DEMOCRATS, (Wash.) POST NAMED IN STEFFEN WEB SCANDAL

The Baltimore Sun ^ | Wednesday, November 2, 2005 | Jennifer Skalka

[kristinn]

SNIP

R.B. Brenner, Maryland editor of The Washington Post, said the newspaper "had no involvement in any way in the chat room postings between NCPAC and MD4BUSH on the freerepublic.com Web site."

"The Post did not know about them until after they had already occurred, as we have reported in the newspaper," Brenner said, adding "we do not know the identity of MD4BUSH."

"When we obtained copies of the chat room messages between NCPAC and MD4BUSH, it was clear that they contained potentially newsworthy information," Brenner said. To verify their authenticity, he said, "someone acting on behalf of MD4BUSH provided reporter Matt Mosk with the sign-on information necessary to view the messages on freerepublic.com."

Brenner said Mosk logged on as MD4BUSH two or three times before the Feb. 9 publication of his article only to verify that the messages were genuine.

SNIP

[kristinn]

For some reason, The Washington Post decided to open up a little about their reporting on the MD4BUSH scandal. Are they getting nervous?

[Arm_Bears]

Paging Patrick Fitzgerald...Paging Patrick Fitzgerald...Mr. Fitzgerald, please pick up the white courtesy phone...

[Tijeras_Slim]

Post Reporters trolling here? That make me feel dirty for some reason.

[Dog]

To verify their authenticity, he said, "someone acting on behalf of MD4BUSH provided reporter Matt Mosk with the sign-on information necessary to view the messages on freerepublic.com."

Brenner said Mosk logged on as MD4BUSH two or three times before the Feb. 9 publication of his article only to verify that the messages were genuine.,/i>

Jaw dropping admission....they sense trouble.

[Dog]

They admitted they Colluded with the real MD4BUSH..

[linkinpunk]

Mosk logged on as MD4BUSH two or three times

So its even possible that Mosk posted the messages himself, right?

[kevkrom]

someone acting on behalf of MD4BUSH provided reporter Matt Mosk with the sign-on information necessary to view the messages on freerepublic.com

Ok... first question for the Post: who was the intermediary you dealt with, and how do you know this person wasn't MD4BUSH?

[Dog]

From the article:

Sen. J. Lowell Stoltzfus, an Eastern Shore Republican, suggested that someone using a Washington Post computer was active on the conservative site freerepublic.com.

"I want to subpoena the records of freerepublic.com because we suspect that someone logged into freerepublic.com from an office at The Washington Post," said Stoltzfus, who did not provide evidence to support his claims.

Jim....there you go.

[Brilliant]

Brenner said Mosk logged on as MD4BUSH two or three times before the Feb. 9 publication of his article only to verify that the messages were genuine.

Why didn't he just sign in as a visitor? Doesn't sound cricket.

The info as to why this is a big scandal seems to be lacking. What are they hiding?

[TNCMAXQ]

That headline says Nov 2, 2004?? One year ago today we were hearing exit polls show big Kerry win. ;-) That was an anxious time.

[js1138]

Of course the Post, like everyone else who logs on, left a record of their activities. The Post reporter will have an IP address different from the "real" MD4BUSH.

[saveliberty]

It gets uglier than just the DU. Now the WaPo is trying to pry into FR.

[AmishDude]

I'd suspect Jim knows, as he can find the IP address of people that post here.

[bert]

.....someone acting on behalf of MD4BUSH provided reporter Matt Mosk with the sign-on information necessary to view the messages on freerepublic.com.......

This is either a lie or gross ignorance from the Compost. It would seem typical of the shoddy work being done by the DNC controlled MSM.

There is no "necessary sign on information" required to view posts on Free Republic.

As to being Nervous, no. They are like Dan Rather, too arrogant to be nervous.

[patriciaruth]

He couldn't have had access to the FReepmails that were written to MD4BUSH by a FReeper who was in the Erlich administration and who fell for the mole's line and was subsequently fired for making false accusations in the FReepmail to MD4BUSH....as I understand it.

Correct me if wrong.

[advance_copy]

R.B. Brenner, Maryland editor of The Washington Post, said the newspaper "had no involvement in any way in the chat room postings between NCPAC and MD4BUSH on the freerepublic.com Web site."

"The Post did not know about them until after they had already occurred, as we have reported in the newspaper," Brenner said, adding "we do not know the identity of MD4BUSH."

"When we obtained copies of the chat room messages between NCPAC and MD4BUSH, it was clear that they contained potentially newsworthy information," Brenner said. To verify their authenticity, he said, "someone acting on behalf of MD4BUSH provided reporter Matt Mosk with the sign-on information necessary to view the messages on freerepublic.com."

The Maryland editor of WaPo says they don't know who MD4BUSH is, but they worked through "someone acting on behalf of MD4BUSH" to get MD4BUSH's FR password. How do they know that the person who claims to be "acting on behalf of MD4BUSH" isn't actually MD4BUSH?

WaPo is using this anonymous source without identifying who they are affiliated with or their motives. If that person has been promised confidentiality, so be it. But their affiliation is news. If they are a senior Democrat official, or a senior Republican official, or whatever, that is news WaPo is hiding from the public. And it is important information they can provide without breaking confidentiality.

Here's an e-mail address that might come in handy: ombudsman@washpost.com

[Dog]

Good question....they only admitted this because something unseen has or is about to happen.

[patriciaruth]

So, remember, FReepers, that the Washington Post may be reading FReepmails you write to other "FReepers".

[Brilliant]

OK, but I got the impression that he was only looking at posts. Makes sense, though, if there were also emails.

Who has a link to the original WaPo article?

[Royal Wulff]

Why didn't he just sign in as a visitor? Doesn't sound cricket.

The messages were in Freepmail. You know, private correspondence.