[Spliffdaddy]

The answer is finally out there.

Naturally, you won't find the answer from the mainstream media.

In fact, you won't ever hear anything at all about the investigation.

Which, of course, tells you all you need to know.


File this one alongside the Valerie Plame scandal - in the big box of other so-called "Republican scandals" which, at best, were simply allegations - and at worst "Democratic scandals".

The culture of corruption is alive and well. It just wasn't where they told you it was hiding.

[goMac]

Ummmm. The kid who they were sent to did it. And he admitted it. And told the media he did it.

[Spliffdaddy]

bzzt. wrong answer.

he didn't leak them to the media.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

bzzt. wrong answer.

he didn't leak them to the media.

Ok. Then we'll try again. According to Wikipedia:

"In July 2006, a paid Republican Congressional staffer sent copies of the e-mails to several Washington media organizations through an intermediary."

"In August of 2006, ABC News reporter Brian Ross received the initial e-mails from a Republican source. He did not write a story for over a month because he was working on other stories.[35]"

Mark Foley scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gosh darn those Liberals.

[Spliffdaddy]

bzzt. wrong answer.

I need to update wikipedia, then.

If the answer was so obvious - why was there such a huge outcry for an investigation?

Do a bit of research, goMac. The answer was only revealed yesterday.

edit: that wikipedia entry is referencing the IMs that were created by an adult staffer posing as a boy and chatting with Foley. The original 'scandal' involved a underage page, remember?

edit again: no wait. the wikipedia entry needs updating. brb.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

bzzt. wrong answer.

I need to update wikipedia, then.

If the answer was so obvious - why was there such a huge outcry for an investigation?

Do a bit of research, goMac. The answer was only revealed yesterday.

edit: that wikipedia entry is referencing the IMs that were created by a staffer posing as a boy and chatting with Foley. The original 'scandal' involved a page, remember? The only thing ever released was an email from Foley to that page.

Ah I see. So the people who actually received the messages from their sources were wrong on who their sources were.

Are you going to link us to a web page which will enthrall us about how the liberals did it? One with sources and quotes and so forth. Or are you just going to stomp your feet because no reputable news source will cover it.

Hell, there isn't even anything on Fox News about it.

[Spliffdaddy]

The anonymous blogger who first published former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's questionable e-mails to a teenage congressional page was an employee of a gay rights group.

The Human Rights Campaign acknowledged this week that the man who operated the blog was employed by the Washington-based organization that organizes volunteer drives in Michigan. The organization said it fired the man after learning of his role but declined to identify him.

There are several news stories, but none from major news outlets. The blogger is identified by name, give me a minute to find it.

The HRC is sponsored by Democrats.

Fox might have something tomorrow. They're a day or two behind the internet.

PS, I was wrong when I used the term 'leaked' - I suppose it would be more accurate to say "published".

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

The anonymous blogger who first published former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's questionable e-mails to a teenage congressional page was an employee of a gay rights group.

The Human Rights Campaign acknowledged this week that the man who operated the blog was employed by the Washington-based organization that organizes volunteer drives in Michigan. The organization said it fired the man after learning of his role but declined to identify him.

Oh I see. The person who published it. I thought you knew something... you know... new and interesting. Like someone else leaking it. Because after reading the topic "Who leaked the Mark Foley messages?", saying the Conservatives leaked them, and being told I was wrong, I expected something a bit more exciting. But the Liberals still didn't leak it.

Sorry. No digg.

[goMac]

Ok. Spliff. So you're saying if you got your hands on messages the implicate a Congressman having an inappropriate relationship with an intern, publishing them would not be the right thing to do?

[Spliffdaddy]

You're correct that it was initially 'leaked' by the parents of the page - and later farmed out to news media who declined to publish it - based on their explanation that the emails were "leading", but not incriminating.

The emails just happened to be published a few weeks before the November elections - prompting Republicans to suggest that it was politically motivated.

My point was that it *was* politically-motivated and timed for the elections. This fact has now been established, based on the fact that the guy who published it was on the payroll of a Democratic organization.

