David Corn Has A List Of Names...

David Corn disgraces the left by channeling Joe McCarthy as he explains that the left will only stand up for the privacy rights of their allies:

There's a list going around. Those disseminating it call it "The List." It's a roster of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.

...I have a copy. I'm not going to publish it. For one, I don't know for a fact that the men on the list are gay. And generally I don't fancy outing people--though I have not objected when others have outed gay Republicans, who, after all, work for a party that tries to limit the rights of gays and lesbians and that welcomes the support of those who demonize same-sexers.

Mr. Corn's position on outing Republicans is clear enough but he does not explicitly state a position on the merits of outing gay Democrats.  However - if he had any journalistic integrity at all he would have to be opposed to "stealth advocacy".  A black man arguing for "black" issues does not need to separately declare his personal stake in the discussion, nor does a woman discussing "women's issues".

But surely Mr. Corn agrees that it is unseemly to advocate for gay issues under the pretense of having been swayed by force of argument when, in fact, the advocate is touting his own self-interest.  So presumably Mr. Corn, troubled as he is by closeted Republican gays, is equally troubled by closeted Democratic gays.

Or maybe not.  Let's go back to Mr. Corn:

Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay?  Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen?

Let's be clear as mud - the Foley scandal is not about homosexuality but it would not be unreasonable to out gay Republicans in response to it.  Can anyone follow that?  I would suggest the outing of those who are abusing their power but that logic may be too linear for someone from the reality based community.

I also love this evasion of responsibility - "anytime a gay Republican is outed by events".  No, David, it won't be "events" that post that list, it will be activist Democrats trying to win an election.  Hope that helps your understanding.  A likely candidate would be Mike Rogers of BlogActive.com, who has spent years outing gay Republicans and whose current fund raising appeal says this:

Please help me with this effort. We have five weeks to save our nation from these right wing homophobes in the closet -- and there are more in Congress!

As to "What about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay?", well, what about those GOPers who favor lower taxes (and happen to be gay), or who favored a robust national defense in the Reagan era (and happened to be gay), or who favor gun owner's rights (and happen to be gay), or for some other reason don't fit themselves neatly into the special interest group boxes drawn up by earnest Democratic strategists?

Or what about GOPers who were put off by Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" debacle or by Clinton's signing of the "Defense of Marriage Act", or by John Kerry's insistence that his position on gay marriage did not differ from Bush's?  Are they allowed to think that maybe the Dems are more talk than action, and that other issues are more important?  Does David Corn really agree with 100% of the Democratic Party platform?

This is the current state of the left - sexual privacy rights for their political opponents are trumped by a desire for power.

Mark Kleiman and Ted Barlow were quite clear on this issue two years ago.  An excerpt:

The right answer to that question [of sexuality], from anyone except a potential sexual partner, is “None of your f—-ing business.”

I really, really disapprove of gay-baiting, even if the gays being baited hold disgusting political positions. And I thought that attitude was part of the definition of liberalism.

We will see whether any Dems speak out against this now, although with an election to be won I am not optimistic.

MORE:  Ahh, Plan B - Josh Marshall is pretending that it is Republicans who are going to out these gay Republican staffers, and Kevin Drum is playing along.

That is quite a working theory - a group of evangelical Reps, outraged by the gays in their midst, worked up a list of gay Republican staffers ands then leaked it to their natural ally, David Corn.  Mr. Corn then choked back his abhorrence at this sexual McCarthyism and penned a few paragraphs rationalizing their effort.  Uh huh.  Can I guess the rest - some lefty blogger will print it "just to show us what awful tricks those crazy House Republicans are up to".  Please.

Personally, I figure that since there are Dem activists who do this routinely, my money is there.

But we have nothing to fight about since we all agree this is awful.  And since Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum think "The List" will be coming from Republicans, I encourage them to denounce the concept unequivocally and pre-emptively, as I am doing here.

If The List appears, they will be on record as having condemned it, and perhaps other Dems will join them.  And if it is the work of crazed evangelical Republicans, condemning it should be easy, yes?

I just know Dems will hurry to denounce this "List" and stand up for privacy rights for all gays, even Republican ones.

STRANGEST THING I EVER READ:  From Mark Schmitt at TPM Cafe:

But when it comes to Foley, this is a case where it is us liberals who have the absolute moral value: Don’t mess with kids sexually. Adults must not mess with kids, people in positions of authority should not mess with kids. It’s not about the legal line or the age of consent in Florida or DC. It’s morality: Fifty-two year olds must not mess with 16 year olds. Remember that rule and all this complexity falls away. Don’t tolerate people who mess with kids, gay or straight. Not complicated. As Robert George would say, it’s "foundational." If you know that basic rule, and don’t hesitate to take action if people break it, or raise alarms if you suspect them of breaking it (as in, asking for a picture) then guess what?: Life gets a little simpler. Gays can be Scoutmasters because, like any other Scoutmaster, they know that you don’t mess with the kids. Straight men can be high school teachers of girls because they maintain that boundary, they treat it as a moral absolute. And so on.

