The WaPo On Source Of Foley Emails

The WaPo tries to track the Foley emails and IMs back to their sources.

Comments

[sad]

Can't wait to see if the paper files of IM's are printouts of actual conversations or creative recreations using info gleaned from gossip sessions.

[anon]

Two of the primary sources who delivered the instant messages came forward this week to clarify their motives. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear that exposure would leave them open to harassment, especially from bloggers.

Those evil right wing bloggers have quite a reputation. This strikes me as a weak explanation for why they don't come forward now. It also does not address the issue of why they never came forward before. The emails were innocous, but the IM's were much more sensational. These "former pages" are clued in enough to the DC scene to know exactly what they were holding.

[sammy small]

My questions for the former pages: 1)do you save all of your old IMs or just those you consider scandalous?, and 2)if you decided to reveal them because you were worried about Foley's continuing activity, why did you wait for the email story to hit the MSM now instead of revealing them a year ago?

[anonymous]

Mea Culpa,I'm the former with a different vowel.

Proof this is Frisch.

BTW--new thread, folks. Let's move!

Posted by: Syl | October 11, 2006 at 12:39 PM

But they said that YOU were Dr. Frisch.

[cathyf]

The communications that would eventually trigger the scandal were written by Foley in 2004. Foley's e-mails asked a former page from Louisiana for a picture and told him he had just finished a long bike ride and was going to the gym.

Those 2004 e-mails

So the WaPo can't even keep the dates straight in a story which is substantially about explaining the timeline?

[anonymous]

Those evil right wing bloggers have quite a reputation.

Posted by: anon | October 11, 2006 at 12:31 PM

Indeed they do. (Unfortunately, not a good one.)

[anonymous]

Apparently, we're making progress despite your best, or worst, efforts.

Posted by: JM Hanes | October 11, 2006 at 12:46 PM

And may God bless you for all your good works.

(And don't worry about the incipient paranoia;
with luck, in time it will pass.)

[anon]

"I decided that it was in the best interests of kids in general, pages and my friends specifically that Foley be dealt with quickly and swiftly so that he couldn't hurt anyone else," the Republican student wrote in his e-mail. "We've seen how long the Justice department and every other government bureaucracy can take to deal with criminal issues and abuse. I knew the media would be the fastest way to get Foley the justice he deserved."

The "Republican former page" is repeating here one of the key charges levelled against Foley - that he was some sort of ruthless sexual predator preying on helpless children. The IM's themselves show a different story - Foley was engaging in smutty talk with people who freely and willingly went along with him. The only known sexual contact Foley had was with a 21 yeard old former page. Far from Foley getting " the justice he deserved", he seems to have been guilty of no crime at all.

The "Republican former page", who sat on this knowledge for what we are told was months, but must more likely have been years, now wants us to believe that he was concerned that "Foley be dealt with quickly and swiftly so that he couldn't hurt anyone else"? Something stinks like week old fish. This guy is either the biggest fool in DC, or he is a liar using his "Republican" status to cover for the Democrats.

[norm d'plume]

"Dr." Frisch. Uh-huh.

Mongoloid idiot is a far better descriptor for that stalker.

[Marcel]

Cathy F; Those emails from the LA page were actually written in July 2005.

[Marcel]

Starting in July 2005

[cboldt]

It's probably too much to ask the writers to use particular and specific language.

Making up the details, what I have in mind is something like ...

July 2005 e-mail from Foley to LA Page - forwarded to XXX on July 10 by the page, path to Miami Herald, St. Pete Times and ABC is unknown

Feb 2002 IM between Foley and Edmund had to travel from Edmund to ABC in October 2006, somehow. Lots of time and space in between, on that one.

[norm d'plume]

This guy is either the biggest fool in DC, or he is a liar using his "Republican" status to cover for the Democrats.

Loraditch.

[Appalled Moderate]

someone was peddling this story for MONTHS. Where is the clever political hit?

As a matter of fact, based on the polling, the Demos have botched this issue thoroughly, as the American people realize a management mistake was made, but it was one the Demos might well have made too.

[Greenwood]

Then there must be another reason for the sharp fall in Republican support in the past 2 weeks.

[Appalled Moderate]

It's a four letter word to you guys, but try:

I*R*A*Q

[anonymous]

Then there must be another reason for the sharp fall in Republican support in the past 2 weeks.

Posted by: Greenwood | October 11, 2006 at 01:12 PM

That's too obvious for them, Appalled. If it's not a complicated and nefarious conspiracy engineered by evil Democrats, you just aren't going to get their attention.

