Powered by TypePad

« Condi Rice Warned By George Tenet | Main | NY Times Delivers Front Page Murtha-Basher »

October 01, 2006


clarice feldman

I think ts screen grabbed the old stuff.If not we should try to get it from wayback and grab it. Can anyone do that?


The last resort of the truly guilty: amateur semantics.



You just hit it again. anonymous can't point to anything that is "suggestive". The only thing I can think of would be the request for the picture. Now if one of my kids was asked for a picture by a rep, they would probably send a school pic. If the rep asked for a scantily clad pic or something like that it would be a completely different story. But that is what anonymous is implying.


"except for the fact that the IMs seem to be from 2003"

I use Yahoo IM myself. And if you hit the 'save all IMs option', they are kept on your account forever. I have plenty of IM's on archive myself right now from 2003. They are on Yahoo's account and apparently available to many Yahoo employees who know their way around.


By the way, for a very good definition of "suggestive," may I suggest Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language?


dodged again anonymous. Answer the question.

quercus albus

Oh, Snap! Purple Avenger! you are right, it is GONE! Did anyone get any screencaps? Curiouser and Curiouser...


What was suggestive - you said it...not me. So now point to the specifics of what was said in the emails that was suggestive of ... well anything....


But, specter, wasn't it you who dodged my questions?
I think it was.

But I'll humor you: read in the context of Mr. Foley's history and known proclivities, he's done. And that could be why he resigned and disappeared. He had that "done" feeling.


Hey, I wonder if all of those other blogs we mentioned have been "sanitized' as well. Has anybody looked?

Haha. Somebody is running scared! You can "sanatize" it from the viewing public, but not from the Justice Department!



You are correct. Do we know if it was Yahoo? Or was it another like AIM, MSMSG, etc. etc.


Someone should investigate if some former page ACTUALLY came forward, or some political operative broke into Foley's IM account. If someone broke into his account, they could face legal charges for invasion of privacy.


You dodged again anonymous. Answer the question. What was suggestive in the emails? C'mon - you made the claim here. Answer.


If you recall, I referred to E-mails AND IMs...
work on those reading comprehension skills.

And once again, in the context of Mr. Foley's well-known proclivities (at least well-known outside of this milieu)
they are, yes, "suggestive."

clarice feldman

I can't retrieve the old blog on wayback. CAlling for anyone who screen grabbed it.


Specter - I don't know which IM account it was. I know I have used Yahoo, AOL, and MSN. Only Yahoo used to archive and save all your IM's automatically. I would assume Yahoo is a good bet for this. I also know Yahoo is easy to crack because of that.


Your problem, Specter, is that you don't like the answers I've given you. And, I haven't forgotten, you have ignored the questions I posed to you, while you jump up and down doing your Hannity impersonation.

And has anyone noticed? You are all moving from outright condemnation of Mr. Foley to defending him as completely innocent.


I call BS on you anonymous. We need to deal with both things separately rather than conflating the emails and the IMs. The IMs were apparently sent to a college age student. There is nothing wrong with that, even if you don't like it. You can't equate those with the Emails - which were not suggestive and were conversational.

Have you ever heard of the Rules of Disinformation? You are following them to a tee. Why can't you give a direct answer instead of dodging around the issue.

clarice feldman

anonymous, you must have been on the short bus too long.
You asked One more question: if an adolescent page, a young girl, had received suggestive E-mails and IMs from Senator Hillary Clinton, what would be your reaction?

In context you were suggesting that the leadership had failed to adequately investigate "suggestive" materials to a "youngster". When you were asked to pick out what was "suggestive" in the emails--which is all the leadership knew about--you went into your combo ad hom slip and slide.

Nice work but no sale.Around here we have higher debate standards.


You got a direct answer. You just didn't like it. And it suits your purpose to keep pretending you didn't get an answer in order to distract from your cowardice in dodging my questions.

You lose. But thanks for playing.

quercus albus

Clarice, I have part of it. Should send it to you? (Not web savvy, here..)



