Were Foley’s e-mails altered?
posted at 10:35 am on October 2, 2006 by Allahpundit
Check this out. There seems to be no question that he’s guilty — if he wasn’t, one assumes, he’d be fighting this tooth and nail instead of checking himself into rehab — but I’m at a loss to explain the discrepancies in the messages. I can think of two possibilities:
1. They aren’t the same e-mail messages. They were sent to two different kids, probably on the same day, as a sort of friendly form letter. In that case, though, wouldn’t he have copy/pasted them instead of retyping them? I.e., wouldn’t they be exactly the same, down to the letter?
2. SSP.com or CREW (or both) never obtained an actual printout of the e-mails but rather had the text read to them over the phone by their source. Which they then formatted to look like e-mails. But why do that? Why not just present the text in proper English and note that the source had read it to them over the phone?
You’ll note that the subject line of the CREW version is “e-mail 2,” which is … unlikely.
Mind you, these aren’t the only discrepancies between Foley e-mails. When writing this post, I noticed that ABC News and the Times quoted the same line from the same Foley e-mail slightly differently. The Times had it as “send me a pic of you as well,” ABC had it as “send me an email pic of you as well.” I didn’t mention it in my post because I figured it was just an error in transcription. Now I don’t.
So why are there two very similar, yet slightly different, versions of Foley’s e-mails circulating? Theories?
Elsewhere, Tom Maguire notes a contradiction between ABC’s latest and the Times’s latest. ABC says a former page, Matthew Loraditch, claims to have been “warned” by Republican page supervisors not to get too chummy with Foley. But according to the Times’s latest, “Mr. Loraditch said he was never warned by program supervisors to stay away from him.”
The Times adds, however, that Loraditch once heard a supervisor say Foley was “odd.” Which suggests that at least someone had some inkling of what was going on.
Anyway. How ’bout that rehab, huh? First booze turned Mel Gibson into an anti-semite, now it’s gone and turned Mark Foley into a child predator. Alcohol: is there anything it can’t do?
Update: Dean Barnett e-mails to say that perhaps the supervisor who called Foley “odd” simply thought he was gay, not a pedophile.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
For someone figured to be an “odd” person who was a “shoo-in” for the Forida votes?
Now, that totally creeps me out.
Kokonut on October 2, 2006 at 10:41 AM
I’ve never heard of someone who thinks he’s an alcoholic but isn’t sure. It’s a pretty big thing not to be sure about. Many alcoholics are in denial, but they’re quite certain they are alcoholics once they get through that.
Definitely seems like a red herring to me.
frankj on October 2, 2006 at 10:51 AM
1. Make Rosie O’Donnell attractive (or coherent)
2. Give France courage
3. Make the DUmmies any less deranged
Kid from Brooklyn on October 2, 2006 at 10:52 AM
How can the MSM flay Republicans over the Foley affaire without a whisper of reference to Barney Frank?
Here you have Foley sparing his State embarrassment by resigning over e.mails; meanwhile, Barney Frank– who confessed to running a male prostitution ring (with his gigolo boyfriend) out of his apartment and having sex with male House paiges– remains one of the most powerful liberal Democrats in their party’s history.
Nor did Bubbah resign after having an affair with a 20 year old intern.
The stench of hypocrisy is thicker than a wet fricative in a Sunday pew.
Terp Mole on October 2, 2006 at 10:52 AM
That’s because the bar is set so much lower for dems than Republicans.
Alcohol does seem to be the excuse du jour.
rightside on October 2, 2006 at 10:56 AM
What striked me is that this appears to be a well-orchestrated attack against the Republican party by nefarious operatives, I at least hope that the Republicans have a decent strategy to counteract this in some way.I find it hard to fathom that the leadership would just lay down and let Foley flail about w/o any plan as to how to defuse this.
bbz123 on October 2, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Mark my words:
Foley has checked into rehab for S_X addiction. These rehab centers offer many different programs, and S_X addiction is one. It would’ve been an admission of guilt to say he was getting treatment for S.A., so instead he releases a statement containing the more acceptable “alcohal addiction”.
realVerse on October 2, 2006 at 11:21 AM
It’s a brilliant political move by Rove to make these emails up from Foley’s computer; have the MSM pick them up and run with them; have Pelosi, Reed, et al react big to them only to have bloggers rip them apart a la Dan Rather’s big story in 2004 and the fauxtography incidents.