On what planet?  Under my sun, Democrat Gerry Studds was censured by the House in 1983 for having sex with a seventeen year old page; the voters of Massachusetts sent him back to Congress for years thereafter.

And more recently, Bill Clinton commuted the sentence of Mel Reynolds, who was "serving a seven-year sentence for corruption and having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker."

[That Clinton-Reynolds pardon from USA Today is misleading, apparently - try this:

Reynolds resigned from Congress in 1995 after a state court convicted him of sexual misconduct with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. He served 2 1/2 years in prison for the crime. Two years later Reynolds was sentenced to a 6 1/2-year prison term on federal corruption charges, including wire fraud and bank fraud.

In November 1999 the former Rhodes scholar wrote a letter to Clinton and asked to be released from prison to a halfway house so that he could earn money for his family.

So Clinton pardoned a sex offender, but not for the sex offense.  Got it.

Snopes has a bit as well.]

Moral absolute.  Absolutely.

UPDATE:  I am guided to evidence of Dems with both a brain and a conscience:

"We're getting into very dangerous territory, and I've warned my colleagues to be careful." That's what a Democrat leadership aide was saying on Wednesday, as word circulated about David Corn's blog posting that revealed that a list of gay Republicans congressional staffers was circulating through emails.

Such a list has been talked about for months, if not years, by more militant homosexual activists, who have threatened to out Republican congressional staffers or even congressmen if they take positions counter to their gay lifestyle.

..."If that list is made public, all of the political gains we've made in the past 96 hours get flushed down the toilet," says the leadership aide.

I apologize - this may not be evidence of a conscience at all. just a recognition that as a pragmatic matter this is dumb idea for Dems.  But one can hope.

And one can wonder - why, if the list is coming from the homophobic right, would it reflect badly on Democrats?

Comments

[Sue]

Democrats. Protecting our privacy. Unless of course, you are a gay republican. Then all bets are off. Privacy no longer matters.

http://gaypatriot.net/2006/10/05/human-rights-campaign-involved-in-gay-gop-witchhunt>Gay Patriot

[Sue]

My favorite line from http://www.davidcorn.com/>Cornhole

I'm not leading any lynch mob (obviously).

[Enlightened]

I watched that Nip/Tuck episode - Sadly I think Rosie is lacking in any acting skills. Remember Another Stakeout? Add 50 pounds an you got the same ole same ole.

[norm d'plume]

Dave=jukeboxgrad=creepydude!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

OT -- you gotta love ol' Bush 41 ... he called Bob Woodward's new book Kitty Kelly journalism. LOL

[Enlightened]

Well, as Gay Patriot exhibits, there are ALOT of gays that do NOT believe in the Democratic Gay Agenda - Their way or No way.

I think Tammy Bruce is on vacation - too bad, I think she would have some great insight into the behind the scenes degeneration of the radical gays, and their democratic mouthpieces.

[Foo Bar]

Sue:

Very seldom. And that is fine with most of us. You don't want an echo chamber unless you post at FDL, Scary's place or other left leaning blog sites. The only one I've visited that doesn't censor, delete or ban is EW's place. I give her kudos for that.

FYI, Kevin Drum's blog at the Washington Monthly has a lively comments section where right-wingers can generally post comments without getting deleted. I would say the average level of discussion is not as high as it is here, but it's worth checking out.

[T Miller]

Rasmussen - Oct 3/4 1,000 adults:

Did Republican leaders just learn about Foley's problems or have they been protecting him for years?
Just learned about it 21%
Protecting Foley for years 61%

[Enlightened]

OT - Well, here's why the Kossacks and Dummies are so quiet today - they're on a Field Trip! Yay!

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/10/05/BAGIDLISHC11.DTL&o=3

[Sue]

Foo,

Thank you. I have not visited that site to post. I'll check it out.

[Rick Ballard]

"I'll check it out."

Sue, we hardly knew ye...

[Enlightened]

Hey - in the link above, go into the Protest link, scroll down to about the 3rd and 4th to last pics -

Are these the "children" Malkin, and the Leftnuts are refering to that need protection?

Mayhaps we need to redefine "pre-pubescent".

[Sue]

Rick,

LOL. I'm sure I've checked out worse. I've been to Scary's and survived. ::grin::

[topsecretk9]

---This is absolutely amazing. I just received these emails. They were sent by Congressman Mark Foley to a 16-year-old male page. I have removed his name to protect his identity. But how shocking is this? I can't believe this was emailed to me?---

Do the emails at stopsexFake look "email" to "them" --- they look like scaned photocopies.

instances of 'WE NEED MORE INFO"

[anonymous]

Ok, I've been an ass. I apologise to you all, and I'm going away now.