[anonymous]

And you must remember that Republicans consider the Democrat Party a greater threat to the U.S. than Usama bin Goldstein, al Qaida, Iraq and Korea combined.

[anon]

This is straight out of the moby instructional handbook.

First, burnish your Republican credentials.

The former page and current college student stressed that he is a "staunch Republican" who "wouldn't vote for a Democrat ever." He also said that he is not calling for the resignation of Hastert or any other Republican leader.

Then stick the knife in.

"Truthfully, I am very troubled about what it seems has gone on behind the scenes .."

So he is a staunch Republican who thinks the House leaders have done nothing wrong. But, and its a big but, he is "troubled" by what "seems to have gone on behind the scenes", giving credence to the media generated charges of a cover-up. This guy sounds like every moby as found on every blog or message board. The actual substance of what he says is lifted from the Dem's talking points list; Foley a sexual predator who needed to be stopped to protect the children, but the House leaders and FBI covered for him. What this anonymous person says only has any weight because he claims to be Republican. The WaPo story is another smokescreen.

[PeterUK]

The reason this will rebound on the Democrats is,this was done with malice aforethought and patently not "For the Children".As the timeline unfolds,disgust will mount.Foley is out of the game,but the private lives of the former pages will be subject to increasing prurient interest by the MSM. The "Is'nt this shocking journalism which then goes on to describe in minute detail the peccadillos of the protagonists.

[anonymous]

" ... the private lives of the former pages will be subject to increasing prurient interest by the MSM."

And they'll love every minute of it.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

I wonder if ABC News is the only outlet that figured they should ask Foley about the 'over-friendly' emails. It seems like that's all it took to give the story some credence.

"Did you send these emails? How would you describe them? - ABC News"

"I was just being friendly. - Foley"

"But you did send them? - ABC News"

"Yes. I often keep records of people that have worked with me so I can remember them for future reference. - Foley"

All it took was a confirmation for any media outlet to publish the story. Did only ABC go to Foley about the emails? That seems unlikely.

Here's something posted at CREW that I didn't notice before. This page has an ABC transcript of the IM conversations in Word .DOC[direct link to Word document] format.

Over at Americablog, John Aravosis posted logs recorded directly from AOL instant messenger.

The Word doc appears to be created by ABC News. The link at Americablog points to PDF screen captures of the same conversation. Strange that there are two versions out there both from ABC News.

[Greenwood]

Let's see ... Congressmen Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, Shimkus, Alexander and Kolbe; senior staffers Palmer and Fordham (amongst others); House Clerk Trendahl - all of them Republicans - had been told of Foley's behavior as recently as last spring or as long ago as 2000, yet didn't take effective action before ABC made the story public. But some of you actually believe that if it transpires that some Democrats also knew about Foley, the voters will then turn against the Democrats?

[Jane]

OT: This seems like good news:

GOP Leaders Seek Probe of Berger Papers

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJE502.html

[anonymous]

But some of you actually believe that if it transpires that some Democrats also knew about Foley, the voters will then turn against the Democrats?

Posted by: Greenwood | October 11, 2006 at 01:42 PM

"When you wish upon a star ... "

(All together now ...)

[boris]

all of them Republicans - had been told of Foley's behavior

"How are you, send me a picture"

it transpires that some Democrats also knew about Foley

"I'd drive all day for a hot young stud like you!"

[MJW]

Appalled Moderate: "someone was peddling this story for MONTHS. Where is the clever political hit?

So, why did it come out now? Why did ABC suddenly decide to go with a story that had been kicking around for months?

One theory is that everyone realized that there wasn't much to the e-mails, but with the election near, someone figured it was worth throwing against the wall, hoping something might stick.

Another theory is ABC knew about the IMs -- but that would imply ABC is lying.

[anonymous]

For anyone new to this wing of the asylum, here's the concept:

The more the discussion is turned to who knew what, and when --
and the more they tell themselves it was the evil Democrats who knew, and then got the information out -- the less anyone will remember what the story was actually about.

They find it all very comforting.

[Greenwood]

There was a lot more than "how are you - send me a picture", no matter how you try to spin it. But the contents matter little, because most of the Republican leadership hadn't bothered to read the emails.

[PeterUK]

"the voters will then turn against the Democrats?"

The voters have been against the Democrats quite some time,which might be the reason John F Kerry isn't called Mr President.

