Posted By:
Jeff LichtmanI have to say that it's somewhat humerous to read the responses of board members falling over themselves claiming that the article does nothing to impugn Mastro's credibility. Again, the writer is simply reporting what the prosecutor in Ohio and his auditor are saying: that they believe that Mastro engaged in shill bidding based upon their review of documents received from their investigation of Noe's bidding on Mastro items. How does the reporting of this allegation somehow impact on the News's credibility? How can the reporter at this stage possibly substantiate the prosecutor's allegation when the reporter doesn't have access to Mastro's bidding records? In fact, the reporter's story has a great source for the allegation - the investigator and prosecutor who made the allegation. Those are the 'named' sources. You should see how many times newspapers (including the Daily News) report much more serious allegations and attribute the sources to unnamed "law enforcement sources." As a defense lawyer, it drives me crazy. In this case, however, the very people that built the case against the republican fundraiser are now claiming that Mastro engaged in shill bidding. Don't blame the reporter for putting this in his article as his source is named and in a position to know if shill bidding occurred. That being said, prosecutors are well known to lie about their allegations for any number of reasons (see Mike Nifong, Durham County, NC DA).