Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Torture | Main | On The Road To Somewhere Else »

September 30, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d83466ed5869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mark Foley Thread - Blurt Out Your Thoughts:

» Mark Foley from New Technology
How much does your work know about what you are doing on the Internet? I bet you really dont know. Being a network administrator for a local company, Ive been asked on more than one occasion to keep an eye on certain employees Internet usage. <... [Read More]

Comments

MayBee

My guess? He's not the only one interested in the pages, and they had no idea what the IMs were like.
If the pages in question had been girls, I would guess, he would have been in company. Sorry, I imagine a bunch of those congressmen flirting with the girls.

Jane

I want to know why the St Petersburg Times didn't run it until now. Were they just waiting for the election? And apparently the ethics committee had it too and declined to even question Foley.

Everything is politics, no values left on any side of this equation. I say throw all the bums out!

clarice

You are watching a classic dirty trick in play.

There is no evidence that the Rep leadership had more to work with than the St Petersburg Times--the fairly creepy emails and the parents' reluctance to proceed.

C.R.E.W. (funded by Soros' Open Society) however had the far more lurid IM's which they released immediately after the story broke--leading people to believe that Hastert et al sat on something far more damaging.

C.R.E.W. remember brought the first ethics charges against Delay, is representing Wilson/Plame in the risible civil suit against Cheney--

Why doesn't anyone ask CREW when they had the IM's and why they waited so long to release them or turn them over to the Republican leadership?

What's the advantage-? Simple. Discredit the Rep leadersip in the eyes of moderates and their own supporters.

I don't suppose it's too much to ask of reporters to like ask the questions I have, is it?


clarice

My good friend and fellow American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman left a comment that deserves to be elevated for greater readability. It is, something of an eye popper:

Reportedly the St Pete Times had the same information in August 2005 and wrote nothing about it either, apparently because the emails do not constitute illegal conduct, they are just creepy, and the boy’s parents did not wish to pursue this.

The far more damaging IM messages were released by CREW , the same “public interest” group which is representing the Wilson/Plames in their laughable suit against Cheney, et al.

When did they get the IM’s? Why did they wait until now to release them? Is there any indication the Republicans who looked into THIS MATTER had any knowledge of their(the IM’s) existence.

Pardon an old lady’s suspicions. I’ve seen this dance too many times before.

I read this morning that a Monroe, LA newspaper also had the story and didn’t run with it because there appeared to be no impropriety.

And one more point that our dimwitted lefty friends can’t seem to wrap their miniscule brains around; the incident that was brought to the attention of the Page Board is unconnected to any of the raunchy, sick emails ABC news got from, as Clarice informs us, CREW.

Why the release of the emails and IM’s now is a question that answers itself 40 days before an election. And if it turns out that the GOP leadership is blameless in this – if Foley carried on his perversions in secret with only the terrified children knowing of his activities – then the question rightly arises why a Democrat connected organization allowed someone they knew as a pervert to continue to stalk children in the House of Representatives, failing to release the information until maximum political damage could be done to the opposition.

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/


Jane

We should expect noting less from Soros. And that doesn't excuse Foley. I mean the guy was on the committee that deals with child protection issues.

Every elected office politician I have known personally has one thing in common: They are all as shallow as the day it long. The only thing they think about is how their actions will play to the public, and they govern themselves accordingly. As a result they are among the most boring people on the planet. They don't have real lives.

And then, when they get a little safe and a little cocky, all that inner stuff starts leaking out. And since they have never had real lives, it gets weird. Not an excuse for Foley, or anyone else, just something I've noticed.

So who captured the IM's and how?

Bill Arnold

Clarice, I'm trying and failing to connect the Soros dots here (probably this left-of-center mind has insufficient wingnut axioms to work with :-). Are you saying this is just slinging of stockpiled mud at calculated moment? (Both major parties have been stockpiling for years.)

The emails were creepy enough - this should have been investigated by the ethics committee.

clarice

Exactly! And if something more had been done earlier on the basis of the innocuous Emails would the scenario of gay bashing TM speculates on NOT be played out and the IM's buried forever?

Bill Arnold

Clarice, I'm trying and failing to connect the Soros dots here
Never mind, a post a minute later clarified this. However, it is way too early to jump to conclusions here, IMO.

clarice

Bill, the originally released emails--which is I think all the Rep leaders had to work on--were very innocuous emails. The lurid stuff was in the hands of CREW for who knows how long and were released to make it seem Hastert et al had had those and ignored them.

