Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« More Libby Filings | Main | Bold New Dem Approach - Run As Republican! »

October 07, 2006

Comments

paul

The 'thin pink line'.

Semanticleo

"Now, according to the Post, another congressional staffer has come forward to say that Fordham is telling the truth and Palmer is lying."

"I'm up to my keister with these leaks". RWR

Damn those infernal whistleblowers. They just insist on bringing matters to the light of day. They're just starting on Hastert. Land deals, earmarks and such. His gargantuan appetite for chicken wings and
graft make Howard Taft look like Paris Hilton. It's time for the Greedheads to go,

Semanticleo

Scratch Paris Hilton, insert Mohandas Ghandi.

topsecretk9

--So let's see - the head of the clerk's program was gay and personally close to Foley, and he has not told his story. What did he know and when did he know it, indeed? And whom did he alert, and how emphatically?--

No kidding.

And little bitty baby bites

paul

compare these ethics...

progressives challenge the gop memebers of the investisgative committee for a 2500 dollar donation from hastert to their campaign.

Foley never gave Trandahl or Fordham money, just jobs and a place where 'homosexuals could let their hair down'.

Which is worth more a career or 2000 dollars?

Vote Democrat!

If only we Democrats could somehow amend the Constitution to give all these "anonymous sources", "unnamed officials", and "former government employees" the right to vote.

Judging by their prevalence in these Democrat hit pieces, there's millions of them and they'd be a solid blue voting bloc. We'd be swept into power in a landslide and never have to leave!

anonymous

blogACTIVE:
Direct Action Tools From D.C.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of information...

Hey, Dennis, on Monday I'll be telling everyone about the high level closeted staffer in your office. ...

Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning.

paul

one more lefty hypocrisy:

They use the label 'neocon' as a derisive term to cover and describe individuals who support the Iraq war.

Labeling a group of people based on their foreign policy beliefs, they can then move foward a make the argument that these individual neocons act in a conspiratorial and criminal effort.

the hypocrisy occurs, when they fail to ascribe the same potential for conspiratorial motives for a group (homosexuals) who are formed and identifed amongst themselves as homosexuals.

neocons don't get together and discuss what it is like to be a neocon in Washington, but homosexuals must deal with it as part of their day.

How does the left label a group that is far less cohesive and ascribe group motives, but ignore a group that identifies themselves as part of a group and find them incapable of a larger conspiracy?

lakhoff...you'd better explain this one.

topsecretk9

Re- Paste...but John Atavoros (sp) ( the one who looks like he was hit between the eyes with a baseball? Like David Corn? Yes, that one)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/cnn-does-republicans-bidding-because.html

...I'm actually supposed to be on CNN tomorrow afternoon talking about the Foley scandal. As a last minute question the producer of the segment wants me to be asked why I had the emails in July and didn't turn them over to the FBI - because, of course, that is the GOP talking point of the day (as noted before, shortly after I got the emails CREW told me they had sent them to the FBI and I figured that was the best way to handle them - silly me, since the FBI is now part of the cover-up).

Anyone want to explain why all these leftsit bloggers knew to contact CREW to make sure they were at the proper authorities?

How did they know CREW had them?

topsecretk9

Re- Paste...but John Atavoros (sp) ( the one who looks like he was hit between the eyes with a baseball? Like David Corn? Yes, that one)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/cnn-does-republicans-bidding-because.html

...I'm actually supposed to be on CNN tomorrow afternoon talking about the Foley scandal. As a last minute question the producer of the segment wants me to be asked why I had the emails in July and didn't turn them over to the FBI - because, of course, that is the GOP talking point of the day (as noted before, shortly after I got the emails CREW told me they had sent them to the FBI and I figured that was the best way to handle them - silly me, since the FBI is now part of the cover-up).

Anyone want to explain why all these leftsit bloggers knew to contact CREW to make sure they were at the proper authorities?

