Talk:Donald Segretti

Untitled
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html

Categories
The misguided alteration of the "Prosecutors" category to "District Attorneys" caused many articles to lose accuracy. This was one of them. Donald Segretti is one of many people who had been a prosecutor but was never a District Attorney. The two are NOT the same and it is unfortunate that the person that butchered that category was ignorant of that basic fact. I have repaired that as relates to this particular article.

Rove
Reverted and placed here to await sourcing.
 * Segretti was a mentor to Karl Rove when the latter was nineteen. nobs 00:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1502533,00.html

The Guardian reference is nothing more than opinion piece. This violates Wikipedia policy. During the 1972 presidential election, Karl Rove was president of the College Republicans and worked to get out the vote among young people. He had no contact with Donald Segretti. In fact, all references to Rove and Segretti come from opinion pieces that do not have fact-checking. As proof, CBS news/Dan Rather did a piece on the youth vote that included an interview with Karl Rove, busy in his College Republicans office manning the phones and getting out the vote. All references to Rove being linked to Segretti are nothing but rumor and sloppy journalism. The claim that Rove was a protege of Segretti should be removed from this article.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/reich-r.html This is an empty reference.  The link goes nowhere:  PAGE NOT FOUND.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04123/308586.stm Another fake reference.  Makes absolutely no mention of Segretti.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and many others, but the Guardian is reputable. Opinion pieces are not "reputable" sources. They're opinion.  The writer is using rumor, not fact.  Malke 2010 (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also in the Karl Rove wikipedia page, fwiw. Jebba 00:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC) This page is entirely based on false/phony/misleading references, that frequently come up empty.  Again, it is written from a left-wing POV.  Not neutral. Article is biased and not fact based. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * None of it is sourced; particularly the Robert B. Reich article, he seems to be just cut and pasting something from elsewhere. Find a source who can be identified. nobs 00:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not an exact statement on Segretti/Rove, but this John Dean (White House Counsel to Nixon) interview does place Rove as a small-fish Watergate dirty trickster (and Segretti was a big-fish Watergate trickster...): http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/index1.html
 * There is a copy of the Salon article here as well (to avoid passes...): http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=6694&fcategory_desc=Top%20Stories%20Ignored%20By%20U.S.%20Media
 * Jebba 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, the Salon article does not say what you are claiming. Karl Rove had nothing to do with Segretti, et al.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a very interesting comment on Dean's part; however there is no Segretti-Rove link there, or for that matter a Dean-Rove link (in fact, it could be argued there actually is a denial that Rove worked for any Nixon related entity with this remark:
 * He is way beyond anything Nixon had at his disposal.,
 * obviously stating Nixon did not have him at Nixon's disposal. There may be some merit however, in an unadulterated full citation on either the Rove page or the Dean page.  Unless you got some other ideas.  Thanks. nobs 01:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to be pedantic, but the "he is way beyond..." quote is a comparison between what Nixon had available to him at the time and what Bush has available to him now. Remember this is a ~20 year old Rove, not the much more experienced trickster that he now is. Anyway, with Dean's quotes I was just trying to place him in the "scene" at the time. A search of the Watergate prosecutor's files for Rove would likely be interesting... I'll bring up Watergate and the Dean quote on the Talk:Karl Rove page--perhaps others know more about this.
 * While it does seem very likely that the "mentor" issue is true, I won't push for it to be on the page until something more solid can be located. I think I've tapped out google (which has hundreds of blog posts about this...). You got Segretti's phone number? ;) Jebba 02:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. Take it from an old time operative, the use of an uncorroborated innuendo (especially from someone who's credibility is questionable, see Wikipedia.org, John Dean, "referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the FBI", et seqt") is in itself a form of ratfucking. nobs 02:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh. Interesting. I don't doubt Dean has done & is doing his share of ratfucking... Jebba 02:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, here's the FBI FOIA Watergate file ; it's probably incomplete case the site says 16,000 pages. I never looked at it, but have been meaning to, maybe this would be a good excuse to parouse the file and get some idea what's there.  nobs 02:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like there's only 141 pages online there. The 16,000 pages are probably available only at some library (?) or by special order. Unless someone has gone through the trouble to put them online themselves... thanks :) Jebba 02:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * They are avaialable for a fee (Dean did say it was the FBI that asked, so it's not worth pursuing in his Congressional testimony or Special Prosecutor files). I just read the "Dirty Tricks" file, absolutely shocking, they actually manufactured false stories for the press, picketed opponents rallies, and asked embarassing questions.  My God! What is this world coming to!? nobs 02:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Donaldsegretti.jpg
Image:Donaldsegretti.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disbarment
His law license was supended, but he was never disbarred: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=39856 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambejim (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Employment
It may not be significant, but it may want to be made clear that Segretti's original work, as employed by Chapin, was done for the White House and not for CRP. The only source I have to back this up right now is Jeb Magruder's autobiography, "An American Life". 129.62.81.241 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Activities -- Canuck Letter
The article states in the first paragraph that Segretti wrote the "Canuck Letter" that effectively derailed Muskie's presidential bid. But in Woodwood & Bernstein's "All the President's Men", as far as I can recall, White House aide Ken Clawson claimed credit for writing the letter, and I don't recall there ever being a suggestion that Segretti was involved. I could be wrong. Can anyone clarify this with new information? If not, then the statement should probably be cut from the article.121.214.47.47 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has very promptly supplied a reference. Thanks. I'm not familiar with the work cited, but I guess there must have been lots of studies done since "All the President's Men" was published. 121.214.47.47 (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks again for bringing it to BLPN. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Other Activities section
First sentence under this section is not an activity but media depicting an event. Also it is unclear if the actor playing Segretti or if the character in the film was the one who "downplayed the dirty tricks..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.23.63 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)