“Otherwise we become no better than sheep blindly following the grazing patterns of those ahead of us, forced to nose the DROPPINGS aside to get at what little unsoiled grass (information) that remains”

With that in mind I suggest that your timeline reflect that Wild Bill at Passionate America was the Blogger who discovered Edmonds Identity and released it onto the web, before Drudge reported the instant massages as pranks gone wrong.

Bill has taken a lot of heavy flack for releasing this information as his comments sections and responses from other much larger and well known Bloggers clearly show (see MM), and even though this information has been used by others most refuse to acknowledge his site or link to it.

And the Media barely acknowledges him by name or his site, yet I believe that the internet world should support his actions which I believe were right given the information now known!

History will judge Bills actions, and I would not wish it to record that the Blog world turned its back on him and the Media reported it first!

October 3, 2006 6:15 AM, Wild Bill at Passionate: I have what I believe is the identity of the person that Rep. Mark Foley instant messaged.

October 3, 2006 2:40 PM Press Release: Passionate America to Release Identity of a Person Rep. Foley Instant Messaged

October 04, 2006, 3:33 AM Wild Bill at Passionate America: http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/ Releases Jordan Edmonds Identity, Picture and image of his Myspace website.

Keep your Time line up it is the best single source I am finding to date on all the varied incidents, and relationships to one another, and kudos for acknowledging changes and updates that is so much better than the stealth changes made in other media.

It looks like the outrageous indignation gushing from the Left side of the House is full of hypocrisy: The Dems knew too, and they sat on it.

……

You just made the best case as to why Edmund prabably needs a lawyer. Mac Ranger reported he did not look too good coming out of his interview with the FBI.

The very salacious IM’s that ABC News got their hands on right when this story broke were between Foley and Jordan Edmund. Up until recently I had not heard of any other Pages who still had the IMs (that include Tyson Vivyan). One of the ex-Pages who came forward last week who was 21 may have had some evidence of his fling – but that was between consenting adults, obviously.
Jordan Edmund may need a criminal defence attorney if he is afraid he is open to charges – there is no other reason to have on. The prank angle is interesting, but does not make a crime. There are too many possible angles to know why and how he feels exposed – could be he sold the IMs to someone, or he was part of an extortion gambit. Who knows.
I would say the many noted accesses to his AOL account mean someone else had access to his account. From there all sorts of scenarios (including those you postulated) are possible. We will know when Foley talks to authorities.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Group_fires_back_Spectator_claim_they_1010.html

Are you saying that by not denying they received them, via fax, on May 29, 2006, that they are in fact lying about the July 21 assertion?

It sure seems that if CREW says they received them on July 21, 2006 then they are denying that they received them via fax on May 29, 2006.

It’s your timeline. But perhaps you should at least note the public statements made by CREW that they received them on July 21 and sent them to the FBI the same day.

The only copies of the emails with the Fax header are CREWS copies. Granted, we don’t know if it was faxed to them or not – but without the cover page or a denial they are their copies!

It’s called using the rope they brought with them. If CREW wants to PROVE otherwise, all they need to do is describe how they got Faxes from someone else.

Sep 13, 2005: Foley emails to LA Page are printed off by someone, these will be sent to CREW in May of 2006 via Fax. Will also end up at ABC News at sometime in July-August 2006.

The evidence to support this is contradicted by public statements. Melanie Sloan and Naomi Seligman both publicaly claim that CREW received the ‘overly friendly’ emails on July 21, 2006.

The evidence to support the argument that CREW received them in May 2006 is scant. Just because the PDF file they have posted has a date reading May 29, 2006, that doesn’t indicate at all when they were received by CREW. There are very likely scenarios in which the dates on the PDF hosted by CREW were there prior to reception by CREW.

CREW has already denied that the May 29, 2006 fax date on the files is from them or from the source that gave them the emails.

You should at least note these denials from CREW. Failure to do so provides easy ammunition for bloggers and reporters to question ther veracity of this timeline.

AJ Strata has the definitive post on the Foley mess. The timeline is very interesting and concisely goes beyond the efforts of the drive-by media. While the liberals restate their tired themes into the witches cauldron, the facts are making it past the…

“I was still pretty shell shocked myself,” Fordham said of the day he learned about the messages. “This was someone I had worked for 10 years. I had no inkling that this kind of blatantly reckless – just obscene – behavior was going on behind our backs.”

Asked if he had any information that could help investigators build a criminal case against Foley, Fordham said he wasn’t prepared to say yet. But he denied trying to suppress any information or evidence when he spoke by phone with ABC News before the instant message became public. He also said he had not discussed leaving Reynolds’ office since his own role in the Foley case has come to light.

Fordham said that he never spoke to Reynolds about possible personal problems before the details of an e-mail exchange became public last Thursday, and Reynolds did not ask him about his ex-boss in the spring.