Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Corn - "The List" Circulates | Main | More Libby Filings »

October 06, 2006

Comments

clarice

Santorum's aide is gay AND BLACK! And when he was outed, Santorum praised him and said he was proud to have him on his staff.

Oh, those narrow minded Christers (or is it anti-Christers?).

Geek, Esq.

An ugly story that just keeps on getting uglier.

What's interesting is that there are at least three groups with plausible motives for this kind of disclosure:

1) The Michael Rogers gay activists;

2) Social cons who want to purge the ranks of infidels;

3) Democrats who would love nothing more than to see a story about a gay Republican cabal circulate amongst the GOP's homophobic base.

I expect that the Democrats have steered WELL clear of this list--potentially harmful and they really don't need to pour any gasoline on the fire.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some cooperation going on between the social cons and the gay activists--both of whom believe that gay Republicans should buy into the "with us or against us" mindset.

I suspect that both the social cons and the gay activists want this list revealed, but would greatly prefer that the other side do it.

Gabriel Sutherland

When did the left assemble talking points that the entire nation of social conservatives is presided over by Fred Phelps?

The Phelps church might as well be called the church of Phelps, Phelps, and Phelps. It's basically the entire Phelps family and that's it.

Gabriel Sutherland

Geek Esq: Where is the supporting evidence for this claim?

2) Social cons who want to purge the ranks of infidels

SteveMG

I love this caricature that the Left has (see Geek, esq above) of the social conservatives and their views on gay people.

Of course, this is the same Geek who calls Glen Reynolds a fascist. So, if Reynolds is a fascist, one can imagine what he considers James Dobson to be.

SMG

clarice

Left's definition of "fascism" =everyone who doesn't see things according to the party line.

RBMN

As I recall, the Santorum quote is Sen. Santorum just quoting a Supreme Court justice who was making this point: Every new court decision, by its nature, opens new doors in the Law--some that are best left closed. Nothing is ever as cut and dried as you think it is.

Geek, Esq.

Well, here's one article (but this feels like proving that the Earth is round):

Baltimore Sun.

Gays hold many prominent and visible positions in government and business in Washington. But inside the GOP ranks, being gay is still a risky proposition. In fact, with the exception of the military, perhaps no institution in America has as strong and secretive a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to homosexuality as the Republican Party.

"Obviously, the far right has kind of got a stranglehold on the Republican Party," said Paul Koering, a Republican state senator from Minnesota who acknowledged his homosexuality last year. "The very first time I ran, I literally almost made myself sick worrying about somebody finding out I was gay." . . .

Staffers from both parties said they believe that several other Republican members of Congress are gay and remain, at least officially, in the closet.

"It's kind of like a secret society," said a former congressional staffer who is gay and who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

One reason for the secrecy, gay Republicans say, is that their party has grown more hostile to gays in recent years. The trend began with the 2002 midterm elections, when GOP leaders made the strategic decision to use religious conservative groups' opposition to gay marriage to drive voter turnout. For those groups, which consider homosexuality a deviant "lifestyle," perhaps no issue riles their membership more.

"While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins asserted this week in a message to supporters.

David Catania, a gay former Republican who serves on the District of Columbia City Council, said he left the party over its promotion of the Defense of Marriage Act. He expressed sympathy for his gay friends who remain active Republicans.

"They've hitched their stars to the party, hoping to hunker down and ride out the Taliban-esque wing, hoping their views will come back into the mainstream," Catania said. "It's got to be very demoralizing for them."

Geek, Esq.

Here's another article:

Washington's community of gay Republicans includes at least one member of Congress, more than a dozen high-ranking congressional aides, current and former White House staffers, advisers to the Pentagon, press strategists for prominent conservatives, several well-known journalists, and a legion of influential lobbyists.

Many choose not to publicly disclose their sexual orientation because they're afraid that they would face retaliation from their employers. Others believe that their employers might face retaliation from their constituents. Still others try to strike a balance, confiding in a select group but maintaining a safer, though ambiguous, public identity.

Contacted by National Journal, many declined to comment, and those who did speak asked that their names not be used. A few expressed the fear that any article about powerful gay Republicans could trigger a witch hunt. Indeed, in the wake of Foley's resignation, an e-mail purporting to identify gay Republican staff members circulated on Capitol Hill. Some presumably heterosexual Republicans whispered to reporters that a "gay subculture" had penetrated the highest ranks of the party and had protected Foley at the expense of their majority.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/1005nj1.htm

norm d'plume

from geeks first article...

One reason for the secrecy, gay Republicans say, is that their party has grown more hostile to gays in recent years.

I wonder if the "gay Republicans" cited are Mike Rogers and John Aravosis.

