Posted on 10/10/2006 1:05:06 PM PDT by PDR
...and so did some others (about the Mark Foley emails). Harper's Silverstein writes his take up here.
Last May, a source put me in touch with a Democratic operative who provided me with the now-infamous emails that Foley had sent in 2004 to a sixteen-year-old page. He also provided several emails that the page sent to the office of Congressman Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican who had sponsored him when he worked on Capitol Hill. "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously, This freaked me out," the page wrote in one email. In the fall of 2005, my source had provided the same material to the St. Petersburg Times--and I presume to The Miami Herald--both which decided against publishing stories. ...
The final draft of my story--which did not name the ex-page who received Foley's emails--was set to run on June 2. ...
We decided against publishing the story because we didn't have absolute proof that Foley was, as one editor put it, "anything but creepy." At the time I was disappointed that the story was killed--but I must confess that I was also a bit relieved because there had been the possibility, however unlikely, that I would wrongly accuse Foley of improper conduct. ...
While Harper's decided not to publish the story, we weren't entirely comfortable with the decision. A few weeks later I passed along the emails and related materials to several people who were in a position to share them with other media outlets. I subsequently learned that other people had the same information and were also contacting reporters. (By this point, my original source apparently had given up on getting the media to cover the story.)
Among those who received information about the story but declined to pursue it were liberal outlets such as Talkingpointsmemo.com, Americablog.com, and The New Republic (The Hill, Roll Call, and Time magazine also had the Foley story, though I'm not certain when it came to their attention.) Ironically, it was ABC--which just weeks ago was being defended by Republicans and attacked by Democrats for airing The Path to 9/11--that finally ran the story. The network obtained the emails from a person who is scrupulously non-partisan.
Two newspapers in Florida had the information.
reference post (Original Harpers article)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1716968/posts
cant this story fugging die.....real events happening besides this....like some adult woman missing from vermont lol
If it was just the emails......THERE WAS NO INFORMATION.....
Well ok, if the libs won't let this go, then lets start reposting stuff about Klinton, both him and her. Lets give a post about them on every post, whether it is pertaining to them or not....
Time to wake people up....
WHat I want to know is that if it was so "obvious' that it came from a republican office, then put the name of your source to print! Put the name of the supposed non-partisan source to print! This isn't national security and none of these people were minors, there is no reason for the secrecy!
Lot's of concern.....HA!
It's CYA time for the MSM in the know.
The story won't die because the GOP has not made an effort to distinguish the emails from the IMs. The emails were known, but were not in any way actionable. People have referred to them as "creepy", but asking a former page for his picture is not out of bounds.
The IMs, OTOH, were the problem. As soon as they were leaked, Foley was gone.
The public is not making the distinction. Each time a story like this concerning the emails being known about years ago, they associate the story with the IM content.
Isn't this something they should be telling the FBI??
And who was the "original source" who was shopping this story ... or are they going to act like Novak now?
What does this mean? Is it the usual practice for an editor of a magazine to shop around someone's story to other media outlets when one's own outlet refuses to run a story?
Why was Silverstein trying to get this story "to several people who were in a position to share them with other media outlets?"
-PJ
As anyone actually seem these e-mails.............???
I'm convinced the leaker is Fordham. He new all about Foley, and I'm guessing ALL, not that there's anything wrong with that. He left, or was let go from, Foley's office in '04, and became Reynold's CoS in 10/05. He would have been there when the e-mails were shared by Alexander's office.
Motive? I'm thinking jilted lover.
They had it for at least a year!
This non-partisan BS could, in their world, mean another reporter.
I don't think Fordham is Foley's Jilted Lover...I think the fact that he went over to Reynold's office, thereby bringing the SCANDAL to the NCCC, smells more like a SETUP!!!
Exactly right. No matter how hard a few of us are trying to make that distinction, it just doesn't seem to ring a bell. The emails are nothing. And Hastert knew of the IM only after the famous Friday, and Foley left.
Hmm, maybe, but Fordham was with Foley for ten years, then for some reason - split. He may have been miffed that Foley's eye strayed younger.
Damn, I can't believe I'm actually speculating about the "love" life of two queers. That's IT!!! I've paid WAY TOO MUCH attention to this story!
No more for me, there's a crazy pot bellied dog eater who along with about a half a trillion Mooselombs that all want to kill us. That's what's important!
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.