Posted on 10/03/2006 8:43:27 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
Politics aside, if it was an adult posing as a kid, wouldn't it still be a crime? Foley thought it was a kid.
Normally, I agree with you...I've pointed out that there are SO many other things to talk about, like the trouble with North Korea happening now and soon...not to mention other issues which are more directly relevant to our well being. HOWEVER...I defend Rush in engaging in today's colloquy re: Mark Foley, because the drive by media ARE trying to suppress our vote, and our spirits (and for ME, have succeeded). Rush does "buck ME up"...and I wouldn't be surprised if he does the same for others as well...sometime's it's necessary after listening to Laura and Novak, and O'Reilly and the WA Times...etc. etc. ad nauseum...
By the way, why do you discount the possible effect of the Washington Times' Human Resources guy's arrest (9/28/06 -- Internet solicitation of a minor) on the absurd editorial against Hastert?
Excuse my sentence construction........... I am way, way too tired.
Question... how would they know Foley was having non-sex during a vote? That could only come from...
Funny how Ross is all over Hastert now... just move along, nevermind no sources or proof... or even how you came to get this info.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html
From information volunteered by at least two former Hatch staffers, and as reported in the Washington Post and other media, he documents in question were inadvertently disclosed and obtained off an unsecured shared network accessible to both Democrat and Republican Judiciary Committee staff. The disclosure of these and other documents was caused by the negligence of the Leahy technology staff. They inadvertently allowed access to files of both Republican and Democrat staff that had joined the Committee after the Jeffords switch. In short, there was no breaking and entering. Staffers were entitled to access their own desktop computers and the committee network on which the documents were inadvertently disclosed. The documents were disclosed through the window labeled "My Network Places."
As former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray concluded in the Wall Street Journal on December 23, 2003: "The Democrats designed a faulty "shared network" where files could be accessed freely by staffers of either party; if you had material you wanted kept completely confidential, you were advised to store it on your own hard drive. No one exceeds their authority when they log on and access files on their own computer's desktop. Democrats, in other words, were the ones who disclosed their own documents, which were in fact entirely unrestricted."
Were the Democrats aware of the glitch and did they take steps to repair it? Yes they were informed, and no they did not repair it.
If they had access to these servers .. all they would have to do is match up the timeline with what the page told them .. pull it up and leak it to a liberal
should I put my tin foil hat on now .. or wait?
What am I, chopped liver? LOL
I don't really know. You just asked my opinion and I said that I didn't think so. Who knows?!
That's it .. thanks for finding it
Yeah... sorta like Schumer's girl working for CREW (who had the IMs), who gave them to Ross?
Good point.
ok
Sorry...... I'm very tired as I said before.
And by the way .......... here's hoping that all these Sean Hannity 'G.M. Giveaway Cars' come with free Vanity plates.
;-)
lol...NO! You are Star Poster on Free Republic!! (smile)
I'll drop you a note later...promise....lol
In the future try listening to the show and finding out what is really being discussed rather then mindlessly posting faudlent hysteric attacks just because you don't like the host.
You are not 'leaking' stuff are you?
That about the servers happened back in 2004/03
Had to do with the Judges and a memo
My daughter has a friend whose husband was "caught" by the police pretending to be a 13 year old girl in a chat room...
When he went to meet "her", and the police were there...he said to the police..."I thought she was 18!"...
LOL...First of all, that is not true, since the "girl" said she was 13...second of all...he is MARRIED..so, saying he thought she was 18...was NOT a good excuse.
BTW...he has NOT be jailed...has NOT had his trial yet..and he has NOT been told to stay away from children, even his own!!!
What good does it do to catch them...if they aren't punished??? grrrrrrrrrr
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.