/sarcasm
SouthernGent on October 2, 2006 at 11:24 AM
The emails were pretty benign. How do we know these IM’s are real? Is it possible that these have a lot in common with the Bush National Buard papers?
bopbottle on October 2, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Get the Boss into a 2-piece?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 2, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Rehab is a nice way to avoid having to the press beating down your door for a while. I hear it’s very quiet there.
Pablo on October 2, 2006 at 12:30 PM
over the Foley affaire without a whisper of reference to Barney Frank?
Here you have Foley sparing his State embarrassment by resigning over e.mails; meanwhile, Barney Frank– who confessed to running a male prostitution ring (with his gigolo boyfriend) out of his apartment and having sex with male House paiges– remains one of the most powerful liberal Democrats in their party’s history.
Nor did Bubbah resign after having an affair with a 20 year old intern.
The stench of hypocrisy is thicker than a wet fricative in a Sunday pew.
Terp Mole on October 2, 2006 at 10:52 AM
First, the press was obsessed with Clinton and his disgusting shenanigans. Second, Clinton was guilty of adultery, not being a sexual predator. Third, Frank’s boyfriend/prostitute was running a sex ring out of his apt, there was no proof, or even charges, that Frank was having sex or any inappropriate interaction with pages. Again, Frank was guilty of gravely bad judgment, don’t know if the prostitution thing is a crime from the john’s perspective–perhaps a misdemeanor. Oh and don’t forget Teddy Kennedy and John Kennedy and Patrick Kennedy and FDR and Wilber Mills and……
Because the rationale reaction to this situation is to rant over past sins of Democrats.
The big surprise here is that sex is supposed to be the Democrats’ sin of choice. Republicans usually go for money–Cunningham, DeLay, Abranoff. Boy you really can’t count on anything these days.
Funny how some (not all) of the RW piously preaches personal responsiblity until it’s inconvenient. Here’s another name for you: Elmer Gantry.
honora on October 2, 2006 at 12:47 PM
To borrow from Lileks: the Dems have nothing in the tank, nothing in the trunk (he actually used that phrase in describing Al Qaeda). So this close to election time, we’re seeing a “divine wind” approach to winning in November. This is probably only the first wave of such attacks.
Gottafang on October 2, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Two words, MSM Timing.
I knew foley was gay and didn’t care that he was. I didn’t say it when he was running for bob graham’s senate seat and not because of homophobia, one of the left’s favorite smears of conservatives.
Let the investigations run their course, but why is the MSM ready and up to speed on this?
tormod on October 2, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Creepy??? yes…. illegal??? whole nother kettle of fish.
It seems that the Instant messeges, which are the truly daming ones, are from an unamed source.. and in fact have been altered before release to change the name of the recipient… doesn’t quite rise to the level of legal evidence, and, if the recipient was over 18, as it sounds to me from a quick read, there is nothing illegal about it…
Creepy, weird??? Yes… illegal??? uh… no…
Romeo13 on October 2, 2006 at 1:02 PM
Based on how quickly Foley resigned after the ABC revelations is that there is a whole lot more of this coming. What’s so unsettling about this is that from all accounts this guy was an exceptionally fine man in all other respects. Yikes.
honora on October 2, 2006 at 1:22 PM
I can make anybody pretty
I can make you believe any lie
I can make you pick a fight
With somebody twice your size
I been known to cause a few break ups
I been known to cause a few births
I can make you new friends
Or get you fired from Work
[1st Chorus]
And since the day I left Milwaukee
Lynchburg and Bordeaux France
Been making the bars lots of big money
And helping white people dance
I got you in trouble in high school
But college, now that was a ball
You had some of the best times
You’ll never remember with me
Alcohol
Alcohol
I got blamed at your wedding reception
For your best man’s embarrassing speech
And also for those
Naked pictures of you at the beach
I’ve influenced kings and world leaders
I helped Hemmingway write like he did
And I’ll bet you a drink or two that I can make you
Put that lampshade on your head
[2nd Chorus]
‘Cause since the day I left Milwaukee
Lynchburg and Bordeaux France
Been making a fool out of folks just like you
And helping white people dance
I’m medicine and I am poison
I can help you up or make you fall
You had some of the best times
You’ll never remember with me
Alcohol
Alcohol
[Repeat 1st Chorus]
“Alcohol” by BRAD PAISLEY
Sorry couldn’t resist … ; )
Seriously though. No doubt Foley is guilty of something or as you point out, he’d be fighting tooth and nail. And I’m not defending anyone, I’m just trying to understand the legal technicalities because the Democrats are spinning this as the Republicans choosing to protect their seat for FIVE years instead of protecting the Pages. So I have a question that I don’t seem to be able to find an answer too.
