Powered by TypePad

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

October 06, 2006



abc's latest scoop:

the three new pages all worked for democrats.(If they worked for the gop-they would have come with either the first or second salvo from CREW/ABC/Ross)

either they never complained to their sponsors, or their DEMOCRATIC sponsors covered it up.

in either case, the three certainly don't help.


Extraneus: I don't think anybody would buy into #2

If he said instead that he had his own personal problems with his sexual orientation, but that he was careful to never actually have physical sexual contact with any of his internet contacts, some folks might buy it.

But he's toast.


Is David Corn gay or does he just naturally talk funny?


three new pages all worked for democrats

Doe this end the meme about the democrat pages not knowing ?


danking70: David Corn talks funny

His sexual orientation is his business.

Nancy Pelosi and CREW

On a sex scandal involving gay men, If we've lost Andrew Sullivan, we've lost middle America:

The most infuriating aspect of the Mark Foley fiasco is that we're still unclear on what exactly it is we're infuriated about. This was not pedophilia: The pages involved were all above the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C. It wasn't exactly pederasty either, given that we have no evidence (at least not yet) of any actual sexual contact between two live human beings. Sexual harassment? It doesn't appear that, at the time of the now-infamous instant messages, the pages were in Foley's employ.

We've been reduced to shrieking "Eeek! A gay Republican! Hide the children!"

How pathetic.

I hate you, Rove.


At some point, someone at ABC is going to go to Brian Ross, and have him put all the cards on the table.

By the timing of the releases, it would appear that this is being run as a legal argument thru or BY, abc news. I have a feeling that the fbi investigation will cramp this style.

If Koppel is still at the network, he puts a stop to it. I expect absolutely nothing from Mark Halperin. I do expect something out of David Gergen, but he is just staff.


Gee, weren't all of CBSs TANG documents also in PDF format?

I don't remember ever getting a PDF format e-mail.

Just what are they hiding?


Andy utilizes a cute hole that just would fly .. pages involved were all above the legal age of consent in Washington, D.C.

The imfamous e-mails were to a 17 year old in Louisana .. it is Louisana .. what is the age of consent in LA ?


ABC continues to NEEDLESSLY blur the distinctions.

Why can't ABC put on their website from very simple information:

Were the e-mails/IMs happening while you were a page, or a 'former' page.

Were the sexual e-mail/IMs when you were a page or former page.

Were the sexual e-mails/IMs before/after you were 18, 17, 16.

How are you sure Foley sent each and every item and not someone using his account?
You claim Foley did it, but all you really are saying is you received a communication which purported to be from one of his accounts, is that accuate?

Gabriel Sutherland

Where is ABC reporting that all three of the pages were sponsored by Democrats?

I had not read this story until now, but it's clear that one of the pages ABC is quoting is likely to be Christopher Katsaros.

I have to double check the years and classes, but this is what ABC reports.

The page said Foley maintained e-mail contact with him even after he started college and arranged a sexual liaison after the page had turned 18.
This page was in the class of 2000. That would mean he graduated high school in 2002.(Is the page program a September-December gig or a January-May gig?) He also had to be local to Washington, or maybe Florida.

Chris Katsaros attends school in DC. He is enrolled at Georgetown.


SSP is a real mystery. Obviously, some one was trying to launder the information. The kid, Fordham, Smoot, or an as yet unknown staffer all had a reason to want to cover their tracks. So did any "second generation" recipients of the emails like CREW & Co, Mahoney's campaign, or the FL newspaper reporters that got a hold of the emails.


I must say that I think the idea that ABC goes trolling for contacts by a lonely gay guy is .. weird.

I mean if Jerry Falwell did this .. the yelling the screaming the gnashing of teeth .. from the folks at ABC would be deafening, not to meantion any one else.

hit and run

PDF = Pretty Damn Fakable (even if not convincingly so)

Gabriel Sutherland

Isn't Mark Halperin's father Morton Halperin? Mort Halperin runs Soros' Open Society Institute.


By the way, this isn't Patton, he's on a trip.

I have been using his screen name.

Bet you all were thinking it was the same guy all along.


norm d'plume

above the masthead at drudge...