How did they know CREW had them? ABC says they didn't.

stevesh

Doesn't Rogers remind you of a hostage taker who says: "Submit to my demands or I will execute one person a day."

This is like "Dog Day Afternoon."

Weirdest time for American politics. Ever.

Tolerance, Fairness, Decency be damned.

anonymous

The FBI is just making things up

Submitted by CREW on 6 October 2006 - 4:01pm.

In today's Washington Post article on the FBI's failure to investigate the Foley e-mails, the bureau came up with a new lie in their effort to discredit CREW. Another of their anonymous sources said that the "FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April."

That's another whopper from the FBI. It's unclear why the nation's leading law enforcement organization persists in lying about the Foley e-mails. But, those secretive "law enforcement officials" who are talking to the press do just keep making things up.

Be nice if they put as much time in to investigating this case as they have in to how to cover-up their failure to act appropriately.

TexasToast

Rogers is a creep. We do need the hostage negotiators.

Semanticleo

The republican house of cards is about to drop one of it's Humpty Dumptys. Can you dig it?

topsecretk9

Doesn't Rogers remind you of a hostage taker who says: "Submit to my demands or I will execute one person a day."

He reminds me of a self-loathing nazi.

anonymous

One More Hypocrisy:

They use 'liberal' as a derisive term to cover and describe individuals who do not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Labeling a group of people based on their foreign policy beliefs, they can then make the argument that these individual 'liberals' act in a conspiratorial and criminal effort.

clarice

anonymous--Did you make up that Blogactiv post? I cannot access it site. It seems to be down.

TS_-good catch.

topsecretk9

Clarice..stevesh caught that.

stevesh

They're eating their young and have set up the circular firing squad at the BlogActive comments section.

How long before Rogers disables comments?

This just says to me that EVERYONE knew, at least something rumored unseemly, in Washington - BOTH sides of the aisle. A "Gentleman's Agreement," if you will. A lot like seeing Val Pull into Langley everyday.

Dem/Media "tolerance" for gays (blacks, women), a TOTAL fantasy.

Semanticleo

Bush thinks he still has the Midas Touch when in reality, all he touches turns to sh--. Hastert doesn't need any help
as an early Thanksgiving turkey, plump, stuffing oozing out of every orifice, and
done. Done. Done.

anon

..a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

Why is everyone involved in this story off the record? Is it too much to ask that people come forward and put their names behind their words? It's not like they are testifying against the Mob.

By definition, a "whistleblower" is somebody whose identity is known.


anonymous

anonymous--Did you make up that Blogactiv post? I cannot access it site.

Posted by: clarice | October 07, 2006 at 09:58 AM

No.

(Maybe you can find a teenager to help you; they're good with computers ... and stuff.)

topsecretk9

--Dem/Media "tolerance" for gays (blacks, women), a TOTAL fantasy.--

Steve, no kidding. Oreo's anyone?

But how long till a closeted MARRIED democrat gets outed now?

Semanticleo

"a "whistleblower" is somebody whose identity is known."

Yeah, but those 'leakers'............


anonymous

anonymous--Did you make up that Blogactiv post? I cannot access it site.

Posted by: clarice | October 07, 2006 at 09:58 AM

No.

(Maybe you can find a teenager to help you; they're good with computers ... and stuff.)

jukeboxgrad

Dave's not here, man.

But I'll be here harping and sniping all day under "anonymous," because I'm obsessed with certain people who spurned my advances.

anon

Is there some reason why the "current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages" has been sitting on his information for the past several years, and decided to speak about it now, but only to the WaPo?

It would be nice if we could ask him these questions, but the Post is keeping his name a secret. Why is the Post engaging in a cover up?

Patrick R. Sullivan

Does: 'Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker...' = boyfriend?

If so, Hastert's Chief of Staff (IF contacted by Trandahl prior to any e-mails for evidence) would have probably thought something along the lines of, 'Sounds like a personal matter'. And not have wanted to get involved in what would look like a jealous lover using the Speaker's office on his own behalf.

