Red State: On second thought, we’re not sure if anyone’s paying Haley’s accuser

posted at 4:22 pm on May 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

Let’s backtrack. Yesterday, at 2:50 p.m., the siren goes up and Erick Erickson announces that “We know who paid Will Folks to push this story out there.” Last night, at 9:16 p.m., Erickson scoffs at Folks’s denial: “Will Folks is denying he got paid. Hahahahaha.” This morning, at 9:00 a.m., Erickson mocks Folks’s third-person writing style and declares, “Sources tell Erick Erickson that yes, despite Folks’s denial, money was paid to procure the story and guarantee it hit at the most opportune time — right before the primary.”

And now, the chips fall:

I have no clue if anyone is behind Will Folks doing this. He really could feel aggrieved for some reason and just want to take out Nikki Haley. But I have a theory, I have some facts, and I’ve drawn some inferences to form my opinion. Let’s go below the fold and down the rabbit hole…

Who knows where this story will lead. And who knows if anyone is behind it other than Will Folks. A lot of people suspect Andre Bauer has some role just given his history. That’s my opinion and I’m perfectly willing to admit it is speculation based on inference from a number of facts that haven’t really been discussed yet. Take it for what you will.

Follow the last link and read the whole post. There was a rumor floating around awhile ago on another blog that Folks had reached some unspecified deal with Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer last year; supposedly, the private investigator who may or may not have taken a photo that may or may not exist of Folks and Haley together also works for a Bauer ally. And Bauer has a motive to take down Haley because he’s desperate to get back into contention with the primary coming up. There’s a bit more — Folks himself worked for Bauer four years ago before they had a falling out — but that’s pretty much the gist of the big siren-worthy scoop. Unless I missed it, not a word is offered to support the specific, oft-repeated charge that Folks is getting paid under the table to do this. Hot Air commenters, who were joyously anticipating the Great Will Folks Takedown, are … not pleased.

So, two possibilities. One: This was supposed to be some grand satire of Folks’s M.O., breathlessly touting an explosive allegation with little evidence to support it in order to show how easy it is to get media attention from smearing people. Erickson hints at something like that in passing in today’s post (“With apologies to RedState readers … I’ve had no hesitation in stringing the media along like Folks has done”), but if that really was the plan all along, he would have been more explicit today in announcing it as a joke. And the thing is, it’s not a joke: He does think Folks is in cahoots with Bauer and executing a political hit. He’s simply no longer willing to say that he’s doing it for a fee. Which brings us to theory two: Erickson was promised hard evidence by one of his sources about Folks getting paid and the source flaked out on him at the last minute, hanging him out to dry. But in that case, why trumpet this story for two days before you have it nailed down? He’s actually made Folks seem marginally more credible by admitting that he can’t prove any ulterior motive.

Speaking of which, the media’s sifted through Folks’s phone records and found 600 calls between him and Haley in 2007. The obvious explanation: He was working for her at the time. Less easily explained: Why some of the calls came late at night, including one at 2:24 a.m. that ran for more than two hours. Gonna be a hell of a debate on Tuesday!

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

I don’t believe this guy ever had sex with Nikki Haley. Everybody here is getting played.

ted c on May 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

–We’d also need the GPS coordinates to determine if if was a one-on-one thing.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Seriously? It wouldn’t be on the phone records or something?

Esthier on May 28, 2010 at 4:57 PM

–Not proof of the one-on-one thing I’m thinking happened. Ot: Hey, you’ll get to use your pool this weekend.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

There are all sorts of reasons to talk to someone for two hours and at all hours, to use it as proof of “inappropriate physical relationship” is a stretch. Has Mr. Folks said that Rep. Haley participated in an “inappropriate physical relationship” with him? Since I don’t have a dog in this fight all I can say is they better step the drama factor or cancel the show.

Cindy Munford on May 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Al in St. Lou on May 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Thanks, Al. I’m actually in L.A., aka, Snarkville U.S.A., but you are right, I was being sincere. AP was cautious about EE from the get go, and I appreciate that.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 5:08 PM

I haven’t worked in politics, either, but I have worked several office jobs that required me to be in touch with my boss at ungodly hours of the night. It does happen, although I’ll wait to hear the explanation for this particular call.

