|Don Hall, former mayor of Hartselle, Alabama|
Don Hall's resignation as mayor of Hartselle, Alabama, took effect on November 30, 2015. The Hartselle City Council accepted Hall's resignation on August 28 and granted him a leave of absence until he officially left office. According to a report at al.com, Hall denied using Ashley Madison. but our research shows he spent more than $400 at the site.
Here is how the Washington Times reported on Hall's decision to step down":
Local news outlets report that Hall resigned one day after city officials scheduled a meeting to consider what actions they could take after his name appeared on a list linked to the website intended to facilitate cheating. Hall denied using the website and said he doesn’t know how his name got on the list. Hall said he performed all his duties as mayor and would step down because he believed it was best for the city.
Our research indicates Hall has every reason to know how his name got on the list. That's because his credit-card information is present, and it shows seven transactions, totaling $467.14. (See summary of Don Hall's Ashley Madison account at the end of this post.)
Here's how Hall described himself on the site:
Looking for that special person who is not afraid to step out side the box and develop a special discreet friendship. Would love to find someone that would like to share some special time together, not just a one time only . . .
The billing address on the account is as follows:
1803 Hayes St SW Hartselle, AL 35640
That's the same address listed on the Web for the Don Hall for Mayor campaign, which was established in 2012.
Hall has company when it comes to politicians caught in Ashley Madison scandal. The Washington Post reported last August on at least four such cases. Here is al.com's summary of the Post's findings:
Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported the names of other political and public officials whose names were included in the Ashley Madison leak, including Florida state prosecutor Jeff Ashton, Louisiana Republican Party Executive Director Jason Doré, Australian City Councilman Craig Ogilvie and Baton Rouge, La., City Councilman Ryan Heck.
The Washington Post story was published just a few days after the Ashley Madison story broke, and the actual number of political figures on the site probably is several thousand times higher than the five we've highlighted above.
(Note: The summary below lists Hall's account-creation date as 4/22/15, but it shows payments from 2010, 2012, and 2013. Our technical sources said quite a few Ashley Madison customers had more than one account, and that probably explains the date discrepancies in the Hall summary.)
Do AM users ever tell the truth about what they've been doing?
OK this guy is an elected official, perfectly reasonable reporting.
Roger, have you no shame? You must know this information is inaccurate. The individual in question was never a user of the site.
I have not understood your need to cover Ashley Madison and private citizens, but if you feel the need to expose examples of the type of people that used AM, why not stick to public figures like politicians, particularly elected ones? The need to expose private citizens is beyond me. Montgomery has to have a very fertile list, not to mention Jefferson City.
And, yes, I know you will take exception to the term "expose". Let me use your own thoughts to tell you why, yes, you will be exposing them. You have said several times that the data is hard to access/understand/etc. By default, you making the data accessible/understandable/etc you are exposing people that might have gone unnoticed in the database due to the complexity. You can hide behind the "reporter" cover all you want, but you are bringing to light...aka exposing...private citizens. Inexplicable to me.
If you have information to prove the individual never was a user of the site, @6:14, please contact me at email@example.com, and I would be glad to discuss. As you can see in the summary, substantial account activity was present.
This guy isn't a private citizen though so I think this is perfectly reasonable reporting (and I was one complaining on a previous thread).
The AM data is pretty reliable with only a few fake names in there.
Let's not use the term "reporter" to describe Roger. I think most reporters have a shred of integrity, Roger has none. He is just a crybaby who gets off trying to smear other people.
It's a matter of public record that the publisher of this blog has a degree from one of the top schools of journalism in the country (U of Missouri), worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for a daily newspaper (the largest in Alabama at the time), and worked 20 years as a university editor. If such a person isn't a reporter, then who is?
@10:50 appears to be the crybaby to me, whining when a reporter covers a topic that makes 10:50 uncomfortable. For good measure, 10:50 is smearing the publisher of this blog, while remaining anonymous.
Looks like 10:50 is a coward, too.
And how did Rogers' career work out? He must be a great "reporter". Fired, sued, imprisoned. Wow, he must be the best. Haha. He is a piece of shit and I hope karma bites him in the ass for all the terrible shit he has done to people.
Thanks for the compliment, @2:42. "Fired, sued, imprisoned." I'm in some good company--Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul, Gandhi, Mandela, John Fogerty, Dan Rather, Steve Jobs, Walt Disney. I'm more than happy to be part of that crowd. Again, many thanks.
One other question, @2:42--What "terrible shit" have I done to people. Can't wait to hear the specifics on that.
This comment makes your delusions of grandeur quite clear Roger. You are more in the company of Judas, Martin Shkreli, Bernie Madoff, and Brian Williams: a bottom feeding disgrace. I am sure your 'top tier university' and the publications who have previously employed you all trumpet their connection to the esteemed Legal Schnauzer. Simply calling you a 'peice of shit' is kindness from @242.
I notice you still can't point out the "terrible shit" I've done to people. In other words, you seem to have no grounds for the personal animosity you have toward me. And you don't even have enough courage to tell me who you are. In essence, you've given me no reason to care who you are or what you think.
Out of an abundance of fairness (which you probably don't deserve), I would be happy to discuss, and you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org or (205) 381-5673. Having this kind of personal animosity toward someone you obviously don't know, for no apparent reason, is something you might want to discuss with a licensed professional.
Post a Comment