CNN: PAGE LAWYER DOES NOT RULE 'IN OR OUT' PRANK CLAIM... DEVELOPING... Former congressional page Jordan Edmund's lawyer Stephen Jones... BLITZER: He will join us live in the next hour. What are you hearing, Brian, about some of these Internet suggestions, some Republicans suggesting this whole thing is a prank, a hoax and there is no there, there.

CNN REPORTER: "We asked him about that item in the DRUDGE REPORT. He said very clearly he cannot rule that in, he cannot rule that out. He says he is not saying it was not a prank but later in the interview, CNN pressed him on that. He said that he -- he does not read the DRUDGE REPORT, not part of his regular reading and, quote, it sounds like a piece of fiction...

BLITZER: He says the DRUDE REPORT item sounds like a piece of fiction?

CNN REPORTER: He did say that, but important to note he says he is not ruling it in or out.


CNN: PAGE LAWYER DOES NOT RULE 'IN OR OUT' PRANK CLAIM... DEVELOPING... Former congressional page Jordan Edmund's lawyer Stephen Jones... BLITZER: He will join us live in the next hour. What are you hearing, Brian, about some of these Internet suggestions, some Republicans suggesting this whole thing is a prank, a hoax and there is no there, there.

CNN REPORTER: "We asked him about that item in the DRUDGE REPORT. He said very clearly he cannot rule that in, he cannot rule that out. He says he is not saying it was not a prank but later in the interview, CNN pressed him on that. He said that he -- he does not read the DRUDGE REPORT, not part of his regular reading and, quote, it sounds like a piece of fiction...

BLITZER: He says the DRUDE REPORT item sounds like a piece of fiction?

CNN REPORTER: He did say that, but important to note he says he is not ruling it in or out.



What I find weird about SSP, is before the "scanned" picture versions of the page emails...SSP posted made up dictation emails that all reference Foley from supposed anon readers - to look like they were just cut and pasted into post (the problem in in the headers of those) starting around September 21.

They are all so contrived and stupid - an the headers so dumb, they are obviously made up. So why change procedure - SSP doctors header info in the so-called anon emails and semi conceals the email address and then "cuts and pastes" the so-called message

Then SSP makes says of the Foley SCANNED version...

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? There must be even more out there. Email me at stopsexpredators@gmail.com and let me know what we should do!!!! Something must be done!!!!

So someone EMALED SCANS of an Email that is formatted so majorly different than CREWs. and in turn SSP emails Rogers to say SSP has a version as well? First, I am not buying someone emailed scans that SSP then printed out and redacted then rescanned, i think they goofed --

***Secondly, how DID SSP check the authenticity of the emails and verify the recipient?***

Why are there two sets of emails?

T Miller

From today's Chicago Tribune - as Republican a newspaper as there is west of Wall Street:

"Comments that Hastert made in a Tribune interview suggesting the scandal had been orchestrated by ABC News, Democratic political operatives aligned with the Clinton White House and liberal activist George Soros were considered a serious misstep in national Republican circles, an official said. Senior Republican officials contacted Hastert's office before his news conference Thursday to urge that he not repeat the charges, and he backed away from them in his news conference.

'The Chicago Tribune interview last night-the George Soros defense--was viewed as incredibly inept," a national Republican official said. "It could have been written by [comedian] Jon Stewart.' "

So all the people pushing conspiracy theories here must be Dem operatives?



Yes Gabriel, that is father and son..


Marianne - Not trying to bash but you seem to be conflating the issue -

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.

The (first)teen had the inoffensive, non-sexual emails from last year.

The sexually explicit IM's happened in 2003 - years before. Hastert's office and the Reublicans knew NOTHING about those!.

The IM instances came about AFTER the inappropriate emails because whoever is driving this fiasco sent out a blanket e-mail to the pages, probably via the page alumni network asking if anyone was involved in any Mark Foley malfeasance. So whoever is driving this wanted MORE than just "inappropriate" communications between Foley and a page - they wanted something more lurid because their intention all along was to destroy the man.

Hastert and the Republicans can hardly be called "circling the adults" when their incident was not inflammatory, and was considered "not offensive" by the page's own parents.