Animator Girl on May 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM

True, but in my case his office would have to be floating down the street or something and even then I would probably just send an email. But then there’s an ick factor in my case.

scalleywag on May 28, 2010 at 5:08 PM

But she wasn’t running a campaign at the time. It was an off-year.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Even on off years they always are running or doing something for the next.

upinak on May 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM

This reminds me of the time when Hot Air and Malkin immediately rushed to condemn James O’Keefe. Two days later, the whole story fell apart.

Erick Erickson’s purely speculative post based on tidbits from blogs reminds you of the time we wrote about a federal indictment of James O’Keefe? Okay then.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM

This reminds me of the time when Hot Air and Malkin immediately rushed to condemn James O’Keefe. Two days later, the whole story fell apart.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:06 PM

But they dont learn.

the_nile on May 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

but you are right, I was being sincere

I know you were. I was just teasing.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I didn’t know state senate campaign were that tough. Where I live they get little local media attention.

terryannonline on May 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

In some states (NH,TX,SC,IL,NJ,PA,MA, etc.) politics are a bloodsport, and to reduce it further mayoral campaigns in say Vegas, LA,Chg,NYC,Boston, Dallas, and so on are equally as viscious. Its part of the game, politics is addicting, so imagine the the hours that an alcholic keeps in going to the bar. By the way, most if not all political operators are indeed heavy drinkers[*raises hand*]and thus keep likewise hours. This is true across the political spectrum, from the medical; marijuana crowd to Reed’s Christian Coalition. Its why in movies the press guy (think Belushi in Continental Divide) are always depicted as rumpled drunks, they have to be where the pols are to cover them.

Archimedes on May 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

“But she wasn’t running a campaign at the time. It was an off-year.”

Right. And in the two elections that bracketed 2007, she faced either no opponent at all (2006) or no serious opposition (2008). So even if she had been in campaign mode, how urgent could it have been?

Also, let’s not forget that when the story broke, Haley said she “barely knew” Folks. Barely knew him – but talked to him on the phone nearly 700 times, sometimes late at night, for hours? Come on.

sauropod on May 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

There are all sorts of reasons to talk to someone for two hours and at all hours, to use it as proof of “inappropriate physical relationship” is a stretch.

I’m not an important woman like Nikki Haley….but I can’t even remember the last time I’ve called someone at 2:30 a.m. and I don’t see why I would.

terryannonline on May 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Well that was an underwhelming scoop.

Slublog on May 28, 2010 at 5:12 PM

but you are right, I was being sincere

I know you were. I was just teasing.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

So we ARE all Palin, all teh time? I’m confused now.

TexasDan on May 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM

True, but in my case his office would have to be floating down the street or something and even then I would probably just send an email. But then there’s an ick factor in my case.

scalleywag on May 28, 2010 at 5:08 PM

The best is when a [male] client calls your personal phone at 7:30am on a holiday when you’re on vacation and you have to run outside in your underwear with your rudely-awoken and now screaming 2-yr-old niece on your hip so that she doesn’t wake everybody up and THEN your [male] father-in-law sees you like that. That’s the best. I need to remember never to run for office.

I hope it was nothing inappropriate, but sometimes life puts you in inappropriate situations. We can only pray that Nikki is the woman of integrity we think she is.

Animator Girl on May 28, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Erick Erickson’s purely speculative post based on tidbits from blogs reminds you of the time we wrote about a federal indictment of James O’Keefe? Okay then.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM

You seem to be harping on the late night phone calls. It may have appeared to some that O’Keefe and crew were trying to wiretap the woman, but that wasn’t the case.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:14 PM

I think this could be good for Erick if it blows up in his face the way it might: I think a lot of my complaints about RedState can be directly traced to his overinflated ego. Example: can you think of ANY other major right-leaning blog that not only regularly endorses candidates, but does so months before the primaries and feels the need to weigh in on almost EVERY race? I can’t, and that’s because more experienced (read: older) players in politics know that you don’t attach your reputation to specific politicians, especially in local elections where YOU DON’T LIVE AND WORK.

The fact alone that Erick jumped out there to defend Sanford when that story broke should have taught him some humility and taught us to be wary of his judgment. This really is the last straw for me, though. I want Erick out of my local elections…. he does more harm than good.

Animator Girl on May 28, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I think pointing out good candidates can be a good thing. But these are primaries. Where he goes wrong is when he gets so caught up in his support that he starts losing touch with reality and then loses credibility. He says people that don’t have a shot do have one. He starts attacking people like Fiorina, who is probably the most electable of the choices in that state. He says people are innocent of things that he would have no way of really knowing.

