Oct 10 2006

Washington Post Acknowledges Democrats Role In Foleygate

Published by at 11:37 pm under All General Discussions,Foleygate

Welcome: Welcome Hugh Hewitt and Townhall readers. For those interested in this subject I have compiled a Timeline of Events that has been developed from many bloggers following this story. All my posts on Foleygate can be found here. End

It’s about time. Once again the blogosphere is doing the detailed analysis and the antique media is playing catch up. Today the WaPo finally realizes there is more to the story than has been reported, and much is coming from the media themselves:

But there are indications that Democrats spent months circulating five less insidious Foley e-mails to news organizations before they were finally published by ABC News late last month, which prompted the leaking of the more salacious instant messages. Harper’s Magazine said yesterday that it obtained the five e-mails from a Democratic Party operative, albeit in May, long before the election season.

And they sat on them. As did the St Petersburg Times and many other media outlets. All the while none alerted the House leadership or law enforcement. And we are to believe all these media outlets and the democrat operative shopping them were concerned about the Pages?

But new information suggests that the story of the release of Foley’s communications with male ex-pages is more complicated than either side asserts.

The most sexually explicit material — the instant messages that forced Foley’s abrupt resignation on Sept. 29 and turned his actions into a full-fledged scandal — appears to be disconnected from politics. The two former pages who revealed the correspondence to ABC News and The Washington Post, however, may never have come forward had Democratic operatives not divulged the five more benign e-mails that Foley had sent to a Louisiana boy.

Again, more confirmation from WaPo that (a) a Democrat operative was the source of the less salacious emails and (b) this story was shopped from November 2005 to August 2006. And even then the WaPo is somehow working off an erroneous timeline. The very first Foley email is the one where he asks “Do I have the right email?” and is dated July 29, 2005 – not 2004 as the post ‘reports’. It is this kind of simple misreporting which has been the hallmark of this entire scandal. The WaPo is trying to claim their Dem Operative source is not the same earlier source, based on more misreporting on the custody of the emails coming from a Rep congressional office to the democrat operative(s):

Silverstein said his source was a “Democratic operative,” the same source that had provided the e-mail exchanges to the St. Petersburg Times in November 2005. Both the magazine and the paper declined to publish a story. But the source “was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party,” Silverstein added. “This person was genuinely disgusted by Foley’s behavior, amazed that other publications had declined to publish stories about the emails, and concerned that Foley might still be seeking contact with pages.”

A second source emerged, however, just last month, peddling the e-mails to several other publications, including The Post. And Ross of ABC News has stressed that his initial source was a Republican.

By my count that makes 2 Democrat operatives peddling this story, and not notifying authorities who could take action to protect the Pages. But the WaPo has to admit their source was intent on harming Reps – so why did they not report this fact sooner?

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.

One of ABC News’s sources, a former page, said he went public with his knowledge of the instant messages on Sept. 29 only after the network, the day before, published the questionable e-mails that Foley had sent to the Louisiana boy. 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.

“I in no way knew or intended to have all the brouhaha about what the GOP leadership knew and when they knew it,” he said in a detailed e-mail to The Post. “Truthfully, I am very troubled about what it seems has gone on behind the scenes, but that in no way affects my wish to have a continued GOP control of Congress. There are bad apples everywhere.”

The Post subsequently received the instant messages from a Democratic college student who had served as a page with the two teenagers who had corresponded with Foley and had shared their instant messages.

Unlike the ABC News source, The Post’s source conceded that he would like to see the Democrats seize control of the House in November, but when approached by a Post reporter about the instant messages, he was reluctant to provide them. Days later, he did so.

The only reason the WaPo would report on the problems with their sources is to head off some pending news. They are desperately trying to get out in front of some damaging news. Interestingly, the Rep Page decided to come forward to protect the kids, unlike his Democrat counterpart:

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

The Republican former page said he had decided it was up to the victims to come forward with them, but once ABC News published the e-mails, “I knew everything I had already known about Foley was finally going to come out. His attraction to young men. His sexual conversations with them, etc.”

What other evidence do we need other than the admissions by Harpers and the WaPo that they dealt with democrat operatives and used democrat sources bent on impacting the coming elections?

41 responses so far

41 Responses to “Washington Post Acknowledges Democrats Role In Foleygate”

  1. biwah says:

    It’s ironic that, having fallen short on some basic facts, you are attacking my motivations. Seems like a theme.

    In fact, I have not taken any issue with where you’re coming from – just with what you’re saying.

  2. AJStrata says:

    Attacking your motivations? Naw. Attacking your ability to grasp my points and my views – definitely!

    Welcome to the Strata-Sphere. I don’t mince words.

