Trending Topics:

Caught in a lie: E-mails prove right-wing pro-Israel donor Adam Milstein gave money to California student candidates

ActivismIsrael/PalestineUS Politics
on 60 Comments
Pro-Israel philanthropist Adam Milstein (far-right) at an AIPAC conference. (Photo: Adam Milstein/Facebook)

Pro-Israel philanthropist Adam Milstein (far-right) at an AIPAC conference. (Photo: Adam Milstein/Facebook)

The right-wing pro-Israel philanthropist Adam Milstein’s story about not funding student government candidates in California is crumbling under the weight of new disclosures.

Last week, Milstein, in an interview with me, denied donating money to the election campaigns of a student government candidate at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). But e-mails published by a student news outlet reveal that Milstein, contrary to his denials to Mondoweiss, did indeed fund the elections of members of the Bruins United slate at the school–proving that outside pro-Israel money is being injected into student politics.

The disclosures of Milstein’s involvement has sparked a controversy that threatens to derail the appointment of Avi Oved, one of the student government members aligned with Milstein, to a seat on the powerful UC Regents, which oversees the UC system. Milstein’s involvement, which has become a lightning rod for criticism because of his anti-Muslim views, has exposed how donors are seeking to shore up campus opinion and government on Israel.  California campuses have become a major battleground over Israel, with pro-Israel groups seeking to stop student governments from passing resolutions calling for divestment from U.S. corporations linked to the Israeli army. Measures to divest have failed at UCLA, though they have passed at other UC campuses.

The Daily Californian’s Chloe Hunt published leaked e-mails late Thursday showing Milstein trying to convince pro-Israel donors to give cash to the student election campaigns of Avi Oved and Avinoam Barel, two Israel advocates at UCLA that were running for UCLA’s Undergraduate Student Association Council.  The e-mails also show Milstein pledging to give his own money.

One e-mail published shows Milstein explaining why it’s vital to help out Oved and Barel. “Avi and Avinoam represent the Jewish community and the pro-Israel advocates on the UCLA campus.  It’s of extreme importance that they prevail vs. some anti-Israel, pro-BDS students that are competing against them,” Milstein wrote.  “They have asked me to reach out to the pro-Israel community in Los Angeles and to anyone else who is willing to support their cause and ask for contributions IMMEDIATELY necessary for their campaign fund.”

Milstein goes on to direct donors to send money to UCLA’s Hillel through checks earmarked for “UCLA Student Government Leaders.” He then ends the message with a call to forward his e-mail to other donors, and says: “BTW–I’m contributing $1,000 total.”

The e-mails directly contradict what Milstein told me last week.  He said that he “did not give money to Avi” and said that when he makes donations to organizations, he doesn’t know where the money ends up.  

Milstein doubled down on his denials in a follow-up e-mail exchange I had with him, and refused to speak over the phone about the issue.  He said that a statement he authored, which denied the allegations that he gave cash to Oved,”was, is and will always be true.”

Milstein is a big funder of a variety of pro-Israel groups in the U.S.  He has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups like StandWithUs, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Hasbara Fellowships and the Central Fund for Israel.

Meanwhile, the nomination of Oved to the UC Regents has run into trouble because of outside campaign funding.  On Thursday, the University of California Student Association, a body that recommends students to serve on the UC Regents, voted 10-0 (with two abstentions) to request that UC Regents postpone voting on whether Oved will serve.  The UC Regents is scheduled to vote on Oved later this month.

They also voted 8-0 (with four abstentions) to have an outside, independent group investigate Oved and the conflict of interest concerns raised by Milstein’s donation. Students opposed to Oved are questioning whether he can represent students fairly given his links to outside donors, though he did not violate any UCLA election regulations.  A screenshot published (see below) by The Daily Bruin shows that Oved, in a GroupMe message, wondered whether he should sit on the UC Regents investment committee–the place where a divestment resolution would come up.  He told the student paper that the message was a “joke” and that he regrets saying it.

Screenshot showing Avi Oved discussing whether he should sit on the UC Regents Investment Committee. (Photo: The Daily Bruin)

Screenshot showing Avi Oved discussing whether he should sit on the UC Regents Investment Committee. (Photo: The Daily Bruin)

The UC Regents “would be grossly abusive of their responsibilities as administrators of this university to refuse the statewide student association its request to reconsider the most visible student position in the system,” one UCSA member, Kevin Sabo, told The Daily Californian. 

But Oved continues to defend himself. In an interview conducted with The Daily Bruin, he said he “did not receive any donation from Milstein or Milstein’s foundation. If any donation was received, it was through Hillel.” Oved claimed that the first e-mail published, showing him thanking Milstein, was “thanking Milstein for making a donation to Hillel.”