Blenheim

Grotesque and newsworthy as "the list" story is, I'm not sure it has anything to do with the mystery tipster. My review, for what it's worth, has me wondering about Brian Smoot, Alexander's former COS. Maybe the LA Page contacted HIM instead of Alexander's office (maybe they met while the Page was applying to the Page program or while the Page was in DC?) Alexander immediately suspected Smoot, but he denied being the tipster. Still, the Smoot theory works as a matter of motive, timing, the FL newspaper connection, and the heavily redacted faxes. Maybe Smoot edited the emails, so as to remove any reference to him? Fordham was also in the right place at the right time, and also has a motive to cover his tracks, but what would be his motive vis-a-vis Foley? Maybe there was bad blood?

topsecretk9

I wonder if the "gay Republicans" cited are Mike Rogers and John Aravosis.

HEH.

I still say my idea of a Gay Republican presser/coming out party in which they reiterate they are gay and still going to vote however they like and that includes against gay marriage would be just desserts for the McCarthycrat's witch hunt.

Marianne

This is an issue of a 50-something adult in a position of power using (abusing?) that position to establish inappropriate relationships with teenagers who were identified as a result of the adult’s position. It is not primarily an issue of gender or sexual orientation.

It is totally wrong to hijack this issue to promote any agenda related (pro or con) to the rights of gay Americans in society, including the right to privacy.

Keepers of The List

From the Geek article....

A few expressed the fear that any article about powerful gay Republicans could trigger a witch hunt.

And indeed, we Democrats are happy to launch one.

We threw the feminist movement under the bus to salvage Clinton's presidency, and we have no qualms about throwing the gay movement under the bus to salvage the '06 elections.

topsecretk9

--Fordham was also in the right place at the right time, and also has a motive to cover his tracks, but what would be his motive vis-a-vis Foley? --

Does their need to be any bad blood with Foley? He's republican, that's about all a Democrat needs to hate.

However, the DCCC put a hit out on "turncoat" Alexander when he made the switch...

–And by the way, everybody, we could use a few ducats for the court challenge, and oh yes, taking the House! So if you can spare it, Punish the Turncoat.—

and

…Alexander’s abrupt party switch shocked Democratic lawmakers, who called him a “traitor” and a “turncoat” who betrayed them without notice. Alexander filed as a Republican just minutes before the filing deadline on Aug. 6 [2004], just days after first filing as a Democrat….

and

It was a bitter parting of the ways between Nancy Alexander, wife of overnight party-switching sensation Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), and the Congressman's staff, all six of whom quit over their boss's hush-hush decision, which they learned about secondhand.

When half of them, including Chief of Staff Brian Smoot, went to tender their resignations and turn in their keys last Monday morning, they found Mrs. Alexander in the office going through the trash, Smoot told HOH. He said he assumed she was making sure the staff had not disposed of anything important. "Of course we had not," he said.

Then the boss's wife asked him about her husband's dry cleaning. "I told her she should worry about Rodney's dry cleaning," recalled the 27-year-old Smoot.

Although he could not remember exactly what she said, Smoot said Mrs. Alexander excoriated the three aides - Smoot, Nell Wilson and Traci Vincent - accusing them of being disloyal and saying they drove her husband to switch parties.

Then, Smoot said, Mrs. Alexander, who has a doctorate in mathematics, followed the aides into the hallway yelling, "Good riddance. Praise the Lord!" before issuing one final silent but universally satisfying expression: the finger!

"Yes, I can confirm it. She flipped us the bird," Smoot said, still weary with shock from his boss's party-switch.

http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/000848.html

So, did Alexander have a hanger on staff member with a little closeted hate or still friendly with former staffers? They all go to work for others, Traci Vincent went to work for William Jefferson, I believe.

Wilson's a Liar

Can't anyone see the real message here?

DEMOCRATS. ARE. LOSING. THESE. ELECTIONS.

Their last "hail Mary" play is to try to turn off evangelical voters and make them stay home. So, let's "out" George Allen as a Jew! Let's throw out "The List" of gay Republicans! Let's get that insinuation about Ken Mehlman back on the front page! Let's remind those troglodytes in Pennsylvania that Rick Santorum has a homo working for him!

It's all so very Liberal. And so very predictable.

sad

Voting on the basis of sexual orientation or practices or moral view thereof is so shortsighted. Islamists will guarentee no diverisity on any issue if they get a stranglehold.

Geek, Esq.

The Democrats aren't the ones circulating this list.

It's gay activists who are trying to goad social conservatives into releasing it.

The Democrats don't need to salvage anything--this has been a massive self-inflicted wound on the part of the Republicans.

Neo

I found the order of the first excerpt to be odd. I goes from "Kirk Fordham, last spring promised ... Fordham instead contends that he was frustrated" to "Fordham told ABC News that in 2003, making you think this was how he handled the frustration.

Gabriel Sutherland

FYI: CREW's version of timeline may have just changed. I'm seeking confirmation.

The Unbeliever

Oh, those narrow minded Christers (or is it anti-Christers?).

It's Christianists, of course. Just ask gay "Republican" Andrew Sullivan.

...oops, did I just out Andy? Was he on The List which causes poor David Corn such angst? DOH!

