CREW Spins - MSM Bites And The Moonbats Swing And Miss, As Usual

Update: I've been asked, justifiably, to address my post headed Why Is CREW Lying?

From the WaPo story I linked:

The watchdog group that first provided the FBI with suspicious e-mails from then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said yesterday that FBI and Justice Department officials are attempting to cover up their inaction in the case by making false claims about the group.

Law enforcement officials said the allegations by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are without merit, and they stood by allegations that the group had refused to provide some information to the FBI.

As the report below shows, no such cover up took place. Furthermore, according to the report, CREW never provided the FBI with the original source for the emails. The charge of a cover up by CREW was an unsubstantiated charge ... they made it up. Some might reasonably call that lying to support your cause. As for when CREW received the emails, nothing in the report suggests they were misrepresenting that at the time.

As that was one item I assumed they were also lying about when I posted, I was wrong. I'll go 1-1 on the lying charge. There was no cover up as CREW alleged. The report makes that very clear.

The Justice Department released a full report on the FBI's handling of the Foley matter today. No doubt as they didn't get their victory yesterday via Mike Stark, Left-sided blogs linked an old post in which I concluded from WaPo reporting that CREW lied at the time and I've been besieged all day by Moonbat commenter's demanding I apologize.

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The FBI should have followed up on e- mails sent in 2005 by then-U.S. Representative Mark Foley to a former teenage male congressional page instead of deciding not to investigate, a Justice Department report says.

So, instead of buying the CREW press release, or even the MSM coverage - I sought out the full report. The Left will have to wait for an apology - the FBI has been cleared. You just won't know it if you read the MSM or Lefty blogs that probably never bothered to read the whole report in pdf. found here

Investigators: FBI not wrong to dismiss complaint about Foley

A Justice inspector general's investigation cleared the FBI of accusations that officials were too quick in declining to open an investigation based on five e-mails from Foley, none of them explicit in nature, to a former page.

Bottom line if you don't read the 30 page report, something I doubt a single moonbat did - there were redactions in the original emails, determine "significant" for yourself. Yes, things may not have been communicated clearly, but only because there were multiple departments of the FBI involved and there were differences on how CREW and someone from the FBI may have recalled one conversation. Big whoop.

While the lede going around claims the FBI should have followed up on emails, that's based more on a feeling, than any law. To do so would have been outside the scope of what the FBI was empowered to do and the report concludes that Foley being a Congressman had nothing to do with any decision making by the FBI. Any pages involved were over the age of consent and even if not, none of the communications were found to rise to the level of a crime.

Gee, I thought the Left didn't want people harassed or smeared by the FBI simply because something didn't "feel right" to some agent though it violated no law? Oh, I forgot, Foley was a Republican - they don't have any civil rights. The Left gave them all away to known terrorists. My bad.

Comments

[dave]

CREW was right - you were wrong.

You're a pathetic

Ed. - Look Dave, knock off the vulgarity. I allow Lefties to comment but if you can't be at least somewhat civil, you're gone.

[dave]

How'd you miss this part, asswipe:

In sum, we believe that the FBI’s decision to decline to investigate
this matter was not misconduct. Yet, we believe that the e-mails should
have raised enough concerns to warrant some action. At the least, the FBI
should have ensured that supervisors of the House page program were
aware of these e-mails, or informed the complainant that it was not going
to investigate the e-mails and the complainant could therefore make such
a notification. Finally, the FBI should have uploaded the information into
its ACS computer system.

Pages 17 and 18 are nothing but details on how CREW was right.

Sorry if the truth isn't "civil." If I were you, I'd be flailing about for some way out of this... of course, I'm not a lying motherfucker like you, so I'm just guessing.

[Mike]

You claimed CREW was lying in the title of that post. What lie do you now claim they told? It's very simple. What's the lie? If there isn't one, then you owe CREW a retraction.

Note: I don't think you owe them an apology, since there was inaccurate reporting at the time and you aren't a journalist. However, I do think a retraction is justified.

