A Quickie For The AM Hours
A couple of e-mails snaked their way through the 'Net last night, and ended up in my hands when I woke up this morning. They pointed out that my closing post yesterday--the theory post--had no susbstantial evidence. To quote Pink Floyd, "Is there anybody out there?" That's why it's called a THEORY. I have circumstantial supposition that fits nicely with the situations at hand, and they fit the discrepencies that are being questioned. No one bothers to note that I said it was a theory, or that I did admit in the post that I had no evidence, yet, to corroborate that theory. We're still digging.
Another e-mailer suggested that I was lying with regard to the FBI having been notified by the House leaders, and that they deemed there was no evidence of any law being broken by him. The e-mailer demands proof that the FBI admitted this. Here's part of that. It's an NPR timeline of events on this issue. Under July 2006, the timeline reads:
The FBI receives some Foley-related e-mail correspondence in July, but concludes that no federal law had been violated, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. The FBI official would not detail how many e-mails the FBI initially received, or whether they came from multiple sources.
The next paragraph states that CREW is the organization that turned over these documents to the FBI. Yet, that isn't what Dennis Hastert said in numerous interviews yesterday. He stated that they showed the FBI what they had. The FBI looked at it, and deemed that there was nothing there. That was probably because what the House leaders had wasn't enough to warrant a criminal investigation. Nothing was overt or sexual in any of the original correspondance between Foley and the page in question.
Another e-mailer pointed out that while the theory may be sound, the overall goal that I put forth makes no sense. As they put it, "Why hype a sex scandal when the Democrats have had their own in the past, and did their best to spin their way out of this?" Simply put, for these Democrats, history began in 2001. The Studds incident from a ferw years ago, and the Clinton one towards the end of his second term never existed in their minds. And, as I pointed out, this is an election year.
A lot of people are starting to look at this as an October surprise from them. The Democrats claim they have nothing to do with CREW, and while that might be true, it is a George Soros backed group in Washington. We know what Soros wants, and we know what he's capable of. Does anyone else find it interesting that just a couple short weeks ago George Soros announced he was getting out of politics, then one of his organizations is involved in this sort of a scandal?
Seems like there's an awful lot of convenient timing in this situation. And more importantly, there are still two questions that have remained unanswered. First, who has been sitting on this correspondance? Second, how did they obtain it. While I presented the technological side of the argument yesterday, that actual discussion unfolded right here with a number of techno-babble experts talking about IMs, e-mails, and what spyware (or a close facsimile thereof) can do, and where the information goes. And, of course, they don;t discount that someone could have been watching, and logging the conversation.
The leaking of this information was timed to hit right now, right before the election. The problem for the Democrats is that they're squandering this by even talking about it. If they wanted to turn this into the opportunity they weere hoping for, a little more silence is needed from them. As it is, their side of things is starting to unravel right before their eyes. If it weren't so, then why didn;t their candidates overtake a weakened GOP over the weekend in the lastest polls. They didn't. There was no significant shift. And it's because America looks at this sort of hate-mongering from the Democrats as "business as usual." It's not that they don;t buy the fact that Foley's a creep, and deserves jail time. It's because like eveything that seems to come down the pike, the Democrats are jumping all over it.
America sees their "concerns" as more political hyperbole, and it bears little substance in the overall debate.
Sabrina McKinney
A couple of e-mails snaked their way through the 'Net last night, and ended up in my hands when I woke up this morning. They pointed out that my closing post yesterday--the theory post--had no susbstantial evidence. To quote Pink Floyd, "Is there anybody out there?" That's why it's called a THEORY. I have circumstantial supposition that fits nicely with the situations at hand, and they fit the discrepencies that are being questioned. No one bothers to note that I said it was a theory, or that I did admit in the post that I had no evidence, yet, to corroborate that theory. We're still digging.
Another e-mailer suggested that I was lying with regard to the FBI having been notified by the House leaders, and that they deemed there was no evidence of any law being broken by him. The e-mailer demands proof that the FBI admitted this. Here's part of that. It's an NPR timeline of events on this issue. Under July 2006, the timeline reads:
The FBI receives some Foley-related e-mail correspondence in July, but concludes that no federal law had been violated, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. The FBI official would not detail how many e-mails the FBI initially received, or whether they came from multiple sources.
The next paragraph states that CREW is the organization that turned over these documents to the FBI. Yet, that isn't what Dennis Hastert said in numerous interviews yesterday. He stated that they showed the FBI what they had. The FBI looked at it, and deemed that there was nothing there. That was probably because what the House leaders had wasn't enough to warrant a criminal investigation. Nothing was overt or sexual in any of the original correspondance between Foley and the page in question.
Another e-mailer pointed out that while the theory may be sound, the overall goal that I put forth makes no sense. As they put it, "Why hype a sex scandal when the Democrats have had their own in the past, and did their best to spin their way out of this?" Simply put, for these Democrats, history began in 2001. The Studds incident from a ferw years ago, and the Clinton one towards the end of his second term never existed in their minds. And, as I pointed out, this is an election year.
A lot of people are starting to look at this as an October surprise from them. The Democrats claim they have nothing to do with CREW, and while that might be true, it is a George Soros backed group in Washington. We know what Soros wants, and we know what he's capable of. Does anyone else find it interesting that just a couple short weeks ago George Soros announced he was getting out of politics, then one of his organizations is involved in this sort of a scandal?
Seems like there's an awful lot of convenient timing in this situation. And more importantly, there are still two questions that have remained unanswered. First, who has been sitting on this correspondance? Second, how did they obtain it. While I presented the technological side of the argument yesterday, that actual discussion unfolded right here with a number of techno-babble experts talking about IMs, e-mails, and what spyware (or a close facsimile thereof) can do, and where the information goes. And, of course, they don;t discount that someone could have been watching, and logging the conversation.
The leaking of this information was timed to hit right now, right before the election. The problem for the Democrats is that they're squandering this by even talking about it. If they wanted to turn this into the opportunity they weere hoping for, a little more silence is needed from them. As it is, their side of things is starting to unravel right before their eyes. If it weren't so, then why didn;t their candidates overtake a weakened GOP over the weekend in the lastest polls. They didn't. There was no significant shift. And it's because America looks at this sort of hate-mongering from the Democrats as "business as usual." It's not that they don;t buy the fact that Foley's a creep, and deserves jail time. It's because like eveything that seems to come down the pike, the Democrats are jumping all over it.
America sees their "concerns" as more political hyperbole, and it bears little substance in the overall debate.
Sabrina McKinney
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home