[Sue]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=6&f=/c/a/2006/10/05/BAGIDLISHC11.DTL>Pic

I'm sorry, but this picture caused me to LOL.

[SlimGuy]

I'm sorry, but this picture caused me to LOL.

Posted by: Sue

Caption

Is that a pole in your pants, or are you glad to see me!

[Enlightened]

Hey all - Apparently Mr. Mike Rogers has been holding hands and pandering to some very right wing religious sorts to "rid Congress of this moral cancer"....Must protect the "children".

Mike Rogers is disgusting. Any of his followers are likewise.

http://chickenhawkexpress.blogspot.com/2006/10/foleygate-update-parents-speak-gay.html

http://www.proudofwhoweare.org/

[anon]

Rogers is a repressed closet hetrosexual. There are rumors he is even a Christian! Spread it around.

[anonymous]

anonymous:

I think the point is to remind self righteous Democrats that they are in no position to judge others, but obviously that is lost on them.

There is something so unattractive about a vulture on road kill.

Posted by: Terrye | October 05, 2006 at 07:27 PM

As long as it's self-righteous Republicans in their usual position of judging self-righteous Democrats, then America will survive.

[norm d'plume]

'night anonymous. i'm sure we'll see you tomorrow. either here or at seixon's.

[Sue]

at seixon's.

Well I'll be damned. I didn't make the connection that it was the same person. ::grin::

[Rick Ballard]

aninnymouse jerkboxcrud is famous!!

[JM Hanes]

From Rick's column over at American Thinker [Do read it all!]:

What kept these keepers of ethics from referring another of their half baked complaints to the House Ethics Committee rather than to the FBI? There are only two employees at CREW, according to their 990 IRS reports and both of them purport to have long histories in the legal profession as members of the Department of Justice. Given that, one might expect at least a mediocre understanding that the emails constituted evidence of absolutely nothing that warranted FBI involvement.

Rick:

Kind of makes you wonder if they didn't think an investigation, once started, was bound to turn up at least something more incriminating, if not the IM's proper, doesn't it? Melanie Sloan is a real piece of work. Saw her interviewed last night (can't remember where) and she was asked if the FBI had done anything about the emails CREW gave them. Rather than say that the FBI had determined the emails didn't merit an investigation, she said something like, *Well, if they're just starting up an investigation now, they obviously weren't investigatin then.*

Loved your reference to their "brag list." Most of them are just complaints filed with various gov't agencies. Some of them are pretty funny if you really look at them. I scanned this 2004 "Legal Action" in which Crew complains about DoJ's failure to produce documents per their FOIA request for "any records relating to documents stolen from the computers of Democratic staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee." Bear with me here, because I can't resist laying this one out. Here's how they describe their actual request:

By letter dated February 27, 2004, Plaintiff [CREW] requested that the OLC produce any records relating to communications between the OLC and any member of the staffs of United States Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, including former staffer Manuel Miranda, regarding judicial nominations.... In particular, Plaintiff requested communications regarding the records of Democratic staff members for the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the records of staff members for Senators Patrick J. Leahy, Edward M. Kennedy, Joseph R. Biden, Herbert H. Kohl, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Reingold, Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, and John R. Edwards.

Are we fishing or what? DoJ, who refused the request:

...based its denial on “Exemption Five of the Act, 5.U.S.C. 552(b)(5),” and claimed that the documents are “protected by the deliberative process and attorney client privileges and are not appropriate for discretionary release.”

This is all leading up to my favorite part, where we find out what CREW was really after:

Plaintiff argued that Defendant failed to provide an index of the documents it believed to be exempt from disclosure as required under Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). Id. Plaintiff further argued that the OLC had failed to provide sufficient information to determine the legitimacy of the claimed exemptions.

Nice, eh? They've apparently decided we don't need to know how that particular action turned out....

In any case, nice work, KGB! Thought your last paragraph iced the cake especially well.

[SlimGuy]

JM

You are presenting facts when Dave is not here to diagram sentences.

Three demerits and 120 seconds in the corner for you

[JM Hanes]

SlimGuy:

I've been cornered before and lived to tell about it! Besides, didn't Dave just claim he was all over the place?

[clarice feldman]

Today's WaPo has an article on CREW's charges againt the FBI--whoa--Now it turns out CREW had some stuff in APRIL--Not consistent with the fax dates on their pdf file:

In subsequent days, unidentified Justice and FBI officials told reporters that the e-mails provided by CREW were heavily redacted and that the group refused to provide unedited versions to the FBI. One law enforcement official -- speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation -- also told The Washington Post the FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April and that the group refused to tell the FBI how they were obtained.

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said copies of the original e-mails she sent to an FBI agent show those assertions to be wrong. Sloan said the agent called to confirm receipt of the e-mails and to ask if one of the parties was Foley.