[anon]

Greenwood

WOuld you like to specify what you mean when you say that the House Republicans had "been told of Foley's behavior"? What behavior do you have in mind?

[cboldt]

This house of cards can't stand. Its flaws are too obvious.

"The two sources said they had conferred about the instant messages, which they had known about for months."

The conferred? For months? Well, Jordan Edmund knew about the IMs for years. So, these sources were spreading information that they were entrusted to keep secret.

"The [self-described] Republican former page said he had decided it was up to the victims to come forward with them."

Changed his mind. But "victims?" Isn't it up to the recipients of the IMs to decide what to do about them. And, if shared, they were shared as a "yuk yuk yuk," not as a "Oh my God - my tender sexual persona is being violated. Whatever shall I do?"

"The former page and current college student stressed that he is a 'staunch Republican'"

Yeah - and I want to stress right here and now that I am Peter Pan.

The excuse of the self-described Democrat Page, for disclosing the private IMs of another person, is really lame. "Foley's campaign said this was a political hit job, so I decided to embarrass the hell out of my friend, Jordan Edmund."

Find these two pages who can't keep their peers' secrets. They are PERFECT for the Democratic Party.

Funny thought comes to me. It's old age and treachery that prevails over youth and skill. These two assholes aren't old yet. Bwahahahahaha.

[Greenwood]

Republicans not taking this issue seriously is turning off many independent/soft Republican voters. The polls show it clearly.

[PeterUK]

"But the contents matter little, because most of the Republican leadership hadn't bothered to read the emails."

They were probably too busy being the adninistration Grunenwald.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Greenwood: I'm not familiar with you in the JOM comments. Were you linked here by another blog? If so, can you link me to that blog?

Thanks.

That aside. We're actually trying to learn as much as we can about this story. It's of critical importance to understand who actually had copies of what in order to even attempt to blame people. Some organizations have already assumed the position that there is enough information out there that is known for a formal ethics complaint. I, and many others, disagree with that position.

I'd encourage you to stick around for a while. The comments within Foley posts at JOM are essentially a gathering conversation that transcends nearly a half dozen separate posts. From the JOM frontpage you can observe the posts with (1000+) comments within them.

Just offering a "heads up" to you.

[boris]

hadn't bothered to read the emails

Actually the "send me a picture" was the BID DEAL, so you're dissembling. The emails themselves were private and witheld by the parents, the content (as in "send me a picture") was discussed.

The leadership, the press, the FBI did not consider the emails actionable. BTW Hastert's job description does not include policing communications between private citizens (ex pages) and elected representitives from other parts of the country. The emails and IMs were with parties in their home states living in their own homes either under the guardianship of their parents of as adults themselves.

[MJW]

Greenwood: Let's see ... Congressmen Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, Shimkus, Alexander and Kolbe; senior staffers Palmer and Fordham (amongst others); House Clerk Trendahl - all of them Republicans - had been told of Foley's behavior as recently as last spring or as long ago as 2000, yet didn't take effective action before ABC made the story public.

Which behavior are you talking about? The e-mails, the IMs? Is there evidence, for example, the Hastert knew about anything other than the e-mails? -- the e-mails that a number of Democrat-friendly organizations knew about for months, but didn't consider worth pursuing?

[SunnyDay]

The sexless sex scandal.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Plane owned and operated by Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle. Lidle dead. Flown into high rise building, east side of Manhattan.

[PeterUK]

"The sexless sex scandal."

Preceded by the outless outing.

[boris]

It's worth remembering that the original drudgereport scoop has held up rather well.

Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal...

So the premise that this is all a random coincidence is the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

[cboldt]

Here is the contents of some of the e-mails -- transcription errors are mine (links to PDF files):

glad your home safe and sound...we don't go back into session until Sept 5,,,,si its a nice long break....I am back in Florida now....its nice here...been raining today...it sounds like you will have some fun over the next few weeks...how old are you now?....

---===---

I am in North Carolina..and it was 100 in New Orleans...wow that's really hot..well do you
miss DC..Its raining here but 68 degrees so who can argue..did you have fun at your
conference....what do you want for your birthday coming up...what stuff do you like to do.

---===---

how are you weathering the hurricane...are you safe....send me an email pic of you as well...

That "hurricane" one is the one with the "sick sick sick sick" note.

One thing we do know, the parents of the Louisiana page who received these e-mails did not want the existence of the contact with Congress to be made public. So, whoever shopped these around is also an asshole who is guilty of violating privacy and trust.