Neo

I've come the the conclusion that either

1) unage workers of any kind are prohibited on the Hill
2) even one "hit" on an unage worker will mean "censure" with no forgiveness or exception. Any addional "hits" mean explusion with no forgiveness or exception.

Frankly, the second option will eventually lead to the first once the unage workers catch on to just how powerful the second option makes them.

cathyf
I love this caricature that the Left has (see Geek, esq above) of the social conservatives and their views on gay people.
Well, I have my armchair psychologist theory of why...

The caricature on the left is that social conservatives are all frigid and frustrated, and want to spread the misery around by sending out the anti-sex stormtroopers to prevent everyone else from having sex. In fact, NORC data has shown consistently over years of surveying that the more conservative and more religious people are, the more frequently they have sex and the better the sex is that they have. (That would be the NORC survey that Jesse Helms tried for years to de-fund, by the way. I'm pretty sure that the "except for Jesse, 'prudes' have better sex more often" conclusion was especially surprising to Jesse!)

Ok, so there you are a libertine who has sold your soul for pleasure, and it's going to be vitally important to you to deny deny deny that the monogamous squares who still have their souls are in fact having better sex lives than you.

Dale Armstrong

Marianne:

"This is an issue of a 50-something adult in a position of power using (abusing?) that position to establish inappropriate relationships with teenagers who were identified as a result of the adult’s position."

I agree COMPLETELY!

Which is why I just KNOW, YOU will agree with ME, when I give you this Hypothetical situation:

A 50-ish something Man, in a Position of Power, let's just be ridiculous, and say PRESIDENT; uses his position to establish an inappropriate relationship with a teenager, like 19 years old, let's be even MORE ridiculous, and say an INTERN, who was identified as a result of the adult's position (PRESIDENT)!

So, I know since you agree it was the right thing for Foley to resign, based upon his misdeeds; do you agree our Hypothetical PRESIDENT should (should've actually) resign(ed)???

Just checking...

topsecretk9

I am sorry...but did Mike Roger's just step in a pile of poo poo here...(last night? on Tucker Carlson)


...I did receive the e-mails a little bit before they went up on Stop Sex Predators, and the Stop Sex Predators site administrator apparently, from an Gmail account, claiming that, told me about them, that they were posted there as well. And then when I had first received them I made sure that I immediately confirmed that they had been handed over to the proper law enforcement authorities prior to my obtaining them

1. StopSexpred contacted Mike Roger's to tell Mike Roger's about them and that "they" were there? Sorry, um...this is beyond weird ...(and wasn't Roger's comment left on the site before the story broke?)

2. He says he immediately confirmed they had been handed over to the proper authorities - CREW was the outfit that handed them over to authorities and CREW DID NOT POST THEM UNTIL ***AFTER*** ABC broke the story


HOW DID Mike Roger know to contact CREW, how did Mike Rogers know CREW had them and who did Mike Rogers talk to? Who did Mike Roger contact?

Dale Armstrong

TS9: NICE one! Sounds like someone just "outted" themselves!

Neo

It's gay activists who are trying to goad social conservatives into releasing it.

No. It's gay activists trying to make it look like social conservatives will releasing it, to cover up who wants to release it, the gay activists.

topsecretk9

One more thing...Mike R says he had them before they went up on SSP, but SSP contacted him to say

told me about them, that they were posted there as well.

AS WELL?

AMDG

One of the biggest things that the Republicans have going for them is the state of delusion that the Democrats are in.

The 'list' and the issue about George Allen's "Jewishness" bring me back to Kedwards mentioning the orientation of Mary Cheney in two separate events.

The goal of all three is to suppress Republican base turnout. The reasoning behind it, apparently, is that the Democrats buy into the MSM/Hollywood stereotype that we out here in flyover country are racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic morons.

They buy into it because they truly hate us and this hatred so pervades their beings that all logic, humanity and principle are wiped out.

I believe that this goes beyond BDS - That is just one manifestation of their disease. In 2008 the BDS will mutate into RDS and before BDS it was GDS.

God help us if they come into power.

clarice

Hmm, Ts.Good work.Point 2 is very damning to CREW.

Dale Armstrong

....ah, they are Mind Readers!

Yeah, that's it, Mind Readers! That's the ticket....

Gabriel Sutherland

TS: nice catch. So the SSP admin knew that Rogers had the emails. Rogers indicates that with the "as well".

I need to be schooled on the CREW link to Rogers. Tucker's transcript doesn't say that Rogers mentioned CREW at all.

cathyf
This is an issue of a 50-something adult in a position of power using (abusing?) that position to establish inappropriate relationships with teenagers who were identified as a result of the adult’s position.
It's about teenaged adults entering into relationships with a 50-something adult who was not in any position of power over them. And whether the relationships were appropriate or inappropriate is none of anybody's business outside of the consenting adults involved.
Gabriel Sutherland

AMDG: Remember who the secular progressives turned to to explain why they lost the 2004 election?