  3. biwah says:

    You’re right, you weren’t attacking my motivations as much as defending your own. But as long as we’re not mincing words, I don’t care where you live or about your democratic bona fides. Your previous post tells part of the story about why Foley was allowed to operate so long – an interesting, sordid and complex tale where i imagine no one is a white knight. It would be more credible if you didn’t try to bolster it with false statements such as those I pointed out, and which you’ve tried to laugh off.

    I do feel quite at home, thanks. This may be my last potshot of the day, as I have to get to work.

  4. Getting Out In Front?…

    AJ Strata has a very, very interesting take on a revelation published in the Washington Post. In it, the reporters admit that the Foley scandal was being shopped around by Democratic party operatives since at least November, 2005. A number of…

  5. carol johnson says:

    AJ,

    “For this country to focus on all those really important issues, the Democrats need a good drubbing at the polls this fall so they give up the scandal mongering and start taking all this seriously.”

    …..

    You won’t get any arguement from me on that for sure. I am just totally disgusted at the lack of action on the “justice” front the last few years (dangerous national security leaks). I mean, maybe there’s something in the wind that we don’t know about yet.

    I too gave up on the Democratic Party after 30 years! I really DO hope this will be the one time when we put politics aside and consider who we trust with our lives, our money, and our sovereigntyas a country. I know how I am voting.

    Just my frustration showing…that’s all.

    Carol

  6. Specter says:

    Too funny biwah – go back and hang at patterico….

    Fact is that the dems are pushing for Hastert to resign because he “knew about” the emails for a year, and according to them, did nothing to “protect the teen pages.” Well – turnabout is fair play. If Hastert should quit because of that reasoning, then so should all of the Dems who knew about it – including the bosses of the “operatives” – like maybe Spkr2BNP. It is becoming apparent that they “knew” about the problem with the pages too, and did nothing to stop it. More than that, they sat on the emails from what – March? – until just before elections to re-shop them to MSM. Why is that? Because they knew MSM would want something juicy to get their favored candidates elected……

    Terrye – You are even closer to the truth of the matter I think. Back in 2003/2004 the version of AIM that was circulating did not have automatic logging. Each and every IM had to be saved using the “save” menu option – and even then only the conversation was saved in text (.rtf) format. Now the question becomes why would someone save such IMs? My guess is that these over-ambitious, politico wannabes were busy putting evidence in their back pockets to use as “bargaining chips” when they made it to DC in their own right….

  7. PatrickW says:

    “The two former pages who revealed the [IM’s] to ABC News and The Washington Post, however, may never have come forward had Democratic operatives not divulged the five more benign e-mails that Foley had sent to a Louisiana boy.”

    This may be true. On the other hand it is equally possible that the emails were released in concert with the release of the IM’s. The media display remarkably little interest in the questions of who the IM leakers were, how long they had the IM’s, or how they obtained them. Why is this information being kept top secret?

  8. Sensible Mom says:

    To Democrats, Media = Police…

    The Washington Post has a timeline of the Foley scandal in hopes of disproving it was a political hit. What I find interesting are these quotes: Ken Silverstein, Washington editor for Harper’s, said on the magazine’s Web site yesterday. I…

  9. biwah says:

    Specter, why the quotes? Is “knew about” a term of art here? I guess “protecting the teen pages” is some kind of euphemism too. I thought these terms mean what they mean, and apply in spades to Hastert. *shrug* Must be election time.

    I guess in your world we need to bring you the evidence of each Dem’s innocence on a plate before you’ll accept the evidence (circumstantial, real, and by admission) of a Republican’s guilt. Anything else would be liberal bias.

  10. biwah says:

    Re Nancy Pelosi, I think you forgot your tag. If you can show any credible evidence that she knew about the emails, I will eat my shoe.

  11. biwah says:

    Last post: you forgot your (wishfulthinking) tag.

  12. biwah says:

    Specter:

    Is “knew about” a term of art then? And is “protecting the teen pages” a euphamism of some kind? It seems to me they mean what they mean, and the evidence on those facts – circumstantial, direct, and by admission – is in the bag with respect to Hastert. If only putting quotes around it would make it go away, that would be a neat trick (and one I would employ more often).

    Yes, I know you from elsewhere, and I know that you are rational individual. So why the seeming demand that you be brought proof of every last Democrat’s innocence on a plate before you will open your eyes to the obvious guilt of a Republican? I guess to any other way is just more liberal bias. No one’s saying to stop the investigation. But there is zero reason to suspend judgment on a Republican, just because we don’t have an equivalent Dem heavyweight next to him on the hot seat. There was some institutional negligence going on within the R leadership. The same standard should apply to anyone who gets implicated by real evidence. Oh, that’s “real evidence”.

  13. biwah says:

    AJ, are you eating my comments? That’s twice – not very nice.

