Originally Posted By Dabob2 (From the editorial) < But since they withheld information about Mark Foley for months - if not years - to make his predatory sexual behavior a campaign issue, I wouldn't put anything past them.> I've never seen a shred of evidence to back this little conspiracy theory up, though I've heard plenty of Republicans bring it up real quick just to pollute the landscape and plant the idea. But when pressed for evidence, they can never provide any. Yet this guy says it as though it were fact.
Originally Posted By woody dabob2: I read about the conspiracy theory. Here's something to investigate. <a href="http://gaypatriot.net/2006/10/25/hrc-fires-staffer-who-orchestrated-foley-scandalstatement-raises-more-questions-about-hrcs-involvement" target="_blank">http://gaypatriot.net/2006/10/ 25/hrc-fires-staffer-who-orchestrated-foley-scandalstatement-raises-more-questions-about-hrcs-involvement</a> “The email exchanges in question between former Congressman Mark Foley and a House page have been in the possession of bloggers and media outlets for some time now. Yesterday, it came to our attention that an HRC employee, hired just last month to work for us in Michigan, was responsible for initially posting these emails on his blog. We investigated the matter, determined that HRC resources had been inappropriately used, and let him go. No one at the Human Rights Campaign, other than this individual, had any knowledge of his activities,†said Brad Luna, Spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign." ---- There's also the issue of the FBI getting some allegedly redacted emails yet cannot act on them. <a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign.php?view=155" target="_blank">http://www.citizensforethics.o rg/activities/campaign.php?view=155</a> Who do you believe? The FBI or CREW? These accusations did not originate from the Republicans.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I say that Nguyen's letter was either the stupidest or the most nefarious political act this year because part of me wonders whether he's some sort of "Manchurian Candidate" planted by Democrats to pull this October stunt - and have it dragged out by the media going into the election.<< Um... So the Democrats planted a Manchurian Candidate against Loretta Sanchez, a safe seat? They planted a flat-footed, former Democrat, feeling that he would be able to most smoothly ensure a victory of which they were already assured? That is brazen.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 #42 provides no proof of a conspiracy theory of the type outlined in the previous thread, i.e. that the democrats knew all about the salacious IM's months before they appeared and held them back, waiting for just the right moment. The link in #42 talks about emails, not IM's, and the emails had been passed to the mainstream press months earlier (Fla. newspapers), who decided there wasn't a story there. So nothing was held back there - indeed CREW was trying to GET people interested well before October, but couldn't. If #42 is confusing emails and IM's, even then, nothing was being held back - they're talking about someone exposing it on his blog and trying to get people interested, not in holding them back. As one of the commenters in the link put it, "The insistance on the Right of finding the messenger - in order to shoot him - is absolutely stunning."
Originally Posted By woody #45 mentions emails versus IMs, but the original post doesn't mention it. CREW evidently knew something was going on yet couldn't get anyone interested so maybe there wasn't anything there; however, I suspect if this was so important, they failed to inform the public of Foley's tendencies so there were just as culpable IF anyone was to accept any blame for this situation. So conspiracy theory? Many people knew!!! Stop blaming the Republican leadership for their oversight when it is obvious that so many people knew!!!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Calm down - it was not obvious at all, and extra exclamation points do not make it so. AFAIK, all CREW had were the "overly friendly" but not salacious emails - the same ones DlDug always says indicate nothing particularly explicit, and so he gives a pass to the GOP leadership for not investigating further. The ones that ask for a picture and creeped the kid out but were not explicit. CREW tried to interest the media in this (the Fla. newspapers) and the papers weren't interested. So CREW was doing what they could with what they had, and the newspapers had to make a decision to run or not. IMO, this was okay - if they'd run with just the emails, my guess is Republicans would have accused them of "smearing" Foley, because the emails weren't that bad. Not knowing there was anything else there, the newspapers demurred. I can't fault them for this. If all they knew about early in 2006 was the emails (which seems to be the case), they decided there wasn't much story there. On the other hand, the GOP leadership knew about this at least as early as 2005 (possibly considerably earlier in some cases), and since it was one of their own, it was incumbent upon them, IMO, to try to get to the bottom of it, quietly if possible - their responsibility was greater than the newspapers', and they seem to have been content to tell Foley to knock it off in the one case and hope against hope there weren't more cases.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Well, I have to hand it to you, DlandDug, at least you're mocking wacko Republican conspiracy theories, too.
Originally Posted By woody >>Calm down - it was not obvious at all, and extra exclamation points do not make it so.<< I used obvious to describe the situation now. It is obvious NOW that many people know. Many people kept it a secret until more evidence was unearthed. I'm disappointed that no one saw the emails as inappropriate for a guy who serves in some type of child protection committee. The conspiracy was all about who knew and when and why was it revealed before the election. It would appear that there is adequate evidence to create the impression of a conspiracy. There's more to this story like the HRC involvement, and also ABC's slow leak. These stories give weight to the conspiracy theorists.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Calm down - it was not obvious at all, and extra exclamation points do not make it so.<< <I used obvious to describe the situation now. It is obvious NOW that many people know. Many people kept it a secret until more evidence was unearthed. > I haven't seen any good evidence that anyone knew of the more salacious IM's before they were released, which is what the conspiracy theories claim. But have no evidence to back up. The less salacious emails were only "kept a secret" by the GOP leadership, and if you really want to stretch it, the Florida newspapers. But not running a story (something every newspaper does dozens of times a day) is not the same as keeping a secret. And the left-leaning CREW was trying to NOT keep the emails secret.
