A New Theory About The Foley Memos And IMs

I hate to use the word "theory." People think I'm about to affix a tin-foil hat on my head. But while listening to Hugh Hewitt's show this afternoon, an e-mailer brought up an interesting point. (It hasn't been posted anywhere, so I'll paraphrase.)

Basically the listener brought up the fact that we're supposed to believe that this kid had the EXACT same computer as three years ago. If you buy that, then let's consider the average person. The average person upgrades their computers within a year, or so. They don't necessarily buy a new computer, but there is a point where the computer must be "cleaned up." We have all sorts of garbage that gets into a computer. And if your kids play games, download music, what have you, then the computer is running ultra slow.

You have to clean the thing up. If you don't, the games are going to run slow. The downloads will run slower. Doing almost ANYTHING on the computer is much slower. So, you have to get rid of it. Start over with a clean slate. Bye-bye hard driveso long temporary files, cookies, spyware, whatever. The listener points out that the only way these messages and e-mails got out is through the use of someone else that could have been watching the whole affair.

And let this serve as a lesson to people who aren't up to speed on what spyware is capable of. Nearly everything. If whoever dropped the spyware into your computer catches your computer online, they can see what you're doing, where you're going--just about anything.

When the e-mails first came to light, some bloggers questioned their authenticity, and they still do. There are discrepencies in the e-mails and messages released to the public. But this theory throws a whole new twist in the mix, and it's a plausible one. This election is shaping up to be a doozy, and one side is pulling out the stops to win. Going after the credit records of potential senate candidates in Maryland? (Michael Steele, for those that missed the Schumer staffers nailed for digging up Mr. Steele's credit record.) Using slanderous advertisements? (Joe Lieberman, and done by Jane Harman of the Lamont campaign.) And it should be noted that the same thing happened to Michael Steele over the "Sambo" photo-shopping.

It makes sense if Foley goes down right now, and now that things are coming out regarding what the House leadership did when this first came to light, there's even more suspicion not simly in regard to the timing. Obtaining this information--how did they really come to light. Think about it: IF this was anything--at the time--other than over-friendly, Foley would've been gone. The leadership cautioned Foley on this relationship. Then suddenly tall this comes to light. They didn't know. And when they did find out, they responded appropriately. The FBI was notified, and based on what they saw, they dropped the case.

There isn't a shred of hard evidence that the Democrats, the media, or any other pundit can throw out there proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the leadership knew that he had continued. there's nothing. This information--this correspondance--had to have been obtained in an illegal manner. Thge theory of the page holding onto this correspondance to go after Foley later doesn't wash. The parents specifically asked that this matter be kept quiet. So why keep the correspondance? If the parents were aware, it stands to reason that they'd bring it to the House's attention, again, and they'd either tell them to end it, or there was going to be charges that they'd bring.

When this blew, he was told by the leaders to resign, and he obliged them because he knew he got caught. I could care less about his supposed problems. I don't want excuses. He's getting help? Good, I'm glad, but it still doesn't absolve him of the crime. Which is why he was told to resign. The leaders knew that because they had warned him once before, they would have to act. They did.

As I said, I hate using the word theory because of posts like this. It looks like a conspiracy. The problem is, given what we've seen already for this election, it's highly plausible. Am I saying that any Democrats had knowledge of this (like Schumer's staffers who stated that Schumer had no knowledge of their actions), or that they ordered such? Absolutely not. Unlike the "smoking gun" to hurt the House leadership that's been produced (which is slowly becoming less and less of an indictment), I don't even have anything remotely close. I'm sure others are working on that end of this story right now. There are over 40 million active blogs on the Internet.

However, it's still possible that a staffer did use spyware, or other surveillance programs to keep an eye on the congressmen, looking for mud. (Which is exactly what happened in Michael Steele's case by the Schumer staffers.) Politics is a blood-sport, and there are a lot of people willing to go to great lengths to win. The Democrats are suffering from that right now, and that's where my suspicions--unconfirmed, mind you--lie. This whole affair stinks to high Heaven.

And for those that don't buy the theory. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But I'm willing to take Speaker Hastert at his word until it's proven otherwise untrustworthy:

HH: Did you or any other member of the House leadership or staff, to your knowledge, know anything about these IM's until they began to be leaked to ABC News?

DH: Absolutely not. We didn't know anything about them until they were dropped sometime Friday. And at that point, we confronted Foley, and he left. ...

... HH: Is it your opinion that whoever is managing the release of these IM's is doing so for political reasons?

DH: Well, first of all, who has these IM's, and who's holding on to them? It's been rumored that this CREW organization in Washington has it, which is the...I understand a Soros-backed organization. It's a planned thing. It did the anti-Delay thing, and if they are the ones that have these messages, anybody that held onto these messages at any time, I think, is wrong, because if we would have had these messages three years ago, we would have prevented anything like this to happen. ...

... HH: Mr. Speaker, the St. Petersberg Times and the Miami Herald had these e-mails in November of last year. They did not judge them newsworthy. Do you disagree with their decision not to have published them? Or do you wish that they had?

DH: Well, in hindsight, I wish they had, but quite frankly, when they looked at it, they thought that they would have been liable to try to publish something, because there wasn't any there there.

HH: The Time Magazine account of this, which I've also published at Hughhewitt.com, has asserted that this was just...when they only had the e-mails and not the IM's, that it would have been very, very difficult for a gay man to have survived such a scandal. Did that influence at all the handling by the House of the original e-mails?

DH: No, the handling of the House was strictly by the numbers. There was an inquiry that came in, it went to the clert of the House who referred it to the chairman of the page board. He confronted Mr. Foley immediately, and found out that there was nothing sexually explicit in the message, and just told him not to do it. That's what the wishes of the family was, and that's what he did.

Whether you accept the theory or not, you have to admit that this whole fiasco stinks. After the information surrounding the House's response, which has been corroborated by the FBI, has come out over the last couple of days, there is something clearly not right with the "talking points" emanating from the other side. Foley's gone, and now a non-issue in this. The focus should be on the House leadership now and see if they are telling the truth. The other focus should be on who's releasing these communications. Their authenticty, as I stated above, is being questioned by a few. Whoever's got them needs to release all of them, not a tasty morsel or two. Let's see them, and we'd also like to know how they were obtained.

Sabrina McKinney