Are you homophobic? Are all gays out to get kids?

As to you contention that I did not answer your questions - well...I can go back and quote back to you, but it seems to me that I asked first and then you asked so you would not have to answer. You made the claim. Now back up your claim.

clarice feldman

Funny the site was sanitized. Deja vu. EPIC did that when people started following the links there to Wilson's June 14 speech.

Kind of an admission I think.

JM Hanes

Here's the Barking Mad link.
Here are the emails at Stop the Sex Predators.
Here's the PDF on the emails from CREW.

The first three pages of CREW's PDF look like a single email in which the young man in question is agreeing to forward copies of the emails he received from Foley. It contains the text of the previous messages leading up to that final exchange.

The Foley messages themselves occupy the next 5 pages, which is where it gets interesting. It looks like the first message (which would logically be e-mail 1), in which Foley verifies the email address, is the only one which has actually been forwarded in its entirety. The remaining messages appear to have been pasted into separate emails of their own (hence the subject lines listing e-mail 2, etc), and not forwarded. I.E. they contain the putative text alone, without any headers attached.

It appears that the STOP blog took the header from the first message (p. 4), cropped out the redundant [Maf54@aol.com] in the "From" line, and elmininated the "To" line altogether -- and then spliced it onto each of the other individual texts.

In other words, there's no way of knowing whether the incriminating text provided to the recipient in the CREW pdf represents actual emails at all. It could have come from anywhere. It's also possible that the young man didn't want to pass on the emails in their entirety, opting instead to extract and paste in relevant material alone. One might wonder who was determining what might or might not be relevant -- as well as wondering precisely who the redeacted recipient of this collection on Aug. 31, 2005 might have been.

In any case, the only email which includes the Foley header is competely inocuous, and if you click on the individual emails at STOP, you'll notice that, oddly enough, the jpeg titles include "cropped."

clarice feldman

Sure QA. I'd appreciate it greatly. I'll store it on word and if Tom wants to post it I'll mail it to him.


Please quote your direct answer. Put up or shut up. You implied suggestive things were said to adolescents. What was said?


I think it is time for as refresher course for our left-leaning trolls. You can view the Rules of Disinformation here


Doesn't it seem that Dem's are trying to imitate what they think Karl Rove does? They always say how they are impressed with Rove's tricks in that they thinkg it wins elections and I guess they have tried to do the same. It goes to show you that Rove is even better than they think, as he never gets caught in the amaturish crap the Dems try to pull off.

clarice feldman

jmh, That's brilliant.
Ditto Sylvia.

I can't transfer that stuff to Word, JMH. How can we save those ?


screen shot?

Quilly Mammoth

The more I flash between the Adobe file provided by CREW and the ones that are scanned and posted on SSP the more convinced I am that anything other than the first two pages of email are more examples of "Fake but Accurate". Someone's done a cut and paste; however I'm not good enough to find any coding for layers. Which is what I suspect they did.

clarice feldman

jmh seems to have a critical screen shot--the one with the emails.


So, Specter, that's all you got? Anyone who objects to pedophilia in the ranks of the Republican Party is a homophobe?

Not very effective; but at least you tried.

Here's what you have to decide ...

Is it so important to you to maintain your status as a knee-jerk apologist for a corrupt and criminal regime that you will defend scum like Foley? and defend those who covered-up his crimes?

If that's who you are, then you are no better than they are.

But when it's your teenage son or daughter being preyed upon my men OR women in power (regardless of their sexual orientation) don't come crying to me.

clarice feldman

JMH , Sylvia Should we transmit this stuff to the FBI ? Directly or in a communication to Hastert with a CC to the FBI?



The files at SSP are jpg files. I have saved them. I also saved a local copy of the pdf file.

clarice feldman

Great..when TM shows up again we can ask if he can post them or find some other place where we can.

I'm smalling blood, Specter.

clarice feldman

**SmElling blood********



I see you could not find the wording you claimed. There you have it. You were challenged and you could not come up with one single reference to back up your claim. Sounds like all Democrats.

