Comments Posted By clarice feldman
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 85 Comments
Kudos on the piece about you .
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 16.10.2006 @ 00:40
And this blog is too beautiful for words.
THE WEBSITE THAT STARTED IT ALL - STRANGE BUT TRUE
Here are some facts to go with that troll wine:
No reputable paper felt it could run with the story based on the nature of the innocuous emails and the privacy claim. Neither could the leadership of the party.Had they, the headlines would have accused Hastert of homophobia for
booting Foley on the thinnest grounds and a suspicion of homosexuality.If the base can be turned off by such ginned up C*&) then you can expect to see an unending stream of it.
If you cannot see that asking a former intern who is of the age of consent for a picture is not criminal and not grounds for removal, you are lost.
If you cannot see that the steamier stuff of unknown provinence was held back to stiff Hastert at whatever cost that meant to interns and pages you are looking in the wrong places.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 1.10.2006 @ 14:49
Any investigators out there?
A poster at F.R. posted this tantalizing tidbit:
More from a poster at F.R.
"there was a news guy from Miama(Steve Rothaus, www.rothaus.net: 305-376-3770 or srothaus@MiamiHerald.com) who had posted in the comments section on September 24(the sunday before the story 'broke') seeking information. He writes on Gay Issues for the Miami Herald and has his own blog on Blogspot for South Florida Gays.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 1.10.2006 @ 14:16
Dear Mona, if you are going to let fishy ginned up stuff like this turn you off the party, you will see these things ginned up every election.
How likely is it that as ABC says overnight after printing the innocuous emails, the salacious IM"S--years old--suddenly poured in? Not very, I say. Someone who cared not a whit about protecting the pages sat on that evidence. Think about THAT.
http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6256
Here are some updates on my story.Please note there was zip traffic on that site until they printed the emails, It is an astroturf site created for only one reason: To set an already planned game in motion.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 1.10.2006 @ 13:41
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5907
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 1.10.2006 @ 11:05
FOLEY MATTER PROVES REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PERVERTS
The Reps couldn't investigate it because the kid's parents insisted they wanted to protect his privacy. He then gave it to at least one paper (we don't know where the others got it ) but couldn't run it because he wouldn't let the use his name.
And then it mysteriously shows up on a blog, at CREW and at ABC?Got it.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 1.10.2006 @ 00:12
Here is a release from the editor of the St Pete paper:
An editor's note from the St. Petersburg Times, the first news outlet
to
evidently receive the email exchange between Mr. Foley and a former
page
from Louisiana.A Note From the Editors
There still seems to be some confusion about the order of events
related to
our coverage of Rep. Mark Foley and his email exchanges with teenagers
he
met through the congressional page program. Let me try to clear this
up.In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange
Foley
had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later
got
them,too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat.
Foley
asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about
the
boy's upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked
the
teen to send him a "pic" of himself. Also among those emails was the
page's
exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander,
who
had been the teen's sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his
exchange he'd had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley
was
out of bounds.There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two
reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with
him.
He told us Foley's request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he
never
responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his
name
if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go
on the
record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did
send
a few emails but never said anything in them that he found
inappropriate. We
tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep.
Alexander, who
said the boy's family didn't want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted
he was
merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page
uncomfortable.So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who
wouldn't go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we
said
in today's paper, our policy is that we don't make accusations against
people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would
be
implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in
our
sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we
concluded
that the information we had on Foley last November didn't meet our
standard
for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never
learned
anything that changed our position. The Louisiana boy's emails broke
into
the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them
online.
Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News
followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley's Democratic
opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy's
emails
and was calling for an investigation. That's when we wrote our first
story,
for Friday's papers.After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC
and
provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other
page
that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly
sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted
friendliness.
That's what drove Foley to resign on Friday.I hope this helps clarify a bit about what we knew and when we knew it.
Scott Montgomery
Government & Politics Editor
###
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 23:58
Auntie, we've seen the emails. They are not sexually explicit. Overly friendly, yes. But not solicitations nor sexual.
I have a correction to make--It is obvious to me that CREW and ABC coordinated the release of the emails and the story. ABC does not say where it got the steamier IM's. I had assumed those were in CREW's hands, too, but cannot find them on their site.
Perhaps they didn't provide them to ABC.
OTOH I wouldn't be surprised to find out they did.
I do not see how anyone except the recipient or someone with access to Foley's computer could have gotten those.
I think this was a set up at worst or someone sat on this dmaaging information for political purposes at best.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 23:03
Auntie Occident, the law does not say what you say it does. In any event the only sexual language is in the 2003 IMs and since that occurred three years before the passage of the Adam Walsh laws and since the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, your argument is as fallacious as the rest of your obnoxious posts.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 22:07
Auntis Occident We don't have ex post facto laws to punish under 2006 legislation conduct which occurred in 2003.
Comment Posted By clarice feldman On 30.09.2006 @ 21:50