Would he tell Hastert? Maybe, but maybe not.

paul

The weakness in your argument, anon, is that 'liberal' has been used for quite some time, and several progressives identify with it.

'Neocon' did not exist in the general lexicon until the pending invasion of Iraq. Creating a group label for the specifics of steroetyping unfairly(substituting a label to represent a much larger and more diverse belief system) is one of the sicknesses of our culture.

homsexuals identify themselves as homosexuals.

liberals identify themselves as liberals.

neocons do not identify themselves as neocons, because they do not identify with the word.

Which community sees themeselves as a 'community', neocons, liberals, or homosexuals?

Which of the three involve a belief system akin to religion, where the indivudal is working in concert with others to help further their cause?

I am sorry that you find the term 'liberal' insulting. I simply inferred it to mean that liberal was polite way referring to socialism, where higher incomes must have their money shifte to the poorer thru govt intervention. A reasonable philosophy, but one I disagree with.

anonymous

Oh, and please don't comment on how much of a dumbass I look like by double-posting my comment about clarice needing a teenager to show her how a computer works.

Maxwell

Has it now become necessary to identify the sexuality of everyone mentioned in a story? That sounds like the agenda of whoever wants to release the "list" discussed for the past 2 days.

topsecretk9

Honestly Anonyymous...that's not the thing that made you look like a dumbass.

PeterUK

"Mr. Speaker, I have a point of information...

Hey, Dennis, on Monday I'll be telling everyone about the high level closeted staffer in your office. ...

Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning."

Seems a good opportunity to act gay and sue straight,looks like a nice little earner ducky.

anon

The only "cover up" in this whole affair is the one being perpetuated by the media.

Congress seems to be infested with people willing to make anonymous accusations to the press, but none of them are willing to speak to the House Ethics Committee under oath. You can read through these media stories in vain searching the part where the "reporters" ask their sources why they refuse to make their accusations to the proper authorities.

PeterUK

"Scratch Paris Hilton, insert Mohandas Ghandi."

Are you being lewd again Septic?

topsecretk9

McCarthycrat Rogers says

So.... Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning. And I hope the press looks for them as well. It's time to rid the government of those that would harm us.

Gays harm us. Good Rogers.

Maxwell

At least 1 of the 3 last ex-pages ABC reported on has been interviewed by the FBI.

cboldt

I'm drawn to comparing hypothetical investigations of this case with the Libby/Plame-leak investigation. If there is in fact no crime, for whatever reason, does that mean there can't be any penalty for false statement or perjury? Are the perverts free to give false statements to investigators, taking a chance that there was no underlying criminal activity? Should the people involved in leaking and promoting the story be able to lie about the path the IMs took, with no penalty unless there is an underlying crime?

Should the investigators first establish that there was in fact a criminal violation - by checking the laws, knowing the ages of the participants and so forth - before interviewing anybody?

clarice

Well, cboldt that's what the FBI originally did. Saw no law was broken and dropped it.

Perhaps in the Karr case, the Colorado prosecutor might have saved herself embarrassment and the state money had she done that.

And it wouldn't have hurt Nifong either to follow that usual procedure.

Maxwell

What would be the incentive to lie to investigators? Grandstanding on TV or giving anonymous interview carries few risks (other than libel lawsuits). But providing false statements to federal investigators? They would have to be nuts.

clarice

anonymous. To be perfectly accurate, I found the site but couldn't access it--perhaps because it was overwhelmed with traffic.

jukeboxgrudge

I was molested by a jukebox whilst cruising the bars dressed as a cheerleader,it made me into the creature I am today.

clarice

He sent me salacious messages for years and I didn't know how to stop them....I am 64 and this started when I was 30. I was petrified to hit the block button and to come forward until now when I figured it would get some attention.

It started innocently enough--I thought it was an ad for sexual aids...

topsecretk9

Rogers is deleting comments like crazy. Really fits with his whole nazi theme.

clarice

I think he must be in the FBI cross hairs..

cboldt

The FBI is investigating now - what they dropped was the investigation surrounding the e-mails to the page from Louisiana.