In this case he turns it up to 11, and teases something he doesn’t have the goods on. Why would he want to tease something that is damaging to his candidate? I don’t know if she did this or not, but I walk away from his charade thinking it is more likely than I would before his tease. I am quite sure that’s not what he is going for.

stldave on May 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM

I was just teasing.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Mom will be happy that we kissed and made up.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Well there have been lots of men who have lied about inappropriate relationships right up until the very moment they’re confronted with evidence. Look at John Edwards, he even made his friend claim paternity of a child. Clinton lied under oath. But I don’t recall a woman ever being in this particular position. Anyone come to mind?

scalleywag on May 28, 2010 at 5:19 PM

am I the only one wondering why the margins are all screwed up on HA today?

I wanted to ask earlier but was busy and thoguth it would work isn’t out?

upinak on May 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

This reminds me of the time when Hot Air and Malkin immediately rushed to condemn James O’Keefe. Two days later, the whole story fell apart.
Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I knew this was a bogus smear campaign. Expose ‘em!
Narutoboy on May 27, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Talk about jumping to conclusions.

rjl1999 on May 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

After this debacle I’m incline to believe Haley is guilty. Red State did no make her any favor with this charade.

Falz on May 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Erick Ericson jumped the shark few months back anyway

jp on May 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

It may have appeared to some that O’Keefe and crew were trying to wiretap the woman, but that wasn’t the case.

Totally true, but the “some” in the O’Keefe case were FBI agents and the “some” in Erickson’s case is other thinly-sourced blogs. If I’m wrong for giving the former more of a benefit of the doubt than the latter, so be it.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:23 PM

–Not proof of the one-on-one thing I’m thinking happened. Ot: Hey, you’ll get to use your pool this weekend.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Ah.

And yes, I definitely will. I’m actually having a Memorial Day house warming party this Sunday. The water’s perfect for a swim in the sun.

Esthier on May 28, 2010 at 5:23 PM

How does she prove she didn’t do it? Does she really have to prove a negative? Even in the absence of definitive proof from Folk, he’s still injured her and I think that’s what he was after.

a capella on May 28, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I think pointing out good candidates can be a good thing. But these are primaries. Where he goes wrong is when he gets so caught up in his support that he starts losing touch with reality and then loses credibility.

I agree with this, although I would suggest that pointing out a good candidate and going so far as to officially endorse one are two different things. By pointing out a good candidate, you bring attention to them and hopefully start the ball rolling. By officially endorsing them so early in the process, you attach your reputation to them, and so are more likely to respond emotionally and defensively when they are attacked, as has happened here. I like Nikki a lot, but Erick has been so deeply in the tank for her that I’m not surprised he overreacted when she was smeared.

My point is simply that he sets himself up for embarrassment when he hastily (and in my opinion, rather arrogantly) endorses candidates as he does.

Animator Girl on May 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

GAH, evil HotAir comment tags. FAIL on my part.

Animator Girl on May 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Talk about jumping to conclusions.

rjl1999 on May 28, 2010 at 5:21 PM

And that’s still the case. It is a smear campaign.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

It’s really not that difficult for Will Folks to “put up or shut up.” All he has to do is give the dates/times/places where he allegedly “did the deed” with Nikki – and let’s see if she can alibi out.

I would like to think the guy would at least spring for a decent hotel (which keeps records) for any such assignation – as opposed to the back seat of a car.

Until this attention seeking creep is willing to disclose this sort of factual information, (the ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘date’ type of detail) he remains just that – an attention seeking creep.

I would suggest to ACE, Red State, and AP you call this asshat’s bluff (if that’s what it is) and demand this information from Mr. Folks. If he can’t/won’t come up with it, I think you have your story.

alwyr on May 28, 2010 at 5:26 PM

How does she prove she didn’t do it? Does she really have to prove a negative? Even in the absence of definitive proof from Folk, he’s still injured her and I think that’s what he was after.

a capella on May 28, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Xactly.

the_nile on May 28, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Totally true, but the “some” in the O’Keefe case were FBI agents and the “some” in Erickson’s case is other thinly-sourced blogs. If I’m wrong for giving the former more of a benefit of the doubt than the latter, so be it.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I don’t think you’re remembering the events correctly. Didn’t commenters point out to you and Michelle that the FBI never actually mentioned wiretapping? Maybe my memory is the one that’s off, but I do know that you changed the title shortly after.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:27 PM

TheOtherMcCain seems to be onto something…

http://theothermccain.com/2010/05/28/background-to-the-carolina-scandal-will-folks-tom-knotts-and-the-hit-list/

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Yeah, and if you think that was “something,” just wait. This story just keeps getting better and better . . . er, which is to say, worse and worse.