But the e-mail Oved sent clearly references student government and the Bruins United slate–not Hillel.

 

Alex Kane
About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist who focuses on Israel/Palestine and civil liberties. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

60 Responses

  1. hophmi
    hophmi
    July 7, 2014, 11:25 am

    It appears that he donated the money to Hillel, not directly to the campaigns. Moreover, UCLA candidates are not required to disclose their donors.

    One wonders whether these emails were fabricated, or, in the alternative, who violated the privacy of the candidates by hacking into their email accounts.

    Will you be investigating the source of funds for pro-BDS candidates?

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      July 7, 2014, 11:29 am

      LMAO. hoppy’s spinning so hard, there must be a threat here to a Zionist…

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 12:23 pm

        What spin? The guy gave money to Hillel to donate to pro-Israel candidates for student government. He did not give to candidates directly. There’s simply no lie here.

        There is no doubt in my mind that if Alex Kane were a Zionist reporter who asserted that CAIR gave money to a pro-BDS candidate because they gave money to the campus SJP generally earmarked for student elections, you’d make the identical argument.

        And I, being the honest one here, can say that I’d have no issue with it because THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST IT.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 12:45 pm

        “The guy gave money to Hillel to donate to pro-Israel candidates for student government. He did not give to candidates directly. There’s simply no lie here. ”

        Yes, there is. He denied giving the money to the Islamophobe, yet he did, laundered through Hillel. That’s a lie.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 2:17 pm

        “Yes, there is. He denied giving the money to the Islamophobe, yet he did, laundered through Hillel. That’s a lie.”

        No, he denied giving money to the campaign. It is simply not a lie. It is the same difference between donating to a pro-Obama PAC and donating to Obama’s campaign.

        I say to you again, just because you identified a couple of Jewish kids with Jewish-sounding names does not mean that they were the only candidates that Hillel supported. Step outside your bigotry for a second and maybe you’ll see that.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 3:11 pm

        “No, he denied giving money to the campaign. It is simply not a lie. It is the same difference between donating to a pro-Obama PAC and donating to Obama’s campaign.”

        No, because a pro-Obama PAC can’t simply forward the money to Obama, as it appeared that these donations “to Hillel” were forwarded to Oved (who is an intern for, you guessed it, Hillel. Imagine that. That’s cozy.) No reasonable person can read Millstein’s appeal to raise funds for Oved and Baral and their group “Bruins for Israel” (of course euphamistically or fraudulently running as “Bruins United”) and Oved’s email of thanks to Millstein, and not conclude that Millstein didn’t donate money to the Oved’s campaign. He’s a liar. He thought he’s be sneaky and devious by laundering money through Hillel while only denying that he gave it directly, but no one is fooled. (Except you. Fooled.)

        “I say to you again, just because you identified a couple of Jewish kids with Jewish-sounding names does not mean that they were the only candidates that Hillel supported.”

        LMAO. Oh, please. Stop grasping at straws. This has nothing to do with “Jewish kids with Jewish-sounding names,” it has to do with someone intended to use Zionist money to change the student government of UCLA, like they’ve done to the US government, in order to, in Oved’s own words, “make sure that UCLA will maintain its allegiance to Israel…”

        These people can’t appreciate that American universities (especially public universities) should hold allegiance to the USA. This sort of underhanded, shady maneuvers to make the University subservient to an alien is the problem, and is doubly so when outside money is solicited to aid in the destruction of that university.

        “Step outside your bigotry for a second and maybe you’ll see that.”

        No, you need to step out of your bigotry for a second and you’ll see that trying to make a publicly funded American university hold allegiance for any alien state is objectionable regardless of who is doing it.

      • Alex Kane
        Alex Kane
        July 7, 2014, 3:01 pm

        A couple of things:

        1) I’m not claiming Adam Milstein and Avi Oved broke the rules. They did not. Apparently, it is not against UCLA student election rules to raise money from outside donors.

        2) Nonetheless, this matters for a couple of reasons: transparency about where your money is coming from; conflict of interest concerns (is Milstein giving money because Oved says he will defeat divestment resolutions?); anti-Muslim donors; and outside money in student politics, which raises a lot of questions.

        3) Milstein lied. You can spin it anyway you want, but he lied. He donated the money to Hillel with the express purpose of it going to Oved and other Bruins United party members.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 3:33 pm

        “Nonetheless, this matters for a couple of reasons: transparency about where your money is coming from; conflict of interest concerns (is Milstein giving money because Oved says he will defeat divestment resolutions?); anti-Muslim donors; and outside money in student politics, which raises a lot of questions.”

