Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BUSTED....WASHINGTON POST REPORTS DEMOCRATS BEHIND FOLEYGATE!
Gateway Pundit ^ | 10/11/06

Posted on 10/11/2006 6:28:30 AM PDT by areafiftyone

Do you suppose this will make the front pages for the next week?

The Washington Post reports that democratic operatives were behind the Foleygate scandal this morining:

But there are indications that Democrats spent months circulating five less insidious Foley e-mails to news organizations before they were finally published by ABC News late last month, which prompted the leaking of the more salacious instant messages. Harper's Magazine said yesterday that it obtained the five e-mails from a Democratic Party operative, albeit in May, long before the election season.

Those 2004 e-mails -- dubbed "over-friendly" by House Republican leaders -- originally leaked out of the office of Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.), a Republican. But, Republicans say, they still may have come from a Democrat on his staff. Alexander changed parties in 2004.
Of course, the media is doing what it can to salvage the democrat's reputation with this latest disclosure:

"There was never a plan to undermine the GOP or to destroy Hastert personally, as the speaker has vaingloriously suggested," Ken Silverstein, Washington editor for Harper's, said on the magazine's Web site yesterday. "I know this with absolute certainty because Harper's was offered the story almost five months ago."

Silverstein said his source was a "Democratic operative," the same source that had provided the e-mail exchanges to the St. Petersburg Times in November 2005. Both the magazine and the paper declined to publish a story. But the source "was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party," Silverstein added. "This person was genuinely disgusted by Foley's behavior, amazed that other publications had declined to publish stories about the emails, and concerned that Foley might still be seeking contact with pages."
AJ Strata has more on these latest Foleygate developments and corrects the Washington Post on its timeline.
Macsmind reports that Jeff Trandahl, the former House clerk who oversaw the House Page Program, was supposed to testify on Tuesday.
The Jawa Report notes that both the democrats and the media knew about the emails for months.

All that is left to this October surprise is nailing down which democrats were out pushing the documents!
Today's report follows yesterday's admission by Harper's that it was democrats out pushing the documents.

posted by Gateway Pundit at 10/11/2006 05:45:00 AM

|


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Politics; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: democrats; dnc; foley; liberals; sorocrats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: areafiftyone

Naturally, it was all a part of Karl Rove's EVIL plan to make the innocent democrats look guilty. On their own, the democrats would NEVER do anything mean or nasty.


That Karl Rove is one bad person!!!



(sarcasm off)


21 posted on 10/11/2006 7:55:02 AM PDT by Mr. Jazzy (God Bless the United States of America and all that defend her hard earned freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Harper's Magazine said yesterday that it obtained the five e-mails from a Democratic Party operative, albeit in May, long before the election season.

Obviously, Harper's found nothing worth "reportage" in those emails.

22 posted on 10/11/2006 7:56:23 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

BTTT


23 posted on 10/11/2006 7:56:33 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Just another 'glitch' in the DBM/DNC Matrix... nothing another evenings worth of Hastert-bashing can't clear up.


24 posted on 10/11/2006 7:56:52 AM PDT by johnny7 (“And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda... what's Fonzie like?!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Well, between these developments and North Korea, watch this disappear.


25 posted on 10/11/2006 8:14:00 AM PDT by S.S. Monkeyface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Berosus; Cincinatus' Wife; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; FairOpinion; ...
Thanks E for more about Silverstein from this topic. Nothing I like better in the morning than a self-serving non-sequitur:
"There was never a plan to undermine the GOP or to destroy Hastert personally, as the speaker has vaingloriously suggested," Ken Silverstein, Washington editor for Harper's, said on the magazine's Web site yesterday. "I know this with absolute certainty because Harper's was offered the story almost five months ago."

Silverstein said his source was a "Democratic operative," the same source that had provided the e-mail exchanges to the St. Petersburg Times in November 2005. Both the magazine and the paper declined to publish a story. But the source "was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party," Silverstein added.
He knows there was no plan to destroy Hastert or undermine the GOP, because these same emails had been circulated to many news organizations for a year or more. Yeah, that's absolute proof.

Harper's circulation will, of course, take a hit from subscribers finally disgusted by it, while it will benefit from those who will now subscribe to it but not actually read it.
26 posted on 10/11/2006 8:14:06 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (North Korea is a rogue and illegal regime. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: graf008
We need the DSCC, Howard Dean or someone higher up - otherwise it looks like a bunch of people who just happened to be Democrats, not the efforts of a concerted effort.