The reason I asked about homophobia is that it seems to be the only reason you can find to point the finger at Foley. Was what he did wrong? Morally I think so. But was it illegal? No. If you read my answer to clarice during our questioning of what you thought "suggestive" meant (which you didn't bother to answer either - batting 0 here anonymous - didn't answer a single question) you would have noted this:

. Now if one of my kids was asked for a picture by a rep, they would probably send a school pic. If the rep asked for a scantily clad pic or something like that it would be a completely different story.

So you see - I did answer your question. But you haven't answered a single one of mine. Too bad. You are not a debater, but a troll with the ROD handbook.

clarice feldman

anonymous, that emotional appeal is touching..really. And an admission that you lost. Maybe in the womens studies classes at the community colleges it's a winner. Here it's a joke.



I think so too. They really hurt themselves by jumping into the pool so fast - didn't look for sharks or sting-rays and just got barbed through the heart (I know insensitive - but it fits).

I think that anonymous is good with the Rules, but really is either a high schooler or semanticleo in disguise.

quercus albus

Clarice, mailed you saved pages in zip format of firefox. Hope it helps, but it sounds like y'all have it goin' on.



Last post before bed. But in reading the images at SSP I noticed a reference to a temperature in New Orleans. It is clearly hand written into the document - it is not typeface font of any sort used in the rest of the document. Somewhere along the line these docs have been docced.


"Debater?" You're debating this? This is nothing more than another political sideshow?

Many people I know, they tell me, don't bother talking to 'those people;' they're sick. they say. And I always say, no, anyone can be reasoned with.

And then you all sit furiously banging on your keyboards, twisting your minds in every direction, ... for what?

Do you really think Mr. Foley resigned "to spend more time with his family?"

I did not say there was a "smoking gun" in the E-mails. I said, again and again, it was "context" and undisputed reputation in his community. You continually ignored the answer because you couldn't use it to support your defense of a pedophile.

And pedophilia runs through the continuum of sexual orientation.... from heterosexuals to homosexuals. Why not read something on the subject? You might yet learn something.

clarice feldman

Thanks. Specter. Niters.

Quercus, Thanks again. I've got them and am trying to see if I can find a way to save them.

JM Hanes

In addition to the problem of forwarded vs. pasted text in the CREW PDF, and the obvious manipulation at STOP, it looks like the STOP folks went a step further.

After splicing the headers and texts together, they must have printed them out in order to black out the names on the "To" lines individually (presumably so they wouldn't be so obviously identical?). They would then have to have rescanned the newly created & redacted material for posting.

quercus albus

My DH (the computer genius) is always telling me to use opera instead of Firefox because it automatially saves screenshots, or some such. Of course he is already in bed, so I'll just leave what I have up and ask him to save it for me in the morning.

Good night, all.

clarice feldman

Thanks, JMH I'm saving that on word with all the other stuff everyone's found of fabrications.

We;re now famous for having busted a black blog op.

Instapundit cites to this:



If y'all are going to use the websites later, you better capture some screenshots now - they are all going to disappear.

clarice feldman

I think we have them all, thanks.


Let's put the shoe on the other foot in regard to "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006"

Do the IMs (the second batch of stuff), given the page was less than 18 years old, constitute "kiddy porn" ?

Did CREW traffic in "kiddy porn" by giving them to anyone other the authorities ?

clarice feldman

The IMs were not to the 16 year old. We do not know the age of the correspondent on the IM's but he talks about college activities so I doubt it would be covered. In any event the communications were years ago and the Walsh act was just passed this year.

clarice feldman

Steve Gilbert points to more black blogs--probably of the JK persuation sent to him by a commenter:

October 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 am e
You know SG and Retire05, the wording on the stopsexpredators blogspot address sounds awfully like another website called absolutezero, http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/ The wording I refer to is this statement, “We have gotten inquiries from almost every major news outlet in the country. Perhaps if we get good information on here again, I can go back to some of those reporters and they can help expose these predators.”

