Where are the initial, "nonsexual" emails?

[janx]

?

This is being pushed hard in RW circles, but how does anyone know? Where are they? What did they say?

[janx]

1. kick--can somebody help me here?

?

[npincus]

2. just posted, recipient described them as "sick"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2282629

The FBI will surely obtain them, though they may not get leaked before Nov.7.

[janx]

3. Thank you!

I'm getting tired of the spin and hearsay. How can the media characterize them if they've never even seen them?

[moc]

4. The first emails that were publicized by ABC said things like

I hope you're okay (re: Hurricane Katrina), send me a picture of you, that other page is in good shape.

The more explicit communications were IMs not emails. Hastert's letter to DOJ makes an explicit distinction between the ("overly friendly") emails that House leadership was made aware of in 2005 vs. the explicit IMs from 2003 they claim no knowledge of. (By the way, I don't believe them. Why were they warning pages in 2001 about Foley if he was just "overly friendly"? Doesn't pass the smell test, imo.)

This is probably what the RWers are pushing. Sorry I don't have a link. I heard this on the radio (NPR).

[janx]

5. That is exactly what the RW is pushing.

We've seen some of the IMs--but we haven't (and as far as I know the media haven't) seen the initial emails, so to characterize them as somehow benign--"overly friendly"--seems ridiculous to me.