Replies

The latest article from the WaPo has an interesting passage:

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.

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?

Because many people, including the MD Senate Majority Leader, Congressman Billybob in a Newsbusters.org article, and numerous FReepers have been suggesting that MD4Bush is or acted in concert with Matthew Mosk of the Washington Post. They needed to try to defend their actions. Which happened to show MD4Bush was violating his or her FR user agreement. Which opened the door for tomorrow's press conference.

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.

I seem to recall that some FReeper suggested the FReepmails were dumped on the threads so that the Washington Post could avoid legal liability for publishing private FReepmails. I can't find the post, don't remember which FReeper posted it and don't know whether the theory is true.

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.

Well, I guess we might find this out tomorrow. Only Mosk, NCPAC, MD4Bush and Jim Robinson would know.