[dave]

More "incivility" Riehl missed:

"We found that the statements attributed to the FBI and the
Department about CREW and the Foley e-mails were not accurate. First,
we found that the redactions in the e-mails, which the FBI learned soon
after receiving the e-mails from CREW were in place when CREW had
received copies of the e-mails, were not significant redactions. The only
redactions on the e-mails appeared to be the name or e-mail address of the
person or persons to whom someone had forwarded the e-mails. However,
no language in the body of the e-mails was redacted. Significantly, the
e-mails still contained the full names of the pages and the House employee
to whom the e-mails were sent. Moreover, as we described above, the
redactions in the e-mail did not factor into the FBI’s decision to decline to
investigate the matter.
Second, we found that the FBI did not seek any additional
information from CREW, other than the one follow-up phone call the
Public Corruption Squad Special Agent made to Sloan after initially
receiving the e-mails. The Special Agent told the OIG that, although she is
not sure, she may have asked Sloan during that call to reveal who
provided the e-mails to Sloan and that Sloan declined. The Special Agent
remembered that she asked Sloan other questions which Sloan answered,
including whether the e-mails were from Foley, whether Sloan knew
anything about the redactions, and whether Sloan knew anything about
the House employee whose name was in the e-mails.
However, Sloan said the Special Agent never asked her at any time
to reveal the source of the e-mails. Sloan told the OIG that the only
question the Special Agent asked during this phone call was whether the
e-mails were from Congressman Foley, to which Sloan said yes.
Third, the e-mails were provided to CREW in July 2006, not April,
and CREW sent them to the FBI within days of receiving them.
The OIG was unable to determine from the interviews it conducted
who was responsible for making these inaccurate statements to the media.
The three FBI media representatives we interviewed said they do not recall
making any of these statements to any reporter. However, we determined
that two of the three media representatives mistakenly believed, probably
based on incorrect information from the Public Corruption Special Agent,
that the FBI had sought additional information from CREW and that
CREW refused to provide it. This mistaken belief also was likely passed to
13 See Dan Eggen, Watchdog Group Disputes FBI’s Claims on E-Mails, The
Washington Post, Oct. 6, 2006.
20
other FBI spokespersons and Department spokespersons who discussed
the Foley e-mails with the media. Thus, we believe these
misunderstandings may have contributed to inaccurate information being
provided to the media.
In addition, it appears that a misreading of the draft chronology of
events prepared by WFO contributed to the inaccurate perception that the
FBI requested additional information from CREW and CREW refused to
provide it. The draft chronology stated that the Special Agent who spoke
with Sloan had a “vague recollection of asking Ms. Sloan who she got the
emails from and Ms. Sloan did not want to reveal her source.” The draft
chronology also stated that the Cyber Crimes Squad SSA decided the
investigation was not warranted “especially in light of the fact Ms. Sloan,
CREW, refused to provide the identity of her source.” Whether or not
Sloan declined to reveal the source who gave her the e-mails, the e-mails
CREW provided contained the identity both of the former page who
received the e-mails and two other potential witnesses. Further, we
determined that this issue was not a factor in the FBI’s decision to decline
to investigate the matter, notwithstanding the suggestion in the draft
chronology.
Finally, several news stories reported the inaccurate statement that
CREW had the e-mails since April. We do not know who may have
supplied the media with this inaccurate information.
In sum, the OIG concluded that the information provided by the FBI
and the Department inaccurately portrayed the information that CREW
provided to the FBI, and inaccurately suggested that CREW’s actions were
the cause of the FBI’s decision not to investigate the e-mails. We believe
that the inaccuracies were caused by a misinterpretation of the description
of events that was disseminated within the FBI and the Department, both
verbally and through the written draft chronology of events, regarding the
FBI’s actions in response to the e-mails it received in July.
21."

Retraction and apology, Riehl - NOW.

[nitpicker]

Hmmm... Still full of shit.

Smells like conservatism, all right.

[Seitz]

Man, what a liar Rhiel is. First he accuses CREW of lying about the emails he sent to the FBI. Then he posts an article clearing the FBI...for its decision not to begin an investigation. The very article he links to accuses the FBI of lying itself, but notice that Riehl doesn't mention that part. Nor does he mention that the investigators concluded that although the FBI was within its discretion when it decided not to investigate, the investigators do not believe that was the right decision. Page 16:

"We believe that the emails contained enough troubling indications on their face...that a better practice for the FBI would have been to take some follow up steps with regard to the emails."

There was this lovely tidbit as well:

"We find that the statements attributed to the FBI and the Department about CREW and the Foley emails were not accurate."

Let me spell that out for you Danny. The FBI lied. The also lied about when they said CREW obtained the emails. So Danny threw his hat into the ring with a bunch of liars.

So to sum up for people as dumb as Dan, the FBI made a decision within their discretion. The investigators believe they made the wrong decision. The investigators also found that the FBI lied when it discussed the content of the emails, it's follow up actions with regard to CREW, and about the date it claimed CREW obtained the emails.

