ORIGINAL E-MAIL SHOWS HASKINS NEVER MADE STATEMENT
An e-mail sent by State Rep. Gloria Haskins to an irritant in May 2007 in which the Greenville legislator allegedly made a racially-charged remark was forged by her opponent’s campaign in an attempt to mislead voters, The Palmetto Scoop has learned.
In the e-mail, Haskins supposedly wrote, “I don’t represent ,[sic]you or your kind. I represent my people ,[sic]the hispanic[sic] caucas[sic]!”
Wendy Nanney, who is challenging Haskins, used those two sentences in a piece of direct mail attacking the incumbent and has posted what she claims to be a copy on her campaign website.
But an original, unedited copy of the full e-mail thread between Haskins and a Mr. John Gaines shows the lines were inserted after the fact into a May 10, 2007 communiqué.
The Palmetto Scoop has confirmed with sources close to the situation that a SLED investigation is ongoing and that the manipulation of a statehouse e-mail may constitute the equivalent of forging government documents, an offense punishable by jail time.
Rice University has a website devoted to the various ways an e-mail can be forged, doctored or otherwise altered.
The unaltered documents explain a number of irregularities in Nanney’s version of the e-mail.
From a stylistic perspective, the added fragment does not fit the positive flow of Haskins’ real response. The placement of these two sentences at the very end of the correspondence also raises red flags.
Gaines’ tone in his first e-mail also suggests a vehement venom toward Haskins and a vested interest in her demise. And the list of individuals carbon copied by Gaines, including anti-illegal immigration activist Roan Garcia-Quintana, is indicative of a planned hit job on Haskins.
It is further noteworthy that, in Gaines’ response, he never mentioned the line — because it wasn’t there — and even praised Haskins, writing, “You have been through a lot and I applaud your courage and forthright in what you are doing in the State House.”
The Nanney campaign could not be reached for comment.
VIEW NANNEY’S VERSION HERE (PDF)
VIEW THE REAL EMAIL HERE (PDF)
_____________
UPDATE: Haskins has released the following statement:
“When I heard my opponent was going to run against me, I expected her to be aggressive. But I never imagined she would go so far as to circulate a forgery, and let me be clear - it is a forgery.” [...]
“I would have responded sooner but I never saw a copy of the ‘e-mail’ until late Sunday night. I was finally able to locate the original e-mail chain and can now prove without a doubt the ‘e-mail’ is a forgery.”
She will be holding a press conference tomorrow at 10:30 AM at 30 Normandy Road in Greenville to prove first hand that the e-mail was doctored.
I have obtained a screen grab of Haskins’ AOL e-mail account showing the unedited message as it was forwarded from her State House account on May 10, 2007. Based on that, the only way she could have removed the two sentences in question would have been to cut it out of the copy forwarded to herself.
But that was more than a year before Nanney began using the e-mail, and those are the only sentences that differ between versions. That means Haskins is either a clairvoyant, or the Nanney e-mail is a fake.
_____________
UPDATE 2: Now with cool video:
This entry was posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm and is filed under Legislature. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Strike up “Jail to the chief” Hit it boys!
Yeah, this is slimy because you never even attached her email. attach it
RNS,
You can view both versions by clicking where it says above:
VIEW NANNEY’S VERSION HERE (PDF)
VIEW THE REAL EMAIL HERE (PDF)
Its obvious the Nanny email was doctored. The dude responded to the email and never mentioned the made up comments. Nanny…get ready to toss some salad. and say hello to T-Rav for us.
Adam: Are you jst an interested observer or “advising” anyone? what do the latest poll numbers show in this race?
So if Nanny goes to jail for this - would Jeffrey Sewell and Mike Green take the SCHotline van to visit both in the big house…
Rice University does not have a law school.
Hmm. The Quinn’s client is Gloria Haskins. Adam Fogle is paid by the Quinn’s. Two plus two usually equals four.
You do the math in this case.
Another “blogger” shilling for a paying candidate.
seafair,
You can question my motives all you want . But regardless of that nonsense, it doesn’t change the fact that Nanney doctored the e-mails.
See: Ad Hominem.
- A.F.
Not sure where you guys are coming from, but the facts posted here are rather a compelling case for SOMEONE to have doctored the email. I am not sure who is on whose side, but coming from the computer industry, this email looks to be doctored.
John Gaines seems to have an axe to grind. Could have been him. He also could have forwarded it to most anyone. Then, an unknown someone makes a change and a new web hoax has been started.
BTW, the reference to Rice University above is to their web site. The FAQ they quote is from thier IT department to the students at Rice. It is full of commonly known facts about email. Ben is the one who assumes there is a law school. You folks should read the article before responding.
Exactly where in this “article” is the (1) evidence that the email was doctored by the recipient and not by the sender and (2) any evidence - rather than a leap or assumption - that Wendy Nanney did the doctoring? The statement that a sender cannot modify an email after it is sent - from AOL or most other programs - is false. You can check our the Rice website or any other source for general knowledge of email security. Besides, a little bit of reason would be welcome here. If you were going to falsify an email, would you falsify it and then publish the false portion? Clearly the publication of the comments would itself draw scrutiny. This blog is a scoop of something, but it isn’t news.