People need to keep track of the separate incidences. Hastert and the Republicans knew only about emails of no sexual content since August of last year.

norm d'plume

Chicago Tribune - as Republican a newspaper as there is west of Wall Street

???? You've got to be kidding.



this is a frind of CK and was also a page

-- am very open minded and active in the Democratic Party. My junior year of high school I was a Congressional Page.--


latest comment -

10/2/2006 11:18 PM

Ahh!! Saw you on CNN, you were great! I'm so proud of you!! Good job!!


Personally, whether the paper is right or left and whether the report is accurate about complaints to Hastert--I think he's doing exactly the right thing and forcing this farce to unravel even faster than it might otherwise. Thoush I appreciate TMiller's obvious concern for what is the best course of action for the party to pursue.


Another interesting figure in all of this is Loraditch. As the president (webmaster) of the page alum group, he would have been a central clearinghouse for page chatter. Maybe the kid sent the emails to him but asked that they be kept confidential. There a juvenile quality about SSP and the DKos "intern" posts that would make Loraditch a likely suspect.


Yup. And he reportedly said he'd seen steamy IMs.


"Where is ABC reporting that all three of the pages were sponsored by Democrats?"

If they were gop-aides, ABC would have told you by now.

With Jordan, as the second salvo, they needed it to look like this was bi-partisan in the accusers. Since foley was a gop guy, the story had to establish the credentials of the accusers.

In court, you present your most believable witnesses first, before the jury loses its attention in the case.

Once establishing credible accusations, you then can bring in the outlandishly biased, so long as they echo what your 'honest guys' said. Like inserting a knife and twisting...

hence I deduce that 1)if these witnesses had crediblity on their own, ABC/CREW would have come out with them at the same time as Jordan.

This third salvo is simply a cluster bomb of accusers. Nothing special on their own, but greater than the sum of their parts.

norm d'plume

NewsBusters on the lib bias of the Chicago Trib.

for example...

Chicago Tribune Editorialized in Favor of Mel Reynolds Pardon In 2000

Posted by Tim Graham on October 6, 2006 - 12:55.

The editorialists at the Chicago Tribune aren't ready yet to declare that Speaker Dennis Hastert has to be tossed aside, but before they get too high and mighty about the safety of teenagers from lecherous Members of Congress, we should recall that the Trib editorialized in favor of what would become Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of Mel Reynolds, the convicted teen-sex/child-porn/obstruction of justice Democratic congressman. Headlined "Reynolds, Not Rosty, Needs Mercy," the Trib complained that disgraced Dan Rostenkowski didn't need the Clinton pardon, unlike Reynolds:

Mel Reynolds, elected in 1992 after knocking off 2nd District incumbent Gus Savage, was convicted on state charges related to his sexual relationship with a teenage girl, and then on federal charges of bank and campaign fraud. He's been locked up since October, 1995, first doing his state time and then going to federal prison to serve an unusually harsh 61/2-year sentence that, if nothing is done, will keep him behind bars until March, 2003 -- leaving his wife and three young children to fend for themselves.


I didn't mean to further confuse the emails and IM's and their respective timing. As for the boy's parents, I do find it interesting that he approched his Rep's office without their knowledge, and Alexander's office brought them in. Maybe the boy would have preferred that they not know? Just thinking. I don't know how my kids would have handled a situation like this.


I bet we learn the Edmunds IM's were coaxed out of Edmunds under false pretenses.



The other day I heard a local guy who is very active in politics around here say that he was glad he was a Democrat because the Republican party is full of fags and he hates fags.

Moral of the story is that you can find that kind of stuff everywhere. Sad but true and it seems that right now the Democrats are doing everything they can to exploit this kind of prejudice in the hopes it will help them win an election. It is craven and unprincipled.

They call George Bush a terrorist and then pander to the kind of people who not only do not support gay marriage, they don't think gays should be allowed to live at all.

The last time I heard someone ask a politician if he was a Jew was a snotty little reporter going after Allen. I thought at the time that I could not believe what a reactionary bunch of idiots liberals and Democrats are turning into.


Starta has more...

--Well, it seems CREW and ABC News are pleading to the public for understanding by now releasing versions of the Foley emails. And they are not the same versions. The content is the same, but there are some interesting differences. Here is the CREW version (I tore apart in this previous post) and here is the ABC News-Blotter version.

