Another Conspiracy Theory Down The Drain

by hilzoy

Via TPM, text

"The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.

The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.

But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.

The source bolstered the claim by sharing un-redacted e-mails in which the former page first alerted his congressional sponsor’s office of Foley’s attentions. The copies of these e-mails, now available to the public, have the names of senders and recipients blotted out. (...)

That Foley’s scandalous communications came to public light during Congress’s final week in Washington was largely determined by the media outlets which obtained the suspicious e-mails in the middle of the summer, said the person who provided them to reporters several months ago. (...)

After ABC News disclosed the e-mails exchanged last year between Foley and a former page, it reported about much more sexually explicit communications between Foley and a different former page over an “instant messaging” (IM) software program in 2003.

The first Web report of the relatively tame e-mails appears to have prompted someone to share the explicit IM messages. After ABC News obtained those messages, in which Foley discussed sexual acts with the second former page, a scandal mushroomed on Capitol Hill, and Foley resigned.

The source who provided the e-mails that ABC News first reported on its blog, denied sharing the more explicit IMs."

Sorry, guys.

Comments

[spartikus]

Erick is already looking at the Bright Side of Being in the Minority.

Speaker Pelosi will surely destroy the Democrats....FOREVER!!

Imperial March>

[spartikus]

That last part should be

(cue Imperial March!)

[KCinDC]

Apparently the House isn't the only place that's full of moles: "Republicans are operating out of the amygdala right now." Who's been keeping this from Gary -- or has he known all along?

[Gary Farber]

"Republicans are operating out of the amygdala right now."

I was about to point you to my "our mission" and "our task" links on my sidebar, but this fortunately just made me notice that both succumbed to link rot at some point. I'm slightly embarrassed that I've not checked them in a couple of years; I get hits on those all the time. Must be a lot of puzzled people out there.

Will replace with new ones ASAP.

[Gary Farber]

Done.

[KCinDC]

Well, sure, Gary. I know what the sentence means. I didn't think your blog was named after a Star Wars character.

The point of the joke was that the word is rare enough in the blogosphere that when I run across it there my first thought is going to be of your blog, and with this particular sentence that thought was (slightly) humorous. YMMV, of course.

[Gary Farber]

"Well, sure, Gary. I know what the sentence means."

I know; sorry, I had a Humorous Comment in mind, but got flummoxed by the dead links, and didn't come back to it.

I appreciate the pointer. Thanks!

[cleek]

tee hee. it's nice to wake up with a chuckle.

what's the German word for when bad things happen to bad people...?

(kidding)

[KCinDC]

Michelle Malkin has some vestigial decency:

For the past two days, a conservative blogger has ginned up publicity for his work outing a 21-year-old young man -- a former congressional page and current deputy campaign manager for a heartland Republican congressman -- who received sexually explicit instant messages from disgraced Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley when he was 17 and 18 years old. I have received several e-mails from the blogger and readers flogging the post.

I refused to link to the blogger then and even though the Drudge Report has plastered screaming headlines about the blogger's scoop, I refuse to link to it now. There was absolutely no good reason to expose the former congressional page's name and identity. Seizing on ABC News' redaction failure and reporting errors (more on that in a moment) to play gotcha in a feeble attempt to avenge Foley is not a sufficient reason to obliterate the young man's privacy. The young man was the prey, not the predator.

Of course, if the page had been protesting military recruitment...

[Ugh]

It never ceases to amaze me how those MBFs over at redstate seem to think that their glorious GOP can do no wrong, and that anything bad that happens to it is the result of scheming Democrats/MSM Bias/The Left™ or some other nonsense. And when a real scandal like this comes along, the response is inevitably, "It's Not True!", and then, "Democrats did it too!" Or "CLINTON!" or, "Few Bad Apples."

[Ugh]

Speaker Pelosi will surely destroy the Democrats....FOREVER!!

The right-wing slime machine will truly be a sight to behold should she become speaker.

[cleek]

The right-wing slime machine will truly be a sight to behold should she become speaker.

they'll party like it's 1996.

[Jesurgislac]

I'm an infrequent wikipedia editor - haven't been active for quite a while.