        If you were concerned about conflicts of interest, you’d look into where the money is coming from for students and candidates advocating BDS. BDS is a national and international movement. Many of its adherents are antisemitic. Some of its donors identify with Islamic fundamentalist movements and Middle Eastern dictatorships. It is not homegrown at UCLA.

        ” Milstein lied. You can spin it anyway you want, but he lied. He donated the money to Hillel with the express purpose of it going to Oved and other Bruins United party members.”

        I’m sorry, Alex, but he simply did not lie. Here’s what you wrote: “For Milstein’s part, he denies giving money directly to Oved,[Bruins for Israel], or [Bruins United].”

        That’s true. He did not give money directly to any of these entities. He gave it to Hillel, which is a big organization at UCLA. And although he told other donors to earmark the checks for “UCLA Student Government Leaders,” that is a far cry from showing that they were meant to go to any group specifically. Bruins United is not the only party on campus, and not all of its members are pro-Israel. Indeed, when Oved originally solicited Milstein, he was running for INTERNAL vice-president against a pro-BDS Bruins United candidate. It is for the internal election that Milstein apparently contributed money.

        It’s not at all surprising that Hillel is involved in Bruins United, because they were one of the founding organizations of Bruins United, along with a collection of campus Greek organizations, and the campus Democrat and Republican clubs. http://dailybruin.com/2011/04/27/bruins_united_students_first_slates_to_focus_on_their_past_success/

        Oved held a Q and A with the Daily Bruin on July 4. He told the Bruin that the email thanking Milstein was sent in his capacity as a Hillel intern, and that the thanks was for Milstein’s donation to Hillel. Hillel contributed money to the party (and not directly to Oved) in 2013 during the internal elections.

        http://dailybruin.com/2014/07/04/qa-student-regent-designate-nominee-discusses-allegations-plans/

        You just don’t have all of your facts straight, Alex, and if you did, you would see that Milstein simply did not lie.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 4:13 pm

        “And although he told other donors to earmark the checks for ‘UCLA Student Government Leaders,’ that is a far cry from showing that they were meant to go to any group specifically. ”

        Except that Millstein’s own email give lie to this claim. He specifically said that he was asking the recipients for money because Oved and Baral needed money for Oved and Baral’s “campaign fund.” He was asking specifically for them, not for anything to do with Hillel.

        “It is for the internal election that Milstein apparently contributed money.”

        Agains, Millstein’s email proves that to be false. In the email he specifically notes that Oved and Baral are soliciting funds because they are “campaigning to be elected to the student senate under the Bruins United party at UCLA.” And then, at the end, noted that he’s “contributing $1,000 total.” So this was for the general election and Millstein didn’t say he had contributed, but that he is contributing.

        “He told the Bruin that the email thanking Milstein was sent in his capacity as a Hillel intern, and that the thanks was for Milstein’s donation to Hillel.”

        And, as you might guess, Oved’s email give lie to that claim. In the email (with the subject “Bruins United at UCLA”), after noting that he was “prepared to make sure that UCLA will maintain its allegiance to Israel…” and expressing excitement at representing “…the ideologies of Israel…,” he signs the email:
        “Avi Oved, Avinoam Baral, and the Bruins United Political Party at UCLA.”

        In fact, there is no mention of Hillel anywhere in the email, save for in his signature block, between noting his position with the “UCLA On Campus Housing Council” and his position with “Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity.”

        “You just don’t have all of your facts straight, Alex”

        LMAO. No, Alex actually paid attention to the facts and didn’t just spit back lies the pro-Israel people asserted, like you did.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        July 7, 2014, 10:11 pm

        “The guy gave money to Hillel to donate to pro-Israel candidates for student government.”

        Then it’s a lie. A lie is an intent to deceive. He knew where the money was intended to go and where it would end up. Technicalities don’t erase the intent to deceive. It’s not a plausible deniability situation. No offense to US posters but one thing that strikes me through US politicians and news media is that they seem that something must meet the plausible category before that phrase applies.

    • just
      just
      July 7, 2014, 11:29 am

      LOL hophmi.

      LOLOL!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 7, 2014, 11:31 am

        Gosh, it doesn’t occur to Mr. Miltstein that it is the young people he is supporting in the election who will bear the ethical taint from this scandal?

        Hophmi, you should watch some old “Get Smart” reruns on You-Tube. This “and would you believe…” routine is old.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 11:40 am

        The ethical taint? What is the ethical taint here? He did not break any rules. The only ethical taint is this witchhunt targeting pro-Israel, and only pro-Israel students.