[Greenwood]

Watching the Buffalo TV stations, it is interesting to watch Rep. Reynolds repeat every few minutes in his commercials that he is sorry he didn't take the issue seriously, but did tell his bosses.

Gabriel, thank you for the heads up - I have read most of the comments, am a regular reader (attracted by the Plame issue) and have posted only a few times. I understand that many comments are directed towards finding how the emails and IM's became public. I believe that, unless a substantial number of those messages can be proven to be faked, most people will simply not care.

[anon]

Greenwood

There was a lot more than "how are you - send me a picture",

How about you quote some of that "lot more" here for our edification.

[PeterUK]

"I believe that, unless a substantial number of those messages can be proven to be faked, most people will simply not care."

No,most people will think,"Never trust a Democrat with personal information".

[topsecretk9]

Is there evidence, for example, the Hastert knew about anything other than the e-mails? -- the e-mails that a number of Democrat-friendly organizations knew about for months, but didn't consider worth pursuing?

Since Democrats have set the standard of outrage on "action" based on emails the FBI deemed nothing of a crime...

... all of them Republicans - had been told of Foley's behavior as recently as last spring or as long ago as 2000, yet didn't take effective action before ABC made the story public...

It's interesting to note they perhaps are the group to have unwittingly stepped in their own trap:

...Whenever you have two former Clinton apparatchiks gathered around a tiny little round table, you have to make sure your antennae is alert for the linguistic evasions that Clinton and his minions elevated into a modern art form. At one point during the debate, Putnam asked Emmanuel, who happens to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, whether he was aware of the nature of the Foley scandal before it broke wide open 12 days ago. Emmanuel responded, and I’m paraphrasing here because the transcript is not yet available, “I did not see the Instant Messages.”

To veteran Clinton-parsers, this choice of phrase registered as passing odd. That wasn’t either the “yes” or “no” that the question called for, even though a “no” would have driven forward Emmanuel’s narrative of Republicans’ exclusive hold on the affair’s culpability and neglect. In case you’re thinking that this might have been just an inadvertent and sloppy answer by Emmanuel, it’s worth noting that about 30 seconds later Putnam asked the exact same question and Emmanuel offered the exact same response - that he hadn’t seen the Instant Messages.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Greenwood: Good, Plame talk brought you here so then you should be familiar with all that JOM readers want to know, eventually learn, and how much the story to us differs from that of what the rest of the people eventually know.

You would then know how large the gap is between what JOM readers know and what the public knows, not that JOM readers have secret sources. We just read the story a bit closer than the average folks.

yada yada, never be surprised to see what part of the story is being pursued with the JOM comments. I'm not.

[anonymous]

The voters have been against the Democrats quite some time,which might be the reason John F Kerry isn't called Mr President.

Posted by: PeterUK | October 11, 2006 at 01:52 PM

You do mean conservative voters, don't you?

Or is anyone who votes against conservatives not a voter?

[Greenwood]

Go read the entire initial set of emaails - an over-50 man being unusually personal with a teen, referring to another boy being “in really great shape”, again describing physical activity (riding a bike and going to the gym), and then asking for a picture. (This wasn’t his office asking for a photo for the files, but a Congressman away from his office asking for a picture while being personal with the boy.) Also, asking for his birthday. One can reasonably argue that this was innocent, merely “overly-friendly”. But to most parents of teens, those who have been target of predators or having had to deal with predatory situations, it just doesn’t pass the test of propriety. Unfortunately, the House leadership (other than Reynolds)won’t even acknowledge this possible interpretation of the email. Anon, you may not see it this way, but according to Monday's opinion polls, most people do.

[anon]

I believe that, unless a substantial number of those messages can be proven to be faked, most people will simply not care.

Most people have been tricked into thinking that the IM's were widely known about and that they were covered up. If it is ever explained to them that they have been misled, I think they will care about the facts.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I would like to see a survey of Congress to find out how many times a correspondent is asked to send a pic. We required pictures be attached to all requests for job recommendations and/or recommendations for service academies and appointments. My Congresswoman wanted the pictures to fix a person in her mind among the thousands she met with after speeches, public appearances, fund raisers, volunteers, etc. I never thought anything of it. Of course, she was a 67 year old woman who collected cute young guys around her as drivers, and bodyguards, but no one would ever think it had a sexual connotation. Actually quite a ludicrous idea if you knew the Congresswoman. The point, however, it was standard practice to ask for bios and pics.