They turned to Thomas Frank and his 'What's the Matter with Kansas' book. Frank says that the Republican party has convinced social conservatives to vote against their economic interests. That's his thesis. The Democrats turned to a fellow that thinks social conservatives are willing to vote themselves down the economic ladder.

Furthermore, Frank argues that the Democrat Party must invoke the FDR message, but he neglects to mention that there isn't a Great Depression at the moment. He thinks the Democrats should pretend their is a Great Depression and invoke FDR anyway.

Blenheim

Top:
I was suggesting that Fordham could be the tipster, and wondering whether there was bad blood between him and Foley. If he were the tipster, and wanted a career in Republican politics, he would obviously need to cover his tracks.

I've also wondered about a "hanger-on" in Alexander's office. News reports seem to suggest that the entire staff quit, however.

Neo

The biggest thing that the media have not picked up on yet is that the longer they look gleeful over the Foley affair, the more they are pissing off the Republican base.

The base, if nothing else, doesn't like being hit with a 2 X 4 by smiling and laughing folks who expect them to ask for another.

Gabriel Sutherland

Alexander's former staff that resigned would not be a "former Republican staffer". Alexander Bolton still says it's a Republican. Brian Ross and ABC still say it is a former Congressional staffer.

Are any of Alexander's departed staff former employees of Republicans?

Dick Tuck

"One senior Republican official sympathetic to Speaker Dennis Hastert said that Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, last spring promised both Rep. John Shimkus, the chairman of the page board, and a top assistant to Hastert that he would make sure Foley behaved himself."

But Hastert claimed he didn't know anything. Does it really strike anyone as sick that Repbulican leadership would tell some staffer, who wasn't even Foley's staffer, to make sure this sexual predator stops preying on pages? Is that how they exercise their responsibility toward those kids? Tell the predator to stop?

What a joke.

topsecretk9

And lets not forget the version SSP has is vastly formatted differently than CREW's so-called weird recreated set.


---I need to be schooled on the CREW link to Rogers. Tucker's transcript doesn't say that Rogers mentioned CREW at all.---

CREW is the outfit that turned them OVER to authorities (in July apparently)

Rogers obtained them and "confirmed" they had been handed over to the proper authorities...

And then when I had first received them I made sure that I immediately confirmed that they had been handed over to the proper law enforcement authorities prior to my obtaining them

Who did Rogers confirm they had been turned over to Authorities with? Not the FBI or they'd ask for his copies, right? Someone confirmed they had been turned over and the only ones to turn them over was CREW, and CREW did not go public until AFTER ABC...it suggests at least a coordinated effort here. Someone in contact with CREW or CREW told him they'd been turned over.

Neo

Blenheim: If it didn't come from Foley's office, it had to go through Alexander's office. Hastert mentioned yesterday that the Speaker's Office did not retain a copy of the 2005 e-mails, so if it didn't come from the page or his folks, it had to come out of Alexander's office.

Dick Tuck: make the distinction between Hastert and Hartert's Office. It seems the spring deal was with the office.

sad

Remember the sourcing from the Plame affair and how "creative" that turned out to be. Remember also how people with hard left agendas (scary larry) like to identify themselves as Republicans when dishing lies about republicans.

Blenheim

Gabriel:
Maybe it's a play on words. Given the party switcharoo, ALL of Alexander's departed staff are former employees of Republicans. Is that a little too cute?

Gabriel Sutherland

TS: I think that case for a link between Roger's description of "proper authorities" and CREW's description of the FBI is a weak one.

Rogers needs to indicate who exactly he views as the "proper authorities". He has already denied that he is the editor of SSP. He would confirm or deny if "proper authorities" were CREW. Someone should ask him.

Gabriel Sutherland

Blenheim: Those would be awfully loose words to characterize staff terminated just hours after their boss registered as a Republican as "Republican staffers".

This is a good question that one could pose to Alexander Bolton. Would he characterize Alexander's former staff as "Republican staffers"?

Marianne

Cathy F, you can blame the teens and maybe in 1 or more cases the teen initiated the contact and/or egged him on. But the 3 former pages ABC reported on last night all claim that the Congressman initiated contact with them.

topsecretk9

--…Alexander’s abrupt party switch shocked Democratic lawmakers, who called him a “traitor” and a “turncoat” who betrayed them without notice. Alexander filed as a Republican just minutes before the filing deadline on Aug. 6 [2004], just days after first filing as a Democrat….--

They were pissed at Alexander...is it beyond belief someone went to work for him, with a closeted meanie agenda?

--Top:
I was suggesting that Fordham could be the tipster, and wondering whether there was bad blood between him and Foley.--

Yes, I re-read what you said. Sorry.

However, Fordham apparantly tried to cut a deal with Ross so he wouldn't go with the IM's.

