O'Malley Blames GOP Plot For Rumors (MD GOVERNOR'S AID FIRED FOR FREE REPUBLIC POSTS)

Washington Post ^ | 2/9/05 | Matthew Mosk

[crushkerry]

Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley yesterday accused agents of Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s administration of spreading false rumors that he had an extramarital affair, and Ehrlich responded hours later by dismissing a longtime employee.

The mayor, a Democrat considering a bid for governor in 2006, said he believes that the widespread and persistent rumors were part of a "concerted and orchestrated and sustained" effort and called on the Republican governor to apologize to his wife and children. "I don't think any of us run for office expecting that this sort of hurt will be heaped on our kids or our spouses," O'Malley said.

Ehrlich said an apology was premature and denied any personal involvement in spreading the rumor. He then asked for and received the resignation of Joseph Steffen, a longtime aide working in state government. Steffen confirmed yesterday that he had discussed the rumor on a popular conservative Web site and in private e-mails, which were given to The Washington Post.

[BillF]

See my 339 on where the rumors MAY have started.

[LibertarianInExile]

It was either that or "my little rigatoni noodle." And ravioli rolled off the tongue better. ROFLMAO!

[Cicero]

I didn't accuse the Post of committing a crime. I accused them of lying about who posted the thread at FreeRepublic and implying that anything NCPAC said on that thread supported the rumor or helped to spread it in any way.

I suggested that a crime may have been committed by intercepting a private email. Whether it was done by keystroking, hacking, or a mole, I don't know, because the Post doesn't really bother to say what kind of an email it was or who it was sent to.

For that matter, after having read the thread at FR closely, I would need to see the email to confirm that there was anything harmful or malicious in it. I am inclined to doubt it until I learn otherwise, because the "investigative" reporters at the Post have often proven themselves to be liars, and at least part of this article can already be seen to be a lie--the false allegations concerning the post at FR.

[conservative in nyc]

I didn't mean to imply that either of you (or any other FReepers) were accusing the Washington Post of committing a crime. I was just trying to say that there may be an innocent explanation for the Washington Post getting its hands on NCPAC's e-mails - where no one committed any crime whatsoever.

As a New Yorker, I'm not qualified to guess who spread what rumors about a Baltimore mayor or whether the rumors are true. I do find the timing of the NCPAC story a bit suspicious, given that the story about O'Malley's bonehead Bush budget cuts=9/11 comments appeared in the Washington Post the same day. But I have no proof of any link between the timing of the two articles. And timing doesn't excuse the fact that political operatives ought to think twice before posting (or bolstering) rumors on the Internet. Not only because of the consequences of getting caught, but also because spreading rumors just isn't nice - especially if they turn out to be false.

[WOSG]

FWIW, I don't think you did anything wrong to comment on an existing rumor, and your loyalty to fall on your sword for this is admirable... good luck in your next endeavor.

[BillF]

Cicero, I agree with everything that you say in this post, but wonder if you didn't mean to address the reply to conservative in nyc. I say that because your first sentence is the same as mine was, denying that you charged that the Post committed a crime.

Cicero, you have well stated the case against the Post for false reporting. A simply review shows that NCPAC's public posts did NOT "fan the flames" of the rumor, using the quoted phrase from the equally false or misleading DC TV Channel 5 WTTG news report of an hour ago.

The email quoted in the Post article does not indicate any fanning of the flames, but NCPAC simply says that someone is floating the story. (That someone could easily be supporters of potential Dem Gov primary rivals to O'Malley or non-ideological non-party corporate interests angry at O'M over some decision of his.)

The Post report is overhyped in the extreme (front page) on the same day as the "O'Malley says Bush is like 9/11 hijackers" is relegated to page A5. As both conservative in nyc and I have noted, this may not be a coincidence.

Either the Post, as a willing accomplice to the 'Rats, or the O'M people may have fed or pushed the story to eclipse the simultaneous story on O'M's outrageous charges against Bush.

