Posted on 10/06/2006 11:12:55 PM PDT by Enchante
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.....
....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?
(Excerpt) Read more at strata-sphere.com ...
For trolls who "just don't get it" chill out! The point is not that Foley is not a scumbag, though liberals should love this guy since he's really more of a sleazy Demagogue mole in the Republican Party who acts like a Democrat.......
Anyway, the point is that until the public knows A LOT MORE about who had these transcripts when, who has heavily redacted them to make it impossible to evaluate a lot of the details, who has manipulated the TIMING of this scandal to occur just weeks before a national election, etc. we don't begin to know the whole relevant story here.
Oh, and trolls, please DO NOT try to tell us anymore that the Demagogues give a 'Rats XXX about anyone hitting on 16 and 17 year old House pages..... YOU are the party of Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds, so you know plenty about harboring and protecting "predators" who lust after teenagers and actually HAVE SEX with teenagers (so far we have no evidence that Foley went beyond sleazy words). YOU are the party that thinks a 13 year old girl should be allowed to kill her baby without her parents even being consulted, so don't try to tell us you care about teenage innocence and "protecting the children!"
Wow! That was a mouthful. However, a mouthful of truth.
Please don't use the word mouthful when talking about Democrat sex scandals!
.....or they felt they could be a bit critical of the Clintonistas in "The Path to 9/11" because they knew they were going to be part of the DNC's campaign team for the rest of the election season....??
The saddest part of this is that nothing about the Ethics Committee (or FBI) investigations will be resolved before election day. There may be leaks, but the only leaks that will hit the MSM will be those that can be spun to fit the DNC storyline. If the Pelosi gang takes over, this will all get buried; if not we might get some retributive justice.
Nice intro!
Oh yeah. They are feeling very self-confidant.
LOL!
I suggest that we Freerepublic members hold a "Dan Rather" award each December and award it to the biggest bogus story manufactured during the year. I don't have the design of the award yet....but it ought to resember Dan as much as possible.
I also think that we need to get ahead of the power curve for 2008, and start manufacturing as many bogus stories as possible and filter them into the naive press folks.
The damage has been done. Foley's scandal was an effective Democrat IED that they had planned on using at the right time. What was already going to be a tough election will likely be a mess. I can not possibly see how the Republicans can get the focus back on the real issues at hand. The MSM will work against it if there is an effort to do so. Unfortunately, the "average" voter still gets most of their info from the MSM.
Does anyone know where Dan Rather is?
Didn't Crew give the REDACTED copies to the FBI and REFUSE to give them the originals?
You do realize that is not our strong point. Believe me there are times when I wish it was.
Exactly!
So apparently, Nancy Pelosi Participant #34 in the parade, marching smiling and waving to the crowd, believes in what Harry said:
“Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”
Nothing naive about the press. . .and they only do bogus stories when it serves their politcs and their agenda.
AS for getting the 'word' out. . .Repubs would have as much chance with bogus stories about the Demrats; as they do now, with the truth. . .
I saw Hannity made this an issue tonight on Hannity and Colmes. I saw her agenda if she were to take over the House speaker job. WOW, talk about putting a country back into the dark ages, she would certainly try to do it.
. . .and move beyond the answer desgined by the people that brought us this story. . .''I hear. .. think. . .believe. .. it is reported. ..that it was a Republican'.
If it were a Repub; the truth here were be, by now; readily available.
I do not know how the FBI goes forward with redacted copies. . .surely; they must come up with the originals.(?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.