An aide for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) was arrested last Friday for attempting to sexually exploit a minor.
I guess you didn't hear about this in the middle of Hillary Clinton looking so regal and presidential during the hostage takeover in New Hampshire.
Could that be why this seedy story was hushed-up for three days?
While you ponder, the Associated Press finally reported Monday (h/t JammieWF):
James Michael McHaney was fired Friday from his job as a scheduler for Cantwell, hours after he was arrested by FBI agents. The FBI said in court papers that McHaney is accused of trying to set up a meeting with a witness posing online as a teenage boy.
McHaney, who appeared in federal court on Saturday, was being held without bond pending a court hearing on Wednesday, said Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia.
According to court papers, McHaney, known as Mike, tried to arrange a lunchtime meeting with an unidentified person posing as a 13-year-old boy. When the witness, working under the supervision of the FBI, asked whether McHaney was interested in sex with a 13-year-old, McHaney allegedly replied, "I'll be there," the court papers said. He later asked for a photo of the child, the FBI alleged.
Here's the money shot:
News of the arrest was first reported on the Web site, www.thesmokinggun.com.
That's correct. The organization that first reported this affair was TSG on Monday. Yet, according to AP, Cantwell's office was informed of this arrest last Friday:
Cantwell's chief of staff, Michael Meehan, issued a statement Monday night saying McHaney had been fired.
"Late Friday afternoon the FBI informed our office that a Senate employee was arrested. The employee was immediately fired. Our office has and will continue to fully cooperate with the ongoing federal criminal investigation. Senator Cantwell has zero tolerance for crimes against children," Meehan said.
Why was this statement delayed by three days? Was this sordid affair hidden from or buried by the press? Why did it take The Smoking Gun to find this out and report it? Is it possible this was kept quiet so as not to distract from Hillary looking so presidential all weekend? Would this have been the case if an aide for a Republican member of Congress had been so arrested and fired?
Yes, those are all rhetorical questions.
Moving forward, even though this is indeed just an aide, what's the likelihood of this getting much media attention now? And, will there be any scrutiny and outrage directed at Cantwell's office for not making a statement sooner?
Yes, those are rhetorical questions, too.
Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
and where's Chris Hansen in
December 4, 2007 - 10:49 ET by taterand where's Chris Hansen in all of this?
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Plus if you check out the
December 4, 2007 - 11:09 ET by hs29fanPlus if you check out the AP story there is no (D) next to the good senators name. As usual.
Poor liberal, he's educated beyond his intelligence
Well, except for that (D)
December 4, 2007 - 11:16 ET by JerWell, except for that (D) which is right next to the Senator's name prominently displayed in the very first sentence of the article. Other than that, I guess you're right.
Jer
The smoking gun has the
December 4, 2007 - 11:26 ET by MightyMouthThe smoking gun has the orginal... no (D). The AP (other link) was updated today. So your slam to the poster is unjustified.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
There was a trace of
December 4, 2007 - 11:57 ET by JerThere was a trace of sarcasm, but certainly not a slam.
I simply clicked on Noel's link to the AP article, and the first thing I see is a (D). So I would say there was ample justification for my comment.
Jer
"trace of sarcasm"
December 4, 2007 - 12:06 ET by MightyMouthSure thing, I can see it now...just a trace..
<second eye roll to Jer today, although not a record, notable>
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Okay then...a retort laden
December 4, 2007 - 12:11 ET by JerOkay then...a retort laden with sarcasm, but still not a slam. Better?
Jer
Glad we got that settled...
December 4, 2007 - 12:13 ET by MightyMouthLordy, I hope we don't get into a "serious" debate! :-O
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well MM I was trying to
December 4, 2007 - 12:23 ET by JerWell MM I was trying to have one on gun control, and the next thing I know, you're riding in a tank on the 4th of July.
But at least you were thoughtful enough to contribute some opinion. Thanks...Truce?
Jer
Truce? lol
December 4, 2007 - 12:34 ET by MightyMouthOk, for now. But please, try to keep from saying something stupid ok?
Yesss,that goes for me too :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'll try my best...but it
December 4, 2007 - 13:01 ET by JerI'll try my best...but it may be like asking a duck not to quack.
Jer
Ok, so would you agree that when the "D" is constantly-missing
December 4, 2007 - 12:19 ET by sarcasmoThat some of us consider it a "Journalism 101" issue?
And considering all the debate, cajoling, and yes, insulting-sarcasm that I've directed at the issue over the decades (not just years, in my case...) why do you think NB keeps-finding this pattern of "error" over-and-over-and-over?