Something to note is these are both from a single source printed out on 9/13/05. However, in the CREW version we see “Page X of 1″ in the upper right hand corner, which is blotted out in most cases by the Facsimile time page numbering. The highest number is ‘9 of 1′ which means the Fax was over ten pages. We do not see all 9 pages, we see only 4 of them. These “Page of X” headings are not in the ABC News version. Still pondering what that means...

T Miller

The Tribune is so anxious to prevent Dems from being elected that they supported George Ryan for Governor even when there was substantial evidence of the crimes for which he was convicted. The Trib, to their credit, actually aplogized later to his opponent.

Anyway, the entire "Dems are behind it all" theory should be left to the blogs until there is something more substantial, and definitely not repeated by the Speaker of the House.

After a week, there isn't much meat on the bone. And it isn't resonating with the soccer moms - security moms.


You have a hotline to soccer moms? security moms? Nascar dads? Whatever is the Dems magic demographic this time? LOL TMiller. You are so EZ


I have to wonder, if Foley was really bothering all these kids all this time, why are we just now hearing from them?

I mean some guy comes to ABC after years, and starts talking about this? How can this be verified?

Remember when women came out of the woodwork talking about Clinton grabbing them? No one paid any real attention to them. The Democrats just called it a vast right wing conspiracy.

But this is even stranger. How can we know if they even had any contact with Foley at all? One of them goes back to 1998. Bill Clinton was President back then and Hastert was not in the leadership.

The whole thing is getting more absurd with every passing day.

Wilson's a Liar

I'm kind of amazed that nobody has made the comparison between this case and the cases of Republican congressional staffers getting their hands on outrageous Democrat strategy memos from the Senate Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee. In both of the latter cases, the MSM totally ignored the outrageous substance of the memos, and focused their ire on the Republican staffers who surreptitiously got the memos from open committee servers. The Republican staffers were forced to resign and Democrats made a big stink about it.

Yet, when some of us start to dig into who actually obtained the alleged emails and IMs allegedly sent by Mark Foley, somehow we are the scum and we are trying to change the subject, etc. etc. Isn't the way these emails came to light just as important? And even moreso, if it does in fact turn out to be an orchestrated "October surprise" dirty trick, which the others were not?

I say, Bloggers, keep digging! Most of the time these kinds of orchestrated hits have a mistake or two buried within them that give the perp away. We know the media will not find them.

norm d'plume

Ryan is a hero to the libs at the Trib (and everywhere) because he commuted the sentences of all convicts on death row.


I am. I hope to find time to write on Crew and the media's treatement of the Senate staffer, Manny Miranda.


Glad to see Geek, "Esq" back from the tall grass, where he went to hide after being wrong about nearly everything he ever addressed here.

I expect the tradition will continue.



I think it is funny how the (leftie) media pundits are salivating on air how the evengelicals will be disgusted by this Foley scandal and stay home and not vote for the Republicans.

Do they really think a gay man acting in the way evangelicals stereotype gay men actually would turn evangelicals away from the Republican party? Instead I predict that evangelicals will be even MORE inspired to get out and vote Republican by this "gay" scandal so that they can fight harder against gay issues such as gay marriage and gay boy scout leaders. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out- and I'm not even a well-paid pundit.

T Miller

Terrye, This story is about high school students, and yes, the Press will hold Republicans to a different standard.

T Miller

There is new Wilson / Plame / Libby thread up.


T Miller:

So where do you think this stuff came from right at election time? Do you think the IMs fell like manna from heaven?

I have not noticed Democrats using any restraint where this is concerned. The facts run a slow second to winning. Which makes their protestations of outrage that anyone would even think for one moment that they would be involved in something so tawdry seem a little [shall we say] banal. They jumped on this like ugly on an ape as my Daddy used to say and to hell with the kids. They could care less about them.

And why didn't anyone make a complaint before in writing, in a way that could be verified? There are proper channels for this stuff and so far the only complaint we know of is one kid who felt weird. And when his family asked that he be left alone, he was, right up until the media turned his life upside down.