[anonymous]

"You would then know how large the gap is between what JOM readers know and what the public knows, not that JOM readers have secret sources."

And don't forget the gap between what JOM readers know and what they imagine they know; the latter derived from the "secret sources" located deep in the subconscious.

[topsecretk9]

ACE kills me:

Harry Reid Makes $1 Million In Sketchy Real Estate Sale (In Which He Owned No Property), Fails To Disclose To FEC —Ace

And he hung up the phone when asked about it by reporters.

I demand an immediate investigation into what Harry Reid knew about his sketchy windfalls engineered by a Democratic hack implicated in a bribery scandal, and when he knew it.

Also, I'd like Nancy Pelosi to accept responsibility and resign.

[cboldt]

I got a charge out of these tidbits of objective prose ...

less insidious Foley e-mails [less insidious?]

more salacious instant messages [MORE salacious?]

The most sexually explicit material -- the instant messages [most sexually explicit?]

[release of IMs] appears to be disconnected from politics [wishful thinking]

I also notice this from the so-called Republican page, "... the fastest way to get Foley the justice he deserved."

Justice by exposure in the media. The new Republican paradigm. Have we sissified young men to the point that they can't tell an old lecher to buzz off, and leave it at that?

It won't be hard to narrow down the population of pages to find the two untrustworthy nitwits who endeavored to spread Edmund's embarrassing IMs far and wide. With friends like that ...

[Syl]

Greenwood

But some of you actually believe that if it transpires that some Democrats also knew about Foley, the voters will then turn against the Democrats?

The Democrats were shopping the emails around--why didn't they take them to the Page board?

Voters will think, hmmmmmm, we're blaming Hastert? The Democrats were spreading these emails far and wide--against the parents wishes. And Pelosi accused the Republicans of a coverup--for the children?

Screw the D's.

[anon]

Greenwood

Why are you unable to point to anything in the emails which is damming? I asked you to quote the portions which you find so shocking, not give me your characterisation of them.

"according to Monday's opinion polls, most people do."

Most people don't have the faintest idea of what happened here. They have seen the IM's and are under the impression that these were common knowledge but that nothing was done about them. No prizes for guessing how they picked up that mistaken idea.

[Greenwood]

The parents of the page who sent the original emails did not wish anything more than to have the emails to their son stopped. They would have no right to request that Foley not be investigated for further improprieties, nor is there any indication that they did so.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

What would anonymous do with its time if it didn't have us to annoy and bore every other minute?

Unravelling a plot is a mental exercise that seems to be beyond the capacity of anonymous.

Anonymous is trying its best to interupt the collective flow. Any other blog would have banned it long ago.

[boris]

Regardless of wht most people believe the actual situation is this:

What Republicans knew: "How are you, send me a picture"

What Democrats knew: "I'd drive all day for a hot young stud like you!"

Certain folk would like that to be what "most people" know about the case.

[sad]

The timing of the disclosure of Mark Foley's e-mails appears to be more of a fluke than a political gambit.

Now you know its going to be laid at the feet of the dems... its just a fluke!!!

Sounds similar to "Armitage was just gossiping" and Sandy Berger is always stuffing stuff in his pants."

[boris]

Foley not be investigated

For what exactly? "send me a picture" ???

Hastert isn't a trained investigator. Find an example where "evidence" comparable to "send me a picture" has been used as probable cause to initiate a house ethics committee or FBI investigation.

[anonymous]

Voters will think, ,,,

Posted by: Syl | October 11, 2006 at 02:25 PM

Sure they will.

[PeterUK]

"You do mean conservative voters, don't you?"

No that is why you have been out of power for two terms,as long as enough voters hate you more than the conservatives,it is political wilderness time,again.

[anon]

They would have no right to request that Foley not be investigated for further improprieties,

Further improprieties suggest that there were initial improprieties. You still have been unable to make the case that this is so. When called on it, you simply point to "poll numbers".

There is considerably more evidence for "improprieties" on the part of Harry Reid then there was for Foley. Yet Reid continues not to be investigated, and the Democrats continue not to call for such an investigation. Do his improprieties mean nothing to you?

[Patton]

"""Foley's e-mails asked a former page from Louisiana for a picture and told him he had just finished a long bike ride and was going to the gym. """"

Clinton's e-mails asked a intern for a blowj-b and told her he had just finished smoking the cigar he sodomized her with.