I’d post my next one in the Green Room, but it involves matters of a legally delicate nature for which I wouldn’t want Hot Air to be liable. With 11 days to go before the primary, however, trust me when I say that this melodrama hasn’t had its last plot twist, and no one knows how it will turn out.

The Other McCain on May 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM

News flash for all future female candidates for high office. Make sure to have a chaperone at all times when doing business with a man that isn’t your husband and never use the telephone after what most people consider to be regular business hours.

Geez…it’s no wonder more women don’t bother. Big Ben got more benefit of the doubt during his whole surprise sex incident.

I can guaran-damn-tee that if I had any kind of intimate relationship with someone, there would be indisputable proof. And considering how obvious Tiger Woods text messages were, I’m fairly certain Hoodie Boy would have something better than phone records. But so far, he has zip.

Asher on May 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Right. And in the two elections that bracketed 2007, she faced either no opponent at all (2006) or no serious opposition (2008). So even if she had been in campaign mode, how urgent could it have been?

Also, let’s not forget that when the story broke, Haley said she “barely knew” Folks. Barely knew him – but talked to him on the phone nearly 700 times, sometimes late at night, for hours? Come on.

I’m the first one on hotair who brought up that she had no hard competition… so…

let’s not remember things that were never said… where did she say she barely knew Folks?

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 5:29 PM

I don’t remember HotAir condemning O’Keefe. I seem to recall Ed going out of his way to contact Brietbart and slam on the brakes, not rush to judgment.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 5:29 PM

I’d post my next one in the Green Room, but it involves matters of a legally delicate nature for which I wouldn’t want Hot Air to be liable. With 11 days to go before the primary, however, trust me when I say that this melodrama hasn’t had its last plot twist, and no one knows how it will turn out.

The Other McCain on May 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Hmmm. I’ll guess:

Folks was having an affair with Haley……..MR HALEY!!!!!

portlandon on May 28, 2010 at 5:30 PM

I don’t think you’re remembering the events correctly. Didn’t commenters point out to you and Michelle that the FBI never actually mentioned wiretapping?

Oh, that’s what you’re getting at. Yes, I misread the affidavit, then apologized for the mistake. How is that analogous to Erickson touting a big non-scoop for days and then turning up nothing? What was the “mistake” in his case?

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:30 PM

I’m fairly certain Hoodie Boy would have something better than phone records.

Asher on May 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Cough up the blue dress, Folks.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Folks is, no doubt, executing a political hit, even if it’s true.

A gentleman never tells and his coy behavior is pathetic.

If she did him, then her behavior is similarly pathetic and I wouldn’t want her as a governor.

I’m keeping my powder dry on calling this one, though, because I know nothing about Haley’s character.

I know a lot about Folks’ behavior, and it’s pretty shabby.

He is, at a minimum, quite a cad who should be ashamed of himself.

He will one day regret his behavior in this matter irrespective of whether he succeeds in outing sexual misconduct on Haley’s part.

molonlabe28 on May 28, 2010 at 5:31 PM

But she wasn’t running a campaign at the time. It was an off-year.

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Like Obama? He’s always campaigning!

Vince on May 28, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I didn’t know state senate campaign were that tough. Where I live they get little local media attention.

terryannonline on May 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Tee-hee, told ya politics was bloodsport…

http://theothermccain.com/2010/05/28/background-to-the-carolina-scandal-will-folks-tom-knotts-and-the-hit-list/

Archimedes on May 28, 2010 at 5:38 PM

What was the “mistake” in his case?

Allahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:30 PM

I don’t know. All I know is it didn’t happen. I have psychic abilities which allow me to know these things. I can’t see the future, but my senses are heightened enough to spot a liar, and Haley isn’t it.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Some of you are reeeally stretching to find any plausible innocent explanation for this (“they were talking politics…or baseball”…yeah, right!) Sorry, but this looks very bad. These two have been burning up the phone lines night after night for hours at a time, yet she claims she barely knows him? Sure, that seems perfectly logical to me!