The incentive to lie to investigators is to avoid "political embarassment," you know, like being caught holding on to damaging IMs until a politically opportune moment, or something like that.

I draw the hypothetical because I have read a number of people say, with a straight face, that unless there is an underlying crime, there can't be a penalty for false statements.

Whatever the rule is, it shoudl apply the same here as it did/does for Libby/Plame.

clarice

Of course, there can be a penalty for false statements even when there is no crime--the question is absent a motive to lie and under all the circumstances no sentient prosecutor would have indicted Libby.

paul

"At least 1 of the 3 last ex-pages ABC reported on has been interviewed by the FBI."

speculating that it was loraditch, president of the class of 2002. Rumor, and I do mean rumor , has it that while not a victim he was saying he saw the ims.(He was the red headed step child on Larry king)

If he intially did report seeing the ims, he likely backed off the claim, fearing that his 'knowledge, but lack of action' might serve as a character indictment for future political considerations.

topsecretk9

cboldt

I suspect when the door is closed they tell the FBI the truth and then when the FBI is unable to do anything because there is no crime - CREW and it's minions slander the FBI and accuse them of a cover-up...it's pretty much the established gambit...think Wilson and the SSCI

cboldt

I don't aim to make this thread about the Libby case. That case is winding its way through the process. I was just ponering several parallels in principle - such as belaying interviews until the statutory bases for violation are otherwise satisfied.

FWIW, I hold that excusing false statements is a bad thing. I've been gently chided here for holding that point of view in the context of the Libby case.

Maxwell

Martha Stewart is a better-known and proven case of providing a false statement and doing time.

topsecretk9

OK...NOW blogactive has deleted everthing in his post EXCEPT the Hassert staffer

he has deleted this

So.... Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning. And I hope the press looks for them as well. It's time to rid the government of those that would harm us.

Someone ought to keep an eye and screen capture his blog..

topsecretk9

well maybe not, it seems edited though, could swear there was more earlier.

anon

cloldt

A weak analogy. The Libby case began with a clear-cut accusation of wrong doing - revealing the name of a secret agent. It should have been trivial to answer the question of whether that in fact occured. (Although we are still in the dark years later.)

The Plame investigation seemed to intensify after all the important facts were in, and after it was know that the leaker was Armitage and it was decided not to prosecute him.

If the FBI investigates here, finds no underlying crime, carries on digging around for a few more years, then indicts Pelosi because her memory of events differs from those of Brian Ross, then you will have a case.

cboldt

Yeah - Martha Stewart is a good example - but she also faced an underlying civil charge, one she recently settled without admitting guilt.

But you know, lots of people adamantly hold that the prosecution of Martha Stewart was without merit "because the insider trading charge was dropped." While wrong on the facts (because the insider trading charge was pending), these folks honestly and fervently hold that with no underlying crime, false statements goes away. I attempted to show some of these good folks the "error" of their belief, to no avail.

I see the present status of the Foley case as an opportunity to look at the same rule, in a different context, with the thought that maybe the new context helps some readers to see the broader effect of the rule they (wrongly) believe to be operating.

m cooper

I think Brian ross should stick to his guns and refuse to divulge his source, even if it means jail.

It helped Judy Miller's career.

Sarah Green

We as conservatives can't afford to give politicians who are secretive about their personal lives the benefit of a doubt anymore. The stakes are too high and the double standard is too extreme.

Here in Florida we've known Foley was gay for years. I always hoped he was living a respectable life.

I guess the lesson here for me is that anyone who won't answer simple questions about their lives has too much to hide and shouldn't be entrusted with public office.

clarice

Well, won't be distracted from this..But as I recall the charge in Stewart no prosecutor would have nbothered --think of the time and money wasted--except to make a name for himself..And Comey did. As time goes on , however, that name is likely to be tarnished..for I think he did not close down the case because he was currying favor with SChumer.

anon

The media need to be pressured to ask their anonymous sources why they refuse to speak to the proper authorities. Not that the answer is not obvious, but asking the question is the only way to put the focus where it belongs.