Gabriel Sutherland

Update: In my little FYI post earlier I mentioned that CREW's version of the Foley email timeline may have changed. I can now report that the timeline did not change. CREW's spokesperson just fumbled, but recovered her own fumble.

clarice

Marianne. I notice ABC has a tip line for former Foley pages. Unfortunately, they do not require identification so anyone could send stuff in. Do any of these three have documentation. Have any revealed his identity so his story can be tested?

SunnyDay

Has anyone noticed AJ's notes on the dates of the faxes - it looks like they would have been faxed from LA during the Katrina mess. Is that likely?

T Miller

I really don't know what to make of CREW, but they have a spokesperson who gives live interviews, while the FBI has unnamed sources. Often the FBI has an identified spokeperson, so why not this time?

SunnyDay

so his story can be tested?

I guess it would be risky to send in some made up IM's, to test it and see. sigh.

SunnyDay

TMiller - the FBI is not supposed to be leaking info about an ongoing investigation, I think.

T Miller

But they are leaking, and trying to discredit CREW.

cathyf
Does it really strike anyone as sick that Repbulican leadership would tell some staffer, who wasn't even Foley's staffer, to make sure this sexual predator stops preying on pages? Is that how they exercise their responsibility toward those kids? Tell the predator to stop?
Well, until last week the grand total of Foley's known "predation" is that he was gay and exchanged bland pleasantries with teenaged adults. As such, he caused them to think about the fact that homosexuals exist, which for a large number of teenaged adult males is excruciatingly awful.

I don't see any reason why grownups should have taken their "ewwwww!!! gross!!!! I can't believe faggots are allowed to live!!!" freaking out even as seriously as the grownups did.

sad

But they are leaking, and trying to discredit CREW.

CREW has not needed any help with that to date.

Neo

The third page interviewed by ABC News, a graduate of the 1998 page class, said Foley's instant messages began while he was a senior in high school.
"Foley would say he was sitting in his boxers and ask what I was wearing," the page said.
"It became more weird, and I stopped responding," the page said.

The real question is why wasn't this the story with all the pages ?
Why didn't they report this to their page supervisor ?
Where were the page supervisors ?

Apparently for page Jordan Edmund, the story was that he was too busy sticking to the (gay) man. He treated the whole exchange as a big joke, attempting to draw out as much as he could from Foley, for kicks and giggles. Was Jordan ever in any peril from Foley ? It sure doesn't seem so. He was having so much fun.

Beyond Foley himself, the real scandal is that nobody was policing the activities of the pages, who were busy using an internet prophylactic to participate in "safe sex."

SunnyDay

House Republicans Want Democrats to Appear Before Ethics Committee

Cliff

Marianne, If you go to the ABC site that Clarice mentions, you will see that ANYONE can make a claim there, but you will also notice that these "tips" cannot be verified.

Enlightened

Yo Dick- I know it's hard, but give it a try -

1) The page in question, that Foley resigned over, turned over e-mails to Alexander that had no sexual content. Therefore - no sexual malfeasance. Are you with me? Not "sexual predation". If you can explain that to Malkin too it would help.

2) Can you provide proof from the e-mails in question that "predation" ie: "preying" occurred? Since the page's parents (whose "moral authority is absolute" regarding their son - just ask Dowd)made it quite clear nothing "offensive" took place. Are you in there?

Try as you might, a herculean task no doubt, repeating the same words over and over, until the day you die - will not make it true.

Marianne

"Do any of these three have documentation. Have any revealed his identity so his story can be tested?"

ABC claims to have checked out the 3, and state that one of them has talked with the FBI this week. Some of the IM's are on the ABC website.

I'm not vouching for any of this, but the attempt to make this solely into a "Foley is a victim" scenario is disturbing. It will only discourage teens in other situations who feel they have been victims of sexual predators from coming forward.

Gabriel Sutherland

T Miller: Here is the only on the record comment I am aware of from the FBI regarding CREW's passing of the 'overly friendly' emails to the FBI in July.

WAPO Story

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."

Blenheim

"However, Fordham apparantly tried to cut a deal with Ross so he wouldn't go with the IM's."

Right, but that was when the whole thing was going public. What else could he do? Particularly since he now claims to have been concerned about Foley for years, Fordham is clearly a person of interest. He seems to have left Foley's staff in January 2004, I'd like to know more about the circumstances of that break.

Enlightened

Neo - Agreed. Why is it impossible for the majority of the nutroots to wrap their head around the FACT that just ONE page said he "stopped responding".

If I was receiving sexually explicit content in IM, and I was not interested, or was grossed out - no response ends it then and there.

So we are supposed to believe that these pages were so offended, they kept responding not of their own free will? How the hell does that work?

I mean- no means no - right? So, did they all say No and Foley kept sending messages anyway? And still they did - nothing?

topsecretk9

Here is some of Rodney's staff...

2006
http://www.legistorm.com/member/Hon_Rodney_Alexander/106/5.html

2005
http://www.legistorm.com/member/Hon_Rodney_Alexander/106/4.html

Another 2005

http://www.legistorm.com/member/Hon_Rodney_Alexander/106/3.html

Neo

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) to appear before Ethics Committee. This may get juicy.