T Miller:

So what? Who cares if it is about high school students? High school students drive cars, they are not babies. My mother was 17 when she married my father. If anyone of these people had robbed a liquor store he would have been tried as an adultm but somehow when it comes to talking dirty they are helpless little tots. I think Foley is creepy, but I would think he was creepy even if he was a Democrat. The difference is if he was a Democrat no one would give a rat's ass.

And why should Republcians be held to a different standard? What about Independents, do they have no standards at all? Where do they fit?

Do Democrats make the campaign promis: Vote for us we rape children?

No, they do not.

In fact they tell us that they care for the little people etc, but when they do something nasty we are supposed to say, Oh well that is ok the guy is a Democrat, can't expect him to keep it in his pants.

That is self serving crap.

T Miller

Where do I think this stuff came from?

I don't know if this was (a) a clever Democrat strategy - if so, it is successful so far and I wouldn't have thought they could pull off something like this or (b) it really is being driven by pages and former pages who think they tried to go through channels, but here is Foley about to be reelected, and still Chair of the the Mising and Exploited Children's Caucus, and "let's do something about it".

If it is (a), it may be driven by liberal groups not very closely associated with the Dem Party, and not actually coordinating with the party brass. Something like conservative groups that have occasionally helped Republicans by digging into an issue and getting it into the public sphere.

But if it is(a), will the public really care? Did they care how we found out about Clinton? Or do they just remember how disgusted they felt. All most people remember is the story, not where they heard it first, or who brought it to public attention.


So, anyway... Right now, the guy couldn't look more guilty. He's hiding, and the statements made by his spokespeope couldn't have been more lame. This has allowed the thing to get way deeper than it would have if he'd stood and fought, like good ol' Bill Clinton did, and other other great Democrats before him, such as Frank, Studds, Kennedy, etc.

But even after all this time, we still can't quite figure out what he's guilty of. A crime? An unseemly sexual orientation? Seems to me that he needs to come forward, put his best face on it, and go on offense.

Speaking of which, notice the comments regarding Hastert's Soros reference and intimation of Democrat conspiracy and dirty tricks?

Anyway, the entire "Dems are behind it all" theory should be left to the blogs until there is something more substantial, and definitely not repeated by the Speaker of the House.

Oh, no... Definitely not by him. That just wouldn't be dignfied. Let's even dredge up some Republicans who agree. No... Too low a thing for Denny to jump to such conclusions. No, no, let's not go there.

Don't you just appreciate their concern for the dignity of Republicans? :-)


He's guilty of being a closeted gay. Apparently that is distasteful enough for both sides of the aisle.

It's really too bad.

T Miller

The Republican party leadership doesn't think Hastert should be the one to be mentioning the conspiracy theories, and I agree with them.


Danking, make your own mind up


I'm sure you do. Only he's the guy in the cross-hairs, and he's the guy who can be heard above the din. Oh, but yes. That was incredibly inept of him, not to mention unconvincing to soccer moms. lol


Is there any indication that any of these pages ever made a complaint, other than one young man who felt his problem had been addressed?

So far as I know there is none. So it is untrue to say they tried to go through channels, when they obviously did not.


Speaking of closet gays, that's not a cool thing to be anymore, correct? Would someone please explain why it's ok to grant such privacy to Hillary, then, and not even ask the question? Is she on the list or isn't she? This is as good a time as any to flesh that out.

T Miller

It's one thing for Rush to take callers who want to talk about the theories, or for Drudge to report on them, or Mac to blog about them, but the Speaker needs to have more than suspicions. He needs to appeal to more than the Base.

JM Hanes

Geek, Esq:

If they had FR's headstart, these folks might be giving the Freepers a run for their money. Just for fun, I ran this comparison between the DU crowd and the Freepers too. It's telling in its own way, don't you think?

T Miller

As for "going through channels", that depends on if you believe Fordham, and the jury is still out on that. It would be interesting to khow how his FBI interview went.


And you are wired into the base? I suggest you scroll thru the F.R. posts on this issue, and they are for Hastert's position. Or go to Hugh Hewitt who certainly understands the base, and he supports Hastert.


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?

Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 06, 2006 at 12:14 P

From the comments AT SSP I captured

can someone from this site contact me at mrogers@blogactive.com... Thank you so much

Why ask them to contact him if they already had?