Mel Reynold's e-mails asked a 16 year old for a more nasty sex and told her he had plans to have sex with her and a 15 year old.

Barney Frank's e-mails asked a male prostitute for a an-l s-x for getting his parking tickets fixed and told him he had just finished decorating the basement for the prostution ring business.

Kennedy's e-mails asked a young field worker if she was pregnant with his baby and told her he had just finished waxing the car and if she'd like to take a swim...

[Greenwood]

Anon, the entire emails are on pdf files and I will need to retype them all. You could save me the trouble by reading them yourself, with an open mind.

[Patton]

Hey Anonymous, I just took a long bike ride, how you doing after that storm? Send me a picture if you get the chance.

Yeah, I'm doing him....

[MJW]

From the Wapo article: The one media outlet that did, ABC News, took them public in late September only because the lead reporter, Brian Ross, had put the story on hold for more than a month as he pursued stories commemorating the anniversaries of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

How totally disingenuous. I half expected them to add, "Ross didn't even realize an election was coming up." Are we supposed to believe ABC didn't realize the significance of the story's timing?

[Patton]

I think the American people do not plan to vote for Mr. Foley....good thing he isn't actually running for anything.

Love the Democrat against Chris Shays having Ted Kennedy visit to talk about morals and respect for younger staff members.

Then he wiped his butt with Mary Joe's hankerchief.

[anon]

Greenwood

Like everyone here, I've looked over all the emails quite carefully.

I'm not asking you to write an essay here. Just write out the particular lines which strike you as most outrageous. Or the one line if you prefer.

Why is this so difficult for you?

[PeterUK]

"The parents of the page who sent the original emails did not wish anything more than to have the emails to their son stopped. They would have no right to request that Foley not be investigated for further improprieties, nor is there any indication that they did so."

Yes, as long as the correspndence to the boy ceased,the parents had no problem with the emails and IMs being splashed all over the media,what reasonable parent would?

[Thomas Morrissey]

The evil Republicans cooked up this scandal to deflect the Nations attention away from the only real victim in Washington.

Good ole' Joe Wilson

Our personal fight, or at least the one to which our name is attached, is not, in fact a fight on behalf of Joe and Valerie Wilson. This is not about us and never has been. Indeed, whatever hardship we may have suffered in the past three years at the hands of our government is mere inconvenience compared to what this nation of ours, and in particular those brave men and women who wear the uniforms of the armed services, and their families have suffered.

The article I wrote for the New York Times challenged sixteen words in the President's State of the Union address. The next day the White House spokesman acknowledged that those sixteen words did not quote rise to the inclusion in the State of the Union unquote. Why then, do we not know who put the lie in the President's mouth? Why instead do we know the name of a covert CIA officer who happens to be my wife?

Keep speaking truth to power, Joe.

Joe Wilson’s speech to “People for the American Way”

[anonymous]

No that is why you have been out of power for two terms,as long as enough voters hate you more than the conservatives,it is political wilderness time,again.

Posted by: PeterUK | October 11, 2006 at 02:39 PM

Well, Pete, I don't know about you, but I can tell you for sure that I haven't been out of power "for two terms."

[Syl]

MJW

I half expected them to add, "Ross didn't even realize an election was coming up."

LOL

[verner]

Both spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear that exposure would leave them open to harassment, especially from bloggers.

Translation: Loraditch and adelaidemocrat/Zack (and maybe Melanne) lurk here, know that we know a whole lot about them, and know that their silly stories don't stand up to scrutiny. And besides, what should the little twits expect? They tried to throw the midterms.

My advice, (if they're reading this) come clean in the press, and co-operate with the FBI--you are dealing with some very sleazy characters, and at this point, it is your best bet. People al;ready know who you are, and who your friends are.

They thought that they could stay anonymous, and that no one could figure out who Jordan was because ABC had promised to redact the IMs...tought luck.

[Patton]

"""Harry Reid Makes $1 Million In Sketchy Real Estate Sale (In Which He Owned No Property), Fails To Disclose To FEC —Ace ""

What did Nancy know and how long did she retain it in he bubbly little brain.
Ohh look, something shiney Nancy, said Harry.

[PeterUK]

"Well, Pete, I don't know about you, but I can tell you for sure that I haven't been out of power "for two terms."
So you are still banging on like the Energizer Bunny?

[sad]

Analmuss is trying to make a point about just ignoring that which disturbs you.

[PeterUK]

"Ross didn't even realize an election was coming up."

Well,they are all so samey nowadays.

