Gay group fires employee for his role in Foley scandal
New York Times:
A liberal gay rights group said Wednesday that one of its employees, acting anonymously, had created the Web site that first published copies of unusually solicitous e-mail messages to teenagers from former Representative Mark Foley, which led to his resignation.
A spokesman for the group, the Human Rights Campaign, said it first learned of its employee’s role this week and immediately fired him for misusing the group’s resources. The scandal surrounding Mr. Foley, a Florida Republican, has been a burdensome distraction for members of his party in the month before the midterm elections, and some Republicans have speculated that the e-mail messages were planted by a Democrat.
The rights campaign’s spokesman, David Smith, said the employee, whose name he declined to disclose, was a junior staff member hired last month to help mobilize the organization’s members in Michigan. “The minute we learned about it we took decisive action,” Mr. Smith said.
The Miami Herald and other news organizations have acknowledged obtaining copies of the same e-mail messages months ago but declining to publish them because of their potentially ambiguous contents.
ADDED —
Ace of Spades HQ: “… it appears that HRC only ‘investigated’ this matter due to a threat from Stop October Surprises,” as in, “If you do not act, I will. Friday is your deadline or I name names.”
Moral of the story: If you believe you’ve uncovered evidence of impropriety, promptly turn it over to the authorities. Do not hold onto the information and blog it for political effect. If you do, somebody will hold you accountable. You will not remain anonymous. There are three hundred million people in this country, including more than a few with astonishing computer skills and sharp investigative instincts. One of them will ID you.
By the way, Stop October Surprises says there are “conspirators,” plural, and is demanding that HRC “come 100% clean.”
Oh, my, this is pathetic.
If you believe you’ve uncovered evidence of impropriety, promptly turn it over to the authorities.
Let me understand.
One, at least CREW (“Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics and Washington”) had possession of the Foley emails on July 11, 2006. CREW promptly turned the emails over to the FBI, and the FBI did nothing about them until after ABC News made the emails, as well as some IMs (Instant Messages) public on September 29. (I looked at the “StopSexPredators” (“SSP”) web site a few weeks ago—while it was still up—and there were no IMs on the site.) There is evidence that ABC News, the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times had possession of the emails long before CREW did, and there is no indication that they turned them over to the FBI, so why would you expect SSP to do so? Moreover, even if SSP had turned the emails over to the FBI, why would you expect the FBI to do anything about it, when the FBI had not done anything about it after they learned about the emails from CREW?
Two, you and this “Ace of Spades” character, suggest that SSP was engaged in an “October surprise” by waiting until almost October (apparently, it was actually on or about Sept 23) to post the emails. I have looked at a little of the silliness on “Ace of Spades” web site, but there is no suggestion as to when SSP received the emails, or that SSP had delayed posting them on that web site after having received them. As far as “Ace of Spades” or you know, SSP had received the emails only shortly before they posted them. So, where is the evidence of an “October surprise”? The fact that it was uncomfortable for Republicans? Sorry, that’s preposterous.
Three, regarding “(t)here are three hundred million people in this country, including more than a few with astonishing computer skills and sharp investigative instincts. One of them will ID you.” That’s nice, but merely identifying a source still doesn’t provide the timeline required to show that there has been an “October surprise.”
I am sure that Republican apologists would like to make more out of this than there is evidence for. But, sorry, it just doesn’t wash.
Raj, you miss the point. But perhaps you miss it because I didn’t make it clearly enough. I’ll try again.
The blogger — bloggers? — at SSP fanned the story of Foley’s e-mail while attempting to remain anonymous and without ever disclosing any connection to a (Democrat-friendly) political organization. In fact, he disavowed any connection to Democratic politics. Ostensibly, the blogger was someone with a non-partisan interest in exposing a congressman’s wrongdoing.
Shortly after Foleygate broke, inquiring minds wanted to know: who is this blogger and is he a political operative? (After all, there are rarely any fortuitous coincidences in politics.) And so the hunt was on.
We now know why the blogger inclined to anonymity. He was a not disinterested politico, albeit a low-level one. Does that justify Mark Foley’s conduct? Of course not. Does it make Foleygate an illegitimate story? Again, of course not. But it does seriously undermine the notion that this story found its genesis (and timing) in nothing but a sweet, wholesome interest in the welfare of children.
That’s all.