Geek, Esq.

Where would anyone get the idea that there are significant numbers of gay-bashers amongst conservative Republicans?

clarice

Fordham is certainly a person of interest whose story has changed under minimal media questioning.
As for trying to figure out anonymous sources from press descriptions, we know from Plame that's impossible--the press lies.

As for the anonymous three new sources--does it add anything to the Hastert knew story? I don't think so. And for all we know their stories are no more credible than Edmund's at this point. And remember we only know about him because Ross was careless in posting identifiers , a blogger winkled it out and Drudge got the scoop on him.

If Drudge is wrong--and his sources stand by their story that Edmunds was playing a prank--why did Edmunds hire a criminal lawyer to represent him? And in the public mind at this point, who is more credible about what CREW had, when they had it and when they turned it over--CREW or the FBI?

Patton

I have a list of straight, heterosexual Democrats that do not engage in deviant behavior and I plan to provide it to all those left wing radical wacko groups bent on stopping such people from pushing their straight, non-deviant agenda.

It won't take long, its just two names.

paul

If Harold Ford's name was on the gay list, do you think Corn would spill the beans?

Let me be fair:

I also ask if George Bush's name was on the list would Corn tell?

Is it crossing the line of journalism, into partisanship, when you disclose the gay members of one side but not the other?

since we are being led to speculate who on the gop side made the list-I repeat in the same partisna spirit of david Corn and Lawrence O'Donnell:

Is harold ford gay?

Blenheim

It seems to me that, relative to the emails from the kid in LA, there are only four possible sources for the emails to have been leaked to the public: 1) the kid or his family 2) Someone in Alexander's office 3) Someone in Reynolds office, or; 4) Someone in Foley's office. Fordham had direct access to the emails and Smoot might have had access. Smoot had a personal and partisan motive to expose Foley. As a Republican, Fordham's motive would have to be personal.

Cliff

Marianne said,
"I'm not vouching for any of this, but the attempt to make this solely into a "Foley is a victim" scenario is disturbing."

What should disturb you more is that the MSM and the dem party were so fast and sloppy with this story that they made obvious and embarassing errors in their rush to report and judge. The story was based upon a prank, the I.Ms were cut and pasted together, the age of the "victoms" were within the age of concent, etc.
All of this perfectly timed one month before the election, wow, dosen't that bother you, even a little?

T Miller

I'm sorry - it was an unidentified spokesperson at Justice, not the FBI, that told CBSNews that CREW had redacted information and not responded to questions:

"The Justice Department told CBSNews that in July, when Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) provided the "innocuous" e-mails to the FBI, they were heavily redacted. CREW adamantly denies that and says they provided an FBI agent with complete, unredacted e-mails.

The Justice Department also said that the FBI asked CREW to go back to its source and ask for more information so it could follow up, but CREW refused. That's why the FBI, Justuice said, did nothing further at that time. CREW says the FBI made no such follow-up requests for more information at any time. An FBI agent did place one clarifying phone call on the day CREW turned over the e-mails to double-check that Mark Foley was the congressman involved, CREW said.

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story failed to present CREW's account."That was a mistake for which we apologize.

Sue

Geek,

I'm sure it would surprise the hell out of you to find out democrats are also anti-gay but vote democrat because they like the free stuff?

Gabriel Sutherland

Blenheim: Another stick in the spokes of the Foley/Fordham story is that Fordham left Foley's staff to become chief of staff to Tom Reynolds. This was just after Reynolds was appointed to be Republican Congressionl Campaign Committe chairman. Bob Novak reported that Reynolds personally asked Foley to run again in his Florida district so Reynolds could mark the seat off as a safe keeper.

If Fordham is the source of the 'overly friendly' emails then he not only tanks Foley's career, he also risks the career of his boss, and the Republican majority in the House.

Cliff

Sunnyday said,
"House Republicans Want Democrats to Appear Before Ethics Committee"

Wow! That will get this investigation shut down pretty quick!

T Miller

Fordham had a job between stints with Foley and Reynolds, working with the Martinez campaign in FL.

Gabriel Sutherland

clarice: Edmund's criminal attorney has already filed one motion, not in a court though. He sent a cease & decist letter to "Wild Bill" of the Passionate America Blog.

link

sad

I'm not vouching for any of this, but the attempt to make this solely into a "Foley is a victim" scenario is disturbing. It will only discourage teens in other situations who feel they have been victims of sexual predators from coming forward.

And there is no greater set-back for the cause of catching and stopping sexual abuse than to have false accusers.

Cliff

Here's a good website to go to:

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/

Good stuff!

Neo

A strike against (?) Fordham is that he tried to do the deal with ABC's Brian Ross.

Who was he trying to save ? Foley looked dead anyway. Was he just trying to cover himself because of the spring deal with Hastert's office ? Which he obviously failed on his part to do.

clarice

Thanks, Gabriel--Isn't this part of the lawyer's letter interesting?

