EXCLUSIVE: Statement from former student at center of Fox-fueled Jennings controversy

If Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.,

Had an ounce of integrity, they would crawl away and never show their face in public again after this despicable smear campaign.

His statement should put an end to this whole made-up Fox scandal and should bring a chorus of ridicule from the media pundocrity...but I'am not holding my breath.

Hear, hear! Brewster sounds like a person we would all be prooud to know and call a friend. Mr. Jennings has proven time and again that he is just the person for the position Obama has appointed him to. Fox and their ilk do not represent America, not even a little bit. They want only one thing: to promote the GOP for their boss and collect their sleazy paychecks. Brewster, I hope you get to return to your life now and all the best to you.

Wait a second -- I know why the right wingers are so worked up: "Brewster Jennings" is the name of the phony company that was Valerie Plame's cover when she was outed by the Bush administration.

Never gonna happen. Jennings implied he believed the 15 yr old had or was having sex when he said this:
"He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, “Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.” High school sophomore, 15 years old"
And this:
My best friend had just died of AIDS the week before.” I looked at Brewster and said, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.” He said to me something I will never forget, He said “Why should I, my life isn’t worth saving anyway.”
Why comment about using a condom if he thought otherwise?
Oh, BTW the legal age of consent in MA is 18!

Yes he is brave, but when the truth and the facts are on your side, it is easy and if I were he, I would plant myself in front of FUX's door stepa and demand to talk to all those FAUX journalists and Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, AND THEN I WOULD SUE.

Irrelevant, but you knew that.

You and the right-wing professional liars have have also submitted no proof.

Did you miss the Facebook exchange he had with a Fox News writer?

MMFA would be risking monumental embarrassment if they made all this up or if they failed to verify that Brewster is who he claims to be, and that Maxim Lott is a Fox News writer (the latter was pretty easy to confirm). I think the last thing MMFA wants is to give the right-wing professional liars a truthful PR fiasco with which to humiliate them.

I assume that you don't believe in Obama's birth certificate but you agree that those blurry Fox News photos of the 9-12 party showed 2 million people...

Considering that Glenn Beck had asked people to come forward, and offered them anonymity (with silhouettes, pixelation, and voice changing), I would only think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander...
--------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word

Oh, my, another lie.

If a reputable fact-finding site on the right (let me know when one is created) had a relationship with someone whose identity they needed to protect but whose personal data (like this birth year for this guy) was required did exactly what Media Matters did, I'd be happy to accept that info.

Just because you are dishonest, disreputable and disrespectful doesn't mean that everyone is.

The problem here was that FoxNews, et al knew, or could have and should have known, that there were multiple sources saying that the kid was 16 (or older), and one source that said that something about a sophomore being 15 (and I have explained multiple times why the age of 15 wasn't necessarily describing this kid at the time of the event in any case, or could have just been a slip of the tongue). Given that FoxNews, et al knew that there was conflicting info, they should have shared all that info with their listeners/viewers.

And FoxNews, et al didn't. The sin here is theirs, not Jennings, not ours, not MMFA, and not the student's.

You have no reason to doubt their exclusives, as there is no evidence that MMFA has ever been disreputable in their reporting and documentation.

You need to stop looking in the mirror and telling us that we're going to behave just like you would. In this case, what you've shown us is that you'd manipulate the facts and provide false evidence, all to gain a false and unfair advantage for your side. I have a hint for you - that's not a good thing for you to display publicly! Really, it's not. It's pretty sad sack behavior.

You might want to read up on confirmation bias.

MMFA has the proof. They aren't going to release reams of personal info to the stalker cons. I am sure news outlets can and did confirm it.

The reason we wouldn't is because conservatives have established a pattern of lying, so we expect the pattern to repeat.

MMFA has a pattern of being above-board with the facts, so we expect that pattern to repeat. As indeed it has with confirmation from other sources.

When your mind has been taken over by demons, there can never be proof of anything. The pitiful mental state that Fock Snooze puts you in isn't conservatism, it's somewhere between a trance and the Two-Minute Hate from 1984.

Ah, there you go again, fairliberal. When someone disagrees with you, they just have to be a "lib." You know, the majority of people don't see things in black and white like you do. They understand that there are all kinds of beautiful colors and shades of gray. Try framing questions and responses logically, without all of your "us v. them" rhetoric and maybe someone will try taking your seriously.

This is a non-story which has been created by your heroes on Fox to destroy a man . . . not because he's done anything wrong, but because that's all they have left. They couldn't destroy Obama before the election, so now they have to try their darnedest to delegitimize the democratically elected choice of a very decisive majority of the people in this country. Doesn't matter that they are ruining the lives of other people . . . they've got to TAKE HIM DOWN. It's disgusting and most Americans are not buying it.

So, you just keep on watching Fox with the rest of the 1% of the country with nothing better to do . . . the other 99% of us are going to go about living.

Perhaps, but I think it might also be productive for cable and satellite TV subscribers to sue Fox for calling it's activities "News". Seriously, we pay for that crap. It's false advertising. I want my money back! (Ok, I'd really just settle for an appropriate name change that ditches the news term entirely.)

Yes. But it would take a lot of money, a lot of security, an end to privacy and the prospect of every fanatical con turning your life upside down.

Why are you assuming that "at the time" means the entire year of 1988? That's not what his statement said. It is more reasonable to interpret his statement as meaning the day of the conversation with Jennings or the day or two before that, around the time of the bus trip.

So what you're saying, chucko, is that you want to violate the privacy of two individuals, poke your nose into their sex lives and generally be a big jerk because you just can' get past the fact that absolutely nothing illegal, immoral or inappropriate happened?

I'll say it one more time, though, just in case you missed that: No one involved in the original situation in the 80's has done anything wrong, and do not deserve or need to have their privacy violated.

Why can't people like you just let this non-story go? This is nothing for anyone to be forced out of a job. BTW, Jennings was not hired by the White House, therefore, no vetting required.

Why would someone say that it's a good idea to use a condom when having a discussion about meeting someone in a bus station? Do you really not get it or are you just pretending to be dense? Can parents not discuss birth control with their kids until the kids come out and tell their parents that they're having sex? There can't be a preemptive conversation? You've never had a conversation with someone that went something like this?

"I went to a club and was there from 9 pm until it closed at 2 am."

"Well, I hope you knew to get a cab."

"No, I only had about $10 with me, so I had one drink per hour until I stopped drinking at midnight."

See, the respondent here made a reasonable assumption and made a suggestion.

No one is "saying" that Brewster was of legal age. He WAS of legal age. And the advice that he was given was that if he was having sex, he should hopefully know to use a condom.

And the White House didn't do a poor job of vetting Jennings. The facts are that it was FoxNews who was providing a distorted picture of the known facts about the kid's age. You are faulting the White House when it appears that they looked at all the evidence, including the legal 'cease and desist' letter sent in 2004 that documented that the student was 16 at the time of this interaction and therefore no statutory rape could have occurred even if sex had happened. The poor vetting job was done by those on the right, and you have displayed here that you can't even keep up with the story yet think you should be taken as an expert on the topic?