[anonymous]

So you are still banging on like the Energizer Bunny?

Posted by: PeterUK | October 11, 2006 at 02:54 PM

As you seem to be.

["Sad:" (and I do wonder why you are) ... Who said there was a point to any of this?]

[cboldt]

verner -- My advice, (if they're reading this) come clean in the press --

That would deprive Jordan Edmund of getting even by confirming their identity. If I was in Jordan's shoes, my response to the betrayal would be to publicly disclose the names of the people in the small circle of trusted friends that he shared the IMs with - and limit that disclosure to the close friends who were in the page program.

I'd also make it known that most pages are trustworthy - unlike the two who took private personal information and used it to attempt political gain.

Everybody wins that way. The two betrayers will be elevated in stature among Democrats, and Jordan will redeem some of his dorky/masturbatory revelation.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Via Drudge/AP/Breitbart:

A group of House Republicans called Wednesday for a congressional investigation into the improper handling of classified documents by President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

Berger admitted last year that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives in 2003 and destroyed some of them at his office. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and was fined $50,000.

Ten lawmakers led by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R- Calif., and Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., released a letter calling for the House Government Reform Committee to investigate.

They asked the committee to determine whether any documents were missing from Clinton administration terrorism records, to review security measures for classified documents and to seek testimony from Berger.

Hunter's spokesman, Joe Kasper, said the Justice Department had asked Congress to hold off on any oversight until the legal case concluded.

"It's important that the House conduct its own review to ensure there is a clear understanding of the facts, and sensitive and highly classified security information is not potentially compromised in the future," Kasper said.

Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, did not immediately return a call for comment. A spokesman for the Government Reform Committee said the panel was reviewing the letter.

At issue is a strange sequence of events in which Berger admitted to sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives in his suit, later destroying some of them and then lying about it. The Bush administration disclosed the investigation in July 2004, just days before the Sept. 11 commission issued its final report.

During Berger's sentencing hearing Breuer characterized Berger as eager to get the facts of the Sept. 11 attacks right when he took the material, which contained information relating to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.

[PeterUK]

It does keep the mind off the utter lack of policies on behalf of the Loyal Opposition.God forbid that the Democrats should start running on the issues.Besides North Korea testing a nuclear weapon might focus attention on who gave it the technology.

[anonymous]

My advice, (if they're reading this) come clean in the press --

Posted by: cboldt | October 11, 2006 at 03:10 PM

"They" are surely avid readers of your comments, (and those of the rest of the 'investigate team.')

[cboldt]

Completing the e-mail collection (I think), here is a forth one ...

I just emailed will...hes such a nice guy....acts much older than his age...and hes in really great shap....i am just finishing riding my bike on a 25 mile journy now heading to the gym....whats school like for you this year?

Three other ones typed out above.

[TexasToast]

Besides North Korea testing a nuclear weapon might focus attention on who gave it the technology.

A swiss company upon whose board of directors sat our current SecDef, Donald Rumsfeld.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

This idiot situation with North Korea is a direct result of the appeasement policies of Madeline Albright, arguably the most incompetent Secy of State ever. Of course, she was carrying out the policies of her president, arguably after Carter, the most incompetent president on foreign affairs ever. They are the ones who thought making nice with the little twerp and sealing it with a toast was all that was needed. Idiots. Democrats are idiots.

[PeterUK]

"Anon, the entire emails are on pdf files and I will need to retype them all. You could save me the trouble by reading them yourself, with an open mind."

But of course this cannot be done with the knowledge of hindsight,you are reading them in the full knowledge of the scandal attached to them.

[anonymous]

But of course this cannot be done with the knowledge of hindsight,you are reading them in the full knowledge of the scandal attached to them.

Posted by: PeterUK | October 11, 2006 at 03:27 PM

And that is a shame. If only we could consider it all without thinking of Mr. Foley.

[PeterUK]

TT
"The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors."

The Immortal Jimmy Carter.

[anonymous]

Isn't North Korea a member in good standing of "the Axis of Evil?"

I don't understand why the "shock & awe" campaign hasn't already begun.

[Jane]

I don't understand why the "shock & awe" campaign hasn't already begun

From what I've read you don't understand much of anything Deb. Well, apparently now you understand what it means to do jail time. I guess that is something.

[Greenwood]

To Anon’s earlier question about what in the email is outrageous; sorry for the delay, the ABC website was overloaded, and you did specify exact quotes.