When Hilzoy mentioned Gerry Studds (and right-wingers seem to be mentioning him a lot recently, as a Representative who had sex with a 17-year-old page and was censured for it when their affair was outed). Having never heard of him, I looked him up on wiki - and discovered (oddly enough) that his page had been repeatedly vandalized by multiple anonymous editors, very recently, in an effort to have what seems to have been a relatively consensual affair (ten years later, the former page and Studds informed the press together that they thought it was no one's business but their own) as "pedophilia" and "statutory rape". The date of the relationship keeps being changed from 1973 to 1983.

Anonymous editors on wikipedia are identified only by IP address, but it looks as if more than one person is involved: there are 106 edits to this one wiki entry since the first stub was created in 2004, over half of them in the past week. Trying to make comparisons - to claim, however wildly - that what Gerry Studds did was worse and the Democratic party then did less about it - seems to be very important to some people.

[cleek]

Trying to make comparisons - to claim, however wildly - that what Gerry Studds did was worse and the Democratic party then did less about it - seems to be very important to some people.

tu quoque can be delicious, if prepared properly.

[raj]

It never ceases to amaze me how those MBFs over at redstate seem to think that their glorious GOP can do no wrong...

It's probably the fact that they are nothing more than paid shills for the Republican party.

Advertising, in other words.

[socratic_me]

Of course, all your story points out, hil, is that the crazily liberal MSM held on to this to help in the midterms. Evil crazy MSM. For shame!

[Gary Farber]

In fact, the whole Hugh Hewitt, etc., crowd, won't mention Foley without mentioning Gerry Studds and Barney Frank, and probably mention the latter five times for each mention of the former, while blathering on about how this shows how evil the Democrats are, for doing nothing, whereas Foley instantly resigned, etc., and so forth.

But, hey, if they feel that what Democrats did decades ago is relevant, regardless of the detail, I should think it would be just as relevant of us to start denouncing them for Grover Cleveland's illegitimate child, and chanting "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?, gone to the White House, Ha Ha ha!"

Yeah, no one will remember that, or care, just like they don't care about Gerry Studds, either.

Seriously, Gerry Studds is as useful a political weapon for Republicans today as he was last month. The salience hasn't changed, save for the Republican nutcase faithful.

(Actually, Hilzoy had the best idea in noting that if it's appropriate to attack over what the parties were doing in 1973, that we should bring up anything and everything Nixon did; hard to imagine what the defense is that explains that one event in 1973 is relevant, but not another.)

[Gary Farber]

"It's probably the fact that they are nothing more than paid shills for the Republican party."

Why would they bother paying many of them? That a smattering may also be professional organizers I have no problem imagining; but it's not as if there's a lack of hardcore extremists in either party willing to rant for free. Try to stop them!

[cleek]

hard to imagine what the defense is that explains that one event in 1973 is relevant, but not another

the fact that Democrats weren't out there Sept 29th, complaining about Gerry Studds, and that they only step up now that it's a Republican, proves just how opportunistic and shallow their concern about pedophiles really is.

repeat with variation.

[kenB]

The salience hasn't changed, save for the Republican nutcase faithful.

I agree completely -- the people the GOP has to worry about are those who have been convinced to vote against their economic interest because of the Republicans' commitment to "traditional values". For those people, the idea (however mistaken) that the Dems are/were "just as bad" isn't really much of a motivation to keep voting GOP.

[Dantheman]

Gary,

"But, hey, if they feel that what Democrats did decades ago is relevant, regardless of the detail, I should think it would be just as relevant of us to start denouncing them for Grover Cleveland's illegitimate child, and chanting "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?, gone to the White House, Ha Ha ha!""

Cleveland was a Democrat, as your wikipedia article notes:

"He was the only Democrat elected to the Presidency in the era of Republican political domination between 1860 and 1912"

While the parties may have changed positions somewhat over the years, I am at a loss to see why Democrats would denounce Republicans and cite a Democrat's personal conduct.