SlimGuy

Trandahl may be a person of interest here.

Rogers has close ties to the HRC so he probably knows Trandahl.

Seems like he fits the profile for Ross's description of who fed ABC the emails to them.

Can anyone else factcheck this and does the date of his departure match that premise.

ed

Hmmm.

1. I still don't see much of a crime here. If this is criminal then someone needs to arrest AOL because much more, and worse, goes on in AOL chat rooms.

2. I think this is going to blow up in Democrat's faces big time. There isn't much really to this "scandal", particularly since Foley has already resigned. And there are substantive questions on how many Democrats were involved in generating this "scandal" in both the Democratic party and in the MSM.

There once was a time where the Democrats and the MSM could get away with something like this. But that time has already passed. Now we're into an age where people are a lot less willing to accept whatever version of events the MSM is regurgitating.

3. And I personally find it very odd, and irritating, that Republicans try to run away and hide whenever there's an issue. Instead of standing their ground, spitting in the Democrat's eye and fighting many Republicans seem to prefer throwing anyone and everyone under the bus. I think that's actually rather amusing as well as absurd.

A political party eager to fight terrorism all over the world but unwilling to fight political opponents here at home. Personally there are plenty of Republicans I respect and admire. But considered as a group, I find that I really don't respect Republicans all that much.

Trent Lott made an completely innocuous statement at a dying man's 100th birthday party. And then all of a sudden it's the Republicans baying for his blood. Why? Because of something the dying man said/did in 1948! 1948!! WTF is the matter with you people?

And what about Tom DeLay? An indictment by a rabid partisan Democrat and again Republicans want to do everything they can to appease the Democrats!

Really. You're nice people. But politically?

You're idiots.

anon

I sent the following email to Jonathan Weisman, the writer of the WaPo story.

"Your story about a staffer on the Hill claiming knowledge of Foleys behavior with pages several years ago, and claiming that House leadership were also aware of said behavior, says that;

"The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is now the subject of a criminal investigation and the House ethics committee inquiry."

That seems to sidestep the question. Why did this person not notify the police or the House Ethics Committee months or years ago of these charges? Can you contact your source and ask him this question? Why is he only now speaking out, and only on condition of anonymity?

Another good question would be whether he is the same source which has been leaking the emails to the media. Have you put this question to him?"


I'm doubful that I'll get a response, but perhaps if enough people ask the question we may get some answers.

hit and run

Sarah Green - I agree! All politicians should live in govt provided housing in DC - with "Big Brother" like cameras capturing their every move.

No more private lives!

And why not set up voting a la American Idol instead of those lame voting booths we have to go to?

clarice

steve,ts that's probably why I couldn't access the site..And when it cam back up only that short post about Hastert was on blogactiv.

clarice

Good work, anon.

hit and run

Really. You're nice people. But politically?

You're idiots.

I'm not a relativist, and epistimelogically speaking, I suppose truth is truth.

But every once in a while you just read something that seems more true than much of what you have heard or read all day.

This is such a moment.

clarice

Well, they are slow to cath on. Like the perfect kid falsely accused of throwing a spitball who stands frozen like a deer in the headlights instead of demanding his accuser prove it and denying the claim.

But they are slowly learning.

With no thanks to the there's mud flying, I'm getting out of here types like Malkin and Blankley and Kean.

SlimGuy

Trandahl seemed to be from the article painted as having tried on multiple occassions to get action on the issue. Actually he sounds frustruated.

Theory

Trandahl is the unnamed source for the WaPO story and they put the info about him in the article thus hiding him in plain site.