If anyone would like to discuss this with me, please call or email Steve Rothaus, www.rothaus.net: 305-376-3770 or srothaus@MiamiHerald.com

latter in the same comment thread this appeared

couple of days later rothaus interview rogers in the miami hearld


T Miller

Exactly, Clarice. The Base is solidly behind Hastert. But he is losing he moderates. My District is at risk, and the talk around town isn't all that optimistic. Could change in a month, though.


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.

Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 06, 2006 at 11:55 AM


Jefferson has also hired a new Staff Assistant, Jack Swetland, Jr. and a new Legislative Correspondent, Traci Vincent. Swetland is a recent graduate of Louisiana State University and a former intern in Jefferson’s office. Vincent is a graduate of Louisiana State University and previously worked as Staff Assistant for Congressman Chris John (D-LA) and as Legislative Correspondent for Congressman Rodney Alexander (D-LA).


In August of 2004, Rodney Alexander”s Chief of Staff, Brian Smoot, and five other staffers abruptly quit because Alexander switched to the GOP. National Journal reported on August 13, 2004, that the Chief of Staff “sharply criticized Alexander for switching parties.” The Chief of Staff and five staffers were promptly hired by minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

In November 2005, Alexander is notified by a couple in his district that the couple”s son had gotten emails from Mark Foley that were not really kosher.

In October of 2006, we find that Alexander”s former Chief of Staff is now running the congressional campaign of Ron Klein in Florida”s 22nd Congressional District against Republican Representative Clay Shaw — a district that shares a major media market with Mark Foley”s district.

Read on . . .

From today”s Congress Daily:

Smoot is currently working as campaign manager for Democrat Ron Klein”s bid to unseat GOP Rep. Clay Shaw in Florida”s 22nd District. Shaw”s district neighbors Foley”s former 16th District. . . . When contacted, Smoot said while there is no love lost between Alexander and himself, he never worked for Pelosi and he only learned about the Foley matter from media reports. “I would be the last person to have any idea of what is going on in Alexander”s office,” said Smoot. “I had no idea about e-mails or ideas about this page and am absolutely not involved in this situation whatsoever. I also never worked for Pelosi nor have I ever worked for the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] or Democratic Party.”

Admittedly, there is a year”s gap between Smoot leaving Alexander”s employment and this happening. But this whole chain of events is certainly coincidental. And why deny working for Nancy Pelosi when it was widely reported in Roll Call and the New Orleans Times Picayune in August of 2004?

Rick Ballard


Shhhh - we're pretending we've never seen a Moby before.


*smacking palm to forehead*

Kristol--There is zero evidence that this is changing voters' attitudes.


---Why ask them to contact him if they already had?---

Let's put what Roger's said on TC

......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.

to his comment AFTER the post was up...

can someone from this site contact me at mrogers@blogactive.com... Thank you so much

Hmmm. Like you point out...they already had contacted Roger...and their email was posted in posts on the site...why would he not email them?

Roger's is just a lying sack of horrible.


and they suddenly turned comments OFF...


Ah, the base. No, the Base. Sorry. Those gay-hating Christ-lovers, I presume, as opposed to the soccer- or security-moms or fiscal tight-wads. That base. I mean Base.



All of this perfectly timed one month before the election, wow, dosen't that bother you, even a little?

Posted by: Cliff | October 06, 2006 at 01:24 PM

Actually it is perfectly timed for people just receiving the ABSENTEE BALLOTS this week

the reason for the early surprise, send in the discust ballots before the story breaks down


he 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?

Posted by: clarice | October 06, 2006 at 01:39 PM

Seems his claim were true if wild bill was running on wrong information from a news report, but from an unredated item in a public domain presentation makes a difference doesn't it

otherwise any comment we make on anything said in the msm or newsprint makes us all liable yeah sure right


Is it normal policy for an attorney to send a cease and desist via e-mail? Is it even ethical for an attorney to send an e-mail to a potential witness?

Patty Wetterling (D) MN-06 candidate

Pssss... T Miller... make sure you don't mention my campaign commercial where I claim

It shocks the conscience. Congressional leaders have admitted to covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the internet to molest children.

