Search This Blog

Friday, October 06, 2006

Foleygate = Son of Rathergate

The Foley email-and-IM scandal has now focused more on the scandalous behavior of ABC News and the Democrats. First, a quick review:

The person involved in the initial chat revealed by ABC was not a minor nor a page. He was an ex-page who was apparently 18 years old at the time. Furthermore, the relationship never went beyond the chat stage. In fact, the ex-page, Jordan Edmund now claims that the whole thing was a hoax, a joke, a stunt that never went past a nasty chat or two.

Emails are, in most systems, saved until deleted. You can put them in folders or archive them but it isn't unusual to keep a copy of an email.

Instant Messages, however, are a different matter. You have to cut-and-paste the contents of the chat at the time and put it into perhaps a Word document in order to keep a record of the chat.

*Thanks to Lobo in OK for pointing out a key link that I followed to add to this post!*

The key pieces of evidence in the Foley case are emails that have been shown to be altered and chats that were kept out of sight for three years! So why, if you had such evidence against Congressman Foley, would you keep it hidden? If the behavior was so bad, who was withholding the evidence? It appears that Democrats held on to the information and waited to find a time to release the information at a time most beneficial to their election campaigns, and to hell with any kids who might in any way be endangered. It now appears, though, that Foley didn't ever have any relations with underaged pages at all but rather sent and received inappropriate messages back and forth with former pages. Let's peruse some links:

Little Green Footballs, the first to break the news that Dan Rather's National Guard documents were fakes, has noticed that there are faked/altered emails being passed around in this case.

Passionate America gets down to brass tacks on this issue:

"Foleygate : Mark Foley emails altered
***Updates at the bottom***

Who altered the Mark Foley emails?

The Congressman Mark Foley child sex scandal keeps getting stranger by the minute. I am starting to think it should be called Foleygate. Someone has altered the emails that Mark Foley is accused of sending to a congressional page. Look for yourself:


This is a picture of the email that was originally posted at Stop Sex Predators.

(I have marked the differences with red arrows. Click to enlarge)..."
Read the rest right here.

Flopping Aces has all sorts of additional information that reveals the workings of a dirty tricks machine. Here is are two excerpts:

"The fact that emails were altered is small fry compared to the fact that a known lefty operative appears to have had these emails and IM’s for quite some time and didn’t release them until now….putting how many kids at risk? For what?

A October Surprise."


Aces posts factual evidence to back up that statement here.

"Now this is how to summarize this story:

What R leadership knew: “How was your vacation, send me a pic”

What D leadership knew: “I’d drive a thousand miles for a hot young stud like you”

So who was allowing “abuse” ???

That scandal train is slowly squeaking backwards…."


Update! Flopping Aces has more details about the faked aspects of this case and the Democratic operatives behind it!

Hypocrites! Maybe in the case of the Democrats, that isn't a strong enough term. There is something inherently evil about knowingly placing young people at risk (if that is indeed what was happening) in order to pick up a few votes in November. Yes, Evil. As evil as a Congressman seeking to use his experience and power to seduce younger people. Foley, ABC News and the Democratic leadership all make me sick.

30 comments:

highboy said...

I've said this on other sites: Liberals whined that a politicians sex life is nobody's business. So they're "outrage" over the Foley issue is simply comical.

scohen said...

Three points for you two.
Point one:
Radar said this:

Instant Messages, however, are a different matter. You have to cut-and-paste the contents of the chat at the time and put it into perhaps a Word document in order to keep a record of the chat.


Radar, being in the tech industry either demonstrates willful ignorance or a lack of knowledge of what he speaks. Chat clients , especially multiprotocol implementations, logging. You do not have to copy and paste anything to have your chat history saved, it's done automatically for you. This has been available for years and is something I've used on many occasions. It's always good to be able to go back over your history.

Point two:
Liberals whined that a politicians sex life is nobody's business.

It's not, but when you have an adult soliciting sex from a minor, that is a crime. Big difference.

Point three:
This whole Foley issue is so unimportant in the grand scheme of things that it hurts my head to see so much coverage devoted to it. Does it demonstrate cronyism? yes. Does it show some hypocrisy of the republicans? Yes (ooh, big deal, hypocritical politicians). Do we as a nation have better and more important things to talk about? Absolutely.

I can't wait until we can discuss substantive issues that affect all of us rather than the sexual proclivities of a formerly unknown congressman.

scohen said...