PeterUK

Clarice,
That is because, in the main, they are decent upright people,whereas the left,and it must be said,most of the criminal classes find a lie on their lips as a matter of course,"I cannot tell a lie it was he who chopped down the apple tree".

clarice

True, but it's a stupid strategy--they need some street fighters to hold their hands.

Sarah Green

How about a little sarcasm, Hit and Run?

Leading a double life is not a good thing in an elected official. How can you disagree with that?

topsecretk9

AmericaBlogger and McCarthyCRAT Nazi outer John Ataravorostaro (sp) (the one that looks like he's just been hit between the eyes with a baseball? Like David Corn? Yep, that one.

Says:

...Foley resigned because ABC called him up and read him the salacious instant messages they'd just received from God-knows-who. CREW published the emails online AFTER ABC had already reporting on the emails and quoted the relevant substance. Not to mention, I published the emails online at the same time, as did RawStory, as did ABC I suspect and many others. So what exactly is CNN's point here?...

Ok...so John Atratostosvos(sp) talks about his timed effort, but he volunteers that CREW went public after ABC...so he has established there was NOTHING in the public that an obscure watchdog group had a congressman's "emails".

so when John Astravososos (sp) says

(as noted before, shortly after I got the emails CREW told me** they had sent them to the FBI** and I figured that was the best way to handle them - silly me, since the FBI is now part of the cover-up).

1. Why did John ask CREW
2. How did John know CREW had them
3. Who told him CREW had them
4. Who gave them to John
5. Why was CREW discussing this with people but concealing them from public
6. AND why didn't John or CREW forward them to the Ethics committee or make them public for months.


Can someone email John Atrovossosos (sp) How and WHO told him about CREW?


Sarah Green

"Like the perfect kid falsely accused of throwing a spitball who stands frozen like a deer in the headlights instead of demanding his accuser prove it and denying the claim."

What a perfect analogy, Clarice!

Let's hear it for honorable elected officials with street smarts!

verner

Is Rahm Emanual out? Oh well. Do we really think the repubs don't have the goods on the new self appointed sex police?

cboldt

What's the difference between a double life and a private life? What qualities cause an acceptable private life to be relabeled a double life?


Double agent I can understand, as a matter of having more than one allegiance - but I think it's a more difficult proposition to draw lines between acceptable private life, and unacceptable double life.

clarice

I think both of them are running scared and the threat is just to scare people from cooperating with the investigation.AJ and Macsmind think so , too.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2658

SlimGuy

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/199615.php

Update": Michelle Malkin gets results by taking my questions directly to Jeffrey W. Schneider of ABC News.

Mr. Schneider answers my first question about when ABC News became aware of the instant messages, but he didn't really give me the answers I was looking for to the second question, perhaps because I didn't ask it correctly.

I asked: Were these instant messages given to Ross and the Staff of The Blotter directly by the pages, or were they filtered through an intermediary?

He gave an honest response that ABC News obtained the IMs from "former pages who contacted us after reading that first story."

-----------
Possibly Trandahl is emerging as the intermediary

Ranger

Hmmm. Let me get this right: There are questions raised about the conduct of a congressman towards pages, and that congressman is good friends with the guy responsible for managing the page program. Then, the guy running the page program quietly moves on.

I would say that indicates that what ever came out of the investigation into the conduct of the congressman actually turned up something questionable about the guy running the page program. Perhapse the two were "running buddies" and the evidence of misconduct actually pointed more towards Trandahl than Foley at the time.

JM Hanes

Buried lede? More like an avalanche of nothingness. If anybody thought journalism hit its nadir in Plamegate, think again. Try diagramming the WaPo story's opening sentence to see just how byzantine a story can get:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.
I had to read this gem more than once just to figure out what the hell it said. That's what happens when you take gossip column material and try to turn it into news.

clarice

I think Trandahls's role is more in not informing the leadership. Or maybe his own role.

Whatever happens I'm certain the page program is on its last legs.

clarice

Yes, jmh, what is the claim? The speaker accused of inaction actually took action prematurely?