Sloan said the group sent unedited e-mails to the FBI because "we wanted them to commence an investigation. We're sort of outraged that they're saying anything differently." The group has asked Fine's office to look into the FBI's assertions.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse declined to comment on that issue but defended the FBI's handling of the original e-mails: "The e-mails, while inappropriate, did not contain a criminal predicate to allow the FBI to move forward in an investigation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501657.html

[TexasToast]

Most of you don't know Dave's history. Obviously Tom banned Dave after Cecil outed him.

[Rick Ballard]

Thanks, JMH. CREW is one of the cheapest cracker boxes I've ever seen. They make it simple to shine a light on their antics. The IRS needs to bag that 501(c)3 status and fine them out of business.

What's amazing is the credence given them by the Mediacrat clowns. Just one big happy incestuous crossbred gang of dolts.

[mark c.]

I remember House Republicans rushing to the defense of "Cool Hand" Jefferson when the feebs wanted to search his office, now Foleygate. I guess they figure it's okay to have your palm greased, especially while your're IM'ing an ex-page.

[clarice feldman]

We're making progress. They used to be described as a non-partisan group. But even today's WaPo described them today as a Soros funded group. O'Reilly called them a far left operation and Cavuto asked Soros about it and he hit the roof, claiming he'd no idea about their operations.

I say that's progress.

[pity]

I find what is happening on this blog to be very revealing about the about the nature of american
political discussion. Just look at the number of comments appearing on this blog related to the PageGate scandal emerged. There has been hundreds of comments on this matter. Compare this to the usual fifty or so that usual appear on matters related to the continued occupation of Iraq.

Everyone here is clamouring to "get to the bottom"
of PageGate and hold those involved in all aspects of PageGate "responsible". Contrast this with the situation in Iraq where nobody has a reasonable clue what to do and nobody has been held responsible for the mess they created in Iraq.

We are a pitiful country indeed!

[topsecretk9]

I have the archived comments that StopPredFake took down...this is the 11th comment on the "email" post , posted Sunday, Sept. 24th, 11:06 AM...with "blogger" comment handle...as far as I can tell, "stopsexpredators.blogspot.com" was not widely known until Sept. 30th after the story broke on the Friday the 29th.

(this comment most likely Tuesday, Sept. 26th...1:20 PM - pretty sure following times)

***District16voter*** said... If you all want to stop sex predators, Mark Foley has been a leader in congress to do just that! Here are just some of Foley's accomplishments on this very important issue!

- Sponsored legislation signed by the President that gives volunteer organizations that work with children, such as scouting and sports groups, access to FBI fingerprint-based background checks to ensure that they are not inadvertently hiring child molesters.

- Sponsored legislation toughening the penalties for those who hurt children.

- Joined forces with the Administration and Congress to fight child predators.

- Authored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which has passed both the House and Senate and which will overhaul the way predatory pedophiles are tracked and monitored.

- Introduced and cosponsored legislation designed to eliminate child pornography and exploitive child modeling web sites.

- Worked closely with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and John Walsh (host of FOX TV’s "America’s Most Wanted") on a variety of child protection programs. Among the latest of these is a program designed to show children how to protect themselves from online predators.

1:20 PM

Guess which District Conyers is?

(FYI...like I said this was the 11th comment, Rogers was the 4th...and this was BEFORE the story broke because this was AFTER

Anonymous said...
Greetings folks who have nothing better to argue about.

Just so you know, MSNBC just reported that "in light of the recent allegations about Rep. Foley's inappropriate emails to a 16 y/o page, Rep. Foleys has just announced that he WILL NOT be running for re-election".

Hmmmmmm. what was that about he who howls loudest?.... These republican hypocrits really make me laugh, (and cry). A bunch of right wing, Jesus freak, closed gays and pediphiles who rant about child molesters and gay people while they themselves are one or the other. I am PROUDLY gay and I am tired of A$$HOLES like this who give gay people a bad name.

12:49 PM)

[JM Hanes]

"Sloan said the agent called to confirm receipt of the e-mails and to ask if one of the parties was Foley."

That's sort of weird isn't it? Did CREW just hand off the emails without explanation? Sloan claims to have sent "copies of the original e-mails"? That's certainly not what was contained in their PDF.

[BTW]

Swiftboat Veterans for Pedophiles.

[anonymous]

Quel dommage, "pity."

[topsecretk9]

I meant to say..that Royal Oaks is District 16.

[anonymous]

Conyers. Isn't he the treasonous bastard who wants to impeach our President? That Conyers? The plot sickens.

[clarice feldman]

Sloane worked for him.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

topsecretk9: I love the attempt by the LGF reader "new_tommy" to try and trap the person(s) reading the stopsexpredators@gmail.com address. That was pretty cool. It's seems to have led to proxy servers, but strange that those proxy servers practically reside on the doorstep of Conyer's 14th district in a building on "Crooks Rd".

I'm still following up on all the different stories CREW has told up to now about Foley. I stumbled upon a curious piece of timing on behalf of the Center for American Progress and their business daily "Progress Report". The PR editors at CAP just happenned to plug the CREW blog the morning before Brian Ross, et al, broke the Foley email story.

