Oct 05 2006

Foleygate May Turn Into CREWgate

Published by at 11:05 pm under All General Discussions,Foleygate

The FBI, which keeps meticulous records and has no reason to spin this mess, is now claiming that CREW had the emails as early as April and that they were so heavily redacted the FBI could not do much with them – so says the Washington Post:

Law enforcement officials said then that the e-mails did not provide enough evidence of a possible crime to warrant a full investigation. In the e-mails, Foley praises the physical attributes of one page and asks another teenager for his picture.

In subsequent days, unidentified Justice and FBI officials told reporters that the e-mails provided by CREW were heavily redacted and that the group refused to provide unedited versions to the FBI. One law enforcement official — speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation — also told The Washington Post the FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April and that the group refused to tell the FBI how they were obtained.

April! If CREW was so worried about the well being of these Pages why wait until July to release them to authorities if they had them in April. And as someoneMichael Barone pointed out tonight on Fox News, Crew could have provided the emails to Democrat members of the Page and Ethics Committees of the House – but they did not! Why? Why give useless versions only to the FBI in July?

What the Post is not reporting is CREW mentioned on CNN their source was a Hill Staffer. And how long did the Hill Staffer have these emails? Why is CREW obstructing the investigation?

4 responses so far

4 Responses to “Foleygate May Turn Into CREWgate”

  1. clarice says:

    Just popped in after reading the WaPo story to tell you to change the timeline to reflect this new revelation–that CREW had stuff in April!

    You beat myou whippersnapper.

  2. roonent1 says:


    Check this out from Macsmind! It is pretty wild.

    “Here is a troubling messageboard conversation from the House Page Alumni Association (Google cache).

    (Note the first commentor).

    jordanedmund: (Apr 23 2006, 06:34 PM)
    Has anyone been in contact with the author? Do we know how it is coming? Was it just given up on?

    adlaidemocrat: (Apr 24 2006, 03:43 PM)
    Not the faintest clue; I would venture to guess it’s been given up. I was never under the impression that the person had a publisher or any such thing.

    jordanedmund: (Apr 24 2006, 03:43 PM )
    When I spoke to her, on the phone, a year or so back, sh said she had written a few other books. I would doubt that there was someone who would be willing to publish a book about pages though. The Clerks counsel would probably keep anything from being published anyway. Probably on the grounds that we all signed confidentiality agreements when we started; so, every interview she did with a page would be null. Just my assumption.

    adlaidemocrat: (Apr 24 2006, 04:04 PM)
    I think the only way something could get published about it is if it were a tell-all memoir (either classy like George Stephanopolous’s “All Too Human” or scandalous like the “Washingtonienne” affair)

    chiquita banana: (Apr 25 2006, 12:48 PM )
    Kinda off subject, but there are House pages in our Algebra book. lol

    washingtonmaiden: (Apr 26 2006, 06:30 PM )
    i not sure there could be a tell all about pages. dont get me wrong i loved my job. we were not close to any one, stephanopolous had a very close relationship to a president. im not sure about the rest of you but my best relationship seemed to be the wall.

    we are kinda of dull in comparision to the campagin trail. think about how many hours you spent reading. i finished virginia woolf’s orlando in two weeks. that has to be a record for a woolf novel.

    my guess is the pubisher thougt it would be boring”


    So was Jordon looking for a bookdeal? Maybe a “scandalous” story? Perhaps he went a little too far in the game, and perhaps that’s why he now needs a criminal attorney? So many questions.

  3. Barbara says:

    As I understand it, these democrats who are outing gay republicans are angry that they are not using their office to get gay agendas passed. Foley became a target because he voted the way his constitutients wanted him to. Which is right and proper. It is sad that these people wanted Foley to ignore the people he respresented. I have seen no proof that Foley broke the law. He is a creepy guy for e-mailing these boys in the first place, but he did back off when told to. I find it hard to believe that he im’d boys who rejected his continuous advances. There is only so much rejection a person can take. And besides there are many other boys out there who might like this sort of thing. I also find it hard to believe that these boys kept these messages for all these years. I myself have had three different computers in the last ten years and I certainly did not keep any e-mails from that time. I think this is a hit job by the democrats. These people are very angry that they are not in power. They truly can’t understand why not. They really believe that theirs is the best way, and it just doesn’t compute that they are not in power. After all, they control the media, the unions, the schools, the colleges and SCOTUS (if we rely on Kennedy to be the only moderate or swing vote, we are screwed). They can always come up with a liberal judge to muddy the waters by ruling the way the democrats want. Unfortunately for them middle America is getting wise to them and their shenigans. Witness their trying to abolish the electoral college. They are getting desperate. They know they are going to lose some seats this Nov. They have lost seats in the last few elections. They actually think the promise to impeach President Bush will get them votes. They have no answers to any problems. The only thing they can think to say is Bush is wrong. What is going to happen if another republican is elected president in 2008. Will he become Hitler du jour?

  4. Barbara says:

    Just read on Hugh Hewitt that three more pages have come out and told FBI that Foley e-mailed or im’t them with sexually explicit remarks. They said he did not want to talk politics but about their bodies. My question is, why, if Foley did this, in the hell did they not report it at the time? This was a congressman, for god’s sake, hitting on young boys in the page program. These were three boys from three different years and not one of them reported anything to anybody? This has the smell of rotten fish. And I understand they don’t want to go public. You can’t accuse someone of these kind of remarks in public and not give your name. Our laws state anyone can face their accuser.