[Mary]

Dantheman, that was Gary's point (I think): if the timing of offenses is completely irrelevant, as those who keep dredging up Studds implicitly claim, then we (the general public) should denounce them (the Democrats) for what a Democrat president did over a century ago.

[Nell]

MSNBC also relays comments by Speaker Hastert this morning on the Laura Ingraham show. He's still saying that he won't resign: "if I pull up my tent and leave, and others have to pull up their tents and leave, because they would -- where does that leave us? Daily Muck

That sounds to me like a threat. A threat directly to NRCC Chair Reynolds, and through him to the party as a whole.

[Nell]

Mary, of course you meant to say 'Democratic president'.

[Mary]

Yes, Nell, I did. I think you all should be pleased that I even remembered to capitalize properly and didn't lose count of my opening and closing brackets.

*waits for cookie*

[Gary Farber]

the fact that Democrats weren't out there Sept 29th, complaining about Gerry Studds, and that they only step up now that it's a Republican, proves just how opportunistic and shallow their concern about pedophiles really is.

repeat with variation.

Warning: cynical, bitter, not-serious, comment ahead.

Well, then, in the spirit of the Habeas-stripping torture vote, and the stance of the smattering of Democrats who voted for it (hello, Sherrod Brown), we should just have Gerry Studds crucified in front of the Capitol to demonstrate how tough we are on This Sort Of Thing, and that we won't be out-maneuvered on Defending Pages.

Think of the children.

(See also: the War On Drugs, and gay marriage.)

/bitter, cynical, comment

[John Thullen]

Hastert speaks in a few minutes.

Last night, Larry Kudlow was bellowing for Hastert's head, warning all far and wide that if he stays, massive tax cuts, uh, I mean House pages, will undergo molestation by Democrats.

I predict Hastert will counter Kudlow by claiming that if he goes, then massive tax cuts, umm I mean House pages, will be molested by Democrats.

In my effort to help Republicans out of this mess, I think they should hit hard, too, on the fact that there have been no forest fires or school shootings since Democrats deliberately set the forests on fire and shot all those kids back in the last century.

Plus, Al Qaeda will come over here and molest children. Look what happened when the Democrats ran Iraq into the ground. Al Qaeda took over.

[Nell]

The wiki-attack (and other disinfo) worked well enough to make its way onto The Daily Show, few of whose writers are probably old enough to remember l'affaire Studds. Jon Stewart mocked the dredging-up defenses, but in the course of doing so referred to it as something that happened "23 years ago" rather than 33.

The kind of thing that reminds you that TDS is, after all, a fake news show. Though I give some slack to the idea that because the revelation of the incident came in 1983, that might obscure for hasty readers the fact that it took place ten years earlier.

[Gary Farber]

"*waits for cookie*"

Chocolate chip, or oatmeal?

[Nell]

Look what happened when the Democrats ran Iraq into the ground. Al Qaeda took over.

One of your best, JT.

Not that I don't expect to hear that on the radio at some point after the next Congress is seated...

[Nell]

Mary, you deserve a cookie just for the clarity and conciseness of the comment!

Explications of preceding points in a thread can easily take up more space than the original statements.

[liberal japonicus]

Don't know if anyone caught Paul Weyrich on CNN this (your) am, (and if you did, why you didn't tar and feather him, but that's beside the point) but he was giving the Hastert line because Hastert 'swore' (I think that was what he said) that the incident was not brought to his attention. The tenor of the conversation is that if Hastert is run out of town, the Dems will have won. In some parallel universe, a CNN announcer with stones might have asked why, since Hastert was majority leader, that personal responsibility might not dictate he do something more than dissemble, or how the fact that Foley was thinking of not running, yet was encouraged to do so despite knowledge of those emails by at least some level of the Republican party might make Mr. Moral majority reconsider his affiliation with the Republicans. If anyone locates this parallel universe, let me know, I'll be headed towards the nearest wormhole to get there.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, IMs, not emails.

[cleek]

Don't know if anyone caught Paul Weyrich on CNN this (your) am,

i caught him on NPR yesterday when he said that homosexuals are preoccupied with sex. the interviewer said something like "you know, a lot of people will disagree with that", he said he didn't care, because it was "true". she asked why he believes that, and he said something like "that's what all the psychiatrists who have to deal with them say".

a class act.

and, yeah... he also told the story about how he had changed his mind about Hastert because Denny called him and "swore" he didn't know about Foley.