It appears in this posting on stopsexpredators, http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/2006/09/wow.html and in this posting on absolute zero, http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2006/09/information-for-new-rea ders-top-post.html

Wierd, and something definitely is fishy

clarice feldman

**probably of the JL persuasion--(Not jK)

JM Hanes

Sleep well Clarice! I've got downloaded jpegs as well as screenshots, but the site still comes up for me, so maybe it hasn't been scrubbed (yet). Maybe it's just getting more traffic than the "tubes" can handle.


I think Foley resigned because there's a real scandal here. While there's apparently reason to believe that exposure of the IM transcripts precipitated his departure, I think it's entirely possible that he may have been worried about even more damaging potential revelations to come. I believe taking advantage of young pages -- whether before or after their internships -- is unconscionable in any case, and particularly reprehensible in someone whose mandate is protecting the young from predation.

None of that diminishes my interest in whether or not the putative evidence against him is genuine. Indeed, if evidence of real wrong doing, not to mention the criminal activity you impute to him, was being strategically withheld from the proper authories in order to maximize pre-election political damage -- or being collected for that express purpose -- I believe that's indefensible as well.

JM Hanes

In the IM exchange I read, Xxxxxxxxx refers to AP English, which would make him a high school student.



I have captured the original condition of the site I believe, since I read thru the whole site earlier tonight and it was still in my browser cache.

Gonna go back and see if it saved all the comments since I viewed them too.

Will send them to you thru a common friend if I am successful.

clarice feldman

Well put, JMH.

I did not read all the IM's --just one--and it referred to college. I don't know if all the IMs refer to communications with a single person either.


Thanks, SG

Tom Maguire

Close to the topic - apparently CREW got the Alexander email over the summer - not clear if they got the other ones as well, but I would be hesitant to guess so:

Just a reminder to our readers that when CREW received copies of the Foley emails earlier this summer, we sent them to the FBI. This key point was reported in the original Associated Press article on Friday:
The e-mails were posted Friday on the Web site of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington after ABC News reported their existence.

Email # 5 has a Fax Heading Date of May 2006 - someone had them faxed in the Spring of 06

clarice feldman

Someone who wishes to remain anonymous notes that Alexander and his staff used to be Dems and suggested that in the chaos of Katrina he or new staff may have sent the emails to a former Dem staffer for assistance in resolving this.


I have the whole site and comments, now I have to try to figure out how to send them.

I saved them to my hard drive as html files but trying to figure out how to mail them now.


clarice feldman

SG, it's late and I'm about to go to bed anyway. Why not hold them until a convenient time tomorrow?

clarice feldman

Hmm One blogger contacted the ex-page who was quoted as saying he'd been warned about Foley. He asked him for a statement and the guy is taking a long time to respond. The blogger also has the name of the IM correspondent which he (rightly) will not reveal) and is trying to get his side of the story.


clarice feldman

NYT quotes pages as saying Foley was warm and nice to them. Loraditch whom the AP said had been warned by Rep supervisor to be careful around Foley denied that ever happened.

"In the hierarchy of Congress, the high school students who serve as Congressional pages fall somewhere near the bottom, seemingly invisible as they scurry through the hallways of the Capitol ferrying messages to powerful lawmakers who often fail to give them a second glance. In that rarefied world, Representative Mark Foley, the silver-haired Republican from Florida, stood out. He took pains to befriend the 16- and 17-year-old aides, several former pages said in interviews on Sunday. He chatted with them on the House floor, they said, sent handwritten notes and urged them to keep in touch when they left Washington... "


kong company registration


Jimminy Christmas, TM is getting some crazy spam...

Weird...every single one of the creepy ssp.blogspot emails (which frankly is a every bit as creepy as Foley) is rife with differences --

including 3 ellipses on one version, 4 on the other and visa versa in various placed - all have different line breaks and carriage returns - apostrophes on words on one version - missing on the other - so on, and on and on...

Looks like to me -- like someone read them over the phone to creepy SSP -- and SSP recreated a "email" like doc.