Can you see why, at this point, it looks a whole-lot like media bias on the part of AP, instead of a legitimate mistake? And is a keystroke or three THAT much for us to ask of these vaunted "professional" AP journalists? Is there a "Howard Kurtz" excuse/explanation for this "error" that I'm somehow missing here?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc..are you asking
December 4, 2007 - 12:30 ET by Jersarc..are you asking me?
Jer
Yes.
December 4, 2007 - 12:37 ET by sarcasmoWhat's the excuse for this? And why does it happen so damned often. I haven't done a study, but I strongly-suspect if one was done, it would find that the "error" is affected by the scandal-content of the story, and that there are more missing-D's than missing-R's.
I know it's a form of antilibertarian bias, and even though I'm no longer a member of a "third" party, that remains patently-unfair regardless of my personal circumstances. Such an "error" would NEVER happen with scandal involving either the Green or Libertarian parties, and we both know that fact as a certainty.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
chirp, chirp
December 4, 2007 - 13:25 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsDo you hear the crickets there Sarc??? Not sure if they are Jer's or the MSM's though.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Give it time...
December 4, 2007 - 13:29 ET by sarcasmoI don't think Jer sees it. I sure don't see everything meant for me these days, and I'm about to leave for a few hours! The question will remain for Jer's convenience.
And has the MRC actually done the study of the missing "D's" and "R's" somewhere?? If not, it might be an interesting use of resources even if it only addresses the 2 major parties, since I think it's safe to conclude this "error" works against all their comepetitors.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc...I would love to know
December 4, 2007 - 13:53 ET by JerSarc...I would love to know if a study has been done, and what the findings are...because I honestly think there is less to this issue than meets the eye.
There are identical claims of bias over on the liberal-Progressive-Democrat sites with the "facts" reversed of course. And I think both sides have exaggerated the issue and ascribed cynical and sinister motives that are largely unsupported and unsupportable.
It seems that the overwhelming majority of the cases where the party is not identified involve unknown or lesser known local or state officials or office holders where party designation is already known by those most interested in the story, and is [theoretically] less important to those only moderately or casually interested. A national figure's political party, on the other hand, should be and almost always is mentioned, and in those rare cases when not, I suggest, may be chalked up to unintended error.
I've noticed that sometimes AP will run with a story with just the name of the individual, and then in a subsequent update, will provide the party affiliation. It may very well be that the AP stringer didn't have the information at the time of the initial article, but later obtained additional details and published an update. Occasionally, a local news affiliate will put up a story on its website without party ID, but the underlying AP release will have included the information. Sometimes the situation is reversed. Accordingly, thiose making the bias claim will refer to the article omitting party affiliation and ignore another one that reveals it.
Look, I could be dead wrong. Maybe there is a concerted effort to damage Republicans by trumpeting any scandalous conduct in which a member of that party may be involved, while burying or ignoring similar incidents involving Democrats. As I said at the outset, I hope there has been, or will be, an independent study. As of now, however, I'm unconvinced that a compelling case has been made--by either side.
Jer
"Look, I could be dead
December 4, 2007 - 15:29 ET by dabal"Look, I could be dead wrong. Maybe there is a concerted effort to
damage Republicans by trumpeting any scandalous conduct in which a
member of that party may be involved, while burying or ignoring
similar incidents involving Democrats."
You're dead wrong. A "study" is not required, simply read the first three paragraphs on any scandal story. If you don't see a pattern emerge, you're being willfully dishonest.
You can chisel your
December 4, 2007 - 16:04 ET by JerYou can chisel your certitude out of granite if you wish, but you might want to be a bit more cautious in matters of opinion.
As for me, I may be wrong. I may be mistaken, I may be dense, I may misinterpret. But you may be certain I will never be willfully dishonest.
Jer
I was commenting on the AP
December 4, 2007 - 11:45 ET by hs29fanI was commenting on the AP version of the story which is still devoid of a (D). The local Washington state coverage does give her party. Which should be a no-brainer for the locals. The real question is when is the AP going to inform the rest of the country.
Poor Liberal, he's educated beyond his intelligence.
hs29fan...click on Noel's
December 4, 2007 - 12:02 ET by Jerhs29fan...click on Noel's link to the AP article. There may be a couple of different articles, or an updated one, but it is AP and there is a (D) in the lead sentence.