CREW's story changes a little more frequently than the sun rises. They appear to be operating in this matter as if their actions in July should magically make the FBI a retroactive time traveling investigative force. I know the FBI has computer upgrade dilemnas, but I'm almost certain they don't have a fleet of Delorians to travel back to the future.

CREW's operating on a 'choose your own adventure' complaint. They've gone one way, didn't like the outcome, so they've gone back a few pages to change the story.

[topsecretk9]

Actually scratch...i had 16 and 14 on the brain.

[JM Hanes]

Contributor from Michigan:

Here's a hotlink to the to the campaign contribution page for the Royal Oak zip code you mentioned above. I wouldn't be able to recognize any players myself, but perhaps someone else here might pick up on something. Thanks for dropping in!

[Gabriel Sutherland]

JM Hanes: To my knowledge, CREW has not answered questions about the residual fax information contain in their PDF copies. I hinted before that the date, and file number, might indicate which congressional office the printed emails originated, assuming they were faxed from a congressional office.

CREW's PDF definitively indicate 2 things.

1) Someone printed the emails directly from Outlook. The dates at the bottom of each email are the indicator.

2) Someone faxed them on May 29, 2006.

Beyond those two facts, it is possible that the the received fax was scanned to a PDF file. This function is quite common in modern paperless office environments with entry level printing systems. A legal office, such as CREW, would have this function available on their printers.

[topsecretk9]

Where's Lansing in relation to Royal Oaks?

[topsecretk9]

Michigan Senate District 16
Michigan Senate District 16. Office Location Rm. 205 Farnum Bldg. Mailing Address PO Box 30036 Lansing, MI 48909-7536. Phone Fax E-mail. 517.373.5932 ...

[pollyusa]

The attorney disputed as “a piece of fiction” a report on a widely viewed Internet site, The Drudge Report, that [redacted's] exchanges with Foley were a prank by the page.
The Oklahoman 10/6/06

[JM Hanes]

Gabriel S:

Actually I'm referring to the fact the first email in CREW's collection (p.4 in the PDF) appears to be the only original email from maf54 himself which was actually forwarded intact. The others appear to be excerpts from the originals pasted into secondary emails before being sent along, presumably by the young man in question, to the unknown official recipient who asked for the material.

[topsecretk9]

--Here's a hotlink to the to the campaign contribution page for the Royal Oak zip code you mentioned above. I wouldn't be able to recognize any players myself, but perhaps someone else here might pick up on something. Thanks for dropping in!--

Did notice a person named Sloan - same spelling - Shirley Sloan.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Lansing is 80 miles west of Royal Oak.

What's on your mind?

The Royal Oak item might be a wall. LGF readers report that the IP collected in the makeshift sting is reported to share a Class C IP subset with a handful of proxy servers. The same IP range shows up as used by vandals of pages at Wikipedia.

The "16th District" reader at SSP bolsters the Royal Oak link. Kind of wish there was a central location for this chatter. It's hard to transcend many sites with the same information.

[topsecretk9]

Mac has some cached page threads...
were they trying to hawk a book?

jordanedmund: (Apr 23 2006, 06:34 PM) Has anyone been in contact with the author? Do we know how it is coming? Was it just given up on?

adlaidemocrat: (Apr 24 2006, 03:43 PM)
Not the faintest clue; I would venture to guess it’s been given up. I was never under the impression that the person had a publisher or any such thing.

jordanedmund: (Apr 24 2006, 03:43 PM )
When I spoke to her, on the phone, a year or so back, sh said she had written a few other books. I would doubt that there was someone who would be willing to publish a book about pages though. The Clerks counsel would probably keep anything from being published anyway. Probably on the grounds that we all signed confidentiality agreements when we started; so, every interview she did with a page would be null. Just my assumption.

adlaidemocrat: (Apr 24 2006, 04:04 PM)
I think the only way something could get published about it is if it were a tell-all memoir (either classy like George Stephanopolous’s “All Too Human” or scandalous like the “Washingtonienne” affair)

[Gabriel Sutherland]

topsecretk9: Melanie Sloan is a former prosecutor. She's a DC veteran, and she's superior to Scary Larry's backtracking.

[topsecretk9]

Gab

I'm assumig you've read Ace's then, I don't understand all proxy bloxy speak.

[clarice feldman]

Bring stuff here from elsewhere--if we all do it, we have a central clearng house.

[topsecretk9]

--One law enforcement official -- speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation -- also told The Washington Post the FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April and that the group refused to tell the FBI how they were obtained.---

Huh. I missed it.

I don't get why they were so redacty like back then - but the ones they posted on the internet they lamey exposed people...