Oops
"Chat clients , especially multiprotocol implementations, logging"

That should read
Chat clients , especially multiprotocol implementations, feature logging

radar said...

scohen - yes, chats are logged but most don't know how to access that feature and have to cut-and-paste to save the text. I was remiss in not mentioning that as an aside, thanks for whapping me upside the head with it. You are right.

Since it now appears that there is zero evidence that Foley solicited sex with a minor, your second point is invalid. The entire situation was falsely presented by ABC news, the Democratic leadership and the Soros-fueled attack group, CREW.

I wish the Democrats would focus on substantive issues rather than make up false charges concerning the sexual activities of Congressmen. I would rather address the economy, immigration, the war on terror and so on...

radar said...

...to be technical, depending on the chat and the settings your chats may be recorded for a limited time only and it takes a professional to then retrieve what is unsaved. I believe the default setting for most IM clients is to delete unsaved chats upon exiting the IM client? If the chats aren't saved/archived, then it requires technical knowledge beyond that of the average user to retrieve them.

cranky old fart said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cranky old fart said...

"I wish the Democrats would focus on substantive issues rather than make up false charges concerning the sexual activities of Congressmen. I would rather address the economy, immigration, the war on terror and so on..."

lol

Oh come on, if the shoe were on the other foot, be honest, the repubs would be wetting themselves with excitment.

As I recall, a consensual bj was cause to shut down a government. Sorry, lying about a bj.

Yes, it's a silly distraction. But isn't it the Dem's turn?

After all, the vast majority of those folks on the hill never, ever, want to get to the substantive stuff. It's just not in THEIR interest to do so. And that's what really matters up there. Their interest, and the interests of the money that keeps 'em in there.

8:57 AM

highboy said...

"Oh come on, if the shoe were on the other foot, be honest, the repubs would be wetting themselves with excitment."

The shoe is always on the other foot cranky. Democrat scandals just don't surprise us anymore.

cranky old fart said...

"The shoe is always on the other foot cranky"

Huh?

highboy said...

"The shoe is always on the other foot cranky"

Huh?"

You were implying that if the shoe were on the other foot, meaning if it were a Democrat sex scandal, we'd be happy. I'm merely observing that the majority of the time the shoe IS on the Democrat foot, so we really wouldn't be all that excited or surprised.

cranky old fart said...

You may not be surprised, but you'd be oh so wet.....which was the point

scohen said...

"I believe the default setting for most IM clients is to delete unsaved chats upon exiting the IM client? If the chats aren't saved/archived, then it requires technical knowledge beyond that of the average user to retrieve them."

Like I said, it depends on the client. GAIM and Trillian both save chats by default. They're very easy to view later by anyone with a modicum of computer knowledge (IIRC, you just right-click on the buddy icon and select 'history'). I don't think it's particularly fair to portray this as something only an 'expert' could accomplish. Then again, having been raised in front of a keyboard, these teens might be more computer savvy than you ;) . I'm probably among the first to say that I've had a computer all my life (Dad bought an apple II in 1979), and it's made an incredible difference in how I approach technology.

"Since it now appears that there is zero evidence that Foley solicited sex with a minor, your second point is invalid."

I'm glad you've settled that in your own mind, but it looks like Congress still has some investigatin' to do. I don't know if I'd base my opinions on Drudge and LGF. Those guys aren't exactly paragons of accuracy or neutrality.

Cranky:
"Oh come on, if the shoe were on the other foot, be honest, the repubs would be wetting themselves with excitment."

No argument here.

"Yes, it's a silly distraction. But isn't it the Dem's turn?"

I suppose it is if that's the game you want to play. It's a commentary on the nature of journalism today that stories like this capture the attention of the media, while the constant erosion of our rights do not. I hoped we'd talk about the important stuff during this election --like congress's total failure to get anything done this term and the stunning incompetence of this administration.

highboy said...

"I don't know if I'd base my opinions on Drudge and LGF. Those guys aren't exactly paragons of accuracy or neutrality."

How about an example of inaccuracy, followed by some evidence that they were in fact in accurate?

scohen said...

"How about an example of inaccuracy, followed by some evidence that they were in fact in accurate?"

Wow. That's shockingly easy. For Drudge, how about when he claimed that John Kerry was having an affair with a woman and had her secretly whisked off to africa? Turned out that was a total fabrication.
Here's her denying the story
Here's more
Oops, Matt Drudge had to apologize
All hail Matt Drudge, paragon of tabloid bullshit journalism.