      • just
        just
        July 7, 2014, 11:42 am

        So you don’t view lying as unethical?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 11:47 am

        “The ethical taint? What is the ethical taint here?”

        Zionist money corrupting yet another American institution. Time to take our country back from those who would make it slaves for an alien state.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 11:50 am

        What’s the lie? I still see no evidence that the guy did anything other than what he said he did – donate money to Hillel.

        I see a request from a candidate, and an email from Milstein encouraging others to give to HILLEL, not the candidate’s specific campaign. Hillel may have a fund for donating to any candidate they feel adopts policies that reflect Hillel positions. Hillel is an on-campus group. Is it your position that on-campus groups should not fund candidates they perceive to be in their interest? Should SJP not give to and raise money for pro-BDS candidates?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 3:16 pm

        “I see a request from a candidate, and an email from Milstein encouraging others to give to HILLEL, not the candidate’s specific campaign.”

        Then you’re blind, because in Millstein’s email he is specifically asking the recipients for donations on behalf of Oved and Baral and states that “[t]hey have asked me reach [sic] out to the pro-Israel community in Los Angeles and to anyone else who is wililng to support their cause and ask for contributions IMMEDIATELY necessary for their campaign fund.” And then he lists the money launderer, Hillel.

        So, yes, he is asking them specifically to donate money to these candidates’ “campaign fund.”

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 5:23 pm

        “who is wililng to support their cause ”

        Which is Bruins United, the party they asked Milstein to support.

        I know you think using the term “money laundering” is ok here, but it really is not. Money laundering is a legal term. Everyone agrees that nothing illegal occurred here.

      • just
        just
        July 7, 2014, 5:30 pm

        Who is “everyone”?

        You’ve gone from defending lying as ethical to trying to say that lying is legal.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 5:36 pm

        “Which is Bruins United, the party they asked Milstein to support.”

        No, actually “their cause” was identified in the email as the fact that Oved and Baral were “campaigning to be elected to the student senate.” But more to the point, Millstein’s not asking them to give to Hillel, he’s asking them to give to Oved and Baral, or as Bruins United, (which Millstein lied and said he didn’t donate to).

        So either way, you were absolutely wrong in claiming that Millstein was only making a request for people to give to Hillel. Further, given the blatentness of the emails, I wonder whether you even bothered to read them, or whether you simply looked to see what Oved and Millstein said about them and them repeated them as gospel.

        “I know you think using the term ‘money laundering’ is ok here, but it really is not. Money laundering is a legal term.”

        Given Hillel’s role in this sordid affair, the euphamism “money laundering” might be legally off, but it is morally and ethically correct.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        July 7, 2014, 10:18 pm

        You need a good course in ethics. Ethics doesn’t rely on a fine line of rules. It’s a matter of right versus wrong. What is the right thing to do and why. It’s closer to philosophy learning legal codes, laws or rules.

        It’s clearly something you don’t understand and can’t decipher.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 7, 2014, 11:33 am

      “One wonders whether these emails were fabricated, or, in the alternative, who violated the privacy of the candidates by hacking into their email accounts.”

      People are famously careless with ‘cc’ lists. Happens all the time.

  2. ritzl
    ritzl
    July 7, 2014, 11:25 am

    Depending on how much and how long the Abu Khdeir family ordeal resonates, it will probably also put an end to these practices. No longer can money from/for pro-Israel “education” be assumed to be benign and/or beneficial. Pro-Israel “education” will now always be seen in the light of a kid who was burned alive and the environment of political/religious forces that pushed for that outcome. Not a good environment to have influencing and ingratiating student leaders.

  3. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    July 7, 2014, 11:36 am

    The wheels continue to come off the Israeli hasbara machine, as it stupidly takes on academia, mainstream protestant religious organizations, student governments, major philanthropic foundations, with front men like Adam Millstein brazenly buying influence while denying he’s given “cash” to students he’s obviously seeking to influence financially. Such a spectacle Israel is making of itself. I’d be embarrassed for it, except for the awful oppression of Palestinians being enabled by such efforts. Time for regime change in Tel Aviv. No more excuses.

  4. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    July 7, 2014, 11:48 am

    RE: Milstein goes on to direct donors to send money to UCLA’s Hillel through checks earmarked for “UCLA Student Government Leaders.” ~ Kane

    MY COMMENT: So Hillel “launders” the contributions to disguise the true source. Nice!
    Does Hillel completely eschew ethics?