But they are NOT the same emails - not forwarded or copied pasted into new to ONE of the parties...also....CREW's were most definitely faxed, at some point on May 20 something 2006...and there is a Footer date inserted at the bottom via acrobat (I believe) on CREW's version that say Sept. 13, 2006.

BUT someone had and FAXED copies in May 06

SSP's are recreated and dictated (IMHO)...not forwarded or cut and pasted, there is no way to account for extra ellipses, missing apostrophes, line breaks...to name a few.


Anonymous, Do you also go by the name of, Editor or Dittohead on Carol Platt Liebau? You sound familiar.

clarice feldman

Intersting..I leave that stuff to you IT whizkids.

An anonymous reader asked me to post this plausible sounding to me analysis of how CREW got the emails:

Someone who wishes to remain anonymous sent me an email with this analysis:

Based on the CREW version of the e-mails (http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/FoleyEmailExchange.pdf), the Louisiana page sent the e-mails to somebody at House.gov right after he got them from Foley, on August 31. The document which CREW has was printed on October 17, 2005 and faxed (apparently to CREW) on May 29, 2006. Well, the explanatory e-mail summarizing the events was printed on October 17. But the actual e-mails themselves were printed on September 13. That’s kind of odd.

Another odd thing I just noticed is the subject lines of the e-mails. Several of them actually say the subject is “e-mail 3” and “e-mail 4”.

It’s also odd that the e-mails printed on Sept. 13 look like they were printed directly from the kid’s account, not after being forwarded to somebody else. There’s no room for an original header and the forward header. The only exception is the first one shown, dated July 29, which clearly shows a forward of an actual e-mail from Foley, showing Foley’s e-mail address. What must have happened is that the kid cut and paste the substance of Foley’s e-mail into a message being sent directly (not forwarded) to his contact in Alexander’s office. That would explain the subject line, too. It would be natural for the kid, creating a new e-mail, to provide the sequential order of the e-mails. If the e-mails themselves had been actually forwarded, then they would all look like that first one, showing Foley’s e-mail address as being a “forwarded message”.

My guess would be that a Congressional staffer printed these out. He first printed them on Sept. 13. Then he needed to provide copies to CREW, and he realized he didn’t have a copy of the summary e-mail, so he just printed out a new copy, on October 17.

--TS is it possible that the SSP emails were sent say by Blackberry by someone reading the emails and sending them and that the text differences are accountable because they were simply being retyped hurriedly and not even on a pc.


If That's you, don't you find it harder over here to get away with your lib nonsence and gibberish?


----TS is it possible that the SSP emails were sent say by Blackberry by someone reading the emails and sending them and that the text differences are accountable because they were simply being retyped hurriedly and not even on a pc.--

Well, then they highjacked Foley email then, becasue they come "from" on the email header, apparently, Foley addresses actual address.

JM Hanes


Glad to know the CREW folks apparently did the right thing, although from their PDF, which is dated May 29, 2006, it looks like they've had their copy of the exchange for quite awhile. Pagination seems to indicate a missing cover page, BTW, so it's hard to pin down when they first acquired the material, unless they've said so elsewhere. The original email forwarding apparently occurred in August of '05.

If the FBI did follow up, maybe Foley thought he was off the hook -- till the IM transcripts surfaced. If they were news to the FBI, it might be an additional, serious, cause for alarm on the now former Congressman's part. The how/when/who of the IMs seems far more significant than circulation of the emails; it's conceivable to me that the email scam at STOP might have been set up to prepare the way for more damning revelations. The unsolicited email from the gay bar guy, in particular, seemed almost too perfectly tailored to me, but other details like screen names seem overly targeted too.

It's interesting that with publication of the emails, the CREW crew is now calling for the appointment of "outside counsel." Plamaniacs will note they aren't asking for a Special Counsel -- even though the current SP is still open for business with nothing much to do, can expand his mandate at will, and works really cheap.