Also, I blindly assumed this would be ignored by the mainstream press. It wasn't entirely ignored. In fact, the New York Times mentioned it in a Nov 27th article that was, at least, hidden as best they could hide it. But then, nobody reads the NYT anymore - so technically I'm still right (shut up).

The name of the guy that published the emails is out there - but not mentioned in any legitimate news articles. The emails were published in his blog, which made his name pretty easy to discover...yet not 100% verifiable.

So Fox doesn't mention any of this?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

The emails just happened to be published a few weeks before the November elections - prompting Republicans to suggest that it was politically motivated.

My point was that it *was* politically-motivated and timed for the elections. This fact has now been established, based on the fact that the guy who published it was on the payroll of a Democratic organization.

The blogger published them as soon as he got them. They were leaked by Republicans around election time. The timing of the emails coming out cannot be blamed on the Liberals because Conservative staff members were the ones who leaked them around election time.

You're only digging yourself a deeper hole Spliff.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ok. Spliff. So you're saying if you got your hands on messages the implicate a Congressman having an inappropriate relationship with an intern, publishing them would not be the right thing to do?

Did you read the emails?

It would be hard to say that Foley had an inappropriate relationship with the youngster. Hence the reluctance of news outlets to publish the emails.

I'll agree the content was odd...since the page was a lot younger than Foley. But the content was far from incriminating. I'd say it was improper.

The most damning interchange was the IM messages - but those were between 2 adults, so there was till nothing illegal. Now, Foley likely was under the impression that he was IMing a juvenile - but nobody can prove that.

Bottom line: Foley is at least a creepy mofo - and at worst a pedophile. I'd say only pure luck has kept his actions from crossing the line into "illegal".

But none of that is my point.

The publication of the emails was nothing but an attempt to affect the November elections.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's just me and you in here, goMac. Let's make this good.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Bottom line: Foley is at least a creepy mofo - and at worst a pedophile. I'd say only pure luck has kept his actions from crossing the line into "illegal".

But none of that is my point.

The publication of the emails was nothing but an attempt to affect the November elections.

Ahhh. So you're in favor of these emails not being published around election time simply because you'd like to mislead voters on the moral integrity of the candidates they are voting on.

Whether or not the relationship was illegal, it was leaked by Conservatives, not Liberals. Who the Conservatives leaked the story to is not important, and I've already shown the timing was coincidence, or at best timed by the Conservatives themselves. I should hope that Conservatives would have enough moral fiber to at least make people aware of how their representatives are behaving, even if legal action is not necessary. In the same regards, people should have been aware of what Clinton did. Did it require legal action? No. But at least people knew enough about the man's actions to form an opinion, even if they didn't care.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The blogger published them as soon as he got them.

link? I can't find anything that supports that claim. The emails were farmed out to news media in June - but published in the blog in late October.

They were leaked by Republicans around election time. The timing of the emails coming out cannot be blamed on the Liberals because Conservative staff members were the ones who leaked them around election time.

You're only digging yourself a deeper hole Spliff.

I think you've confused the (staffer) IMs with the original (page) emails in this statement.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

link? I can't find anything that supports that claim. The emails were farmed out to news media in June - but published in the blog in late October.

They were farmed a second time in August. I already gave you the quote from Wikipedia above.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ahhh. So you're in favor of these emails not being published around election time simply because you'd like to mislead voters on the moral integrity of the candidates they are voting on.

no, no. I'm saying that if "the children" were so damned important, then the Democratic blogger would have published the emails earlier than late October. The emails existed since June, at least.

Whether or not the relationship was illegal, it was leaked by Conservatives, not Liberals. Who the Conservatives leaked the story to is not important, and I've already shown the timing was coincidence, or at best timed by the Conservatives themselves. I should hope that Conservatives would have enough moral fiber to at least make people aware of how their representatives are behaving, even if legal action is not necessary. In the same regards, people should have been aware of what Clinton did. Did it require legal action? No. But at least people knew enough about the man's actions to form an opinion, even if they didn't care.