And, yes, Foley promised to have no further contacts with pages and broke his promise.

MayBee

if Foley carried on his perversions in secret with only the terrified children knowing of his activities –

Can I take an unpopular position? Feel free to jump on me.
But I'm not sure I consider a 16-year old a child, sexually. As a parent of one getting horrifyingly close to that age, I sure don't want him sexually active. But some 16 year olds are. Most surely know what's going on.

I agree that a 50-year old man IMing 16 year olds is creepy. The things he said to them is creepy and really sick. I mean, I actually think that'd be creepy if it were a 50-year old IMing a 40-year old that stuff, if they barely knew each other.

If it's illegal, then that's a huge problem for him. But I don't consider it the same as being a predator to an 11 year old, or even a 14 year old.

Anyway, this is all a little disjointed. But here we have people pushing to let 14 year old girls have abortions without telling their parents, some want the high schools to give out condoms, and yet we're calling 16 year olds children when it comes to IMs?

I think we need to do a better job of warning our teenagers when to step away from the keyboard.

boris

As someone who enlisted at 17 in 1965 and heard lots of nasty nasty language in boot camp, having a really hard time with the "terrified children" POV. Foley is outta there, as he should be but yoots that age are perfectly capable of saying bug off.

If this is supposed to be a big partisan hit job, real skeptical that it's going anywhere.

(Looks like MayBee beats my point yet again)

Paul Zrimsek

"I don't know" generally works well for me in situations like this.

Bill Arnold

I didn't even know this was a gay pedophilia story at first and didn't change my opinion after reading about that aspect of the story (except to mentally note that it might not play well with the anti-homosexuality wing of the republican party). Who knows how this would have played if investigated earlier.

IMO (without evidence) the House GOP ethics leadership was playing the odds of risking a safe seat with an early investigation vs a possible last-minute story, and they lost.
Anyway, this is speculation, though the statement by Tom Reynolds that he told Hastert about this early 2006 is interesting.

Pagar

Not to excuse Foley's actions in any way, shape or form; but how can a political party claim they are concerned about children's safety when their actions concerning Roe Wade have resulted in the deaths of millions of children?

clarice

Bill. everyone in town knew Foley was homosexual.
As far as I can tell all Reynolds told Hastert aboust was the father innocuous emails sent to a 16 year old FORMER page who initiated the correspondence AND whose parents did not want to press the matter.

Hastert told Reynolds to look into it. Reynolds confronted Foley who claimed innocent intention and promised to cease this correspondence and any other private correspondence with pages.

Foley then broke that promise and entered into the far steamier IM correspondence.

Rick Ballard

Bill,

It's ephebophilia rather than pedophilia. Post rather than prepubescent. That's why Clarice's point is right on target. Going after a closeted homosexual preying on postpubescent boys based upon the evidence that the leadership apparently had (which did not include the explicit IM's) would have given Randy Andy the homophobia vapors to the point of him having to retire to his fainting couch.

The boys were past the age of innocence and would be considered fair game by many homosexuals - just as sixteen year old girls are fair game for a subset of hetero males.

Congressman Foley should retire to his library with the ivory handled derringer. I doubt that he has the backbone for that, however. The best we can hope for is not to see him on Oprah.

cahmd

So who else's e-mails has CREW been trolling?

clarice

It is an interesting question how CREW got the IM's isn't it?
Maybe someone on the WaPo will ask them?
Heh

Or the confluence of their unwarranted attacks on Delay and the idiotic suit against Cheney or where they get their funding?

Whistle when that happens.

MayBee

clarice: It is an interesting question how CREW got the IM's isn't it?
Maybe someone on the WaPo will ask them?

Jane:So who captured the IM's and how?

---
Anyone that is interested in politics enough to have a child in the page program is pretty politically astute. I think politics is a better answer than terrified children, don't you?


Rick, Foley needs to make his "I am a Gay American" speech and write a book.

maryrose


With all the persons available to run for office why is it that someone like Foley is re-elected and allowed to get away with this kind of behavior. he should have resigned as soon as Hastert and Reynolds found out. The reason he is going now is that he is being threatened and blackmailed by CREW.CREW is an icky and unsavory organization.