At least one party, would have had to Highjack Foley email address...(most likely SSP) --

They had to have been RE_typed at least once or read over the phone -- BUT not with the "from Foley addy"

And the only way I've heard to highjack someone's address is using that stupid pointofmail program - you know who - is so fond of.


What is you anon saying exactly? Is a tech speak for dummies version possible?


--even though the current SP is still open for business with nothing much to do, can expand his mandate at will, and works really cheap.--


clarice feldman

Well anon has just sent me this -(and then I'm off to bed):

Actually, it looks to me like SSP’s copies are closer to the original than CREW’s. SSP could actually have been forwarded them by somebody the intern himself forwarded them to, while the CREW copies came from somebody who retyped or cut-and-paste them. The CREW copy is definitely not a first generation because of the lack of Foley’s e-mail address. The SSP’s were either recreated in a more sophisticated way (which I doubt) or were simply printed directly either from the page’s own account or from somebody to whom he had forwarded them. OR, adding fuel to your earlier suggestion, SSP’s copy could have been printed from Foley’s account directly by somebody hacking into his computer. That would make a lot of sense, actually.


clarice feldman

Honestly--I can barely type so I leave this to you guys.

But it is intriguing to think that someone got into Foley's computer, isn't it?


So why does poor Will Humble get his name named?
Everyone else gets their name protected, but Will Humble's name is right there for all to see.


Q: What do Hurricane Katrina and Mark Foley have in common.

Some jokes just write themselves!


--while the CREW copies came from somebody who retyped or cut-and-paste them. --

ANON, you can email me (and I will respect your anon-ness)...but...the cut and paste doesn't jive because of the differences...send me a pic vs. send me an "email" pic, ...vs ,,...
- its vs it's.


--But it is intriguing to think that someone got into Foley's computer, isn't it?--

Well, they steal credit reporting, so...I'm telling you, they put the NSA and CIA to shame, don't they?


And poor Kerianne, who told the page that someone was warned about someone, she just didn't know who. She can't be that hard to track down. Crew is apparently very concerned about minors being harassed. (ha!)

Will Humble and Kerianne get thrown to the wolves by the kid protecting himself. Nice.



Excellent work.

Look at these two statements from CREW:

"Just a reminder to our readers that when CREW received copies of the Foley emails earlier this summer, we sent them to the FBI." And

"Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said today, "It is horrifying to learn that some members of Congress were more concerned with covering up a potentially embarrassing situation than with protecting the teenage pages." Sloan continued, "the American people, and particularly the parents of other pages, have a right to know if congressional leaders put politics above the safety of children."

CREW had this all summer. They claim that Foley was a clear and present danger and Americans and parents of pages had a right to know.

Yet they didn't warn those Americans, or those parents, or even the House Ethics Committee. They only told the FBI, who can't comment. They sat on this story...until now. Election Time.

Republicans didn't 'cover this up'; CREW did. Republicans didn't 'put politics before children'; CREW did. They are doing exactly what they have accused Republicans of.

How many boys were they willing to see molested in order to win an election?


Do we get to see their letter to the FBI to see when it was sent? That would be an ETHICAL thing for them to post...

Did I read another tidbit about the Crew of Ethics, that they will not release who sits on their board? Um, yeah..

Phony Baloney.



What are you referring to...did I miss something?



I loved your posts! Please pick a moniker so I can easily follow your posts in the future.

It is 100% hilarious to watch the righties here try to protect a pedohile (especially one that has already resigned). Blog on! Blog on!


I wonder if the kid had anything to do with getting them to Crew. I think not. The email says "Anyway, if you can email this to Rodney so he is aware, I wonder what he would do about it". So it's obviously what went to Rodney Alexander's people.

Tops- in the CREW email pdf, they didn't block out Will Humble's name. He is the other page that Foley refers to in his email. They also didn't block out a page named Kerianne's first name.


OH...scrupulous, aren't they?