Did anyone notice the bad grammar and numerous misspellings in Haskins’ email?
Shouldn’t that concern people - that their legislator isn’t the brightest bulb?
As with nearly every quality political blog in this state, Palmetto Scoop is a media outlet for clients of the associated political consulting organization. But, hey…it’s still fun to read!
I’d certainly rather have The Fogler for me than against me.
Earl,
Your Truth and Disclosure group should be all over this race. Conservatives in Action have put out a number of mail pieces for Wendy Nanney.
Or perhaps I was right when I said y’all are only going after opponents of Terry Sullivan’s clients?
- A.F.
Your headline, “Nanney forged e-mail used to attack opponent ” is inflammatory and biased on its face.
There is absolutely no proof that Wendy Nanney or her staff doctored an email, if in fact one was doctored. Which by the way, your “proof” does not show. All it shows is that two different versions of a copy of an email have been published.
As to which one was original and which was changed, it is impossible to tell without the date/time signatures from the source headers of each email in the thread. You do not show this, nor, I suspect, do you have this information.
You are a tool for the Haskins campaign.
Sincerely,
Mark
Earl -
In the medical community, they take something called a Hippocratic Oath…
Well it appears in the world of truth and disclosure, you’ve taken a Hypocritic Oath.
So, please go back to the dungeons of the audio visual club and whine about whatever garbage Terry Sullivan most recently spoon fed you out of your jar of gerbers.
-Trav
Mark,
The Nanney version is a “copy.” That’s all they’ve shown. Nothing but a mere “copy.”
Haskins, however, has opened her e-mail account to the media and allowed them to look at it first hand (note the screen shot in UPDATE 1). That provides all the headers and date/time signatures you need.
- A.F.
Why no mention of the fake Stephen Jones or Mark Sanford endorsements in Gloria’s mailing? Your bias is obvious and funny.
By the way, here’s my prediction:
Wendy 56%
Gloria 44%
Mark,
The Nanney version is a “copy.” That’s all they’ve shown. Nothing but a mere
“copy.”
Haskins, however, has opened her e-mail account to the media and allowed them
to look at it first hand (note the screen shot in UPDATE 1). That provides all the
headers and date/time signatures you need.
- A.F.
All you have is a copy of a screeen shot of a copy of an email. You don’t “know” for sure anything about the source of the email or the source of the changes to one or the other of the emails. The source header information is not included in your screenshot, only a copy what could be the html interpolation of the source header, assuming the screen shot is not “doctored”. What I am getting at is that your information proves nothing, therefore your headline is misleading at best and patently false at worst.
Mark
Ad hominem? Do they teach you that in political science 101?
Whatever the case, you Quinn boys have probably cashed your last check from Haskins.
Kudos to you seafair for responding with an ad hominem.
I agree with Earl Capps. My emails from Gloria also lack luster in the grammar department.
As seafair and the star board boys have probably cashed the last Richie check…
I know the federal government is required to keep email for some period of time. I am sure SC has some type of data retention law or policy in place. Emails can be edited after they have been forward and read, so Haskins screen shot proves nothing.
I would like to see SLED investigate this email. I am sure SC has some type of data retention policy/law for the SC goverment offices that is back up to some server for historical record. If SC does not, I bet AOL or MSN does.
have you all forgotten already about trey walker sending out bogus emails from the quindom to benefit their clients at the eleventh hour. Remember when he posted the email as Rod Shealy in 2004…
Jim et. al,
What the screenshot proves is that there is only ONE possible time that Haskins could have changed the e-mail: when she sent it from her State House account to her AOL account. That was in May 2007.
How would she have known more than a year ago to change those two sentences — and ONLY those two sentences — that conspicuously don’t even fit into the rest of the e-mail?
Think about it.
- A.F.
Adam,
Well I did some thinking. A date can be change in the email header to reflect May 2007. Also, the sender’s email address can be fake, you just need a little knowledge of Mail Access Protocols like pop3 and smtp. Maybe use a Apache server 2.0.61 with send mail and PHP 5.2.6.
That is why I say this proves nothing (both versions) until a proper investigation is done. I am sure the SChouse.org exchange server and backups are secure.
Jim
Dear everyone–
I have no dog in this fight, but over the last few weeks spoke to both the Haskins and Nanney campaigns about this and other issues because I wanted to vote for the best candidate. Here, I am struck by the disconnect between several postings’ observations of Haskins’ poor typing and the claim that she (or her staff) has mastered and long-term planned some sophisticated computer protocols in order to mask what would have been a very stupid thing for any politician to volunteer gratuitously to a constituent. These, to me, do not fit into a credible whole and–along with the Nanney camp’s blaming Haskins for the election of a liberal Supreme Court justice (who did not require her single vote to get over the margin of victory) and other blanket issues–made me uncomfortable. It won’t surprise me if Nanney does get elected, and if she votes as conservatively as she claims, it won’t be bad for South Carolina (from my Libertarian perspective) but the tone of this campaign has left me with a bad taste in my mouth for the Republican party. Best wishes to everyone who has participated in this dialogue, and may your candidate win.
Jerry
Wendy Nanney won hahaha! Good thing. Haskins was a joke.