Jane

Mac thinks that the child may have been complicit. I'm trying to figure out how someone not in the household (or Foley's office) and not complicit can capture IM's. Can some technically saavy person give us a clue?

Rick Ballard

MaryRose,

There are more than a few pairs of Gucci loafers filling with sweat in DC this weekend. You don't think it's just Foley and Barney Franks do you? Hell, one of Franks boyfriends ran a whorehouse which Barney "didn't know a thing about" and the good people of MA send him back like clockwork.

I wonder who the Reps are going to take out as payback. This is definitely going to be a Chicago rules election and it's time.

clarice

Get this--the Dems are now asking for a special prosecutor to investigate the Republican leadership!!

topsecretk9

then the question rightly arises why a Democrat connected organization allowed someone they knew as a pervert to continue to stalk children in the House of Representatives, failing to release the information until maximum political damage could be done to the opposition.

You have got to be kidding me? They held onto the emails and KNOWINGLY put children at risk so they could release them at a politically advantageous moment?????

CREW's whole mission I thought was ETHICS, this is outrageous, and they're not supposed to be political...How did they get the IM's and such? I now smell a t set-up. SOmeone should investigate CREW as well as Foley.

James B. Shearer

Tom Maguire's theory that the leadership couldn't do anything because they didn't have enough evidence is not convincing because it appears even a cursory investigation would have found enough evidence.

Carlita Rovistno

I love the Foley story...takes away from phoney NIE story and Woodward's fictional book.

And to 99.9% of Americans...who is Foley anyway?

Roooooovvvvve!!!!!

Rick Ballard

"even a cursory investigation would have found enough evidence."

Any investigation would have to involve the kid and the kid's parents said no - and didn't provide the IM's to boot.

You need to outline what "even a cursory investigation" would involve based upon the unavailability of the accuser.

clarice

Really, James..What was that?
All I see are a couple of creepy but inncouous emails which Foley explained had been for innocent reasons, an understanding that the boy's parents did not want this to be pursued and a promise from Foley not to have personal contacts with pages in the future.


I know--Tomorrow Corn will spin this into a hideous effort to obstruct justice and endanger the lives of children everywhere.

ordi

So who captured the IM's and how?

The kids parents? The kid? Maybe the kid confided in another house member of the democrat persuasion? Maybe the kid confided in another Page who told a person of the democrat persuasion?

Maybe the "Super Secret Double Spy Valerie Plame captued the IM's. LOL

I am NOT excusing Foley for one moment for what he is accused of doing, however whoever it was also needs to be under the gun.

Average Joe

What's worse...writing dirty emails or fighting for terrorist rights? Not a pleasant choice, but an easy one nonetheless.

clarice

Maybe Fitz can be appointed--then he can fail to ask CREW how they got the IM's, ignore their political motivations, conflate their partisanship with "whistleblowing" and nab Hasstert for forgetting when he went to the bathroom on the day he heard about the emails.

topsecretk9

Well, I can tell you, if CREW- the Ethics crew had these for more than an hour and not turning immediately turning them over to authorities, then that is BS -- and they are complicit in abetting a potential crime and allowing children at risk...everyone should start bombarding the ETHICS Crew for Answers, now.

MayBee

It used to be that either MSN messenger or AIM (I can't remember which) stored chat transcripts on your hard drive. I'm not sure whether that was an option or if it was done automatically, but I know we had them on the family computer. I also know that eventually that stopped happening, and I don't know if it is because the IM software stopped doing it or if it's because my kids got wise to it and clicked off that option.

There are software programs you can install on a computer to capture IMs and emails- something something Nanny is one of them. But still, that has to be installed on a particular computer.

I think there is no way around it that the kid was saving the IMs (or his parents were).
Which to me isn't that weird. I mean, if a Congressman was asking me what I was wearing (and worse!), I'd save that IM too. But then, I'd put him on my "blocked" list.

maryrose

clarice;
"nab Hastert for forgetting when he went to the bathroom on the day he heard about the emails."
LOL.

topsecretk9

Crew should have immediately contacted and handed them to authorities, immediately...and let police handle it - and that is THAT! Period, end of story.

I'm emailing them, you should too.

Cecil Turner

The boys were past the age of innocence and would be considered fair game by many homosexuals - just as sixteen year old girls are fair game for a subset of hetero males.

