Posted on 11/02/2005 5:29:18 PM PST by nunya bidness
Newspaper Reveals Logging Into Internet User's Account
BALTIMORE -- The identity of an Internet user connected to the firing of a former gubernatorial aide remains a mystery. However, new disclosures from The Washington Post may shed light on how to solve the mystery.
The editor said that information came from someone associated with MD4Bush and that the reporter used it to log into MD4Bush's account several times before the story was published.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewbalchannel.com ...
If you check MD4Bush's posts you clearly see a subtle pattern of encouraging dishonesty and trickery to smear the opponents, then sitting back to see who would bite.
It then appears that when no one really went along, the emphasis changed and the NCPAC emails were provided to expose deeds that never took place and a plan that never existed.
If a reporter for a major newspaper was conspiring with a MD Democratic operative to manufacture a scandal to make Republicans look bad and get someone fired from their job, it's big news, whether the reporter was logging into the account or not.
Yep, group accounts are a bad, bad thing for a forum like this.
In Freepmail. Realize of course most of these articles are written by people totally unfamiliar with FR.
We have seen the same side of them in this incident as they showed with the infamous Pentagon Papers incident.
RE: acting in cahoots with a Dem operative to ambush a GOP staffer in an entrapment scheme.
Which could be criminally prosecuted if the MD GOP and / or Steffan pressed charges.
Someone who I believe to be the same person / part of the same group as MD4Bush alluded to that same article, using very similar language, on the Baltimore Sun's web forum.
The email alert attributed to O'Doherty is quite damning, since it shows prior knowledge to who-what the story would be about in the Post, and obviously we must wonder how O'Doherty knew what the story would say. Notice how the author says "credits.. staff for creating and spreading". "Credits with", rather than proves, shows, discloses, etc.
"There will be a big story in the Post either tomorrow or Thursday that credits Governor Ehrlich's staff for creating and spreading the nasty and untrue rumor about our Mayor and his family. Steve asked me to contact you to see if you could show your disgust by calling into WBAL Radio after the story hits. The guys on WBAL obviously could try to protect Ehrlich, so we need as many folks as possible to call 410-467-WBAL. I will e-mail the story to you as soon as it hits and read it carefully and then call in and raise hell. Don't call in until after the story is published in the Washington Post - It is top secret!"
The Washington Post is reporting now that their reporter did come in possesion of printed copies of the message exchanges last fall. To check to see if they were authentic, the reporter obtained the info required to view the private chat room by an intermediary acting on behalf of MD4Bush last January.
The Washington Post says their reporter used that information to verify that the messages from the chat room were authentic
http://wbal.com/stories/templates/news.asp?articleid=36636
Who was the intermediary who gave the WaPo reporter the password to the MD4Bush account? Why would an intermediary be necessary?
The Washington Post accused FR of copyright violation, if I recall.
The Washington Post and staff may have been involved in an attempt to smear FR, Republicans, and convervative politicians in an attempt at dirty tricks. If they knowingly lied about the transgression, pinning the blame on someone they knew was innocent, well then...
You might find this has more in common with Plamegate or some such scandal than the WP-FR suit.
Post reporter Matthew Mosk received printed copies of the message exchanges last fall, Brenner said. To verify they were authentic, he said, Mosk was given sign-on information needed to view the private chat room by an intermediary acting on behalf of MD4BUSH in late January. Mosk used that information to verify that "the chat room messages were genuine," Brenner said. Mosk presented the printouts to Steffen in February to confirm that they represented his words.
MD4Bush posted his last comment in the open forum on 12/13/2004 10:21:28 AM EST which was consistent with his posting during business hours and did not post again until the Freepmail dumps of 02/08/2005 11:05:05 PM EST to 02/08/2005 11:14:48 PM EST. The times and content of his night posts were clearly intended to document private Freepmail content in the public forum and on three different threads so if one got nuked there would be others as proof.
Here's where it gets murky. Why would the Post publically declare (now) that Mosk had sign-in information in late January when the 2/08 public posts contained the evidence that would implicate Steffen? I can understand if the reporter wanted to confirm Steffen's possible admission of his identity but why not post it on the open forum with the other information?
I'm beginning to suspect that MD4Bush may have turned his account information over to Mosk between his last post in December and the last posts. And during that time MD4Bush and Mosk attempted to build a case against Steffen but came up short or what they came up with implicated them in less than ethical actions. Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that given the Post's admission that Mosk had sign-in information for MD4Bush from an intermediary (possibly Damian O'Doherty, esq.) that the 2/08 posts were made by Matthew Mosk of the Washington Post to support his story that was published shortly after.
Furthermore, I believe Mosk took over corresponding with Steffen in Freepmail in an attempt to gain an admission by Steffen that he was firing at-will employees which would empower Maryland Democrat Legislators to investigate the Ehrlich administration.
None of this may be illegal but it certainly is unethical and, if proven, could severely damage the reputation of the Washington Post.
Payback could be bitch, for them?!
Certainly the most powerful rational political web site!
Matthew Mosk worked for LA Times, as a "Special Correspondent" in 1994... not known when he left their employ. When asked that by a Freeper/reporter, he said he didn't want to answer any questions and then hung up.
yeah, I see it now on the 'Home' page...Thanks for the info
This was my first thought when I heard that the WPost reporter had used MD4Bush's login info. Thanks for making this point. I haven't heard this idea discussed yet. One of the key questions in this story is, "who copied the private freepmail text and posted it into the public portion of FR?".
I am willing to bet that there was a problem using private freepmails as a source and either MD4Bush posted the private content on behalf of the WP reporter or gave the WP reporter the login info so he could do it himself.
That would be an amazing development if we could prove that this WP reporter engaged in unethical behavior because he needed to create a valid source. Seems par for the course with the MSM.
I hope it is a great day tomorrow.
Congressman Billybob
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.