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      July 7, 2014, 11:52 am

      “So Hillel ‘launders’ the contributions to disguise the true source”

      Again, if you can simply point me to the rule that says that candidates are required to disclose donor lists, I’ll listen to you bray on about ethics.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 7, 2014, 12:35 pm

        Hophmi, can you help me out here? What is that line from Shakespeare which starts: “Methinks she doth….”? What is the rest of that?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 12:38 pm

        Protests too much. Please explain that to the BDS students who continue to try to censor pro-Israel voices from their communities.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 7, 2014, 1:53 pm

        “Protests too much.”

        So from Shakespeare you know? Assimilationist!!

      • Tobias
        Tobias
        July 7, 2014, 4:29 pm

        Pedant alert. The actual quote is;

        … The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        July 7, 2014, 10:28 pm

        ” I’ll listen to you bray on about ethics.”

        Once again… You have no concept of what ethics means. It’s a totally foreign concept to you.

  5. DaveS
    DaveS
    July 7, 2014, 4:18 pm

    hophmi, your defense of Milstein’s misrepresentation of the truth is absurd. Technically, you may be correct that Milstein did not “lie,” if you narrowly define that word as saying something that is entirely untrue. However, his denial to Alex was a deliberately misleading half-truth that is the equivalent to an outright lie, or even worse because of the calculated deception involved. Milstein clearly wanted Alex and Alex’s readers to believe that he did not donate money earmarked for this election campaign when he did. He gave money to Hillel to turn over to Oved’s political party to use to get its candidates elected. His denial that he gave money to the candidates or the party was calculated to deceive. Oved himself thanked Milstein for his “generous donation,” making no allowance for the illusory distinction behind which Milstein later hid.

    Maybe an example would help you understand. Imagine a child who says excitedly, “Dad, I got a 100 on my last math test.” Later, the Dad finds out the test score was indeed 100, but it was out of 200, and was a failing grade of 50%, not a perfect score. Would you say the child lied or told the truth? That is precisely the childish prank Milstein played here, and the one you defend.

    Your defense of this blatant dishonesty notwithstanding, where do you find any evidence to support your speculation of fabricated emails? Or would you defend yourself by saying you did not suggest fabrication, but only noted that when you said “One wonders whether these emails were fabricated,” it was technically true because you were the “one” wondering.

    Finally, was it really necessary to explain all this to you? Seriously?

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      July 7, 2014, 5:09 pm

      “Technically, you may be correct that Milstein did not ‘lie,’ if you narrowly define that word as saying something that is entirely untrue. ”

      I don’t even think he’s correct on a technicality. In the emails, Millstein states that he’s raising money for Oved and Baral’s “campaign fund” and that Millstein is giving $1,000. In Oved’s email, he thanked Millstein for his “generous donation” and signed it “Avi Oved, Avinoam Baral, and the Bruins United Political Party at UCLA.” Knowing that “Bruins United” was the party underwhich the group “Bruins for Israel” ran, it seems clear that the email show that Millstein’s statement: “I did not give money to Avi. I did not give money to Bruins for Israel. I did not give money to Bruins United,” was a lie. Technically or otherwise, it was a lie.

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        July 7, 2014, 6:22 pm

        Woody, assuming he followed his own instructions to other donors, he gave money to Hillel and noted it earmarked for Student Government leaders. Since he gave the money to Hillel, his statement that he did not give money to Avi or the Bruins orgs is technically accurate, though the equivalent of a lie, as in my math test hypothetical. Anyway, I don’t think the two of us have a big disagreement here.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 7:06 pm

        No, I don’t think we do. I don’t see how the fact that the checks are sent to one address rather than another really makes a difference.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        July 7, 2014, 10:29 pm

        “, though the equivalent of a lie, ”

        No it is a lie. Not the equivalent.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 8, 2014, 8:28 am

        Yep. The evidence shows Milstein intentionally instructed a false impression; intentionally tried to deceive. Lie.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      July 7, 2014, 5:43 pm

      “hophmi, your defense of Milstein’s misrepresentation of the truth is absurd. ”

      I don’t see how. If I give to the local Democratic Party because I like the candidate they’re fielding for Congress, I didn’t give directly to the campaign, even though the candidate was my motivator. Same goes for a donation to a 501(c)(4), which I think is the closest analogy here.

      Did Alex call Milstein back and confront him with this allegation that he gave Hillel money to avoid giving it directly, like, you know, journalists are supposed to do? And if there’s absolutely no bar on his giving the money direct to the party, why would he bother going through Hillel in the first place?

      Alex is not exactly telling the whole story here either; he’s not doing his job as a journalist.

      Your analogy does not hold up, not in a world where people regularly give to organizations that support political candidates, rather than the candidates themselves, and the difference is importance.

