Posted on 10/10/2006 11:21:21 AM PDT by ConservativeMajority
"Last May, a source put me in touch with a Democratic operative who provided me with the now-infamous emails that Foley had sent in 2004 to a sixteen-year-old page. He also provided several emails that the page sent to the office of Congressman Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican who had sponsored him when he worked on Capitol Hill. “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously, This freaked me out,” the page wrote in one email. In the fall of 2005, my source had provided the same material to the St. Petersburg Times—and I presume to The Miami Herald—both which decided against publishing stories."
(Excerpt) Read more at harpers.org ...
Wait a minute, I thought that Kirk Fordham was the source for the emails to the Florida papers?
Which Democratic operative allowed a sexual predator to continue to operate on the Hill?
Oh should we just close our eyes and cover our ears and let these perverted freaks smear US over their well planned and plotted scandal?
If the former page is 21 now, he was almost 19, not 16 in '04. This is a lie that needs correction everywhere the msm spreads it.
The Prowler has good information that makes sense.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10469
I don't think this will really affect votes that much.
Which Democratic operative allowed a sexual predator to continue to operate on the Hill?
Was Rep. Rodney Alexander a Republican, when he sponsored this "mystery page," or was this from when he was a Democrat?
Posted by Republican Red to longtermmemmory
On News/Activism 10/10/2006 12:18:42 PM EDT · 60 of 75
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Democratic Foleygate Source Revealed
Just received this information...
A democratic operative who knew about the Foley scandal designed to alter this year's midterm election was revealed to me this morning.
This much was revealed- "There is very strong speculation that Brian Smoot is one the high ranking democrats who knew of the Foley scandal months before the news broke on September 29, 2006."
Redstate background on Brian Smoot: http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/who_is_brian_smoot
In August of 2004, Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff, Brian Smoot, and five other staffers abruptly quit because Alexander switched to the GOP. National Journal reported on August 13, 2004, that the Chief of Staff "sharply criticized Alexander for switching parties." The Chief of Staff and five staffers were promptly hired by minority leader Nancy Pelosi.
In November 2005, Alexander is notified by a couple in his district that the couple's son had gotten emails from Mark Foley that were not really kosher.
In October of 2006, we find that Alexander's former Chief of Staff is now running the congressional campaign of Ron Klein in Florida's 22nd Congressional District against Republican Representative Clay Shaw -- a district that shares a major media market with Mark Foley's district
Them and Harper's, dude. If the Dems want to continue to insist on bringing Hastern down, they're going to take a lot of leftists with them.
I wonder if the "operative was NOC. Best get Fitz on this, at once. We need quick answers.
Whether it's good news or bad news on this crapola, it's dead inside 7 days.
Oh, this is rich !!! No wonder Pelosi doesn't want to testify under oath or have Freeh look deeply into this.
This is RICH !
This is the e-mail kid who's parents said to get Foley to stop all communications and Foley did.
Thank you. I was just about to say, "16 my as---terisk."
If there's any way to provide more substance to this it HAS to be forwarded to a wide variety of outlets, ranging from Rush to Brian Ross his own self. I would include Ross (along with other DBM targets) specifically to see if they start to backpedal and try to cover their own behinds.
I think Ross, for one, is at risk legally in the "la cage aux Foley" affair. He's already started to alter reports on the ABC web site about how old certain individuals were when some of these things happened. Luckily some of the blogs following this have done great work documenting the original articles and the unacknowledged alterations.
So who is the Democratic operative ??
"It was a Democrat who brought me the emails, but comments he made and common sense strongly suggest they were originally leaked by a Republican office."
HUH?
No laws were broken. What could the Republicans do? 16 is the legal age of sexual consent, and the predator laws were written after the event. It was ok for a homo to hit on, or even have sex with a 16 year old kid. It's just two gays guys chatting on the net. The page(s) could have just blocked Foleys e-mails or IMs if they wanted to. They weren't in Washington anymore. They chose to have "Internet sex" with Foley by letting him get through.
If any laws were broken, which I doubt now, the democrats aided and abetted a crime. Maybe conspiracy to influence the outcome of an election might work, too. The Feds will figure it out sooner or later, but sooner would be nice.