IT'S ALMOST LIKE CREW DIDN"T WANT THE FBI TO BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING, and who are they to keep them so redacted to law enformanet...and interesting...***APRIL***

[clarice feldman]

That fits in with Edmunds book deal chatter and is inconsistent with the fax date at the CREW pdf file.

Did someone approach these guys for stories pretending to be writing a book?

Did they exaggerate hoping they'd get a book deal if their stories were sexier?

[topsecretk9]

Clarice...I have always felt they were some false pretenses a play with the pages.

[anonymous]

Operative word: "felt"

[SlimGuy]

Clarice said

Cavuto asked Soros about it and he hit the roof, claiming he'd no idea about their operations.

I say that's progress.

Posted by: clarice feldman

My dad always told me that you can train a dog to hunt, but if you get too many dogs, you can lose track of what they are hunting.

Simple words, great logic.

[topsecretk9]

--Has anyone been in contact with the author?--

--I was never under the impression that the person had a publisher or any such thing.--

--When I spoke to ***her***, on the phone, a year or so back (March-April 2005?), **she** said she had written a few other books. --

Also..wasn't this about the same time Mike Rogers put out his hit call- nazi witch hunt?

[topsecretk9]

AJ does raise some good questions:

--April! If CREW was so worried about the well being of these Pages why wait until July to release them to authorities if they had them in April. And as someoneMichael Barone pointed out tonight on Fox News, ***Crew could have provided the emails to Democrat members of the Page and Ethics Committees of the House ***- but they did not! Why? **Why give useless versions only to the FBI in July?***--

Hmmm. As JMH points out -- CREW has experience and are not shy, entrenching, sticking their nose in Congressional dealings.

[SlimGuy]

Today's WaPo has an article on CREW's charges againt the FBI--whoa--Now it turns out CREW had some stuff in APRIL--Not consistent with the fax dates on their pdf file:

Clarice

I am shocked and amazed and wish to express my outrage.........How dare they depart from their charter..........is nothing sacred!

Just as a little bitty question
They forwarded redacted documents, can any one give me one solid reason why a middleman in a transaction has to redact anything?

Is this an attempt to protect letters in the alphabet?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Doh, I know it's not that common, but this IP in Royal Oaks might just be a location for dial-up accounts. I declare the "not everyone has broadband, but I do" defense.

Jordan Edmund's page sponsor was Duke Cunningham

[clarice feldman]

For what it's worth there is a dial up service that covers Royal Oak.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:41HThPYj-xkJ:www.wmis.net/dialup.php+dial+up+accounts+royal+oak,+Michigan&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>dial up

[SlimGuy]

ninnymouse jerkboxcrud is famous!!

Posted by: Rick Ballard

Yes, but the burning question is

Is it in his own mind or ours?

And can it be cured without drastic measures that require a presidential finding?

Gitmo here we come!

[Gabriel Sutherland]

The FBI isn't stating CREW received the emails in April. They're saying this.

In subsequent days, unidentified Justice and FBI officials told reporters that the e-mails provided by CREW were heavily redacted and that the group refused to provide unedited versions to the FBI. One law enforcement official -- speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation -- also told The Washington Post the FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April and that the group refused to tell the FBI how they were obtained.

They just believe CREW received them in April. They don't indicate why they believe that.

Again, CREW is "outraged" that the FBI didn't investigate to the standards of CREW based on the "overly friendly" emails they sent to the FBI on July 21. Every one of their press releases and public statements revolves around this "outrage".

To reasonable people, the FBI's decision appears to be, well, typical. They don't operate based on loose rumors passed along inside the gay fascist movement.

[topsecretk9]

Slim...

Yeah, I don't get it.

Also, AJ notes more tidbits apparently on CNN--

Well, as the liberal cattle ‘moo’ their frustration, more tidbits did come out on CNN’s Paula Zahn. One is reporting that the FBI, when it reviewed the emails from the Page in Louisianna (whose parents are more upset with the predatory media than Foley) the FBI concluded there was insufficient evidence. (of course, CNN found homophobe talking heads to like Baye Buchannan and Neil Boortz to claim the signs that a gay man is interested in young men is sufficient cause to legally go after them). The sideshow aside, the interesting tidbits came in the FBI response to CREW’s claims and CREW’s response back.

The FBI said the emails provided by CREW had the Page’s name redacted and made following up impossible. They also said CREW edited the emails (they are not scans, they seem to be recreations - signs of RaThergate and Downing Street all over again). CREW challenged these claims and let slip the emails included the name of the Page and the Staffer (my guess is the name of the staffer is key to the investigation). I think it is fair game to demand CREW to make public the staffer’s name (it will come out anyway). Was it Fordham? Doubtful. Was it an aide to Pelosi or Emanuel? Mmmmm. One wonders. So we have charges by the FBI that CREW tampered with the evidence. I am glad to see CNN gave that little nit of news even glancing mention.----

Edited, recreated...well there are two brands of emails...

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Heh, headline writers are amusing.