[knitress]

Every time someone mentions Gerry Studds or Barney Frank in this sad mess, I want to yell "DAN CRANE!". Dan Crane was a Republican congressman from Indiana. He was the other half of the previous scandal; he had a consensual relationship with a 17 year old female page.

He didn't resign. He apologized, was censured, and stood for re-election as the Republican nominee. He lost.

The only difference between Studds and Crane is the decisions made by the voters; I don't see any difference in how they were treated by their parties.

[Gary Farber]

"i caught him on NPR yesterday when he said that homosexuals are preoccupied with sex."

Fortunately, heterosexuals are not.

[John Thullen]

Weyrich seems fascinated by homosexual sex.

I imagine him, head bent to one shoulder and perpendicular to his body, researching the latest video evidence to fortify his outrage and further strengthen his "position" on the issue, while opening those fund-raising envelopes and dictating fresh demagoguery to the faithful.

[Ugh]

Off Topic -

Ah, CBS got their hands on the "no-fly" list, guess what:

60 Minutes, in collaboration with the National Security News Service, has obtained the secret list used to screen airline passengers for terrorists and discovered it includes names of people not likely to cause terror, including the president of Bolivia, people who are dead and names so common, they are shared by thousands of innocent fliers.
...
Gary Smith, John Williams and Robert Johnson are some of those names. Kroft talked to 12 people with the name Robert Johnson, all of whom are detained almost every time they fly. The detentions can include strip searches and long delays in their travels.

"Well, Robert Johnson will never get off the list," says Donna Bucella, who oversaw the creation of the list and has headed up the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center since 2003. She regrets the trouble they experience, but chalks it up to the price of security in the post-9/11 world. "They're going to be inconvenienced every time … because they do have the name of a person who's a known or suspected terrorist," says Bucella.

I feel safe.

[Ugh]

I meant to add that I can't wait for the inevitable bizarro world post on how this damages our national security and that the leaker should be arrested and punished.

[cleek]

"Well, Robert Johnson will never get off the list...because they do have the name of a person who's a known or suspected terrorist."

he did, after all, make that deal with the lord of terror himself, The Devil.

[JakeB]

And John Williams might be considered a sort of sonic terrorist. Isn't he responsible for the Ewok theme?

[liberal japonicus]

More like a sonic plagiarist. His best stuff is redone Richard Strauss...

[he sniffs jealously...]

[Knot]

The no-fly list: people too dangerous to fly but too innocent to simply arrest. How can we justify harrassing these people but not justify taking them to court?

[KCinDC]

It was clear in 2003 that they were hassling people named David Nelson.

[Gary Farber]

"The no-fly list: people too dangerous to fly but too innocent to simply arrest. How can we justify harrassing these people but not justify taking them to court?"

That's easy: there's no Constitutional right to fly. So you can avoid "harassment" by not flying, so any "harassment" is purely voluntary.

The Constitution only protects us so far; this is not a violation, for better or worse.

Besides, you can legally change your name!

[Andrew]

I feel compelled to throw a Ninth Amendment flag on that, Gary. I suspect the right to travel freely was not considered something you really needed to spell out in the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Gary Farber]

"I feel compelled to throw a Ninth Amendment flag on that, Gary. I suspect the right to travel freely was not considered something you really needed to spell out in the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Perfectly fair argument, but in the practical sphere, the Nine haven't said so.

I don't defend this as just or right or correct; I merely point to it. I'm just pointing to what the current interpretation of the Constitution and law are.

As a passing point, I happen to favor the maximal amount of liberty for the individual, absent severely good justification to limit it. Just thought I'd mention. (Naturally, we are apt to disagree on some particular points, and the specifics, but I certainly don't disagree on the principle. "Liberty good" sez me.)

I'd also note that your argument might be fairly taken -- no? -- as an argument for an "evolving view" of the Constitution , a "living Constitution," rather than an "original interpretation."