JM Hanes


Foley's address could easily have been highjacked from any copy of the message on p.4 of the CREW pdf. Now that you've pointed it out, it's clear that it's not a straight cut & paste, but both header & text could have been retyped and then the appropriate articfacts could easily be introduced through any number of scanning/copying/pasting combinations. I suspect they were deliberately skewed for posting at STOP to make examining them closely more difficult.

In my mind, the main point is that the only email originally forwarded with its headers intact was the first one which contains virtually nothing of interest, let alone anything questionable, at all. The folks at STOP had no way to attribute the additional material to Foley without adding headers to the other excerpts as well. Not if they wanted to claim someone had sent them copies -- as opposed to admitting they'd lifted them from a document like CREW's PDF already in their possession.

I don't think that necessarily implies involvement at CREW, however, because I sincerely doubt that CREW had the only copy of that memo in circulation. As I noted before, they did not include cover page of the document they've reproduced -- so we have no idea when they got it themselves, or from whom.

JM Hanes

In other words, nobody needed to get into Foley's computer, even if they could manage it, which seems doubtful.


They're hanky and obviously been lurking via faxing machines in May...

The "typo" differences mean no cut and paste...one of the two sides had to have retyped.


Why would Crew take it upon themselves to pass those emails on to the FBI anyway? If they had the IMs, sure. But those emails? Without the kid and family's cooperation? Without the kid's emails that he had sent to Foley?


Defending a sexual predator?

Well you can add that to your long list of accomplishmnets which include:

(1) Defending an illegal preemptive war which
preempted nothing and has exaserbated terrorism
(2) Defending the incompetence of those (Rumsfeld)
prosecuting an illegal war
(3) Defending the incompetence of BushCo's
politicised FEMA
(4) Defending torture!

Keep up the good work. If Frist is found to be a serial cannibal that will surely put the Repugs over the top in November.


Definitely a sCREW job. Good work guys!


Crew obviously got a copy of the email the kid sent Alexander's office. The From, To, and Subject lines are all blanked out, and the kid refers to the person he's emailing asking Rodney what to do about it.

And the "Yeah, I'm so excited about TARS "indicates he's talking to someone that he also has been talking to about other things.
I wonder if CREW ever contacted the boy or his family.


You know...I just thought of something...the judges in Dollar Bill Jeffersons investigation gave the doc sifters / hard drive company 3 weeks starting about the 13th or so of Sept. to turn over the goods...and they would be provided to both sides (defense and feds) as well...hmmm.

Pretty well 3 weeks into it and Jeff's lawyers are having a look...hmmm...


--and they would be provided to both sides (defense and feds) as well...hmmm--

this to mean, provided as they come in...if that wasn't clear...

JM Hanes


Doesn't really make a lot of sense does it, when the emails in question weren't exactly barn burners, weren't exactly recent, and weren't much of a secret if even CREW got the memo.


CNN: 10/2/06

The chamber's three top Republicans -- Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri -- said in a joint statement Saturday that Foley's "improper communications" were "unacceptable and abhorrent."


Here is the Dollar Bill Jefferson bit

Sunday, September 24, 2006

...Last week, U.S. Magistrate John Facciola ordered the computer forensics firm of Stroz Friedberg LLC to begin searching computer images seized from Jefferson's office, instructing the firm to deliver computer documents to him on a "rolling basis" of no fewer than 1,500 pages, and not more than 1,700 pages. Some involved in the case expect that process to continue for two or three weeks.

Under a process established by a three-judge appellate court, Jefferson's attorneys would have 48 hours after getting all the material seized from his office to argue what documents they think should be denied to federal prosecutors.

If Chief District Court Judge Thomas Hogan rejects Jefferson's request, his ruling would likely set up another appellate hearing, although it's not certain it would hold up distribution of the documents federal prosecutors say they need to wrap up their investigation...



Clarice, you are right about Alexander being a Dem at one time. Look at what the link at Google says:

Congressman Rodney Alexander
Official web site for Representative Rodney Alexander (D - LA).
www.house.gov/alexander/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

And http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/8/11/165612/630>Jerome Armstrong was really mad at him for switching!

The comments to this entry are closed.