Washington Post Headline
Watchdog Group Disputes FBI's Claims on E-Mails

Reprint of same Post story in Palm Beach Post
Soros-backed watchdog group says FBI's lying about it

I can't say I've seen any evidence that Soros money goes to CREW. CREW is predictably silent about their financial support.

[BritAm]

I'm apolitical. - anonymous

Isn't that from Tom Lehrer?

Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Just say that he's a-political.
"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down.
That's not my department", says Werner Von Braun.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

I think we've already seen evidence of the "downing street memo" treatment given to the emails between Foley and the LA page. The SSP blog had emails that were clearly different from those received by CREW.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Must sleep now. I can't handle these inside the Beltway hours if I am living outside of it working in the real world where showing up for votes is required to receive paychecks.

[clarice feldman]

Gabriel--thanks for the clarification.

I can't easily access by CREW file this second--but they get money from Soros' Open Society organization and one other rich lefty whose name now escapes me.

[clarice]

/i>Italiacto

Gabriel if the FBI says they "believe" CREW had some stuff in April, I think they know something about the provenance already.

[clarice]

/i>/i>Italiacto

[clarice]

Italiacto

[anonymous]

CREW has experience and are not shy, entrenching, sticking their nose in Congressional dealings.

Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 05, 2006 at 10:59 PM

CREW's raison d'etre is to "stick[] its nose into Congressional dealings." Something that every citizen's nose should be in.

[MayBee]

Clarice/ts:Did someone approach these guys for stories pretending to be writing a book?

There is one point where Loraditch says there is a woman interested in developing a television show around pages. He links to a questionair they are supposed to fill out. Let me dig around and see if I can find her name.

[topsecretk9]

--Open Society organization and one other rich lefty whose name now escapes me.--

Smith Bagley?

MayBee
I did see that, but could not get to the questions.

[SlimGuy]

Swiftboat Veterans for Pedophiles.

Posted by: BTW

No ............
Swiftboat Veterans for BTW to get a clue.

Sadly, the battallion morned the losses of all the enemy they had slaughterd.

If only they had given up when all was lost instead of fighting to the end.

So much carnage could have been avoided.

[topsecretk9]

--CREW's raison d'etre is to "stick[] its nose into Congressional dealings." Something that every citizen's nose should be in.

Posted by: anonymous | October 05, 2006 at 11:25 PM--

Yes, that's why it's so odd they decided to sit this one OUT - and you know, turn over to the Dem leaders and Page and/or Ethic Boards.

[clarice]

Well, MayBee I can just see a sharp guy thinking he was going to make a name for himself as a screen writer on Desperate Pages or some other such tripe--if only he could dream up some steamy stuff.

[anonymous]

Well, that would be odd -- CREW sitting this one out -- except they haven't. And the Ethics Committee of the House was neutered by Mr. Delay a long time ago.

[anonymous]

And Miss Sloane is a lawyer .... she doesn't just play one on the Internet(s) to have sycophants flatter her ego.

[MayBee]

I have recently recieved an interesting e-mail, and have been informed that a TV project is being developed that may in some way involve pages.

As part of that project, the authors have asked me to post a questionaire for them that hopefully everyone can fill out and return to them, and i have done so.

The file may be accessed http://www.pagealumni.us/pagequestions.rtf.

Posted by: loraditchm Nov 21 2004, 07:42 AM
Hello,

First of all I have to tell you how much we love the web site. You've done such a terrific job with it!

I have a quick question for you. My writing partner Jan and I are working on a concept for a television project that includes a fictional school based on the House and Senate Page Schools. One thing that's very important to us is portraying the school and students correctly. It's such an amazing school and must have been such a fun experience. We really want to capture the spirit of your group and your dedication, at an age where most kids are content just hanging out and biding their time till college.

We'd like to talk to you and other alumni members about your experiences nothing formal just a quick questionnaire or if you or they would rather, we can do a phone call instead.

I've attached the questionnaire to the email.

This is going to be a terrific project and we really look forward to hearing about Page School from the people who know it best!

Thanks so much,

Laura Greenwald

function SymOnUnload()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymRealOnUnload != null)
SymRealOnUnload();
}

function SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymRealOnUnload = window.onunload;
window.onunload = SymOnUnload;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//-->

[topsecretk9]

Jeez...people are quick...MayBee...this was on Ace

LINK

All right, the mysterious "book" was being written by Robin Katsaros, and was expected to be published in 2004 (but hadn't been by April 2006). So Jordan Edmund and "adlaidemocrat" were just curious about her progress.
Posted by: geoff at October 06, 2006 02:06 AM (Id2DF)

[topsecretk9]