  14. Specter says:

    You dodged the issue Biwah. It is becoming very apparent that the Democrats knew as early as Hastert. Did they do anything about it? No. Instead they shopped it to the media (as would be their wont in the “Bring Down Bush No Matter What the Facts Are” campaign), and then sat on it until just before election when nobody was buying. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. At least Hastert had people approach Foley and talk to him about it – and guess what? No more emails after that point (at least so far). But what did the dems do to protect the pages – NOTHING. Hypocrisy at best.

  15. biwah says:

    I tried to post more substantively – twice. Lost in the cyberether.

    Basically, I note your placing of “knew about” and “protect the teen pages” in quotes. It’s as if, now that they have been proven circumstantially, directly, and by admission to apply to the Repub leadership, you’d like to say these words mean something other than what they mean. What do the quotes imply – “something I’d really like to make go away”?

    …or at least suck the meaning out of through repeated relativization, right? I’d like to keep an even keel about this, but I think your finger-pointing is disgusting and hypocritical. Hastert should own up and you should stop hiding the smoking gun between a set of quotation marks. Show me a piece of real evidence that a Dem of any stature looked the other way for Foley and I will not blanch at calling for them to get out of government now. Again, that’s “Real”. “Evidence”. Anything else is a pathetic example of having your cake (“it’s an October surprise trotted out for the election!”) and eating it too (“they shopped the story last October – it’s a conspiracy!”).

    Rightwingers have bitched about the relativistic views and the paranoia of liberals for as long as I’ve been around. Now we hear that proof of every Dem leader’s innocence must be served to them on a plate before they will accept the incontrovertible fact of the appalling, self-serving negligence of one of their own. The evidence shows that the only people that could intervene other than by going to the press were the Republican leasership, who now own this issue because they tried to keep it hush-hush.

    By all means keep investigating, or perhaps you’d rather sit and churn out lie upon lie. In any case, this issue would have been put to bed if the Republican leadership had any moral compass.

  16. biwah says:

    I tried to post more substantively – twice. Lost in the cyberether.

    Basically, I note your placing of “knew about” and “protect the teen pages” in quotes. It’s as if, now that they have been proven circumstantially, directly, and by admission to apply to the Repub leadership, you’d like to say these words mean something other than what they mean. What do the quotes imply – “something I’d really like to make go away”?

    …or at least suck the meaning out of through repeated relativization, right? I’d like to keep an even keel about this, but I think your finger-pointing is disgusting and hypocritical. Hastert should own up and you should stop hiding the smoking gun between a set of quotation marks. Show me a piece of real evidence that a Dem of any stature looked the other way for Foley and I will not blanch at calling for them to get out of government now. Again, that’s “Real”. “Evidence”. Anything else is a pathetic example of having your cake (“it’s an October surprise trotted out for the election!”) and eating it too (“they shopped the story last October – it’s a conspiracy!”).

    Rightwingers have bitched about the relativistic views and the paranoia of liberals for as long as I’ve been around. Now we hear that proof of every Dem leader’s innocence must be served to them on a plate before they will accept the incontrovertible fact of the appalling, self-serving negligence of one of their own. The evidence shows that the only people that could intervene other than by going to the press were the Republican leadership, who now own this issue because they tried to keep it hush-hush.

    By all means keep investigating, or perhaps you’d rather sit and churn out lie upon lie. In any case, this issue would have been put to bed if the Republican leadership had any moral compass.

  17. How the Washington Post got the Foley ‘scoop’…

    Ever wondered how the Washington Post got word that Rep. Foley was sending inappropriate messages to pages? Well, stop scratching your head and wonder no more. Our intrepid reporters have out-investigated the mighty WaPo sleuths. To do so, they attac…..

  18. biwah says:

    AJ: The way you handled my comments is selective, many delayed, and gives no feedback. Some comments get put on 12-hr hold, and others get through instantly.

    Hmm. One more time – what are those “politically neutral” creds of yours again?

  19. AJStrata says:

    BIWAH,

    One more complaint-insult like this and you will be the first one ever banned from here. Comments on this site hit a moderation queue if they contain certain words or have too many links. I have spam filters that catch comments at times too. I don’t sit around all day checking to see if your inane little comments hit the moderation queues or not.

    This is your one and only warning – which I fully expect you to screw up in another fit of ‘its all about BIWAH!!!’ whining. Give it a rest will you? You provide no value to the debate here, so slinging insults my way will only leave me with one simple solution. I have no requirement on me to put up with your childish behavior on my site.

    Clear?

  20. biwah says:

    So much for not mincing words AJ. I have pointed out your factual inaccuracies and have been warned to back off to “protect my image”. Do you really think that kind of sniveling misdirection is what brings commenters?

    Any ban from you would be moot at this point. You don’t need to post this comment either – it’s just for you.