Comments on: $150K Audit Probes Years Of Grant Bungling By DA’s Office – March 17, 2012

By: Freddy

Freddy — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:33:17 +0000

From a personal experience the Humboldt DA’s office is 1.incompetent 2.really f…up

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:37:02 +0000

Sorry to interrupt the feuding guys but is anyone looking into the perjury issue and lying to the Grand Jury or submitting knowingly false responses to the Jury?

By: kevpod

kevpod — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:08:27 +0000

“…the only thing I commented at your site was a question as to whether he could be retried.”

Revisionism doesn’t work so well when anyone can read your previous comments rising to Gallegos’ defense and attempting to redirect interest elsewhere.

“…your headline on that story was simply wrong. He wasn’t cleared.”

He wasn’t? Are you saying he is still charged with felonies? If you know of any other felony charges still pending against him, I’ll update the headline and run a correction. In fact it probably warrants another story.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:53:59 +0000

OK, Kevin, you’ve lost me.

I don’t know what sort of feedback you got on the Gundersen story, but the only thing I commented at your site was a question as to whether he could be retried. That’s despite the fact that your headline on that story was simply wrong. He wasn’t cleared.

In my mind, the story had NOTHING to do with the DA’s office, and I didn’t even think you’d brought it up in that story.

As far as who brought up the DA’s office, Kevin, Daniel Mintz and you appear to have in the story at issue here (for good reason, I think). I’ve commented on what I think of your coverage, and I’m done.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:48:30 +0000

“Oh, to have one percent of the attention devoted to investigating the DAs office devoted to investigating incompetence ANYWHERE ELSE in the county government.”

Who brought up the DA’s Office again?

By: Mitch

Mitch — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:45:28 +0000

The connection with the Gundersen story is in your mind, Kevin. (Believe me or not.) See?

By: kevpod

kevpod — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:41:56 +0000

My point exactly: simply reporting Gundersen’s appeal is “trashing” Gallegos, mandating an indignant defense, an attack on the reporting media and direction to go after the airport manager instead.

‘Twas ever thus with the True Believers.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:35:29 +0000

See?

By: Mitch

Mitch — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:32:44 +0000

I can’t speak on behalf of his surrogates, but I can say that I notice how you seem to miss a lot of county-related news (oh, of course, it’s not in Arcata) but NEVER miss an opportunity to trash Gallegos. Great neutral photo and headline, too, Kevin. Real objective.

I’ll be interested in seeing whether my 9:17 gets out of moderation, or if it’s too much of a “distraction” from your jihad.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:21:37 +0000

That goes both ways. Grudges vs. blind allegiance. Whenever there’s ANY news that might in any way reflect poorly on Gallegos, his surrogates reflexively jump into the online fray with their time-tested defenses and distractions.

In this case. there’s no political opponent to smear, so the message is, “Nothing to see here, move along. Hey, look over there – the rest of the county is just as bad. Go after that, not this!”