Sarah A. Green

Foley wouldn't answer the simple question, "Are you gay?" He dropped out of the 2004 senate race because of that, because the senate race spotlight was hotter than the congressional spotlight.

I don't live in Foley's district, but if I did I would have voted for him. So this is a lesson learned for me.

I think Foley still would have been elected even if he had said he was gay. But I think he didn't want to be honest about that because he knew he wasn't living an honorable life, and if his gayness became common knowledge, his "over-friendliness" with the pages might be noticed by more than just the page program insiders.

So what I'm saying is, that if someone won't admit the truth of something everyone knows is true, that's a red flag.

anonymous

steve,ts that's probably why I couldn't access the site..And when it cam back up only that short post about Hastert was on blogactiv.

Posted by: clarice | October 07, 2006 at 11:27 AM

The post about beginning to "out" staffers, starting Monday, is still up on the blogACTIVE site, exactly as I reported it to you all earlier today.

SlimGuy

Just for reference

Aj posted about the longer version of the post that was changed on roger's site so it is preserved
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2658

clarice

Now he has a longer post on this--He has clearly been writing and rewriting the post and that's why the meassage changes depending on when you get to the site.

JM Hanes

Speaking of the page program, I was pretty surprised to learn that Republicans and Democrats actually run separate programs. What sort of oversight does the bi-partisan committee actually excercise, I wonder? Or rather, how precisely does a bi-partisan committee supervise separate partisan operations?

Ranger

Well, it just seems strange to me that Trandahls's departure is after the confrontation with Foley about the e-mails, and it was a kind of 'its best for everyone if you just move on quietly now' thing.

If Trandahl and Foley really were good friends, then I see two reasonable explanations:

1) in the process of investigating the e-mails, something came up that made it hard for Trandahl to keep his job.

2) Trandahl quit because he felt his friend (Foley) was being treated unfairly.

I find it unlikely that Trandahl would leak the e-mails to the press unless Foley threw Trandahl under the bus to protect himself and this was payback (which is possible, but not the implication of the article).

cboldt

So, unacceptable double life (unacceptable for being a US Representative at least) is a closet homosexual. Acceptable "private" life would be to publicly admit the homosexuality.


FWIW, I don't disagree with where you draw that line - I draw it in similar fashion as to honesty in general. But there is no doubt that our line drawing is our personal opinions, and many if not most voters have no problem with supporting a closet homosexual, in fact perhaps preferring a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.


I'm still not clear as to the precise illegality alleged here. As far as I know, it's legal for Congress to cover up its own incompetence. And the IM's/pages/e-mails are all the evidence needed to establish whether Foley engaged in illegal conduct such as soliciting sex from a minor, cybersex, whatever. No investigation needed there - that investigation is complete.

clarice

All around this is sounding less like a scandal and more like a bitch fest at a sorority house before a big event.

clarice

Possible extortion. Questionable application of Hobbs act to staff (though state possibilities) but more likely application to Congressmen--(Blackmail for votes on issues).

Other investigation --policies and practices re page program .


Any mail fraud issues? Sending doctored IMs to defraud? Don't know.

SlimGuy

I find it unlikely that Trandahl would leak the e-mails to the press unless Foley threw Trandahl under the bus to protect himself and this was payback (which is possible, but not the implication of the article).

Posted by: Ranger | October 07, 2006 at 12:1

But he fits ABC's profile including the part about a hill staffer who no longer works on the hill

Jane

Leading a double life is not a good thing in an elected official. How can you disagree with that?

Sarah,

Politicians are some of the most one-dimensional people on the planet. They know they live in a bubble and they hide everything. A friend of mine who held office used to call me and ask if he could come over for a beer, because he didn't want anyone to see him drinking beer. How ridiculous.

But I think he didn't want to be honest about that because he knew he wasn't living an honorable life

Maybe he thought someone else's homophobia was no one's business. His sexual orientation has nothing more to do with his job than his shoe size, assuming he conducts himself honorably.