JA on May 28, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Why (for now) I believe Haley:

1) Her immediate, adamant denial: If she’s lying, this was a very risky thing to do, when she couldn’t be certain that Folks did not have any secret recordings or other evidence proving his claim. Usually when politicians lie about an affair, the person they had the affair with is on their side and helping them cover it up.

2) As Ace noted, whether Folks is telling the truth or not, he’s clearly a monster- so it’s easy to believe he would be capable of lying about this.

3) It’s not surprising that Folks has at least some evidence to support his claim, even if he he is lying- because if he didn’t have *something* he could point to, he probably wouldn’t have made the claim. However, the evidence he’s provided so far seems very weak.

4) If Folks is telling the truth, why not volunteer to take a polygraph? It’s a lot easier to explain why a truthful Haley hasn’t volunteered to do so, then why a truthful Folks hasn’t.

5) Lack of specific information in Folks’ allegations. If he’s telling the truth, why be so coy about exactly what the “inappropriate” contact was, and why offer no specifics about where and when it took place? It’s not out of respect for Haley, since he’s obviously trying to harm her. So it’s likely the reason he’s being so vague about his allegations is that the less detail he offers, the less chance there is that he may be tripped up somehow by contrary evidence.

Jon0815 on May 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

yet she claims she barely knows him?

Where does she say that?

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Weak and disappointing.

Mason on May 28, 2010 at 5:46 PM

TheOtherMcCain seems to be onto something…

http://theothermccain.com/2010/05/28/background-to-the-carolina-scandal-will-folks-tom-knotts-and-the-hit-list/

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Yeah, and if you think that was “something,” just wait. This story just keeps getting better and better . . . er, which is to say, worse and worse.

I’d post my next one in the Green Room, but it involves matters of a legally delicate nature for which I wouldn’t want Hot Air to be liable. With 11 days to go before the primary, however, trust me when I say that this melodrama hasn’t had its last plot twist, and no one knows how it will turn out.

The Other McCain on May 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM

–I’ll start reading your stuff seriously when you figure out a two percent contraceptive failure rate means a two percent yearly failure rate, rather than a two percent per use failure rate. Otherwise, I’ll give your stuff mor than the appropriate amount of skeptism.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Why is this surprising to anyone?

This is the same Erick Erickson who was out there whoring for Chuck DeVore, trashing Palin for choosing Carly over his loser of a candidate, then when enough of us wore him out, he got real, and gave DeVore an “ultimatum” saying get the numbers up or he was endorsing Carly.

Of course, when DeVore continued to be a ZERO, and Carly almost doubled her % in the polls, Erick backtracked and doubled down on DeVore.

You can’t believe a word this guy says. Seriously, he has absolutely NO credibility what so ever.

gary4205 on May 28, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Assumption: A woman/man/person is on the phone with another person for hours. Conclusion (according to some clowns on this site): That alone is proof positive the persons on the phone are having a physical affair.

Oh??????????????

alwyr on May 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM

“With apologies to RedState readers … I’ve had no hesitation in stringing the media along like Folks has done”

No, you strung us along, not the media.
Whatever credibility you had; it’s gone now.

melchitt on May 28, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Otherwise, I’ll give your stuff mor than the appropriate amount of skeptism.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I’ll start reading your stuff when you figure out what “appropriate” means!

Sheesh!

Al in St. Lou on May 28, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Why (for now) I believe Haley:

1) Her immediate, adamant denial: If she’s lying, this was a very risky thing to do, when she couldn’t be certain that Folks did not have any secret recordings or other evidence proving his claim. Usually when politicians lie about an affair, the person they had the affair with is on their side and helping them cover it up.

DUH: Billy Jef Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Sanford…..