If anything, it will galvanize Republican support which was shaping up to be very weak this year.
One without enough 'juice' to get the media to cover the story and who also provides cover to this 'it's an old story' scenario. It was not until these e-mails ALONG with the IM's got into the hands of bigger Democratic operatives (read Raum Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, et al) that the story broke, conveniently one day after the deadline to replace Foley on the ballot in Florida.
CYA by the media.
They knew this was a dirty trick campaign.
And it turns out that the "Republican" was Rodney Alexander, who, because of a party switch, had a lot of Democratic staffers.
Note the term "Republican office". Not an actual Republican, just from one of those offices.
I saw that. (As one who actually read the article)
Common sense?
The timing of the scandal was engineered by the Dems in association with the willing accomplices in the press to be right before the election therefore, it was the Republicans who were more concerned with the election than protecting young men. It was the press, which sat the story and the Dems who are the noble protectors of children and they are not concerned with the election (at least as it benefits the evil Republicans). -
All reason has left these people - they are pathetically self-decieved. They actually believe that they are as pure as the snow because they (the libs) acted in such a way that it demonstrated they were not at all interested in helping the Republicans in the election. Their pure motives were quiet the opposite; they simply wanted to hurt evil republicans, and in their minds that equates to virtue.
Professing to be wise they became fools - only they don't know we are laughing at them not with them.
But, but, but...ummm...he was 16 at one point in his life...
Good catch.
"" The Chief of Staff and five staffers were promptly hired by minority leader Nancy Pelosi. "
Ok Nancy. What did you know and when did you know it?
See #11.
Miss Pelosi has some splaining to do.
DITTO!
Maybe the media were torn between outing a gay Republican congress critter or running the story.
(/sarcasm off)
Who was the Dem operative?
I suspect they just felt it was a matter of timing.
I would like to know who the operative was, and how he got them, though.
The e-mails are to a different person who WAS 16. Don't play into Pelosi's hands by confusing the two.
From what I've read on other threads, Pelosis own "child page" is gay.
Sounds even more like an October Surprise after reading his piece than it did before. Harpers knew about it in April, as did others, but it's just coming out now? If it wasn't newsworthy then, why is it newsworthy now?
I'll grant you though that from what he says it sounds like the October Surprise was perpetrated by the media rather than the Democrats.
Fine. What about the IM's?
Well put.
Thanks. I am still fuming...I'll make sure I bring 3 MORE friends to vote in November.
I sent an email to Silverstein stating basically what I say in Post No. 41. This is his response:
"disagree with you on that. if it was an october surprise, no one would have been pushing it a year in advance. seriously doubt that abc published it only because of of proximity to vote. ( and this after all is the network that liberals criticize coz it's owned by disney and ran the path to 9/11)."
This guy is oblivious to reality. I think you gotta look at what actually happened. They were passing it around a year in advance. They could have spilled the beans a year in advance. Instead they waited until they could drop an October Surprise.
Yep. write them today to inform them that Mrs. Pelosi is demanding their resignation.
So then I sent Silverstein this email:
"If they had it a year ago, why else would they wait until now to publish it?"
And he responded with this:
"but abc didn't have it a year ago, they got them in july as i recall. other publications had them a year ago, but editors blocked the reporters."
That's why she has that deer-in-the-headlights stare. No wait,that's permanent.
Are those pictures of the real Mrs' Pelosi or is that her wax figure in Madam Toussaut's waxworks?
And I just got a response as well:
"first, i favored publishing but was overruled. secondly, and more importantly, the gop leadership had far more knowledge than i did, and they also had the means of disciplining foley and getting answers from him. (and gee, i wonder if they should have taken him off the exploited children caucus). i can understand the parents not wanting to do anything because they didn't want their kid's name in the press, and i don't blame them. but that does not take precedence over protecting other kids."
I replied by asking him what the "far more knowledge" was. How can he really know what they knew at the time? Isn't that what the current investigation is about?
Now I'm bringing one MORE friend to the polls....
Guess whose going to be resigning now?????
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.