'Neither ABC News nor Brian Ross have been error free in their reporting in the past. You should not assume that they are correct now. Like all individuals and institutions, they occasionally make mistakes. Therefore, I respectfully demand that you cease any further efforts to identify our client with these alleged Ims and cease publishing such information on Passionate America. Neither you nor Passionate American is authorized to use any photograph of him, his name or his personal information. You should consult with an attorney who is experienced in civil and criminal liability regarding the internet. If you are correct that ABC News should not have released the alleged AOL screen name and that ABC News has risked civil and criminal liability because of the unauthorized release, then your republication of the unauthorized release likewise exposes you to possible liability.****

The lawyer seems to dispute Ross' story, doesn't he? And is he just going after one poor blogger or has he also made a claim against ABC?

Neo

clarice: looks like this explains a bit

Passionate America threatened by Edmund’s attorney

Blenheim

I'm not overly impressed with the prank story. And, anyway, I don't see how it's really relevant to the issue of Foley or House misconduct.

"why did Edmunds hire a criminal lawyer to represent him?"

I can't think of any factual scenario in which an IM participant (as a minor, an adult, a prankster or not a prankster) has engaged in a crime. I've considered some kind of blackmail scheme, but that seems a little farfetched. There is an FBI investigation and the kid is a witness, maybe the defense attorney is intended to help with that.

Sue

http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/stephen-jones-demands-i-pull-jordan.html>Passionate America has been threatened by the lawyer for Jordan Edmund.

Gabriel Sutherland

Neo: Fordham appears as if by trying to keep the instant messages off the air he is protecting Foley. But I think the attempt to keep the instant messages off the air is an attempt to protect Reynolds.

Obviously, once Reynolds got word of Fordham's alleycat channeling, he probably posed a "WTF were thinking" question to Fordham.

Clarice: Stephen Jones can just say that ABC News took the instant messages down that showed the correct screenname. Wild Bill could just do the same. ABC isn't naming Jordan Edmund, are they?

Neo

I wonder if Drudge got one too.

His "CLAIM" is still up.

Cliff

I just went to, "Passionate America"

No wonder they want to shut him down! He's got this thing nailed!

norm d'plume

former air america engineer outed as myspace teen predator

clarice

Gabriel--look at the part of the lawyer's letter that I bolded..He seems to be disputing Ross' account, isn't he?

I haven't researched the privacy issue once the name has already been published. My guess would be, there is no liability. But that may depend on state law.

Geek, moron

Look, another gay bashing site full of conservative Republicans.

And another one!

And another conservative site that's even worse that FR!

My God, they're everywhere!

Cliff

"former air america engineer outed as myspace teen predator"

Wanna play Hardball, dems? If you keep this charade up, you'll find yourself wrestling with this in the sewer!

norm d'plume

former air america engineer outed as myspace teen predator

Actually there should be a (?) after the word former.

clarice

Gabe--this reminds me of CREW's laughed out of Court claim on behalf of Wilson/Plame that they should be released from theobligation of listing their address on the pleadings out of privacy concerns when they had been quite public.

I do not see how these IM's could have gotten into Ross' hands if Edmunds hadn't passed them on to others.(Well unless someone on the other end of things released them but that seems highly improbable.)

Marianne

Sad, I totally agree that false accusations are equally bad. In the current situation, this is the situation from a teen's perspective:

1) A teenager complains that he finds attention from an adult sicksicksick... and asks someone in that person's organization to look into it. The adult is asked to stop contacting that one teenager, and apparently does so. But there does not seem to be any serious effort to learn if there are other instances.
2) Later it is learned that, perhaps unknown to that first teen, the adult has contacted many other teens in the group, and some of the communications were of an overtly sexual nature.
3) Looking back at how the problem could be so much worse than at first thought, it is discovered that the chair of the committee responsible had taken upon himself to deal with it, and had not even informed the other 2 committee members. One of the senior people involved also asserts that the problem had been recognized 2 years earlier, but not resolved.
4) Supporters of the senior people in the adult's organization are now blaming the teens who were the recipients of the messages, questioning their motives, and demanding that they publicly identify themselves.

In other words, the adults are rallying around their own.

All of this could have been avoided in a non-public way if the House leadership had addressed the problem rather than sweeping it under the rug.

Now you can all jump on me. But first consider how many other Republican voters might see it the way I do, and think about how you can reach out to us.

verner

Getting back to the wretched Rodgers. So he was contacted by the "Stop Predators" website huh. Which leads us back to Royal Oaks MI.

I have been doodling on google. I have found out a little info on the page adelaidemocrat who was participating in the discussion about the book deal. I won't put up his name, but any of you could have done the same with a minimum of time and effort, and the right google search terms.

The kid lives about 30 miles away from Royal Oaks.(IPS of SSP) His family appear to be democrats, but not moonbatty like Miss Robin (but who knows!) Couldn't really find his name associated with any of the usual DU suspects either--but again, who knows. He was in the page class of 2001-2002, and left in January of 2002.