Falz on May 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM

But what’s raising eyebrows across the state isn’t necessarily the number of phone calls (although more than 700 calls seems like an awfully high number given Haley’s recent claim that she “barely knew” Folks), it is the time – and the length – of dozens of late night calls.
Here, for example are several of the late night calls uncovered from Folks’ phone records:
2/7/07 – 10:06 PM – 1 minute – outgoing
2/7/07 – 10:19 PM – 13 minutes -incoming
3/14/07 – 10:41 PM – 31 minutes – incoming
3/20/07 – 11:39 PM – 1 minute – outgoing
4/10/07 – 11:15 PM – 19 minutes (Bluffton) incoming
5/23/07 – 10:54 PM – 31 minutes – incoming
5/24/07 – 11:07 PM – 1 minute – outgoing
5/26/07 – 11:47 PM – 1 minute – outgoing
6/2/07 – 10:14 PM – 43 minutes – (Myrtle Beach) outgoing
6/18/07 – 11:18 PM – 58 minutes – outgoing
7/07/07 – 10:08 PM – 60 minutes – incoming
7/09/07 – 12:01 AM – 77 minutes – outgoing
7/27/07 – 10:22 PM – 13 minutes – (Myrtle Beach) outgoing
7/30/07 – 10:27 PM – 79 minutes – (DC) – outgoing
7/31/07 – 10:10 PM – 62 minutes – outgoing
8/7/07 – 10:19 PM – 180 minutes – incoming
8/9/07 – 10:47 PM – 79 minutes – incoming
8/20/07 – 9:58 PM – 73 minutes – incoming
8/25/07 – 2:24 AM – 146 minutes – incoming
8/26/07 – 9:53 PM – 63 minutes – outgoing
8/27/07 – 9:59 PM – 72 minutes – outgoing
8/27/07 – 11:12 PM – 2 minutes – outgoing
8/27/07 – 11:13 PM – 20 minutes – incoming
8/28/07 – 10:05 PM – 40 minutes – incoming
8/30/07 – 9:28 PM – 133 minutes – incoming
9/20/07 – 11:28 PM – 207 minutes – outgoing
10/2/07 – 11:14 PM – 45 minutes – outgoing
10/8/07 – 12:00 AM – 40 minutes – incoming
10/9/07 – 10:07 PM – 1 minute – outgoing
10/9/07 – 11:04 PM – 1 minute – outgoing
10/17/07 – 10:48 PM – 19 minutes – incoming
10/17/07 – 11:19 PM – 67 minutes – outgoing
10/23/07 – 11:50 PM – 1 minute – outgoing
1/15/08 – 11:31 pm – 72 minutes – incoming
2/25/08 – 10:43 PM – 7 min – outgoing
12/2/08 – 10:25 PM – 2 minutes – outgoing
12/2/08 – 11:20 PM – 1 minute – outgoing
12/2/08 – 11:22 PM – 16 minutes – outgoing
11/24/09 – 11:07 PM – 16 minutes – incoming

Money says she cheated. I imagine the people who are trying to find a way to excuse the late night phone calls are in for a rude awakening, soon.

I won’t be surprised if there is a tear filled presser this weekend, and after Sanford, my hope and sympathy are all run out.

Rode Werk on May 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Red State has sunk to near Daily Kos levels of credibility!

Speedwagon82 on May 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM

6/18/07 – 11:18 PM – 58 minutes – outgoing
7/07/07 – 10:08 PM – 60 minutes – incoming
7/09/07 – 12:01 AM – 77 minutes – outgoing
7/27/07 – 10:22 PM – 13 minutes – (Myrtle Beach) outgoing
7/30/07 – 10:27 PM – 79 minutes – (DC) – outgoing
7/31/07 – 10:10 PM – 62 minutes – outgoing
8/7/07 – 10:19 PM – 180 minutes – incoming
8/9/07 – 10:47 PM – 79 minutes – incoming
8/20/07 – 9:58 PM – 73 minutes – incoming
8/25/07 – 2:24 AM – 146 minutes – incoming
8/26/07 – 9:53 PM – 63 minutes – outgoing
8/27/07 – 9:59 PM – 72 minutes – outgoing
8/27/07 – 11:12 PM – 2 minutes – outgoing
8/27/07 – 11:13 PM – 20 minutes – incoming
8/28/07 – 10:05 PM – 40 minutes – incoming
8/30/07 – 9:28 PM – 133 minutes – incoming

Rode Werk on May 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Looks like a two-month fling.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM

DUH: Billy Jef Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Sanford…..

Did you read the second of the two sentences you quoted, where I said: “Usually when politicians lie about an affair, the person they had the affair with is on their side and helping them cover it up.”

When Clinton, Edwards, and Sanford made their initial denials, they were not being accused by the person they were having the affair with. And I’m not sure Edwards ever really made an initial adamant denial, IIRC he said something like “I won’t discuss this trash”.

Jon0815 on May 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Erik Erickson … enters the annals of losers and bobs to the top place.

moochy on May 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Why (for now) I believe Haley:

1) Her immediate, adamant denial: If she’s lying, this was a very risky thing to do, when she couldn’t be certain that Folks did not have any secret recordings or other evidence proving his claim.