Then there was the whole swift boat veterans thing, which he proudly trumpeted on his site. All of it was, of course, lies. Do I need to provide links for that?
There's this one, just in case I do.

How about this (taken from here)

Mr. Drudge , for instance, claims an accuracy rate of merely 80%.


Here's one from Fairness and accuracy in reporting:
So, by his own admission, one out of every five items he posts is inaccurate --that's not what we call a good track record.

xiangtao said...

Drudge himself has said that he does not care about accuracy in reporting, he merely wants to get people talking.

radar said...

Drudge is largely in the business of posting what other people have uncovered. He is kind of an internet news and gossip central clearing house. As such, his accuracy rate isn't perfect. Then again, The New York Times and Reuters and ABC and CBS and the AP have all had accuracy issues in recent months, so Drudge is hardly the lone ranger.

highboy said...

"Then again, The New York Times and Reuters and ABC and CBS and the AP have all had accuracy issues in recent months, so Drudge is hardly the lone ranger."

I haven't seen Drudge doctor any photos.

scohen said...

"Drudge is largely in the business of posting what other people have uncovered"

Well, I guess that makes his lying perfectly acceptable. Thanks for clearing that up.

Radar, call me when the Times or any other newspaper has an accuracy rate of 80% --then we'll talk. That, of course would mean that one in every five stories is wrong.

"I haven't seen Drudge doctor any photos."

Sigh

You also hadn't seen Drudge's other distortions until I pointed them out to you and the reason is quite simple: You accept Drudge as a source without criticism or question.

I wonder why that is, and I wonder what other sources you accept uncritically.

radar said...

scohen, clearly drudge is a kind of online gossip and news clearinghouse. He is one guy and you have to evaluate each piece he presents. I never said that drudge was an actual news agency. So you can point out his inaccuracies and I say, well, so what? You get what you pay for...

With a so-called reputable news agency you expect more. Accurate and unbiased news. This is why doctored photos from Reuters is far more alarming. (BTW - did you see that Reuters just fired an editor for bias?!) That is why faked stories by the dozens from the NYT is alarming, why I don't take news from the AP at face value anymore and etc.

The fact is, now we all have to cast a critical eye not just at what Drudge releases, but what ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, BBC, Reuters and etc release because we have learned that throughout the news media point-of-view has been allowed to creep into the hard news. This latest slew of misinformation from ABC News is just another in a long line of such examples. People go on the internet and read stuff from Drudge or Captain's Quarters or Daily Kos and they know that opinion may be mixed in with fact. But we used to believe that when that evening news program came on, on when you opened the front page of your paper, what you read was the unvarnished truth. There are no longer many who are foolish enough to believe that anymore.

I despise the politics of people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Some of you would say the same of George Bush. I still believe that the majority of politicians in this country are still pro-American and aren't seeking to entirely overthrow the system and set up a totalitarian government. But if such an administration ever came into power, the news media already has one foot in the grave of truthfulness. If the NYT will publish propaganda as fact now because of ideology, how big a stretch is it for them to publish propaganda because the government is giving them carrot-and-stick choices? How long before faked news becomes commonplace?

Hammer Drudge if you like, but the real problem is the faked and biased information being presented as straight news by the mainstream news media.

radar said...

Swift Boat? Any real perusal of that whole episode always leaves Kerry looking very bad. Not to mention his pro-communist propaganda upon returning to the states, his throwing someone elses medals away and ad nauseum. I had almost forgotten all of that but there are enough voices on the swift boat veterans side to offset the money Kerry was throwing around trying to make it all go away. I still believe the bulk of what the veterans said rather than the word of John Kerry, communist sympathizer, reviler of American soldiers and professional faker. Blah!

highboy said...

Yeah nice try scohen, but as radar rightly pointed out, Drudge isn't an actual news organization. Reuters is, and has repeatedly doctored photos now to try and twist the news and deliberately lie to the people that trust it as a valid news source. Reuters accuracy then would be...?

"You also hadn't seen Drudge's other distortions until I pointed them out to you and the reason is quite simple: You accept Drudge as a source without criticism or question"

Back to misrepresenting people are we? Where did I even remotely imply that I trust Drudge as a news source without question? I merely asked for examples. If you look at my own site, count how many times I used Drudge as a source or linked to him in any way. I'll make it easy on you: zero.

scohen said...

"I never said that drudge was an actual news agency. So you can point out his inaccuracies and I say, well, so what? You get what you pay for..."

