Talk:Seth Rosenfeld

DOJ/OIG report on Frogman case
On the Frogman case, the article states: According to the Inspector General's report, the prosecutors made no determination as to whether the cash was really contra political money, but sought to eliminate grounds for defense attorneys to ask questions that could reveal the CIA's covert support of the contras. I've looked at the report several times and this is far from what it says. All of the report's Chapter 8 is devoted to this subject. Section E, OIG Conclusions Regarding the Return of the Money states: The OIG found conflicting information about the decision to return the money to Zavala. CIA documents state that the money was returned to Zavala, and not used in the trial, at the request of the CIA. In contrast, the former U.S. Attorney and his deputies contend that the money was returned for purely economic reasons and that they had no contact with the CIA. Only AUSA Mark Zanides remembers any contact with the CIA on this matter. ... Because of failed memories and a failure by the USAO to document events contemporaneously, this matter cannot be fully resolved by the OIG. The CIA clearly believed that it had an interest in preventing the depositions, because of its confusion that one of the witnesses to be deposed was a former asset. The CIA therefore contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the money was returned. The exact details of how this came about, and whether the reason was because of the cost of the deposition or the CIA's intervention, remain uncertain.

This contradicts the claim in the article. The report does NOT say that 'the prosecutors ... sought to eliminate grounds for defense attorneys to ask questions that could reveal the CIA's covert support of the contras.' Rosenfeld and Gary Webb make this interpretation, but it shouldn't be attributed to the OIG report. Or did I miss something?

Regarding the actual question of whether the money did belong to the Contras, in section G, Conclusions, the report says: Based upon the available, albeit conflicting, evidence, we believe that either Zavala or persons acting on his behalf fabricated the claim that the seized money belonged to the Contras. Zavala's ignorance about the groups with whom he claimed an affiliation was remarkable. Aviles' account of the submission of the affidavit in the case was plausible, and we do not believe that either Aviles nor the Contras ever received any of the returned money, despite Zavala's claim that some of the money was returned by him to the Contras. We believe that the credible evidence suggests that the claim that the money seized from Zavala belonged to the Contras was no more than a ploy by a drug trafficker to salvage some of his drug profits. The strategy succeeded.

Does this belong in the article? Rgr09 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it does not belong in the article. If there are reliable secondary sources discussing Rosenfeld's take on this, then that might qualify for inclusion. As is, this appears to be someone's original interpretation of events [i.e. the DOJ/OIG report]. (For future reference, Chapter VIII of the DOJ/OIG report can be found here). - Location (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled. What do you mean "someone's original interpretation of events"? This is the conclusion of the OIG on whether the money belonged to the contras.  I won't put it in the article, since the article doesn't claim otherwise, but I'm not sure how to take your response.  When would it be appropriate to put in the OIG's response to Rosenfeld's article? A little more feedback please.  Rgr09 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the editor who inserted the "According to the Inspector General's report..." into the article. I'm not familiar with what Rosenfeld said about this. - Location (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand your point now; so you too feel that a revision is in order here. I will take another look at the various Frogman case reactions in the OIG reports, Webb book, etc, and revise accordingly. Rgr09 (talk)
 * Here is another source for The Frogman Case, but it's not something I feel like tackling right now. - Location (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)