Jon0815 on May 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Not sure what the risk is. If she’s guilty, I imagine she would calculate that her political career is over once the affair is confirmed, whether she is caught lying about it or not. So there is no downside to lying, even if there is a 90% chance they have the goods on her.

If she tells the truth, then there is a 100% chance she is finished, so why not give herself at least an outside shot at staying in the game?

RINO in Name Only on May 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Well there have been lots of men who have lied about inappropriate relationships right up until the very moment they’re confronted with evidence. Look at John Edwards, he even made his friend claim paternity of a child. Clinton lied under oath. But I don’t recall a woman ever being in this particular position. Anyone come to mind?

scalleywag on May 28, 2010 at 5:19 PM

I’ve never known a man to kiss and tell. Until Folks.

theCork on May 28, 2010 at 7:20 PM

IMHO “Redstate” has degenerated to a closed circle of testosterone-challenged frat boy wannabes, judging from the commentary.

Pity.

Lockstein13 on May 28, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Red State has sunk to near Daily Kos levels of credibility!

Speedwagon82 on May 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM

I can’t believe I am saying this, but I actually agree with you. There’s nothing like making an announcement to the world so everyone can watch you self-destruct.

bw222 on May 28, 2010 at 7:26 PM

If she’s guilty, I imagine she would calculate that her political career is over once the affair is confirmed, whether she is caught lying about it or not.

Why would an affair several years ago, which didn’t involve official misconduct, end her political career? If she just said “yes I made a mistake in 2007, it’s nobody’s business but me and my family’s, and that’s all I have to say about it” it would be a two-day story.

Jon0815 on May 28, 2010 at 7:30 PM

I dont think Folks got any proof , he tries to get her to deny something he can disprove to attack her. So she will just wait out his leeks.

the_nile on May 28, 2010 at 7:31 PM

given Haley’s recent claim that she “barely knew” Folks

Source?

Jon0815 on May 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM

A few late-night (or early-morning) phone calls? What is that evidence of? Only that some people talk on the phone at unusual hours.

If this is the best Folks has got, then he’s still a weasly dirtbag and Nikki Haley’s still hot.

SagebrushPuppet on May 28, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Rode Werk on May 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM

I’ll save that to remind you of how stupid and gullible you were.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I’ve never known a man to kiss and tell. Until Folks.

theCork on May 28, 2010 at 7:20 PM

I don’t think Folks kissed anybody but Senor Wences.

I work with a lot of people who work insane hours, I’m not sleeping with any of them.

More non-proof, but the drum keeps beating.

Merovign on May 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Several people have asked for a source on the “barely knew” statement. I’d seen this quoted in many places (Google it and you’ll see) but when I looked into it, I found that it seems to be a paraphrase, not a direct quote.

This is the direct quote:

“Host: Were you guys even friendly, or close friends?

“HALEY: He did some work for me when my campaign manager was working for the McCain project, he did some work for me then. He’s a good writer, but he is also someone that is a political consultant. And political consultants in South Carolina take care of those that pay them. And I am very aware of that. And so, you know, I guess, you know — everybody has to do things their way.”

tiny.cc/d4a54

So apparently she didn’t use the words “barely knew,” but clearly she was working hard to create that impression.

Personally I think she’s all done. YMMV.

sauropod on May 28, 2010 at 9:11 PM

And Tim Pearson, Haley’s campaign manager, has acknowledged that the text messages are genuine. One of those messages was: “I’m telling you man, we keep this under wraps and nh is going to win.”

Not looking good for Haley.

sauropod on May 28, 2010 at 4:36 PM

He wasn’t referring to an affair. He was referring to the fact that Nikki Haley is actually the mother of Trig Palin.

DFCtomm on May 28, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Money says she cheated. I imagine the people who are trying to find a way to excuse the late night phone calls are in for a rude awakening, soon.

I won’t be surprised if there is a tear filled presser this weekend, and after Sanford, my hope and sympathy are all run out.

Rode Werk on May 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM

.
Did she cheat? Is she a victim of vicious character assassination?

By now any Republican or Conservative with political ambitions had better be smart enough to figure out the (R)s who cheat are going to get blackmailed and destroyed. (D)s of course will continue to get a press pass until its to late to matter. So any Republican or Conservative who cheats doesn’t have the judgment, maturity and/or self control necessary for public office.