Yeah, but highboy challenged me to provide evidence of drudge's inaccuracies, and I did. Furthermore, it was quite easy.

"People go on the internet and read stuff from Drudge or Captain's Quarters or Daily Kos and they know that opinion may be mixed in with fact"

Yep, that totally excuses their lies, and it's clearly not what is going on here. It's fun to read opinions, but when someone (Tim in this case) starts treating these sites as credible, you have a problem. My question to you is where do you get your news? Fox? Captain's Quarter's? LGF? To you, the whole Foley thing is just a lie cooked up by democrats and the mainstream media. What I can't find anywhere other than right-wing blogs is evidence that supports that opinion, so it appears you too think that LGF is credible, while the AP is not.

"I still believe the bulk of what the veterans said rather than the word of John Kerry, communist sympathizer, reviler of American soldiers and professional faker. Blah!"

That's too bad. I provided an unbiased link that called much of what they said a total fabrication. It appears that you just believe what you want to believe regardless of what the truth is. Most of the veterans never served with Kerry. What makes them qualified to have any opinion at all on the matter? It's as if you asked someone that worked at an OfficeMax store about my programming skills (I used to work at officemax.com). Why on earth would they know? You also called Kerry a communist sympathizer --where do you get this stuff? It's hilarious!

radar said...

scohen - unbiased link? Do you really believe that? I have read two books and hundreds of pages of testimony and opinion concerning the Swift Boat incidents and based on that research I believe Kerry was a self-serving screwup who manipulated the system to get himself awarded medals when, in fact, he probably deserved military punishment by the articles of military justice (UCMJ).
I'll bet you would find more boaters that would line up to testify against him than for him, and by a wide margin.

Dozens, in fact by now hundreds of bloggers have seen and revealed the falsity of the ABC News charges against Foley, in that the page was an ex-page and also not a minor. It now boils down to the idea that Foley was a homosexual who sought relations with younger men. Nasty stuff but not illegal. ABC News should be ashamed and publishing retractions, not trying to dance around the issue as they are.

It is no longer possible to trust any one news source. I think Fox is the most reliable of them. Their news portions seem unbiased and their opinion shows present both sides on a regular basis. Their hosts skew right, but not by a lot. Hannity has his Colmes, O'Reilly is a populist and the rest are probably 3 conservative to 2 liberals in number. No one has shown Fox to have presented fake news, altered pictures and etc.

You don't remember Kerry sitting in front of a Congressional committee incorrectly wearing a uniform and comparing American troops to Genghis Khan while making charges that were proved to be untrue? You don't remember his trip(s) to Paris to meet the the North Vietnamese? You don't remember his meetings with American Communist sympathizers including a discussion about assassinating a U S Senator? You have a selective memory or you are quite young....

scohen said...

"Back to misrepresenting people are we?"

lol. You'd know, I guess.

"Where did I even remotely imply that I trust Drudge as a news source without question"

When you challenged me to find inaccuracies in his reporting. Otherwise, you'd just admit that he makes things up. You don't have to explicitly say "I trust x as a news source" to imply it.

"Reuters is, and has repeatedly doctored photos"

Reuters did not doctor photos. A freelance photographer who sold photos to Reuters doctored them and Reuters didn't catch the changes even though they were obvious on close inspection. There's a distinction there. It was sloppy editing that was at fault, not an intentional desire to manipulate the truth. The photo of which you speak was of a bombed-out building in Lebanon. The doctoring added more smoke. Do you think lebanon wasn't bombed out at the time? Do you think that other photographers hadn't captured similar images? Still, it was wrong to publish a manipulated photo like they did.

Your statement also implies that they continue to do this to this day. Do you have any proof, or is this another one of the patented highboy, "I was only joking" charades?

scohen said...

"Dozens, in fact by now hundreds of bloggers have seen and revealed the falsity..."

And how on earth do they know this? Do they know the pages who were involved in the scandal? Have they conducted interviews? What I see is the bloggers repeating the same information over and over again. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

"I think Fox is the most reliable of them."
lol

You think it's reliable because it agrees with you. That should be obvious.

"You don't remember Kerry sitting in front of a Congressional committee incorrectly wearing a uniform and comparing American troops to Genghis Khan..."

No, that happened quite a while before I was born. I wouldn't have noticed or cared if he was 'incorrectly' wearing his uniform. Did he have his pants on his head, or do you mean he shouldn't have been wearing it at all? That you look back at the man when he was 24 or so and make judgements about him today speaks volumes. Would it be fair if I were to accuse you of being a drug-abusing lout because of your past behavior?