      The lesson here is that Alex needs to ask more follow-up questions and do more investigation before he makes accusations that he can’t sustain. In other words, be more of a journalist, and less of an advocate.

      “where do you find any evidence to support your speculation of fabricated emails?”

      Have you ever once asked this question of people who allege instances of fabrication here, like, you know, when they claim Israel fabricated the murder of three teenagers for political gain? Forget it, don’t bother answering. Milstein alleged the email might have been doctored with.

      In any event, it should disturb you just a bit that someone made this story by leaking private emails.

      “Finally, was it really necessary to explain all this to you? Seriously?”

      No, because I understand exactly what you are saying, and it is still wrong.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 5:57 pm

        “Same goes for a donation to a 501(c)(4), which I think is the closest analogy here.”

        You’re crazy. The email said, in essence, send these two money, they need it immediate for their campaign fund.

        “Did Alex call Milstein back and confront him with this allegation that he gave Hillel money to avoid giving it directly, like, you know, journalists are supposed to do? ”

        Pathetic. This isn’t about Alex’s journalism, it’s about the fact that Aved and Millstein appear to be absolute flat-out liars, but because they’re pro-Israel Jews, you’re defending them, regardless of the facts.

        “And if there’s absolutely no bar on his giving the money direct to the party, why would he bother going through Hillel in the first place?”

        There could be many reasons, including administrative convenience. But the point is, that the emails simply belie the suggestion that this was some innocent email to donate to Hillel.

        “before he makes accusations that he can’t sustain.”

        LMAO. Oh, he fully sustained these.

        “Milstein alleged the email might have been doctored with.’

        Then he can produce what he is claiming is the originals. Absent that, I will conclude the alleged doctorer was the “real killer” OJ’s been looking for all these years.

        “In any event, it should disturb you just a bit that someone made this story by leaking private emails.”

        I think that an organized campaign to make a public university in the USA have “allegiance to Israel” is much, much more disturbing.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 6:17 pm

        “You’re crazy”

        Watch it…Sean might search for how many times you’ve used that term and speculate on what it might mean.

        “The email said, in essence, send these two money, they need it immediate for their campaign fund.”

        I believe the email asked them to contribute to the party.

        “This isn’t about Alex’s journalism”

        For me it is.

        ” it’s about the fact that Aved and Millstein appear to be absolute flat-out liars, but because they’re pro-Israel Jews, you’re defending them, regardless of the facts.”

        Nope, I’d have the same response if these were BDS activists and the shoe was on the other foot. Any more assumptions?

        “There could be many reasons, including administrative convenience. ”

        Administrative convenience? What’s more convenience than giving directly?

        “But the point is, that the emails simply belie the suggestion that this was some innocent email to donate to Hillel.”

        I don’t think anyone made that suggestion. By the way, has anyone looked into how much Milstein has given to Hillel in the last few years?

        “LMAO. Oh, he fully sustained these.”

        He didn’t, but really, people like you are why he publishes in places like this. You’ll believe anything he says, no matter how shoddily he puts it together. That’s the problem with advocacy journalism. It’s corrosive.

        “Then he can produce what he is claiming is the originals. ”

        OK. In a court of law, the accuser has to produce the original, not the accused.

        “I think that an organized campaign to make a public university in the USA have “allegiance to Israel” is much, much more disturbing.”

        I think it’s far more disturbing that the BDS movement is trying to censor pro-Israel voices on campus, and makes little secret of it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2014, 6:36 pm

        “I believe the email asked them to contribute to the party.”

        Your belief is wrong. While he mentions the party, he discusses the individuals at length and notes that they’ve asked Millstein to reach out and ask for contributions “necessary for their campaign fund.”

        “For me it is.”

        Because you’re clearly wrong and have an inability to simply admit it and move on.

        “I’d have the same response if these were BDS activists and the shoe was on the other foot.”

        Your history here demonstrates otherwise.

        “Administrative convenience? What’s more convenience than giving directly?”

        Giving directly means that they would have to reveal personal address information (or they would have to rent a PO Box). Whereas if they have the money sent to Hillel, that does not become an issue. Thus, more convenient.

        “I don’t think anyone made that suggestion.”

        Actually, I think that’s a fair way to describe what you’re positing that Millstein did here.

        “You’ll believe anything he says, no matter how shoddily he puts it together.”

        LMAO. No. I had no opinion on the matter until I actually read the emails for myself. Alex was scrupulously fair in his reporting.

        “OK. In a court of law, the accuser has to produce the original, not the accused.”

        LMAO. And under the Best Evidence Rule in the common law system, the party claiming a document is fake has the burden to produce evidence to substantiate that claim.