I'm not sure that it would be proper to publish some of *my* personal emails in a newspaper. Given the fact that nothing I've said is illegal - just like nothing Foley said was illegal. Do you see what I'm saying?

I'm not here to argue that Foley isn't a pedophile. But, technically, he isn't. There is no evidence he ever touched a juvenile - and there's no evidence that he had an illegal online relationship with one either.

My opinion is that he likely *is* a pedophile, just not a practicing one. Either that or he's simply gay and finds teen boys attractive. Tough call. I'm 40 years old and it ain't like 17 year old girls suddenly all got ugly, ya know? The difference is I would find a relationship with a 17 year old girl to be improper. I will admit that my last few girlfriends were in their mid 20's. If that's improper, then you'd better lock me up now. I'll just be a repeat offender.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

no, no. I'm saying that if "the children" were so damned important, then the Democratic blogger would have published the emails earlier than late October. The emails existed since June, at least.

I'm guessing he didn't get his hands on them until after the August leak. He was a small time Liberal blogger, not the New York Times. Regardless, the Republicans again published the emails in August, increasing the likelihood someone would publish them. Again, it's the Republican's own fault.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I'm not sure that it would be proper to publish some of *my* personal emails in a newspaper. Given the fact that nothing I've said is illegal - just like nothing Foley said was illegal. Do you see what I'm saying?

If you sent inappropriate emails on your employers time your employer should certainly be made aware. The problem with being a politician is your employers are the tax payers.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I'm not here to argue that Foley isn't a pedophile. But, technically, he isn't. There is no evidence he ever touched a juvenile - and there's no evidence that he had an illegal online relationship with one either.

An employer is allowed to forbid inappropriate, and I will note, unwanted relationship between an employee and the employee's sub-bordanant. Because the advances were unwanted, this does qualify as sexual harassment.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

My opinion is that he likely *is* a pedophile, just not a practicing one. Either that or he's simply gay and finds teen boys attractive. Tough call. I'm 40 years old and it ain't like 17 year old girls suddenly all got ugly, ya know? The difference is I would find a relationship with a 17 year old girl to be improper. I will admit that my last few girlfriends were in their mid 20's. If that's improper, then you'd better lock me up now. I'll just be a repeat offender.

No employer wants an active pedophile running around in a company making unwanted advances on employees. Congress has the same standards.

[Spliffdaddy]

The answer I'm looking for is - "how long did the blogger have the emails before he published them". And I'm not sure anybody knows the answer except for the blogger.

The earliest he could have obtained them is June. I would have expected him to publish the emails soon after he got them. If he sat on them for weeks or months and waited until late October, then I'm within my rights to suggest that he did it for political gain.

[Spliffdaddy]

damn. we're doing pretty good without anybody else.

You're a worthy adversary, I must admit.

Is the rest of the forum dead or something?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

The answer I'm looking for is - "how long did the blogger have the emails before he published them". And I'm not sure anybody knows the answer except for the blogger.

The earliest he could have obtained them is June. I would have expected him to publish the emails soon after he got them. If he sat on them for weeks or months and waited until late October, then I'm within my rights to suggest that he did it for political gain.

Again, he's a small time blogger. The emails being farmed for a second time in August, and then taking a few weeks to get to him sounds likely. And again, the Republicans themselves farming in August increased the likelyhood the story would get published around election time. You can't blame the liberals for this. Even if the blogger was sitting on the story, the Republicans again farmed out the story around election time trying to get it published.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

damn. we're doing pretty good without anybody else.

You're a worthy adversary, I must admit.

Is the rest of the forum dead or something?

I'm just up waiting to see if tomorrow is another snow day. Being a public school employee does have it's benefits.

I think the rest of the lounge is sleeping. I'm busy watching this while I keep an eye on this thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...54787514590907

[Spliffdaddy]

holy cow. it's 1:45am ???

we'll have to continue this discussion tomorrow. I've got to sand some drywall in the morning.

I hate to leave...but it's a good time for me to go. I'm almost out of ammo and my shots keep missing their mark.

awesome debate though.