Because if you do, people might start to think that you're just an unthinking partisan shill who is complaining about speculation voiced by Speaker Hastert to distract attention from us Democrats who have made baseless, slanderous accusations against him and other Republicans.

Thanks in advance.

Rick Ballard


What doesn't make sense is that absentee voters aren't precisely the finger in the wind middle of the muddle that one might be concerned about in a presidential year. The muddled middle are members of the group that accounts for the one third drop in turnout for mid terms. The absentees who aren't 100% partisan still don't turn away from Congressman Ferdlestump as long as he's still bringing home more bacon than Farmer John ever saw and the partisans are all weighing whether they can vote absentee and on election day.

This just isn't a smart play except for the fact that it's chewing up air time that could be used to discuss the political bankruptcy of the Dems. But that's a given anyway.


T Miller,

"it really is being driven by pages and former pages who think they tried to go through channels, but here is Foley about to be reelected,"

Think about it,you are no longer a page,you are in college,you are a smart politically savvy kid.....so you dig up and issue which is guaranteed to put your name in the papers connected to some very embarrassing IM correspondence....do you go Oprah on the rest of your life?


Rick, you're trying to pull my leg! You trying to tell me that Dems aren't so outraged that Hastert didn't bounce Foley because he was gay and asked a kid about his vaction that they'll stream into the polls in droves?


There you go again,PUK, being logical. Man, I hate when the discussion shifts away from emotive crap.


Vote for Patty Wetterling!

Soccer and Security Moms Unite! Keep Republican Sexual Predators off our Internet! NAMBLA can stay tho.

What a maroon.


" just saw the lawyer for Jordan Edmund on CNN and when asked whether this was just part of a prank the lawyer said, with a small grin, “I can’t say there was not an element of a prank in this” [paraphrasing from memory]. So it seems Drudge is correct. So the barely risque emails from the SSP website were forgeries of an issue dealt with in the fall and the IMs were the results of a prank goading Foley on. No complaints in all these years from the victims. Reviews by the FBI and media concluding insufficient evidence. Parents asking Foley to not talk to their child because he was uncomfortable - and Folley complying. Nothing until faked emails hit a fake website on information CREW and ABC News had for months…. "


A friend and I were just discussing,in general "The Death of Reason",how the human race seems to be regressing.
Sorry but more lateral thinking,how much will Jordan Edmunds attorney be costing,surely he consulted Mummy and Daddy before setting them on the road to bankruptcy?


If they are paying for the lawyer,PUK.

Maybe he's already got a book deal worked up"Page Pranks for Dummies" or something.

Seixon asks n the other thread how anyone could have been so stupid as to believe the Emma Peel Plame story but here we go again.


It would be interesting to know if they have the money or a Democrat donor is funding it.

I believe the Plame Emma Peel story,after all they are both fictional characters.
BTW,You did remember to untie her from the railway tracks......didn't you? Ooops! Oh well,Joe will have to ge a day job.


Maybe Ross and ABC News had a little Pedophile envy going with Chris Hanson on NBC.

Ross should have had a former page call Foley and see if he could get him to show up at his house naked with a six pack.

Gabriel Sutherland

These criminal lawyers aren't stupid. They were probably clamoring to obtain Jordon Edmund as a client.


Picture this. You're Foley. In hiding. You went from being this important dude one day, to the perv everybody's talking about the next, and you're not yet even accused of a crime. Yes, everybody knows you like the "one eyed snake," but that's a given now. You also know your own party looks like they might be going down, not because the voters disagree when them or agree with the other side, but because a dirty trick is working, and you're the punch-line. What do you do? You know you have to come out sometime. Wait for after the election, when your name might be forever linked with the moonbats taking over the House, and put a newspaper in front of your face before the cameras forever more?

No way. No possible way. Who would do that?

Come out swinging, Foley. The time is right. You can kick their asses right now.


T Miller:

Losing the moderates?

I am a moderate. I support comprehensive immigration reform I did not give a damn if Dubai got the port deal. I don't care what someone's sexual orientation is and while I don't like the idea of someone giving a 14 year old an abortion without notifying her parents, I am not an avid prolifer.