So how does Danny respond to finding out that the FBI lied? He completely misrepresents the OIG report AND the article to which he linked.

So when Danny says "if you don't read the 30 page report, something I doubt a single moonbat did", what he really means is "something I hope no one actually does, or else they'll find out pretty easily that I'm totally full of crap, yet again."

This is an impressive streak of wrong you've got going there, Danny boy. Quick, give us all a Super Bowl prediction so that we can all go bet on the other team.

[larry]

is it just me? am i the only one who's noticing what a bossy, strident, and foulmouthed little bitch ol' "dave" is? you shouldn't put up with that crap, riehl. foulmouthed lefty bitches are like roaches, rodents or pigeons: once you let a few in, you're soon overrun with the vermin, and all us non-vermin go somewhere else, where it's clean and sanitary.

it's nice to let a thousand flowers bloom and all that, but ya gotta have standards.

[Seitz]

"Furthermore, according to the report, CREW never provided the FBI with the original source for the emails."

The report says that the special agent isn't sure if she asked CREW for the source of the emails, but if she did, CREW declined. CREW, on the other hand, specifically says that the agent never requested the source of the emails.

Why do you have to lie, Dan? Why can't you just include in your post what actually happened, instead of insinuating there was something sinister about the FBI not knowing the source when you know you're not telling the whole story? Why do you keep lying?

Ooh, here's another point where you're Rhiel disengenuous:
"there were redactions in the original emails, determine "significant" for yourself."

Why not post reprint the information in your post so that your readers can decide, instead of making them dig for it. Is it because you'd rather they didn't look for themselves? Here, let me do it for you:
"The only redactions on the emails appeared to be the name or email address of the person or persons to whom someone had forwarded the emails. However, no language in the body of the emails was redacted. Significantly, the emails still contained the full names of the pages and the House employee to whom the emails were sent. Moreover...redactions did not factor into the FBI's decision to decline to investigate the matter."

Looks like the redactions are a red herring. Only, you'd prefer your readers didn't know that, huh Danny? Why do you think the FBI told news organizations that the emails were "heavily redacted" Danny? Why do you think the FBI lied about that?

[Dan Riehl]

Why can't you just include in your post what actually happened.

LMAO As far as I know I'm the only one who has linked the full report. What is it I'm hiding? Or are you Lefties too lazy, or unable to click a link and read soemthing. There's nothing hidden in my post.

[Phoenix]

Larry,

Dave is also copyrighted and trademarked. What a nasty boy.

Anyways, honey, learning by example is a powerful thing.

There is something about the insane rudeness here that needs a platform. Dan is just giving it to them. Who is best served? :)

[Steel]

Dan?

Don't give that bozo a platform.

It might rub off or be contagious.

Ban the asshole and then sanitize the joint, amigo.

You'd think there were more important things to worry about.

[Seitz]

"Or are you Lefties too lazy, or unable to click a link and read soemthing."

Well, most of can spell "something" for starters. Second, why spin it the way you did unless you were pretty sure that the idiot conservatives who visit this site (apparently sparingly, based on the comment sections), wouldn't be able to figure out that you're a liar.

[dave™©]

As far as I know I'm the only one who has linked the full report. What is it I'm hiding?

It's printed out above. It's the stuff you've ignored and continue to ignore.

Because it makes you look like the lying sack of shit you are.

[Phoenix]

Terry Welch, from Florida - from his blog NITPICKER

Anonymous said...

Here's a dilemma for you... With all your honor and dignity what would you do? This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and consider each line - this is important for the test to work accurately.

You're in Florida...In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a CNN photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.

Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar.

Suddenly you know who it is -- it's Dan Riehl.

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of Dan Riehl, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most ignorant men.

And here's the question (please give an honest answer):

Would you select color film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?
6:57 PM

[Purple Avenger]

Lacking full electronic versions with mailer headers intact, there is nothing to investigate.

Even with them, any moron can fake an email header, spammers do it all the time, so the content is ultimately suspect under any circumstance unless originals could be found on one of Foley's systems or in foley's ISP's caches. The only thing that isn't fakeable is the header from the last server to touch it.

[Phoenix]

So, Terry,

Are you the courageous 'anonymous' or do you just sanction this filth?

[Steel]

'Nitpicker'?

One monkey picking the nits of lice from another.