And the link I provided was to factcheck.org, a non-partisan unbiased organization that analyzes the truthfulness of campaign materials from both sides. Here's an article from them that specifically targets dishonest claims made by several democratic organizations. That there are more republicans listed on their site isn't due to bias, but to Republican tactics.

Unbiased doesn't mean that we need to give equal time to 'both' sides of an issue as Fox would have you believe. Unbiased means that they call a spade a spade. If someone is lying, they should be called out, and if information is demonstrably false, it should be stated as such.

radar said...

"Dozens, in fact by now hundreds of bloggers have seen and revealed the falsity..."

And how on earth do they know this? Do they know the pages who were involved in the scandal? Have they conducted interviews? What I see is the bloggers repeating the same information over and over again. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I posted several links that, if you read them, would answer that question. Bloggers followed the story, did old-fashioned reporting in terms of research, interviewing sources, etc, to expose the fallacies.

"I think Fox is the most reliable of them."
lol

You think it's reliable because it agrees with you. That should be obvious.


I think it is reliable since it is the only major news organization that has avoided the liberal spin and the one that hasn't offered up doctored/faked stories as news. Fact checking is actually done there, it would seem!

"You don't remember Kerry sitting in front of a Congressional committee incorrectly wearing a uniform and comparing American troops to Genghis Khan..."

No, that happened quite a while before I was born. I wouldn't have noticed or cared if he was 'incorrectly' wearing his uniform. Did he have his pants on his head, or do you mean he shouldn't have been wearing it at all? That you look back at the man when he was 24 or so and make judgements about him today speaks volumes. Would it be fair if I were to accuse you of being a drug-abusing lout because of your past behavior?


I was a drug-abusing lout! But I changed my behavior. Based upon Kerry's comparison of American Troops last year to terrorists, I would suggest that he has not. Furthermore, I freely admit my past mistakes while Kerry still clings to his "war hero" stories.

And the link I provided was to factcheck.org, a non-partisan unbiased organization that analyzes the truthfulness of campaign materials from both sides. Here's an article from them that specifically targets dishonest claims made by several democratic organizations. That there are more republicans listed on their site isn't due to bias, but to Republican tactics.

Unbiased doesn't mean that we need to give equal time to 'both' sides of an issue as Fox would have you believe. Unbiased means that they call a spade a spade. If someone is lying, they should be called out, and if information is demonstrably false, it should be stated as such.


But when I point out that the ABC story is a lie and post several links that go over all of it step-by-step you simply dismiss it. ABC posted faked news. The page has been identified, he was 18, he wasn't working as a page at the time of the IM messages and he had kept them because it was all just a prank. This has been revealed by bloggers and there is no longer even any controversy about it.

CBS posted faked news (Rather's National Guard forgeries). Reuters posted faked news, and I wrote an entire post on that subject on August 26th and a previous posting on August 2nd concerning Reuters. In fact, many news agencies post posed pictures from Islamic-controlled areas, as I mentioned. May I remind you of the duplicity of organizations such as CNN and the BBC during the regime of Saddam Hussein, willingly covering up atrocities in exchange for the right to provide coverage from Bagdad? Don't tell me I watch Fix because it agrees with me! I watch Fox because I want to see actual news!

highboy said...

"Otherwise, you'd just admit that he makes things up."

Or maybe I wouldn't just admit that Drudge makes things up, since I've only visited his site maybe twice in my life.

"You think it's reliable because it agrees with you. That should be obvious."

How about proving Fox News reporting inaccuracies? Thanks so much. If you had examples that you could prove, you would have posted them. You didn't, because Fox News disagrees with you.

highboy said...

is a great site to track all of NY Times left wing bias. Of course the fact that their traitors shouldn't stop anyone from buying their paper I guess...

Mazement said...

The page has been identified, he was 18, he wasn't working as a page at the time of the IM messages and he had kept them because it was all just a prank.

Are we sure that there was only one page who received messages?

Are we sure that no inappropriate messages were sent before he was 18?

Are we sure that it's important that the recipient was playing a prank? Even if the page was laughing at Foley behind his back, Foley still thought he was making a serious attempt at seduction/molestation.

Anyway, what's your current take on the matter? Do you still think Foley should have resigned? If so, do you think the people who had the information and didn't release it should also resign?

highboy said...

Foley still should have resigned. Even if he's not a pedophile, he's still a predator.