Jer
The link in Noel's article
December 4, 2007 - 15:01 ET by hs29fanThe link in Noel's article is to the KOMOTV website. My search was of the AP on Yahoo and Google that did not show any party affliation. The AP has been updated now, but we do not get the info until the second paragraph. Again highlight this against the Larry Craig and you can see the undercutting bias.
hs29f - you can't expect
December 4, 2007 - 23:21 ET by Cape ConservativeAP to have time to get all those keystrokes (D) in - they were too busy typing REGAL REGAL REGAL in HRC's article this weekend and they were afraid of suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome!
more leftie grabbing at straw technique
December 4, 2007 - 23:31 ET by candanceThey have time and energy to write, edit, and submit a thousand word article...but can't be bothered to type one extra D.
Either someone has NO knowledge of how the media operates or they are deliberately hoping someone out there will be naive enough to fall for that explanation.
candance...if the leftie
December 5, 2007 - 02:29 ET by Jercandance...if the leftie "someone" you are referring to is me, then I'll readily concede I'm no media expert, but inasmuch as I "grew up" in the newspaper business, I'm willing to bet my knowledge level of media operations is at least equal to yours. And I know better than to ever presume naivete.
I never offered an explanation for this specific case--merely pointed out that, after reading Noel's post, I clicked on the reference link and immediately noticed the AP article at the station's website identified the Senator as a Democrat in the opening sentence.
Jer
No Double Standard Here - Move Along
December 4, 2007 - 11:17 ET by NoMoreClintonsCan you imagine the media coverage if it had been Larry Craig's aide? What double standard???
Y'all have to remember
December 4, 2007 - 11:18 ET by FastEdwhen you DON'T have firm beliefs and/or standards (ethical) then something like this is "business as usual". Reporting will be minimal, as this is "just a sigular example" of what democrats are. Since they don't stand for ANYTHING, then this is just a 'surprise'.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
So when has Cantwell
December 4, 2007 - 11:23 ET by BeowulfSo when has Cantwell announced she will resign? Guilt by association and all that - applies to Republicans, doesn't it?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Well that proves
December 4, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Jack BauerWell that proves conclusively all Democrats are perverts and child molesters.
That's how this usually works, right?
JB...I think it is the
December 4, 2007 - 12:07 ET by JerJB...I think it is the "love" that dares to speak the shame of both parties.
Jer
Headline....."Former" Aide Arrested
December 4, 2007 - 12:47 ET by zeestephenI first saw this AP report Monday on komotv.com, the website of Seattle's ABC affiliate.
The headline originally said, "Former Cantwell Aide Arrested."
I almost didn't read it. "Former" aide? Who cares?
Three paragraphs later, the report finally stated that the "former" aide had been fired AFTER his arrest.
Thanks to the Conservative Blogs, KOMO's headline now reads, "Cantwell Aide Arrested In Sex Sting; Quickly Fired."
Noteworthy AP Tactic - their "updated" report still describes the man as a "former aide" in the first sentence and waits until the second sentence to reveal he was fired AFTER his arrest.
Lets um get a grip k?
December 4, 2007 - 12:57 ET by CooperI think stories like this are disengenuous to the conservative cause. An aide of a Dem Senator did X.?? Once you take out the aide and the X , you are left with a Dem Senator who did nothing wrong. Comparing this to Craig (either innocent or guilty, man I still can't tell) is a humongous stretch.
What if its an aide of an aide?
Or an aide of an aide of an aide?
Where does the news-worthy sub-leveling end?
If its a Dem Senator or Rep, by all means turn the bias police loose, but lets not put bias blinders on so we miss what is relevant by pointing out specs, in their eyes like this one!
Sad story nothing more.
Actually Cantwell herself
December 4, 2007 - 14:52 ET by Col SmokeActually Cantwell herself was involved in a sex scandal involving one of her aides, the aide's divorce (where she was named the other woman), and loans from Cantwell (maybe her campaign) to the aide.
A lot more digging is required with this case; since it's Washington state, maybe there's a horse involved too. May not get up the scandal meter as high as Craig or Foley, but it can get close.
They Call Him Flipper
December 4, 2007 - 15:57 ET by ChuchulainnSpeaking of Craig, what's that strange growth on his back? Why it's a dorsal fin. Hold on, I feel a song comming on:
They call him Flipper, Flipper'
faster than lightning,
No one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Flipper, lives in a
world full of wonder,
Flying ther under, under the sea!
CS... Boy have you hit
December 4, 2007 - 16:05 ET by bigtimerCS...
Boy have you hit the nail on the head about Wa. State, Cantwell and all the rest including the horse...lets not forget voter fraud big big time...time and time again.
The Mayor of Spokane who died of cancer not long ago was on the par of Foley/Craig...the local msm were pure vultures.