And eating them.

How appropos.

[Scrapiron]

Lets see if I have this right. The lefties want the FBI to investigate every non-crime in the U.S. and not to investigate actual crimes comitted by left wing politicians, ie Cold Cash Jefferson.
Sounds about right for a graduate of some major non-educational institution. How many people want to participate in a poll. What is the chance of a 10 year old child in the United States growing up in freedom with the dhimmi's in charge. I'd make the first post: Less than a 10% chance. Pity the children. Maybe that's why they have aborted over 47 million of their children in 34 years.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Looks like the far left fanatical kooks are really upset about Dan eviscerating Mr. Stark on CNN. They're even showing how disgustingly homophobic they are. I thought these lunatics said that it doesn't matter what 2 adults do? Seems to me hypocrisy is their strategy.

[Lily]

From the pdf-
One law enforcement official – speaking
on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing
investigation – also told the Washington Post the FBI believed
that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April

19
and that the group refused to tell the FBI how they were
obtained.13
We found that the statements attributed to the FBI and the
Department about CREW and the Foley e-mails WERE NOT ACCURATE.
----------------

CREW didn't lie, as you claimed. The FBI lied. Apologize.

[Bob King]

Hey, y'all, play nice. A little respect, please for the fact that your host has enabled comments and has not chosen to delete rude comments. That is not at all common on the right side of the blogosphere, and I deeply respect it.

I've not been following this issue lately; I figured that once Leno and Letterman came to a consensus about why it was funny - and that it was past-tense funny, I could let it drop.

This thread, on the other hand seems to be between those defending the indefensible against those prosecuting the unprosecutable.

I think the funniest comment possible on this was by Randi Rhodes, just in passing: "Are they EVER gonna let him out of rehab?"

Well, speaking personally, and as if I had a choice... no. Same answer if he were a Democrat, and it were a Democratic scandal.

[Crust]

Scrapiron writes:

"Lets see if I have this right. The lefties want the FBI to investigate every non-crime in the U.S. and not to investigate actual crimes [committed] by left wing politicians, ie Cold Cash Jefferson."

Nice try at misdirection Scrapiron, but even here your facts aren't right. Remember, on day one, it was Hastert (R) and Frist (R) who jumped up to block the FBI from raiding Jefferson's office (wonder why?); Reid (D) said they should do it. To her discredit, Pelosi later came and sided with Hastert, but amazingly it was the Congressional Republicans who were most anxious to derail the Jefferson investigation. Needless to say, bloggers of all political stripes want the FBI to go after Jefferson.

On the broader issue, Dan is just wrong here as Seitz has documented above.

That said, and even though I more or less agree with the substance of Dave's remarks, man there is no need for that kind of vulgarity. It's Dan's blog, so he can do what he wants obviously, but I for one wouldn't complain if he banned that kind of commentary.

[KRank]

Dan deserves credit for allowing open commenting on this blog, and it's a shame some can't express themselves without vulgarity. It doesn't really make any point that couldn't be made another way, and it just drags down the level of discourse.

That being said, I still haven't seen any justification for our host refusing to retract his earlier charge against CREW. it's pretty simple, really: "I was wrong. I apologize". Story over. Move on. Maybe reason and dignity is not what he's about at this point, however. He may have discovered that unreasonableness sells in the blogosphere. Has your hit count spiked this week, Dan? You like the feeling? Too bad it was purchased at the cost of whatever integrity you may have once had.

[Dan Riehl]

"Too bad it was purchased at the cost of whatever integrity you may have once had."

KInd of funny, praise me for having open comments, attack my character in the next breath? Make up your mind KR. IMO - this is politics, CREW is as much politics as the FBI as Congress, etc. As I recently posted today - is CREW apologizing for their allegations of a cover up that wasn't there? No, they likely won't.

Frankly I can be an incorrigible SOB - always been my nature. And on the Internet, it usually makes me laugh, not get upset when I'm attacked. SO, am I playing with the Left to up traffic? Nah. It isn't that much. I do as well or better with a good link picked up by a few top Conservative blogs. I do it because I enjoy the hell out of it, KR. To quote a ficticious hero of mine:

"I love the smell of napalm in the moring ... smells likes victory!" ha

[Crust]

Dan Riehl writes:

"[Kind] of funny, praise me for having open comments, attack my character in the next breath?"

What's so funny? You deserve praise for allowing comments and you deserve condemnation for not owning up to your mistakes. This is not complicated.