        “I think it’s far more disturbing that the BDS movement is trying to censor pro-Israel voices on campus, and makes little secret of it.”

        Well, since we have all these traitors running around trying to get our public schools to swear allegiance to an alien state, who can blame them??

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 7, 2014, 6:08 pm

        I think Hophmi has his Soda-stream set to “Ziocaine”.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 6:19 pm

        “I think Hophmi has his Soda-stream set to “Ziocaine”.”

        There’s a good example of a non-substantive comment that does nothing but throw a barb at me.

        Hey Sean, I got another job for you. Look up how many times people have used the term “Ziocaine” here, and see how many times they’ve directed it at me. Then see how many times their comment was one sentence or less.

      • just
        just
        July 7, 2014, 6:21 pm

        Goodness gracious! Didn’t your parents ever teach you how to lose gracefully?

        Pitiful.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 7, 2014, 6:22 pm

        ” Didn’t your parents ever teach you how to lose gracefully?”

        Didn’t yours ever teach you how to argue using actual English words?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 7, 2014, 7:14 pm

        Hophmi, I’ll thank you remember that I, yeah, that’s right, pal, me, I coined the word “Ziocaine”. And the full, correct name is “The Ziocaine Syndrome”, and “Ziocaine Syndrome-by-proxy”, another unfortunate condition.

        And then there is plain old flop-sweat, and you, Hophmi, are schvitzing like a fountain, my friend and coreligionist.

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 7, 2014, 9:34 pm

        just says:
        July 7, 2014 at 6:21 pm

        Goodness gracious! Didn’t your parents ever teach you how to lose gracefully?

        hophmi says:
        July 7, 2014 at 6:22 pm

        ” Didn’t your parents ever teach you how to lose gracefully?”

        Didn’t yours ever teach you how to argue using actual English words?

        Obviously they didn’t.

        hophmi’s job seems to be to frustrate

      • annie
        annie
        July 8, 2014, 8:21 am

        ” Didn’t your parents ever teach you how to lose gracefully?”

        Didn’t yours ever teach you how to argue using actual English words?

        check out “5 Tips For Teaching Your Kids To Lose Gracefully”
        http://www.momtastic.com/parenting/110184-5-tips-for-teaching-your-kids-to-lose-gracefully/#ixzz36sYHE6Xz
        Follow us: @itsmomtastic on Twitter | itsmomtastic on Facebook

        it’s english, you just don’t hang out on the mommy sites.

        it means realizing you’ve lost the argument is part of the growing process. perhaps a developmental stage you missed out on. less politely, a sign of immaturity.

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        July 7, 2014, 6:36 pm

        hophmi, you don’t say what is wrong with my math test analogy, but I can tell you what is wrong with yours. Milstein gave money to Hillel with instructions to pass it through to Bruins political parties which was running two candidates for office. For him to deny that he gave money to either candidate or either party is deliberately dishonest. If you gave money to your brother with instructions to pass it on to the local Democratic Party that was running a particular candidate, your denial that you gave money to the candidate or the party would be deliberately dishonest as well.

        You ask: “And if there’s absolutely no bar on his giving the money direct to the party, why would he bother going through Hillel in the first place?” Ask him. He’s the one who solicited donations in this manner and made one himself. I don’t know why he used this artifice, other than to be able to make the dishonest denial he later made.

        “Milstein alleged the email might have been doctored with.” He was talking about an email addressed to him. If he did not get it, or if he got it in a different form, he could have said so. Instead, he suggested it might be “contaminated,” whatever that means – an unauthorized leak?. He might as well have said he may or may not be wearing a red shirt while talking with Alex. He tried to imply some fabrication without actually making that accusation. He’s a complete dirtbag.

      • amigo
        amigo
        July 7, 2014, 8:24 pm

        ” Didn’t yours ever teach you how to argue using actual English words?” hopknee to just.

        And then this from hoppy.
        “Administrative convenience? What’s more convenience than giving directly?” hopknee

        While convenience is an actual English word, I do believe in this case it is not actually English.

        Try , “convenient” Prof Oxford.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 8, 2014, 10:03 am

        “it means realizing you’ve lost the argument is part of the growing process. perhaps a developmental stage you missed out on. less politely, a sign of immaturity.”

        Good advice for people here, including you. Thanks, Annie.

      • Alex Kane
        Alex Kane
        July 7, 2014, 10:50 pm

        I would have called him back up. He refused to do speak with me on the phone a second time.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 8, 2014, 10:01 am

        “I would have called him back up. He refused to do speak with me on the phone a second time.”