Anyhow, obviously knows many of the players in question. I've got an e-mail if anyone wants to get in touch--it may still work.

Neo

Meanwhile, the mysterious blogger who first posted some of the e-mails at StopSexPredators.blogspot.com fended off queries about his identity.

"I am not Karl Rove, Mark Foley, or John Boehner," he wrote at the site, referring to the presidential aide, the disgraced congressman and the House majority leader.

"I am not employed in Democratic politics. I am not 'funded' by George Soros," the blogger said. "I'm nobody that anybody should care about. So, please, go about your day as if I don't exist."

Thank God it's not Karl Rove.

Blenheim

Gabriel:
Maybe he didn't realize all this would happen. Perhaps he leaked the emails when he first learned of them as a way of getting back at Foley (for some reason) or as an act of political of moral conscience (i.e., boy scandals can be politically dangerous or congressional boy-chasing is wrong). If I were a Republican insider, and I knew about Foley, I'd be very concerned about an embarrassing scandal. Maybe Fordham tried to tank Foley last year, when there was time to find a new candidate, but didn't figure on the delay?

Extraneus

I think it's time for Foley himself to come out, become a sympathetic figure, and blow this thing wide open:

1. Yes, I'm gay. I had intended to keep that private for the sake of my parents, but recent events have unfortunately made that impossible. I have spent the past few days discussing my sexual orientation with my family, whom I love very dearly, and they have been extremely supportive. (Pause and give loving sister a meaningful look before continuing.)

2. I have never engaged in any illegal behavior, and in particular I have never written any sexually suggestive emails to anyone under the legal age of consent. (Get that confluence going his way. And even if he has, it would take an actual criminal investigation quite a while to even charge him, much less get through a trial. And who knows, he could always end up with a pardon anyway.)

3. I've been the target of an obvious political dirty trick -- conceived, carried out, aided and abetted by the Democrat leadership and their willing allies on the far left and in the media -- which has ruined my long career as an honest, law-abiding, thoughtful and caring public servant. These same people, who have no positive agenda or vision with which to lead this nation, have given up trying to convince the American people to vote for them on the basis of their ideas, and instead have, in a time of war and national danger, tried every lie and dirty trick to bring down this great Adminstration and the wonderful party I've been a part of all my life.

4. The Republican Party has always been supportive of me, inclusive of my sexuality, and respectful of my privacy.

5. I've been the target of extreme-left gay activists for quite some time, and while it is true that I'm gay, I do not agree with their extreme political agenda, and in particular I do not believe that it is in the national interest to change the laws of marriage to accomodate same-sex marriage. This has caused me no end of problems, but I maintain this opinion, which has ultimately been the cause of my biggest troubles.

etc.

Patton

Marianne said,
"I'm not vouching for any of this, but the attempt to make this solely into a "Foley is a victim" scenario is disturbing."

Not as disturbing as the lefts and the medias attempts to turn terrorists into 'the victim'.

If Foley was just gay, ABC wouldn't have a story.

If Foley was just gay and an alcolholic, ABC wouldn't have a story.

If Foley were just gay, alcoholic and sent
e-mails to 18 year old consenting adults, again no story.

So just what exactly am I to comdemn Foley for? Please someone provide one piece of hard PROOF that he DID something that the Democrat party or the lamestream media hasn't had no problem with in the past.

ABC has been caught lying repeatedly in their attempts to push this story. Just like when it was CBS's turn last time to lead with the big smear just before the election.

The fact is you have NO idea what Foley actually did, you don't know if this wasn't a prank, you don't know if a staffer sat down and used Foleys IM account while he was on the floor voting.

If I said that Ted Kennedy slept with a Senate page would you condemn him? Would you if you found out it happened 10 years later and the former page was now 26?

All I have seen basically proven so far is Foley sent an e-mail to an 18 year old asking for a picture. The rst has been a smoke screen meant to decive and not put real facts on the table that are testable.

Why doesn't ABC make the original files available? Why doesn't CREW? So we can track their pedigree?

ABC is saying no different then they got them from some Mexican girl at a rodeo.

clarice

AJ has a new post up about the doctoring of the email correspondence and concludes:
"either ABC News, or CREW, or the original source dictated or worked with SSP to create faked versions - which supposedly broke the story

SSP did not get the any emails from any Page or friend of the Page. That is clear because all emails have a date field (magically missing from the SSP creations). The emails at SSP are clearly forgeries that were based on the information in the posession of CREW and ABC News because the text is accurate, just not all the punctuation. And SSP went out of their way to over-copy their faked versions in order to make them look old (a classic naive trick when any electronic file attached to an email or any email forwarded can be printed pristine by the receiver).

So the SSP site is a fake as everyone suspected. But who was the source for ABCNews and CREW which redacted so much of the headers on the emails?
"


http://www.strata-sphere.com/blog/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame