dogs in the head to shorten such agony.

But in Terries case, the only agony was going 14 days without water.

Before, laughing at her fathers jokes is not an indicator of suffering, and she could have done more than that with a hydrocephalitic shunt.

Sorry, but that stuff would hardly work on my 5 year old, who already knows the differnce between his dog and grandma. (by the above cited article, other kids dont seem as smart).

And all these arguments have been made before, they are in the historical record, of the NAZIs.

They no more acceptable now than they was then.

The difference between my kids' grandmother's death and that of our dog was the kindness in the latter.

Their grandmother tore out her own IV's and they were cruelly reinserted and she was restrained to keep her from ending her own suffering when the Catholic hospital refused to let her die. She had broken ribs from the resuscitation.

Such kindness. At least no mob demonstrated outside her funeral for their own political ends.

That story sounds like a fraud, in norway even 14 year olds can have the state put em to death when they get "depressed" gee you convinced me, we should all carry self-snuff kits for those "ive had it" days.

Not to bring this thread back to the subject of the original post or anything...but do commenters who have followed the Schiavo memo story have any perpective on whether NPR's reporter had a point, or not (#16)?

In other words, does the idea that the memo passed from the aide to Martinez to Harkin and then to wider distribution hold water? Or, as reporter Andrea Seabrook claimed, is there evidence that the memo had already been circulated to Republican senators' offices as a strategy document?

In the first case, the WaPo's and ABC's reporting was misleading. In the second case, despite the Martinez/Harkin angle, perhaps it wasn't.

The MSM repeated these claims, too. This was not a MSM vs. blogs issue. It was a liberal v. conservative issue. And the conservatives--in the MSM and on the blogs--were wrong.

Raymond:

I will not dignify your accusation by having my son post his confirmation of his grandmother's sufferings and his family's subsequent alienation from the Catholic church.

AMac:

It isn't exactly in the interests of Republicans to confirm that the memo had been circulated among them, so I doubt that that will happen. And sorry about the digression.

duus, Ruth, thanks. Any links or citations on this you could offer? Reasoning that a series of events probably happened a certain way isn't identical to reporting that it did so transpire.

In the article below, an aide to Martinez says Darling "may have disseminated the memo to other offices", but so far I haven't seen anyone come right out and say he/she got it who would not benefit from admitting it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35324-2005Apr7.html

[JK: Zapped the post. Manners matter.]

JK: Thanks, I can imagine. And
AMac:

Found a really good reference on mossback:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/004937.html

Thanks for the links, Ruth. Power Line guys were wrong in their assessment of the facts--that the memo was a Democratic dirty trick--but, read with the benefit of hindsight, their posts don't reek. I don't see a series of gloating accusations that decency would demand apologies for.

There's nothing definite in what I've read today to substantiate or deny that Darling directly or indirectly got his memo circulated to Republicans in other senators' offices--the point that piqued my interest in #16, above. Reporter Andrea Seabrook's contention seems to be widely held on the insider-politics-beat, but I can't tell if that's because it's obvious to insiders that it's true, or because reporters' thinking is often lazy.

Very balanced Amac. And JK:

From the content of the stopactivistjudges.org I've been seeing, balanced judgment is what they're counting on. From you, not them. Watching some of this convocation in VA where the claim is that 'your children's Bible' will be taken from their hands and 'replaced by a Hustler' by the democrats (Kay Baly, Pres. of Coalition for a Fair Judiciary) I am really not confident that our leadership including Tom DeLay who spoke to this group, is at all balanced.

Their political agenda overrides the Constitution (claiming that since it was elected, the legislature should override the judiciaty), using poor dear Terri Schiavo who evidently ended her own life by an attempt to be attractive, called bulemia (I have a daughter who recovered from anorexia, but it took a change in lifestyle by me as her mother), and the sad family problems being exploited to their ends really exemplify How Low They Will Go. I fear for this country under such leadership.

Ruth, there are a series of checks on judicial power built into the American system - as there must be for all branches. If you're going to throw around terms like "override the Constitution," you had better back that up. It doesn't make me comfortable about the prospect of you falling into the rational camp either.

Judges are not kings, or gods, they are players in a larger political system. If you want infalliability, go see the Pope. I find myself every bit as disturbed by people who treat their rulings as holy writ and as such beyond appeal or remedy. Or is holy writ OK as long as it's your gods writing it?

This is why checks and balances exist.

I'm not sure that the legislative intervention was helpful, but I'm not someone who thinks forcing it to review by a federal court is The End of Civilization either.

This is also why politics exist, after all. This is what they're for.

There was a clear legal dispute here, which engaged principles that many people felt very strongly about. Life and death, federal and state, etc. This is not exploitation, and if you were in the place of Ms. Schiavo's parents, you would have appreciated the help. It is, in fact, something you would expect from members of your government.

Some Republicans got involved because it goes to some deeply-held beliefs of theirs. That's also why ultra-liberal Tom Harkin got involved. And you know what? It was perfectly appropriate for them to do so in support of Ms. Schiavo's parents in a very high-profile case. Even if they disagree with you.

I've been wanting both sides to get a grip throughout most of this controversy.

In vain, it seems. Brace for more.

JK:

And is that 'rational camp' something you'd like to further identify?

Yes, there is a review system, and all rulings are subject to appeal. In the Schiavo case, all the appeals had played out. Legislative intervention added a federal appeals court review, which found, surprise! all proper procedures had been followed and the judgment was proper.

"Override the Constitution" refers to the statements by speakers including Rick Scarborough of the Judaeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, that due to the fact they are popularly elected, the legislators should dominate the judiciary. Last time I looked, this was contrary to constitutional checks and balances.

Please note that Rep. DeLay is now referring to his opponents as the 'culture of death' - does this suggest to you that he is getting a grip?

Bill Roggio,

Of course the memo wasn't promoted by the Republican leadership.

They just acted as if it had been.

Not fake but accurate.

Uh, the Nazi Judge was reputed to be a conservative.

How is that possible?

As I understand it he followed the law and the evidence presented to him.

That he seems to have come to the "wrong" conclusion based on that seems to be what is upsetting most folks on the right.

So what is to be done? Outlaw the judiciary and put every such question to a vote?

Ask conservative judges (even Scalia passed on this one) to be more activist?

BTW no one has mentioned on this thread that Bush signed a pull the plug bill when he was Governor of Texas.

Did he have a change of heart in this case because of conviction or politics?

I vote politics. Thus I call the memo - not fake but accurate. Why? Because the content of the memo seems to have matched the behavior of the Republicans.

The memo writer's mistake was putting to paper what the Republicans actually did.

My opinion is that the Rs are trying to spin this. Well this Bush voter is not twirling.

If you don't like the way the Terri case turned out perhaps the culprit is Florida law and not the lack of activism on the part of judges.

My take: Republicans are against activist judges when the rulings go against them. But may prefer activist judges when the ruling goes against them.

Does that sound contradictory?

You decide.

M.Simon, actually you have nothing to base your comment about the memo upon. And I think that this is not "MSM 1, Blogs 0" as above.

More like "MSM 1/2, Blogs 1/2".

As for "activist" judges, there is certainly the old issue of whose ox is getting gored on that topic. However, there is a lot of grossly wrong rhetoric about what Congress actually did in the Schiavo case. And above, Ruth's implication that what Congress did "overrode" the Constitution is simply factually false. All Congress did was give the federal courts jurisdiction to hear the question of whether or not there was a federal due process violation - a power clearly given Congress in the 14th Amendment. The only troubling aspect constitutionally was that Congress conferred such jurisdiction for a single plaintiff instead of for a class of plaintiffs.

Now I'm not a huge fan of the increasing amount of federalization of law in this country, but the rhetoric in this case is ridiculous.

Armed,

I'm not sure why you consider this a victory for the MSM, given their slipshod reporting on the memo -- or a loss for blogs, which (as far as I can tell) never directly claimed that the memo was fake.