Plausible deniability. Like with Cardin and the Oreos, Schumer and Steele's credit records, etc. Have underlings do it for you at your behest, then have them take the fall.

27 posted on 10/11/2006 8:15:53 AM PDT by S.S. Monkeyface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: graf008

Harper's source was a former staffer who worked for Alexander, resigned when he switched parties, worked for Pelosi, and is now workign on a Democrat campaign in a district that shares a media market with Foley's district. Taht is a person who's tied in. I'm betting this was Pelosi's operation.


28 posted on 10/11/2006 8:17:53 AM PDT by S.S. Monkeyface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Good grief...did you get a gander at that poster at AJ Strata that claimed since the story was shopped since Nov 2005 it couldn't have possibly been a planned October Surprise by the Dems? How do those people survive daily life with that kind of logic?


29 posted on 10/11/2006 8:20:21 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
"There was never a plan to undermine the GOP or to destroy Hastert personally, as the speaker has vaingloriously suggested," Ken Silverstein, Washington editor for Harper's, said on the magazine's Web site yesterday. "I know this with absolute certainty because Harper's was offered the story almost five months ago."

"But we in the media thought it better to wait a month prior to the election to release this. That's proof there was no media/Democratic conspiracy to undermine the GOP."

30 posted on 10/11/2006 8:45:17 AM PDT by MikeA (Foley has resigned. Bin Laden has not. That is what 's at stake in this election, not some pervert.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone; Suzy Quzy
How in the world did whoever come up with the title and summation: BUSTED....WASHINGTON POST REPORTS DEMOCRATS BEHIND FOLEYGATE! out of the info that is contained within the article.

The info comes across almost 100% opposite of the title?

What am I missing here!

31 posted on 10/11/2006 9:04:38 AM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Don't get excited. They're putting the blame on the media, instead of "Democrats" in power. They're saying the only reason it happened so late is because the media didn't bother with it until now. The Dem's had given them info ages ago, so they're not to blame.

Of course, 1 could then ask why didn't Dem's push the issue with the media, or go to "authorities" themselves?


32 posted on 10/11/2006 9:10:25 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Original Title of Washington Post article:

History of Foley Messages' Release Clarified by Players

2 Sources Explain Motives, Citing Concern for Hill's Pages

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001379.html

33 posted on 10/11/2006 9:11:40 AM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Ping


34 posted on 10/11/2006 9:15:19 AM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TexKat

The article is from a Blog,...commenting on the Washington Post article....and it is posted in Death Valley...the Bloggers area....


35 posted on 10/11/2006 9:19:07 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TexKat
BUT the Was Post article does Bust them pretty good:

*****************************

Two of the news media's sources of Mark Foley's sexually explicit instant messages to former House pages said this week that they came forward to expose the Florida congressman's actions, not to help the Democrats in the midterm elections.

But there are indications that Democrats spent months circulating five less insidious Foley e-mails to news organizations before they were finally published by ABC News late last month, which prompted the leaking of the more salacious instant messages. Harper's Magazine said yesterday that it obtained the five e-mails from a Democratic Party operative, albeit in May, long before the election season.

36 posted on 10/11/2006 9:21:39 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I know where the article is from. That is not my question.


37 posted on 10/11/2006 9:22:51 AM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Those people are evil, evil, evil!!!!


38 posted on 10/11/2006 9:24:07 AM PDT by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion have been born. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Problem with that is the librats feel justified to lie under oath if it helps them gain power.

true, and I'm sure there are republicans who might lie to retain power.

Fire them all.


39 posted on 10/11/2006 9:31:12 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (DeWine ranked as one of the ten worst border security politicians - Human Events)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
From reading the article I don't think that it is/was WaPo intention of busting anyone in this article.

And the changing of the title on the blog website is due to the reader's/poster's own wishful interpretation.

With a title like that, one is expecting meat. After reading the entire article, I was left wondering wheres the beef?

But there are indications that Democrats spent months circulating five less insidious Foley e-mails to news organizations before they were finally published by ABC News late last month, which prompted the leaking of the more salacious instant messages. Harper's Magazine said yesterday that it obtained the five e-mails from a Democratic Party operative, albeit in May, long before the election season.

40 posted on 10/11/2006 9:34:46 AM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson