Oct 06 2006

Two Versions Of The Foley Emails, And One Fake

Published by at 3:58 pm under All General Discussions,Foleygate

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.

Clearly these are supposed to be forwarded by the LA Page to the Staffer which was apparent in the CREW leading email on August 31, 2005 (link above).

Looking at the first email heading (supposedly from the LA Page to the House Staffer) the redactions are not identical. The “from” line in the ABC News email is clearly there and being redacted by ABC News. But the fact both CREW and ABC News have the same redactions for the rest of the header means those redactions are much earlier and from the common source (either that or ABC News shared its version with CREW, which then added more redactions).

This is interesting because the next email heading we see is the one from Foley to the page. ABC News is trying to blot out the AOL domain name, but both versions use different redactions for the Page’s ‘from’ field. This means both CREW and ABC News knew who the potential victim was! And did they pass that onto to the FBI? Did CREW give the copies to the FBI they have on their site with the Page’s details blacked out? We shall see.

We see the same pattern throughout. The source common to both CREW and ABC News had the ‘to’ and ‘date’ fields redacted in the same, identical way – meaning both CREW and ABCNews got the emails with these fields redacted! So how could they place these emails in context? Why is it ony the first email, signed by Mark Foley asking if he had the right email address, is the only one with the date not blacked out? Why are all the rest redacted? Shouldn’t the ‘to’ field be Foley’s email address? Something is not right here.

The only other difference is the name ‘Will’ in email 4 is not redacted in the CREW version (and the name also appears in the separate first email that precedes these emails in the CREW version), leaving one to wonder why CREW is leaving that name public.

Both copies have been copied a lot. The CREW one looks to be newer and possibly a precursor version of the ABC News version. I see similar copy spots on the lines across the top on both, but clearly newer ones on the ABCNews version. We know they came from the same source with the same redactions. The question is did ABC News get their copy from CREW.

Wild Bill, over at Passionate American, did an analysis of the CREW and StopSexPredators (SSP) versions a while back (check it out). In that analysis the ‘subject’ line had not been overwritten in the SSP versions with ’email 2′, etc that we find in the other two versions. The date field is totally missing in the SSP web versions and the typing was inconsistent – like someone was taking dictation. So that makes the SSP version completely different from the EARLIER versions CREW and ABCNEWS had in May and August (see the timeline). Which means either ABC News, or CREW, or the original source dictated or worked with SSP to create faked versions – which supposedly broke the story

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

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

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Two Versions Of The Foley Emails, And One Fake”

  1. roonent1 says:

    Copied alot huh? Kinda like the GW national guard memos. Interesting indeed.

  2. smh10 says:

    This is interesting


    quite a read and another piece of the puzzle maybe.

  3. Snapple says:

    This is waaay too complicated for me.

    I am glad some people are smart enough to figure it all out.

    It is starting to look like those Dan Rather forgeries.

  4. Policy Police says:

    What are you trying to say here? Foley admitted it! You’ll do anything you can to undermine the MSM, leaving America with no reliable source for information. Maybe the media seems biased to the ultra-radical bomb-em-all crowd, but not to true Christians.

  5. AJStrata says:

    Policy Police,

    Take a chill pill dude!

  6. smh10 says:


    You and me both.

    Policy Police:

    We all agree Foley should be gone..not one person I have read anywhere has said any the different but to infer that the media is biased towards the right, I am sorry, that I cannot buy. This is not a Christian issue, or an issue that belongs to just the right or left, it is an issue for all Americans. Truth in reporting is something we should all care about.

  7. roonent1 says:

    Policy Police you are in the minority on this. If the donks want to hang Hastert for not knowing about the Ims, well we would like to find out which donks knew of the Ims and held them for the right political time, thus allowing Foley to continue his way and leaving the pages exposed to him.

    That is what we are seeking. It is becoming clearer every hour and day that the donks knew more about Foley’s sordid behavior and continued to let him run amok to suit their quest for political power.

    The pages should not have been exposed to this one minute longer after the Ims were discovered by members of congres, yet the donks did not care for the safety of the pages.

  8. Enlightened says:

    When did Foley admit to anything? I know he admitted through his attorney he was gay, but he admitted to the e-mails and IM’s?

  9. kathie says:

    This is interesting because the truth is necessary. Foley said he was gay and had a drinking problem and had been molested, period.

  10. topsecretk9@AJ says:

    AJ…also note…CREW is on a second iteration of their email redaction …

    the first release (which I have) the did not redact a few names, it appears in this version they tried to correct their mistake.

  11. For Enforcement says:

    Policy Police, I just love it when somebody says something like you did. It keeps my faith up in the Loony Left.

    “anything you can to undermine the MSM, leaving America with no reliable source for information.”
    You don’t really put the MSM in the reliable source of info category do you? Not really?

    Maybe the media seems biased to the ultra-radical bomb-em-all crowd, but not to true Christians.
    Tell me again the definition of a “true” christian vs the “run of the mill” christian. I think I must have missed it when you told us before. I’m trying to figure out which I am and, if you can, tell me which is the best to be?

  12. RBMN says:

    I wish I could be a fly on the wall of the FBI document section when they get this stuff. They’re going to get a good laugh, that should have happened at ABC, if the folks at ABC were smart enough to understand how worthless this evidence is.

  13. Christoph says:

    Kathie, I’m with you. Same with you, Enlightened.

    I may be in the position of finally defending Foley, at least from the very worst of the charges, before this is over. And this is after I attacked him.

    First, his 16-year olds were 17-18, his pages were, it turns out, no longer working for him, and the IMs and emails… look to have been altered.

    Do I approve of homosexuality? No, not really. I find women way too hot, but that’s a personal taste thing.

    Do I approve of going after someone who is 17-18?

    That’s a tougher question.

    I’m 34, my girlfriend is 25, and I wouldn’t want her a day younger, I love her the way she is right now.

    My experience with dating women in their early 20s (say a few years younger than my girlfriend and I have relatively recent experience with this) is that they’re generally young, fun, and annoying as heck. And alas, as I get older, we have much less in common. I look at teenagers and while I recognize them as pretty, am hardly attracted to them at all.

    My preference, truth be told, is women in their 30s. This is hardly difficult to understand, I have more to talk about with them. But… my girlfriend is an exception. She’s an amazing honey.

    But turning to women who are 17/18. Very young, yes, but old enough to marry, to join the military… do I prefer this age group?

    Not a bit.

    If I was single and I met someone absolutely amazing whom I loved deeply and who felt that way about me and whom we were attracted to each other, would I consider a relationship with someone this age?

    Yes, I would. I would hate the fact that she was so much younger because I would be smart enough to realize she may lose interest in me, if not now, then when she’s 30-something and I’m 50-something. I wouldn’t like people questioning my motives or, worse, hers. But ultimately, if I loved her, I would not throw away my love or hers because of a number. Not that number.

    It’s categorically legal and, I would argue, moral. If a person is an adult, then they’re an adult.

    Where am I going with this?

    I believe Foley showed incredibly bad judgment. I believe he manipulatively used his position as a Congressman to leverage that, once the pages were back home and less under his sway, to build “friendships” with them. I think he was pathetic and unduly attracted to young flesh and had little ability to romantically pursue someone his own age.

    I don’t relate with these things.

    I am glad he resigned.

    But is he a “child molester”? I’m left to conclude that he isn’t – based on what we’ve heard so far. I’m left to conclude that he was struggling with his own perverse attraction exclusively to people younger than himself (other than, say, an exceptional person he happened to meet under extraordinary circumstances who happened to be much younger than he). And, yes, he probably is an alcoholic not that it excuses anything.

    I am of the school of thought that child molesters should be shot after being tortured.

    Well, I don’t believe that should be enshrined in law; I think a prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” is a good thing. But if it was my child… well, let’s just say that I may not be thinking too good.

    But throughout most of human history, people got married about 14-18. Not 18-42 as it is now… were these people evil? Were the ones who married them evil? Our grandparents who got married at 16, sometimes with someone quite a bit older than themselves, and followed this by building beautiful lives in fidelity for decades did something wrong somehow?

    I refuse to believe this.

    I don’t equate Mark Foley with my noble grandmother or grandfather – far from it. But before we throw him to the wolves completely, can we at least find out if he did what he was accused of doing and, if so, exactly which accusation he is guilty of?

  14. Tully says:

    >>You’ll do anything you can to undermine the MSM

  15. proudliberal says:

    If this all fake emails and such, why did Rep. Foley RESIGN so suddenly and apologize for “ALL THE HARM I’VE CAUSED”? You pervert protectors have a problem with those facts.

  16. AJStrata says:


    I have no clue why Foley resigned. There maybe something else out there. But the emails at SSP are forgeries. I can only tell you is a fact. How you deal with those facts is for you to decide.

    For the record, Foley is facing a criminal investigation and that is fine with me. Try your silly tripe someplace else. No one is going to be impressed here.