Mike OMalley on May 28, 2010 at 9:44 PM

It’s funny, everyone is lining up for their “I told you so” moments. Just hide and watch there is no turning back now.

Cindy Munford on May 28, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Nah. My money is she didn’t cheat. She burned too many bridges to say that she cheated on her husband.

victor82 on May 28, 2010 at 11:03 PM

BTW, a LOT of people are NOT pleased with Erick Erickson today.

Including Nikki Haley’s people. Erick led a lot of people on, and instead, he ended up looking like the guy in Clown Shoes.

Stupid.

victor82 on May 28, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Frankly, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.

ForNow on May 28, 2010 at 11:14 PM

Shame on Red State.

Y-not on May 29, 2010 at 12:32 AM

I pledge to leave Hot Air forever if this story turns out to be true.

Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 1:52 AM

All you need to know about RedState is that its lead dog, Erick Erickson – perhaps the biggest partisan for Nikki Haley in the ‘conservative’ blogosphere – claimed to have incontrovertible proof that Will Folks was being paid to advance the affair-scandal story. He subsequently posted at least three entries mocking Folks’ denial that it was a pay-to-play scheme, and claiming that he was delayed in giving a full explanation because his ‘source’ had only just given permission.

And then it turns out that Erickson was lying all along, and in a breathtakingly brazen sleight-of-blogging, claimed that the whole unethical episode was intended to demonstrate just how unethical Folks has been – or something like that.

Apparently, Erickson’s co-bloggers, most notably “Moe Lane” are entirely satisfied with this sort of behavior and have lept to his defense in Red State comments. Anyone with at least a fourth-grade education, however, can see that Erick was deadly earnest on Thursday, and only on Friday began to retreat to a satire defense. AP’s suggestion that Erick was duped by a false source is the theory that most squarely fits the facts … but Erick seems unwilling to admit this and would rather pretend he was engaging in very high order satire (of a kind far beyond his writing ability).

Left with no doubt that Erick has coordinated his inept ‘defense’ of Haley with her campaign, I think this reflects very, very poorly on Haley. After all, she is a Sanford ally. Only Sanford’s complete national humiliation and the fact his affair broke in his lameduck year kept him from being impeached. The Democrats are licking their chops at running against Sanford on the economy, and have put for their strongest, most personalble candidate in years. I can assure you most South Carolinians, whether they are GOP follow-alongs or tea party activists, are not going to vote for an adulterer to replace an adulterer. Keep in mind most SC statewide elections break 55-45 to the GOP, which means that a mere 5 point swing can toss this election to the Democrats.

So … Erick Erickson, I hope you’re happy. You owe your readers an apology. I knew Domenech was a plaigirist and Moe Lane was a prolix blow-hard, but I thought you were better than that. You’re not. You’re a liar and a transparent liar on the order of the Gibbs-Sestak-Clinton level. And as for your rah-rah cheerleaders who think you can do know wrong, all I can say is that principled conservatives do not lie, nor tolerate those who do.

I can’t think of one serious blogger – true conservative, RINO or faux-conservative – who would have played the game you played then brazenly lied about it. If anyone takes you or your blog seriously again, then it’s shame on them.

As for my fellow South Carolinians, if the liar Erick Erickson is the best Nikki Haley can come up with to defend her (unfortunately suspect) honor, then I suggest that we fall back on McMaster as our standard-bearer. Better to lose to Sen. Sheheen straight up, with our most qualified candidate, than watch Haley collapse in a prurient sex scandal.

tryptic on May 29, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Every indication is that voters either don’t believe she had an affair, or, believe that she did and don’t care.

DarkKnight3565 on May 29, 2010 at 4:00 PM

I think Erick has let his new found celebrity status go to his head. All of his posts and tweets lately seem to be “check me out on x radio show” or “I’m endorsing candidate y so all of their opponents are the devil’s spawn.” He was inherently dishonest about Dan Coats’ record in Indiana, he’s going after a simple tweet by Fiorina as evidence that she is denigrating the military, and now is dishonest about a story against a candidate he is supporting in Nikki Haley. The rub is I support most of the same candidates Erick does; I’m just not willing to be so intellectually dishonest about it.

SalAOR on May 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Hey AP,
Care to post about this now that Andre Bauer has dropped his political consultant Larry Merchant?

Chips Fall

antisocial on June 2, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2