Of course, the issue is not only the exact wording of Foley's emails but also (1) the fact that they were from a then-51 year old man to a boy of 16 or 17, and (2) the reactions of that boy.

From Foley:
“how old are you now?”

“I just emailed will … hes such a nice guy …acts much older than his age … and hes in really great shape … I am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym”

“send me an email pic of you as well”

The boy’s reactions:
“For some reason he likes to talk about riding his bike a lot … I don’t want to try at finding meaning in that. AHH! lol.

“I talked to another page that was here during the school year and first part of the summer. Kerianna (her name) said there was a congressman that hit on pages. She didn’t know his name…”

“sicksicksicksicksicksick…….”

“Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out. But do tell me what you think about it all. I have one friend thinking I am being paranoid and the other saying that she thinks it is weird that he even asked for my email, much more what he said.”

“Anyway. If you can, mention this to Rodney so he is aware. I wonder what he would do about it.”
______

1) Foley is being very personal, discussing another boy being in really great shape, then discussing physical activity, then asking for a picture. This, to someone who understands predatory behavior, is the typical progression first into talk about the body, then proceeding towards possible sexual communication. The request for his age is another clue, typical in an online discussion moving towards sex, but unusual in this situation because Foley should have known the boy was going into his senior year.
2) The page describes how these emails have “freaked him out”, asks that his congressman be told, and wonders “what he would do about it”
3) The page also mentions another (named) page telling him about a congressman who hits on pages. This shows that it isn’t an isolated situation and should have prompted a more serious response.

Most readers here will cling to the theory that the emails were merely friendly. But don't accept my views; if you can, talk to a personal acquaintance who has dealt with predatory situations in, for instance, a school or community organization or workplace. Or maybe a cop working in this area.

Thank you sincerely for your indulgence.

[anonymous]

Well, guys, I'm not leaving till you stopping digging into this scandal - it's what I'm paid to do.

[anonymous]

Wow, Greenwood, I went back and read your comments about the Plame situation, where your only contributions were to ridicule the JOM posters for "not getting it" about the Plame situation while trying to pin the blame on Rove and other senior Republicans.

And now you're trying to ridicule the JOM posters for "not getting it" about the Foley situation while trying to pin the blame on Hastert and other senior Republicans.

Go away, son, you're a proven loser and you're making us professional smokescreeners look bad.

[anon]

Greenwood

Most readers here will cling to the theory that the emails were merely friendly. But don't accept my views; if you can, talk to a personal acquaintance who has dealt with predatory situations in, for instance, a school or community organization or workplace. Or maybe a cop working in this area.

You appear to be being deliberately obtuse. The "cops", in the form of the FBI, looked at these emails and found nothing there that warranted any action.

The newspapers had these emails for the past year, and refused to publish them precisely because the emails had nothing significant in them.

Perhaps in your mind, with the benefit of hindsight and having seen the instant messages, its blindingly obvious that Foley was a ... what?

But in the opinion of everyone who saw these emails, whether cops, House leaders, or journalists, there was no "there" there. It is pure revisionist history to say now that everyone should have know that Foley ... what did Foley do again?

[norm d'plume]

Gabriel, I think you might be onto something with our friend Greenwood Storage Systems. Didn't he use to post here under another name? JuiceboxCad or something? Good instinct.

[PeterUK]

"Most readers here will cling to the theory that the emails were merely friendly."

But they don't,what is being pointed out is FBI said there was no case,that no crime had been committed.Everyone thinks the emails were questionable,but that has never been the issue,the political gambit that is being argued against is that Hastart should resign,notice Foley has gone.
This is not and has never been about Foley or "The Children" but how to force a resignation at election time.For that reason and that reason alone the Democrats sat on the information they had and show themselves to be utter hypocrites.

[SlimGuy]

Another theory is ABC knew about the IMs -- but that would imply ABC is lying.

Posted by: MJW | October 11, 2006 at 01:51 PM

Not lying, as they see it , just carefully wording their response like Rahm's I did not see the emails.

The never said we don't have them in our possession AND had no knowledge of their existance.

So what you end up with is truth in the first part the the ommission of the second.

Considering all other news sources considered the emails insufficient data, it follows for abc to run with the story they had to have a reliable source at least tell them some of the content of the im's , assure they existed and that they would be forthcoming when the story broke.

Otherwise ABC would just be putting themselves in the position of being a gay bashing scandle rag gossip sheet.

[anonymous]

Jane:

Are you delusions persistent? or do they come and go?