Hello all,
Yes, the book is still in progress. Outline is complete. Four of the fifteen chapters are in rough draft form (the chapters with input from previous Pages has not been completed - this part will take the longest since I have to spend so much time interviewing people and I've left this part until the end, although I have received some input from a very few people.) I have an agent (my husband is a published author), but no publisher yet. I am also working with a company that let's you self publish, sort of Print on Demand. And yes, you do get assigned an ISBN and it will be available at all the major book sellers. So I will do that if my agent can not get a publisher interested. Pictures have not been chosen, many more edits to go through. It's a long process. I've had to squeeze it in with my other responsibilities, so it's taking longer than I thought. But it IS going to happen, at some point in time. Thanks, Robin Katsaros
senatepage
Aug 19 2004, 06:46 PM
what is this book about...is it an informative book on house pages or what?
IdahoDiscGolfer
Sep 3 2004, 03:58 PM
Is there a title yet?
jenna
Sep 7 2004, 02:54 PM
i'm nervous to read it only because my page class was the... ahem... most... disruptive, shall i say?
adlaidemocrat
Sep 7 2004, 04:02 PM
aye.
AliShott
Sep 7 2004, 04:11 PM
ALL YEAR (well after january) Jeffy kept telling us we were the worst class ever, worst class ever, no class had ever brought so much shame to the program. Then at the end of the year he was like, yeah, actually you guys weren't that bad.

Although I wasn't there I think there were worse classes than 0102 - but unlike that class, the others didn't get caught.
Melanne
Sep 7 2004, 06:13 PM
probably, but I don't think history will look at it that way.....
adlaidemocrat
Sep 7 2004, 06:26 PM
true, the pages during the scandal in like 83 must have been bad. lol.
meamemg
Sep 7 2004, 08:52 PM
What happened in 83
senatepage
Sep 8 2004, 12:13 PM
whats this book gonna have in it?!
aclays
Nov 3 2004, 09:52 AM
QUOTE (senatepage @ Sep 9 2004, 06:13 AM)
whats this book gonna have in it?!

second that question, seems that most of us are in the dark... tried googling, no luck though..

---

[clarice]

Thanks, ts--I have to get to sleep--This is looking interesting..

Is Robin Katsaros the writer or Laura Greenwald..I think the latter is the screenwriter so that must have been the 2d effort at this creative project.

[anonymous]

But without Google input, what will feed the frantic speculation?

[anonymous]

I suppose there's always "pure imagination."

[MayBee]

Sorry for whatever happened to that comment!

Funny, there is an earlier thread discussing how they'd like to write a book. And then an author appears!

[anonymous]

I think the "author" that "appear[ed]," appeared elsewhere. I think it was something "topsecretk9" (intrepid cub reporter and fearsome blogger) dredged up from Google.

[JM Hanes]

Cue Google Input: Over on the July 19, 2005 Randi Rhodes message board there's this:

Hi. Randi, Ambassador Joe Wilson and Cong John Conyers are all participating in house parties on Saturday to talk about Downing Street and Rovegate. You can find a link to attend or host one of the house parties on therandirhodesshow.com.
More than 200 have already been planned everywhere from Buffalo to San Francisco, Sandpoint, Idaho to Rock Hill, South Carolina. Here's the full list of house parties planned so far.

Wanna guess who's on it?

Robin Katsaros 12900 Atherton Ct. Los Altos Hills CA 94022

[topsecretk9]

Maybee

Notice how she PROMISES the book is on the way...NOT...but if you google through, you find she hosts donor parties for Conyers and her son was a congressional page sponsored by guess who? Surprise....Nancy Pelosi!

[anonymous]

Oh my God. Are you saying that Democrats know each other?
It's a conspiracy, I tell you.

[topsecretk9]

JMH

Yes...found this
Check bio and "quote page"

Here is part:
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington D.C., US
Page House Democrats 2003

Then, Conyer's Party

and here is life in Paris ...and Mother of...

and drum roll....

CHRISTOPHER KATSAROS is a sophomore at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He grew up in Los Altos Hills, CA--just outside of San Francisco. ***Christopher served his junior year of High School working as a Congressional Page by appointment of Nancy Pelosi, currently the Democratic House Leader***. In addition to politics, Chris also enjoys shopping, artichokes, the sun and summer in general. Next semester, Christopher will be going to Dakar, Senegal, where he will go to school and work for an NGO (as well as doing some work with the Peace Corps).

LINK

[anonymous]

You guys aren't suspecting that Democrats are working together to gain control of the government, are you?

[PeterUK]

"You guys aren't suspecting that Democrats are working together to gain control of the government, are you?"

Yes,they just can't wait to surrender to Iran,Jimmy C got then hooked on it,they know Sharia law will solve all these little problems

[PeterUK]

"

Oh my God. Are you saying that Democrats know each other?
It's a conspiracy, I tell you.

Posted by: anonymous | October 06, 2006 at 12:43 "

In the biblical sense anonymous?

[JM Hanes]

If Christopher Katsaros was a sophomore at Georgetown on Feb. 2006, wouldn't his junior year in highschool put him in the 2003 group of pages?

[anonymous]

You're damned right, Peter.