Were the emails that have been circulated sent to the Page(s) while they were employed as Pages? And those are the emails that Foley was warned to cease? Which from my understanding would mean they were high schoolers. And the instant messages that are said to be more illicit were between Foley and FORMER Page(s) and therefore they were no longer high schoolers and most likely over the age of 18?
Also, I’ve not heard anything about the other side of the conversation in the instant messages. I find it hard to believe that Foley entered into a one-way conversation about masturbation and such things on an instant message.
Texas Gal on October 2, 2006 at 1:22 PM
Foley has showed massively poor judgment, and rates very high on my ‘creeped out’ meter. However, since the age of consent in DC is 16 (yes, 16), and since we do not even know who these emails (assuming they are legitimate and unaltered–never a good assumption when something smells this badly this soon involving Dems) were to, much less how old the recipient(s) were, it is premature at best to put him in the hoosegow. Let’s face it, it’s not likely that these people were there under the age of 16 (though not impossible).
RL
RationalLady on October 2, 2006 at 2:18 PM
Anyone can call themselves a “Republican” and get elected as one. Even you or Rosie O’Donnell.
Perchant on October 2, 2006 at 3:06 PM
I have no doubt that all this is the work of Rep. Rahm Emanuel. It is the same kind of attack he orchestrated against Kathleen Wiley when he worked for Clinton.
As for the email descripencies, the words “fake but accurate” come to mind.
As for the alleged explicit IMs purporting to be from Foley to one of the pages, I’ll believe that they are real or from Foley when the FBI authenticates them, and not before.
And if these IMs are real, WHAT DID NANCY PELOSI KNOW AND WHEN DID SHE KNOW IT? If she, or Emanuel, knew anything about a pedophilic relationship between Foley and an underage page, they should be prosecuted as accessories after the fact for not informing law enforcement.
Their silence for partisan political purposes means that they could have prevented sexual molestation — but refused to do it.
If I were Hastert or Boehner, I’d be making this point in a press conference right about now.
georgej on October 2, 2006 at 3:08 PM
I don’t think anyone would dispute that Foley is a creep and that he has no place in Congress. Were this story a fabrication he would not have resigned as quickly as he did. But given the ease at which any IM can be altered or outright forged, I don’t take any of this “evidence” at face value.
stm on October 2, 2006 at 3:15 PM
Jaibones on October 2, 2006 at 3:50 PM
(Botched quote)
Jaibones on October 2, 2006 at 3:50 PM
honora, have you forgotten how Cigarman used the most powerful office in the World to perpetuate his sluts, and nuts defence? Certainly using the power of the White House to demean, and smear women preyed upon by a sexual predator must be a crime.
Cover-up, lie, and deny have been tools in the liberal arsenal for decades. Conservatives, when in like situations, get rid of the damaged goods as they respect Americas grandest institution.
Someone will have to explain to me why democrats have no apparent self respect, and are happy to align themselves with sexual predators, Alcoholics, murderers, Klansmen, and other distasteful people just to assure that they stay in power.
DannoJyd on October 2, 2006 at 4:09 PM
Oooooh, this is my favorite part of the blogosphere-sleuthing.
I love watching and reading as conspiracies twist, turn, falter, or flat out implode.
Something is definetly fishy here. Keep digging Allah!
NTWR on October 2, 2006 at 4:20 PM
I was going to post this, this AM but figured I’d let this slide. After reading through some of the posts I figured I had to say it. I thought Allah might be implying this too: These bums are giving us alcoholics a bad name.
Jeff on October 2, 2006 at 6:22 PM
Oh. My. Freakin. Gawd.
It all makes sense now! It’s just another Rovian Plot(TM) to divert attention from illegal invasions and torture and murder and no-bid sweetheart contracts and the drowning of a Great American City and whatnot! (Sadly, it really is not parody … he really means it)
And the bikini pic of Malkin is really, really real too! Because he says it’s real, so it’s real, by golly!
LissaKay on October 2, 2006 at 7:27 PM