Interesting isn't it? A Democrat can support the notion of a 14 year old girl getting an abortion without parental notification but a 16 year old being asked for a picture is child molestation.

A slight disconnect there on the age thing.


Ext:Come out swinging, Foley. The time is right. You can kick their asses right now.

Andrew Sullivan will help him....FINALLY after we wrote his talking points for him about five days ago. Sheesh.


It is a case of "Show me the money",there has to be a payoff,if not money then publicity,so is someone envisioning the getting bigger?


Well the blogosphere has begun to sprout some wings on this issue - and it reminds me of the pick-up in Rathergate.

Roger Simon says (in effect) in light of corn's list - today we are all gay.

I think this guy, in particular, has the right advice:



Curious timing.http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6300

hit and run


Come out swinging, Foley. The time is right. You can kick their asses right now.

Can't stop myself.....double entendre....Foley.....asses......must control natural humor impulse.....don't respond.....let it go....


Jane:Roger Simon says (in effect) in light of corn's list - today we are all gay.

I seriously seriously hope that my new monicker for David Corn "the Roy Cohn wannabe of the Progressive Left" will take off...

Ironic, isn't it.

Well, NOW had to get rid of the Rape stuff, and now the NAtion will have to forever forget McCarthyism.



Good Headline!

History is full of 'em, like;

"Dewey defeats Truman!"


Does anyone else here notice (for lack of a better label at the moment) a pattern of confusion that the other side is bringing to all this Foley business?

One initial question before all the bombs started to drop was exactly what measures could Hastert have done taken to discover page predators?

Talk about accusations of a witch hunt over that! How many are there in the House anyway... Would Hastert have had to monitor each one? That is silliness.

One other is if you could separate this October Surprise from the elections, how different would Foleygate be looking?

Confusion's aim, it seems, would be to get the Republics to chase rabbits and forget the central issue that this was spun out at this moment to poison the elections.

The best defense would be to keep on pointing this out.


You don't know what "double entendre" means, do you?


After a LOT of ducking ABC admits the IM's were not given them by the pages involved but by other pages (rather ex-pages I take it)



To be a proper double entendre, he would have had to have written something like "pound their bottoms." Ha Ha Ha...


hit and run

I thought it meant "a word or expression capable of two interpretations with one usually risque."

In a situation where Foley and asses would seem to have one meaning based on the alleged scandal, and another in the way Extraneous intended it, I thought it was apt? But your questioning of my use of it has me questioning my use of it?


Dewey beats Truman? I read the McCullough bio of Truman and the interesting thing about that election is that the Republicans really thought they had Truman beat. All the experts said so. All the polls said so. Even the Democrats had abandoned Truman and did not want to be seen with him.

But he won and a lot of loud mouth experts and fair weather friends ending up looking pretty stupid.

So the real lesson to the Dewey Beats Truman headline is don't believe everything you read in the papers. Sometimes they are full of it.


Based on what we've learned today, I would say Katsaros and his my space buddie, quoted on CNN are the primary suspects. Indeed, as has been mentioned, "Chris" sounds like he may have been one of the 3 democrat pages that gave a verbal account to Ross--namely that he arranged a liason with Foley after he turned 18. Was his myspace buddie, another democrat ex-page, about the right age, and quoted in the media another?

Since all of these so-called "youths" are all now well over 18, and are certainly not rape victims (indeed--I still have no proof that any crime was committed!) I think that we should demand that either ABC retracts a highly dubious report based on anonymous "partisan" sources, or puts them on the record.

I think that there is more than enough stink--from the stolen e-mails from the LA teen, to the CREW forgeries, to Brian Ross's inaccurate, ever changing story--to make them put up or shut up.

Can't stop myself.....double entendre....Foley.....asses......must control natural humor impulse.....don't respond.....let it go....

Go with it, Hit and Run. It's ok. You're safe here.


Interesting isn't it? A Democrat can support the notion of a 14 year old girl getting an abortion without parental notification but a 16 year old being asked for a picture is child molestation.

They also support a 17 year old page getting boinked, as long as the boinker is an admitted homosexual with a D after his name.


We are all gay now,keep typing Cornball


"Page Pranks for Dummies" LOL

The comments to this entry are closed.