        OK, thanks for the clarification. I was involved in student elections in college to some extent when I helped manage a student campaign and litigated a case involving a student who was accused of a campaign finance infraction. My college had very strict limits on fundraising, and I’m generally surprised to learn that student government candidates can do any outside fundraising. I would favor a ban on outside fundraising at colleges, period, and spending limits, as mt school had.

        In the absence of these bans, it’s a fair assumption that all candidates engage in outside fundraising, and to selectively target individual students like this is abhorrent.

        “hophmi, you don’t say what is wrong with my math test analogy”

        The problem with your math test analogy is that in your case, the child is simply lying. Here, Milstein is not lying. There’s just a difference between direct giving to a candidate, and giving to an organization that supports a candidate’s party.

        “Milstein gave money to Hillel with instructions to pass it through to Bruins political parties which was running two candidates for office. For him to deny that he gave money to either candidate or either party is deliberately dishonest.”

        No, it isn’t. He did NOT give the money with instructions. He put a memo on his check. Hillel was not required to use the money in any way.

        ” If you gave money to your brother with instructions to pass it on to the local Democratic Party that was running a particular candidate, your denial that you gave money to the candidate or the party would be deliberately dishonest as well.”

        No, David, you’re just wrong about that. There’s a legal and substantive difference between giving directly to a campaign and giving to a party, and another one between giving to a party and giving to an issues advocacy organization.

        “He’s the one who solicited donations in this manner and made one himself. I don’t know why he used this artifice”

        Well, maybe because Jewish alumni usually give back by donating to Hillel, not to student elections, and if Hillel is involved in political activism on campus, as other campus groups are, why not support a Hillel political initiative? I’m sure Avi Oved is not the only pro-Israel, or anti-BDS candidate running here. But I guess he’s a convenient one to focus on, since he’s Jewish and has a Jewish name.

        “He tried to imply some fabrication without actually making that accusation. He’s a complete dirtbag.”

        Or maybe he was addressing the fact that it was illegally obtained, or maybe he resented a reporter who is simply interested in helping people censor pro-Israel voices on campus on behalf of his employers in the BDS movement. Maybe he really doesn’t care much about Alex Kane. Who knows?

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        July 8, 2014, 10:59 am

        hophmi, your own dishonesty is truly breathtaking. I have no doubt that your efforts to defend this creep have persuaded absolutely no one.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        July 8, 2014, 11:14 am

        “hophmi, your own dishonesty is truly breathtaking. I have no doubt that your efforts to defend this creep have persuaded absolutely no one.”

        Your nastiness, bad faith, and inability to understand the argument is unfortunate.

  6. just
    just
    July 7, 2014, 6:30 pm

    “Didn’t yours ever teach you how to argue using actual English words?”

    What?

  7. oldgeezer
    oldgeezer
    July 7, 2014, 10:46 pm

    I guess I’m an old geezer but I find this story disturbing on so many levels and have since it was first raised here. I was heavily involved in student politics (and later national politics) in the late 60’s thru mid 70’s. On a student level there were no outside donations. I find it troublesome that potential future political leaders are being taught that money and interests grease the wheels. That representing those that elect them is not the first or primary interest. Our provincial/state/national politics are corrupt enough and will not be fixed when we teach our students that this is acceptable and the proper way for the system to work.

    I’m not surprised that someone like hopmi finds it acceptable. I am surprised that society finds it acceptable in any way.

    Anyway… Just buried the third good friend in a year (one was my childhood sweetheart and fiance) today and maybe I’m just to depressed. But even without the I/P issue and the daily human rights abuses inflicted on millions of people every day this is sort of a capper. I won’t argue the rules were broken as I don’t know they were but this is immoral on all levels.

    • just
      just
      July 8, 2014, 7:55 am

      I am very sorry for your losses. I hope that you have some moments that are brighter today, and a few more tomorrow. That’s all that we can do sometimes…and don’t forget to hug yourself.

  8. Empiricon
    Empiricon
    July 8, 2014, 7:50 am

    Hoppy, not sure what your demand for “actual English words” reflects, but I guess it means you would have hated Shakespeare. Language is dynamic. Words are invented all the time. Zionism, Zionist, etc. are invented words, as was “American” at some point. Your protest is nothing but a deflection.

  9. RobertB
    RobertB
    July 8, 2014, 4:20 pm

    @hophmi….

    This “hasbara troll” is working overtime … his pale attempts at damage control for his “hasbara central cause” bosses and handlers …. what to do…what to do…he slinging it but its not sticking on these MW threads…its boomeranging right back to his face…

    Hop….along that empty hasbara trail….!!!

Leave a Reply