The reason we have such horrible politicians in this country is that the entry requirements are ridiculous. We get idiots who know how to run for office and little else. About 90% of them would be too boring to have share breakfast with, but yeah, they have "honorable' lives.

clarice

Remember the ADam Levine rule,SG.


Other investigations--IRS violations by CAP and CREW

hit and run

Yes Sarah Green, that was sarcastic.

Leading a double life is not a good thing in an elected official. How can you disagree with that?

There is a loooooong way between agreeing that leading a double life is not a good thing and eliminating the private lives of politicians.

I agree that leading a double life (depending on the actual definition of "double life") is not a good thing.

I do not agree that we should therefore preclude our politicians from having a private life.

There's a balance - and a fine line - and maybe we're at a point where the pendulum should swing one way or another - but it would serve no good purpose to have the pendulum swing all the way to either extreme.

Syl

I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread...


Anyway, I photoshopped my way to a photo for the next issue of Vanity Unfair. Here!

If anyone wants it, save it to your harddrive. I'm not keeping it up longer than a day or so.

SlimGuy

from a commenter on Rogers site

Well, Robert and Jim... The big problem with outting staffers isn't what you think. There are still civil laws against invasion of privacy.

Staffers aren't politicians - aka - public figures.

Stalking, harassment, et al. are also big dangers Mike is kind of brushing with.

Mike doesn't have to be the one following a staffer to a gay bar. That's where co-conspirator status is added. He just needs to be the one inciting or publishing.

He's been lucky that noone has of yet pulled those cards. Mostly because he's preying on people in the closet that fear the publicity (ironically).

Mike, be careful young padawan... you have taken on the mantra of a reporter and online publisher... with great power comes great liability...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:14 http://www.haloscan.com/comments/blogactive/116023286041813070/#208735
________________

Lawyers here how about an opinion

Tom Maguire

Let me float this Trandahl theory - there *was* an earlier (pre-2005) intervention involving Trandahl, Fordham, abd someone else (Palmer?); Trandahl promised to baby-sit Foley; when the 2005 emails emerged, pfft, Trandahl was gone.

SO why is Palmer maybe under the gun? Let me come back to a joke someone made in an earleir thread - Hastert lives with Palmer and a third guy in a DC townhouse when he is in Washington.

Fine, Mrs. Hastert is back in the home district. But where is Mrs. Palmer? IS there a Mrs. Palmer? How old is Palmer, anyway?

I mean, as much as I am opposed to a broad-based outing, if we find out that Palmer is gay and had a relationship with Trandahl and/or Foley, this case looks even crazier.

So maybe Palmer is forgetting the initial intervention to protect Hastert. Or maybe he never took it to Foley, and he is protecting himself.

(Bonus Paranoia - Fordham and Palmer could have a chief of staff to chief of staff talk, but wouldn't it be a breach of protocol for Palmer to reprimand Foley, an elected Rep.?

So either Hastert did get involved earlier, or Palmer had some special reason to think that, in the specific instance, a breach of protocol would be OK.)

clarice

Amen, Jane. When I was in college I had a summer internship on the Hill, After I got there I learned it would be a month before I got paid and I hadn't enough money. My Congressman asked if that would put me in a bind, and I said it would. He lent me the money but we had to go thru hoops to make sure my repayment of the advance couldn't be interpreted by someone as a kickback.

Sarah Green

Cboldt,

Yes, I prefer "don't ask, don't tell" too. But in today's climate of "openness and tolerance" Foley had to have known that he would still have been elected if he had admitted his homosexuality. But he didn't admit it because he had something more to hide. Now we know what that something was.

anon

SlimGuy

Whoever leaked the emails did so several months ago, and was clearly no friend of Foleys. It's likely that the email leaker was the same Hill staffer who is leaking in the current story.

All that ABC said about the emails was that ABC received them from a "nonpartisan source", which no doubt means CREW. How CREW got them is an open question.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame