 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:02 am Post subject: Democratic Congressional Campaign had Foley emails 2005 |
 |
|
109THCONGRESS, 2ND SESSION
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO IMPROPER CONDUCT
INVOLVING MEMBERS AND CURRENT OR FORMER HOUSE PAGES
DECEMBER 8, 2006
September 1 below is in 2005!!
| Quote: | On September 1, Savoy discussed the e-mails with another Alexander employee, Jonathan Johnson, who did not think that they were particularly significant.l'" Savoy, looking for another opinion, then forwarded the e-mails, including the e-mails between her and the former page, to her girlfriend, Kelley Halliwell, who was a former House employee who was then working for a small lobbying firm. Late on September 1, the former Alexander page again e-mailed Savoy and asked, "Just wondering ... are you showing these e-mails to anyone? I would prefer you not to."
Upon receiving the e-mails, Halliwell forwarded them to her boyfriend, Justin Field, who then worked for the House Democratic Caucus, and also to her boss, Mike Grisso, a registered lobbyist." Field was disturbed by the nature of the e-mails and shortly after he received them, he shared them with his friend and colleague, Matt Miller, who was then the communications director for the Democratic Caucus. The two discussed the nature of the emails and possible actions. Miller believed that the e-mails were inappropriate, and suggested that they be given to the press. Miller testified that he considered providing the e-mails to the Committee on Standards or to the Page Board, but feared that "nothing would come" of such action. He says that he also considered providing them to law enforcement, but believed that the e-mails, though inappropriate, did not evidence the commission of a crime.
Miller testified that in approximately November, 2005 he redacted Savoy's e-mail address and Field's name from the top of a printed copy of the e-mails and faxed them to reporters that he knew at both the Miami Herald and the ST. Petersburg Times. Miller said that later in November or in December, he also provided the e-mails to a reporter from Roll Call. Both Field and Miller testified that neither then-Rep. Menendez, who was then chairman of the Democratic Caucus, nor any other person in the office of the Democratic Caucus, was provided with the e-mails or was involved in the decision to provide them to the press. Miller testified that also during the fall of 2005, in part as a "gut check" regarding his impression of the e-mails, he provided the e-mails to the communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC"). Miller testified that he was not aware of what actions his DCCC counterpart may have taken with respect to the e-mails, but he expected that he would share them with the press.
Miller testified:
I think I gave them to him not with any direct expectation, but with the understanding that [the DCCC communications director] is someone that talks to reporters all day. If there's something that I'm missing, maybe-maybe there's a way that he could get the -- you know, that he could give them to a reporter; you know, in the course of talking to reporters that he might find a way. I didn't have. |
| Quote: |
Over Memorial Day weekend 2006, Matt Miller, the House Democratic Caucus communications director, who is himself a former page, attended a page reunion in Washington. During the reunion, in a conversation with another former page, he mentioned the Foley e-mails and his frustration that the press had declined to run a story on them. The other former page put him in touch with a writer from Harper's Magazine. The Harper's writer was interested in the story, and soon thereafter, he contacted the offices of both Rep.Foley and Rep. Alexander. Rep. Foley, as he had done previously with the St. Petersburg Times, talked to the reporter directly and attempted to explain away the e_mails. |
| Quote: | | Ultimately, as with the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times, Harper's declined to run a story on the e-mails because they "did not have absolute proof that Foley was, as one editor put it, 'anything but creepy. ", Nevertheless, the e-mails continued to circulate throughout the spring and summer of 2006. According to the Harper's reporter, he was disappointed with the decision not to publish, and he "passed along the emails and related materials to several people who were in a position to share them with other media outlets," and he "subsequently learned that other people had the same information and were also contacting reporters.,, Jason Kello, Rep. Foley's communications director, testified that by the summer of 2006, his assumption was that every reporter he dealt with had the emails, and he repeatedly raised the issue with Liz Nicholson and Rep. Foley in an effort to develop a plan to respond to the issue. In his view, "it was not an if these e-mails came out, that it was more along the lines of when these e-mails came OUt.,, According to Nicholson, in July of 2006, the Foley campaign received word that Foley's Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, intended to use the e-mails in his campaign. According to an organization called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW"), it received the e-mails from an undisclosed source on July 21, 2006, and forwarded them to the FBI the same day. The FBI apparently declined to pursue the matter at that time. |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Foley affair was Rahm Emanuel's baby which was held back until it could do the most political damage.
The story broke just before the elections and totally threw the House Republicans off course.
Now the Ethics report is out and clearly defines Emanuel's prior knowledge but you hear nothing about HIS involvement from the drive-by media!!
Remember when ABC's This Week George Stephenpoulus questioned Emanuel about his knowledge of the emails. Over and over Rahm said "No, never saw them. Nope,Nope,Nope".
Newsbusters has a good article on the media's silence on Emanuel.
| Quote: | For those keeping score, Emanuel denied knowledge of the e-mails six times, and twice declared the source of the leaks was a Republican. As it turned out, the answer to Stephanopoulos’s first question concerning whether this was a Democrat dirty trick should actually have been “Yes.”
Yet, according to a LexisNexis search, the only major television news outlet that reported the specifics of this on Friday, as well as Miller’s name, was Fox News’ “Special Report”:... |
| Quote: | | By contrast, though all three broadcast network evening news programs did segments on the House report Friday, not one of them mentioned any possible connection to Emanuel, or Miller’s involvement. And, though CNN did ten stories about this issue throughout the day Friday beginning with the 11AM EST “CNN Newsroom,” it wasn’t until “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees” at 10PM EST that Emanuel’s connection was addressed. Sadly, this was at the end of a report that didn’t mention any of the specifics or Miller’s name:... |
| Quote: | Maybe more surprising, although George Stephanopoulos did discuss the House report with “This Week’s” panel members on Sunday, there was no mention of Emanuel, Miller, or the possibilty the Congressman from Illinois had lied back in October. I guess Stephanopoulos doesn’t mind being lied to when the person committing it is a fellow Democrat.
And Give Them Victory They So Crave
In the end, political observers likely won’t be shocked by any of this. As the Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell wrote days after the recent elections:
In 25 years of looking at the national media, I have never seen a more one-sided, distorted, vicious presentation of news -- and non-news -- by the national media. They ought to be collectively ashamed. They have made a mockery out of the term "objective journalism" and a laughingstock of themselves at the idea that they should be considered objective journalists.
Without question, Bozell was 100 percent correct: the media in this country likely never had such a disgraceful hand in getting so many people elected as they did in 2006. Maybe even more reprehensibly, if they had put a tenth of the energy into finding out who leaked this story as they did on the non-event that was the Valerie Plame Wilson affair, the election results would have been significantly different.
Of course, much as George Stephanopoulos isn’t concerned when Democrats lie to him on national television, the press are only interested in uncovering the source of leaks when it benefits Democrats. If you thought for a moment this was going to change once the elections ended, think again. |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
with all due respect to Rove's get-out-the vote plan...
the Libs had an quite a masterful plan, albeit a dirty one, and it worked. Besides this Foley issue, they targeted huge resources at a handful of key repubs, like Santorum, Allen..etc..
heaven help us next cycle
culture of corruption indeed
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