Obviously the Constitution doesn't address air travel, so only an "evolving view" could possibly claim it does.

:-)

[Andrew]

Nice try. :) But I maintain that the Ninth Amendment says (granted, it's not interpreted this way) that the government cannot interfere with a person's liberties unless they can justify it by the enumerated powers under the Constitution. (Which means there could be a national security argument in this specific case.) Therefore, the Constitution can protect air travel despite air travel having not existed at the time the document was written.

[Nell]

On the thread topic: I understand that in his press conference this afternoon, Hastert lined himself up with the conspiracy theorists, despite the evidence.

He even managed to bring George Soros into it. Classy.

Out here in Bible-belty areas, the Kristian 'Left Behind' series has implanted the image of the antichrist as a European-born supporter of international organizations in the minds of millions of readers (and viewers; see, Katherine, I'm trying to bring Kirk Cameron back into it). And the Republican Party has none-too-subtly attempted to fuse Soros to that image, and with him our party.

Either that, or it's good old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Take your pick.

The poll I took yesterday was evidently the Rasmussen one, which foretells doom for the Republicans if Hastert continues to dig in. As does some Fox polling.

Ehhhhxcellent.

[Ugh]

the Kristian 'Left Behind' series has implanted the image of the antichrist as a European-born supporter of international organizations in the minds of millions of readers

I've been trying to get on the Christian gravy train with a good idea for some time now. Since Cartman took my Christian Rock Band idea, the best I've been able to come up with is a "Rapture Fund" styled after venture capital funds where we promise to spend the funds "invested" on projects aimed at bringing about the rapture, minus a hefty management fee and salary.

[KCinDC]

Fox News makes another mistake (or "mistake") with its on-screen text: "Reid: Did Dems ignore Foley e-mails to preserve seat?"

Nell, remember two years ago Hastert was smearing Soros by suggesting his money came from drug dealing.

Is anyone else surprised that the phrase "Hastert the Unspeakable" yields only 7 Google hits?

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for him to hang in there.

[spartikus]

Hastert the Unspeakable

I just snorted out loud. All bow to the Speaker in Yellow!

[hilzoy]

Ugh: you're welcome to my idea of starting a Monk Rock movement.

[Ugh]

Ugh: you're welcome to my idea of starting a Monk Rock movement.

But doesn't chant dominate the market here? Plus Monk Rock would require some sort of musical skills beyond the piano, I would think.

I'm looking to move in on the much more lucrative tithing market. I mean, giving on Sunday is kinda boring. Just think if it was your contribution that brought about the rapture! You'd be a star and could go on tour, "and now, the woman that brought you heaven on earth..."

Plus, people handing me money is just too good of an idea to pass up.

[cleek]

i almost hate to do this... design for Mark Foley TShirt. via BoingBoing.

[Slartibartfast]

I wonder if Chlorox can safely be applied directly to brain tissue? Because I need something, after that. Make the bad man stop!

[Ugh]

Make the bad man stop!

Hear hear. cleek, that was bad bad bad.

[cleek]

I wonder if Chlorox can safely be applied directly to brain tissue?

come on down to my neighborhood... we're having an all-day all-the-chlorine-you-can-inhale festival.

[Ugh]

come on down to my neighborhood... we're having an all-day all-the-chlorine-you-can-inhale festival.

SFW or NSFW? I'd say the previous link was NSFW, if that helps (I took a gander at home).

[cleek]

SFW.

i guess the other one probably was on the NSFW side of things (tasteless, not x-rated). shoulda put a warning on it.

[Ugh]

Ah, completely different topic that. Stay safe.

[hilzoy]

I just had to note, somewhere, that Flopping Aces just wrote: "Ok, so I’m not really done with the militant gay attack on the Republican party, otherwise noted as Foleygate."

The militant gay attack on the Republican party??

[Ugh]

The militant gay attack on the Republican party??

He forgot "organized by the Democrat party." They're slipping.

[KCinDC]

Oh, come on, Ugh. That part's obvious enough that it would seem silly to mention it. Everyone knows "militant gays" are organized by the Democrats.