Think about this in regard to Post reporting. Remember the GOPer who leaked the Dems' "Estrada must be opposed because he is Hispanic" (paraphrase) Senate memo? The leaker of the memo was fired, even though it was on an unsecured server, i.e., open to anyone in the office. The guy who wrote the memo was not fired. In that case, the Post story was "there's a terrible leak," not "here's what the memo says."

In that Senate memo case, there was no crime. With NCPAC's email being obtained, it is possible (likely IMHO) that the leaking of NCPAC's email was a crime (keystroke logging, spyware, illegal logging at an IT central office).

The GOPer always gets the axe and always is the villain to the press.

[Ciexyz]

bump with no comment

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Langly:"Another Johns Hopkins student was murdered."

Byers:"You'd think they would have enough sense to put some more foot patrols in Charles Village."

Mulder: "Yeah, but what's the deal with all the potholes on Gittings Ave? Why are DC Ecstasy gangs appearing in A.A. County? Why is a creepy Aleister Crowley guy hanging around Loyola? And why can't you find affordable National Boh at the stadiums anymore?"

Fohike: "Aliens?"

Mulder: "Well, if O'Malley has time for this, you'd think he would pay some attention to the real stuff going on around him."

Byers:"Anyone up for hitting Pete's Grille?"

Langly:"Let's pick up some Natty Bohs on the way and count me in."

Mulder: "Bohdacious. Let's roll."

[Fred Nerks]

See comment #125 this thread.

[maica]

This sounds to me like Valerie Plame. It's information EVERYONE has heard but they want to blame the GOP.
@@@@@


Exactly right. When I heard the rumor, it was some time after Sade had been hit by the car. At my bridge club meeting I asked if anyone had heard any rumors about the mayor, and all seven women had heard pretty much what I had heard, from a variety of sources.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

One would tend to doubt FR is the source of the rumor. All politicians are subject to such rumors. Not all of them go apocalyptic over them. If it is not true, there is nothing to worry about. The posturing is suspicious.

[mabelkitty]

People need to get more creative with psuedonyms.
Sheesh!

[maica]

I'm sure that FR is not the source. LOL! None of my bridge-playing friends are at All interested in Freeping!

But I just read an interesting thread "O'Malley Rumours" that had an unusual number of sign-up-and-post-one-time comments, which stretched from July 24 to September. I spotted this peculiarity, because the freeper names seemed impersonal, not like the usual trends of names on FR.

It is conceivable that this was done by one or two 'clever' people, whose computer use has been tracked by intrepid WaPo reporters.

I hope not.

[muawiyah]

Montgomery County, MD - County Executive Douglas M. Duncan ~ This is the name of the guy who would most likely challenge O'Malley in the Democratic primaries to run for Governor.

No doubt Donald Graham (the guy who owns the Post) favors him.

I'd suggest that the scandal starts at the very top of the hierarchy at the Post and that no politician, either Republican or Democrat, had anything to do with spreading the stories.

[Naomi4]

I don't think the governor should have fired him for this.

[cdrw]

Way too many open questions to know. However I have no doubt that the feds will eventually try to extend current telephone communication regulations into the Internet and to drag their wire tap authority along with them. They work very hard to assure that there is no form of communication between human beings that they do not have the legal authority to monitor and record. There was a recent thread about some guy who got pulled over for a traffic stop at which point the troopers pulled out the drug sniffing dogs and nailed the guy for large quantity possession. In that case the guy deserved to be busted but he challenged the ruling and the appeals court found that the odors emanating from his vehicle into the public were not subject to probable cause restrictions. Under that logic it would be fair game for the police to monitor the sound waves that exit your home and enter the public from vibrations on your windows (using laser based listening devices or parabolic microphones).

It is always safest to assume that any and all communication you engage in is subject to monitoring and that you, as the source, will be identified. All that means is that nobody should joke around about things that could result in them becoming the target of an investigation or a "person of interest" at which point the investigators have destroyed your life. In the context of this specific thread it is clear we should all assume our identities are knowable so we should never engage in discussions that we might regret later.

[MelindaPA]

Hey old friend, I couldn't believe my eyes when I started to read the headlines today. Prayer's, best wishes and strength to you.