Apparently it's not the first time for the page program:

Congressional pages are teenagers who live in a Capitol Hill dorm and attend a special school while serving in the House and Senate. The program generally is trouble-free, but in July 1983 the House censured Reps. Daniel B. Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry E. Studds (D-Mass.) for sexual misconduct with House pages.
And although obviously improper, assuming this took place in DC, is it illegal?

Maria Von Doom

Who cares? Really. And if you do care maybe you have a thing about young boys. Sicko.

clarice

It's not illegal in D.C. as far as I can tell:

CHAPTER 41 SEXUAL ABUSE § 22-4101. Definitions.

(3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.

topsecretk9

--Gerry E. Studds--

This guy turned his back while being read his censure (yep, just a slap on the hand) AND went to the cameras and told everyone it was none of their business what he did it was his private sexual life

topsecretk9

No wonder the Judge in the Plame lawsuit Told crew he had his eye on them for their improper request.

boris

It's too creepy to be as interesting as BJ and Monica. It's probably not outrageous enough to be outrageous. It looks more like it was played to prevent another fair election.

verner

The thing that gets me, there aren't enough twenty something sweet young things in DC, who wouldn't be thrilled to have a little love connection with a congressman? There is something deeply sick for the leader of the exploited children committee to be going after underage pages. It's almost as if he wanted to get caught.

And I'm wondering if it ever went beyond that.

And as far as Hasert goes, if all he had was the e-mails, and not those pathetic IMs, I don't know how he could be blamed. IF the staff members of the page program were warning the kids about Foley, and not bringing it to Reynold's direct attention, sounds like the responsibility lies there. You can not tell me that they would not have acted on it immediately if they had those IMs.

Though, it just feels like there is much more to this story. Larry Flynt has offered big money to anyone who would give him dirt on republicans. Perhaps someone took him up on it, and he passed it along.

M. Webster

Child...Covert...so many definitions...so little time.

Let's look at the big picture. The GOP wants to fight for World Freedom...the Libs want to fight for terrorist rights.

You choose.

clarice

In the sinosphere they've already pulled out another gate--this one is, get this "Predatorgate"

If CREW had evidence of an adult soliticting minors for sex and did not turn it over to the authorities, I think they should be investigated. (It is clear that the Rep leadership did not have such evidence only of strange emails to a person no longer considered a child at law whose cooperation in investigation they could not get.) Or, were they supposed to expel an elected member for asking a 16 year old who initiated the correspondence for his photo?)


Neo

Gateway Pundit has an interesting take.

Finally, the Democratic Party is angered about innocent youngsters being abused by elder statesman.

clarice feldman

(And to make the day even more perfect the NYT tells us how loyal Armitage and Powell are while quoting the self serving crap about them in Woodward's book)

MayBee

Or, were they supposed to expel an elected member for asking a 16 year old who initiated the correspondence for his photo?)

The crux of the problem. Congress either had to get info- more incriminating information- from the teens and their families or from Foley himself. Now, do we really believe Congressmen are going to start opening up their private correspondence for Congressional investigations? Is that what people even want? Talk about an invitation to a witch hunt)!

Uncle BigBad

It's been my impression that the "victim" was a FORMER page, which means he was older than 16, and no longer in the employ of the government, thus out of range sexual harassment by an employer.

Even a 16-year-old, boy or girl, is capable of deflecting unwanted attention.

(Append obligatory: "not excusing Foley")

Pagar

Let me get this straight. People who are with the political party that gave us "I served in Vietnam, before I surrendered to the enemy in Paris" Kerry as a presidential candidate; and want to make Alcee (Impeached) Hastings, head of the House Intelligence
committee in the next Congress, want to investigate
the leaders of the Republican party on what did those leaders do about the corruption of one of their party members?

Avg Joe

How Rove turned this election into a referendum on terrorism, with a few miscellaneous freaky stories thrown in, I have no idea, but I like it.

topsecretk9

Another question, why did not the parents of this child go to the Police about this?

Why did they go to Crew?

Sara (Squiggler)

While not excusing Foley's actions, there are a couple of points ... first, doesn't anyone find bringing this public after the parents made it clear that was not what they wanted, a violation of their's and the young man's rights? And yes, he is a young man, certainly not a child. In fact, based on the IMs, I wonder if he even authored them. They sound like the type of thing law enforcement writes in a sting.

As to the IMs, I have to wonder how they got them. Does this have anything to do with the stolen AOL email/IM records of a few months ago. I didn't pay that much attention to that story at the time and haven't Googled it up yet, so just asking.

Third, if the GOP was really smart, they'd have Jeb Bush jump in and hold this Congressional seat for the next two years. This is a district that went 68% Republican. Jeb can run in place of Foley, hold the seat and next time there will be time for a newcomer to campaign and get elected.

clarice

From Hastert's statement:

The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander’s office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

topsecretk9

OK...wait. I thought this was 2 seprarte teens, is this not the case?

Pofarmer

Now, do we really believe Congressmen are going to start opening up their private correspondence for Congressional investigations? Is that what people even want? Talk about an invitation to a witch hunt)!

I'd say Jefferson Davis is definately against it. Wonder if they are as forcefully opposed now?

clarice

TS--This related to the email 16 year old--Hastert had no evidence about the 2003 IM correspondent which apparently involves a 2d person.

Pofarmer

Awww, nuts.

William Jefferson, D, Louisiana.

Pofarmer

Reminds me a lot of the Jack Ryan "Scandal". Nothing illegal, but improper and embarrassing. Shame gets em. Dem's have no shame so........

verner

Yeah TS. Weird. It's almost as if it was a set up. If it was my kid, I would have raised holy hell with the the page program, Reynolds, Hasert, the DC police etc., but CREW? Who has ever even heard of CREW?

Not all parents are like you or me though. And not all 17 year olds are like mine either. You could be dealing with a 17 year old who thought it was a joke to egg on an old sicko. You could have had a gay 17 year old who sought out, and was experienced with older men. You could have had politicaly active parents who encouraged it in order to sping a trap on a "family values" republican. You could have a family who decided to take larry Flynt up on his offer.

Not that I'm upset that Foley's gone. It wasn't just one kid he was hitting on, he appears to have used the page program as his own private petting zoo.

MayBee

The age thing gets so weird.
I mean, here is the Miss World AoS post today:
http://ace.mu.nu/

This girl is 18, and apparently that birthday makes one go from a pedophile to a perfectly respectable viewer/commenter. I understand there has to be a legal definition to sexual adulthood. But it's stuff like this that makes me squirm when we're talking about 17-year old frightened children, and calling Foley a pedophile.

JM Hanes

Blurting = Blech!

Clarice: Where does the info on CREW having the Instant Messages come from? They apparently posted copies of the emails, but according to Brian Ross at ABC News:

Yesterday, we asked the congressman about some much tamer e-mails from one page, and he said he was just being overly friendly. After we posted that story online, we began to hear from a number of other pages who sent these much more explicit, instant messages. When the congressman realized we had them, he resigned.

If he's saying they got the IM's directly from other pages, who is saying they came from CREW?

Larry Johnson

Face it. You neocon boobs will excuse Bush taking a crap on his desk in the Oval Office. You have no moral center. This is the second major Republican in less than a year nabbed on pedophilia charges. What is it with you people?

clarice

ABC got it from CREW which posted them on their web page.

Sue

According to FoxNews, there is more than one page involved.

Sue

Wow. It's really Scary.

How did Bush get involved in this? I thought you were a republican. Does that make you a part of this too?

Sara (Squiggler)

So now Foley's problems are Bush's fault. Sheesh! Talk about no moral center and BDS. Larry Johnson, 2nd only to Jason Leopold, as the lying sleaze of the blogosphere.

topsecretk9

This is the second major Republican in less than a year nabbed on pedophilia charges. What is it with you people?

Perhaps if you did more than merely censure and then reelect the Dem bums that pray on and or participate in their demise of both young women and boys, all stripes in Congress wouldn't get the feeling it was OK - talk about moral center.

MayBee

You have no moral center. This is the second major Republican in less than a year nabbed on pedophilia charges. What is it with you people?

Who is the other one?

To be clear, I think Foley's IMs are repulsive and his trolling is inexcusible. I just think objecting to it as pedophelia is over the top.

It is really about a larger societal issue to me anyway. We have men horning after 15-year old Britney Spears in her Catholic girl school uniform, and we have television transmitting teenagers as sexual beings all over (Laguna Beach, the OC), and it seems to me that our common message of what is and what is not acceptable is seriously lacking.
So I don't like throwing out the "he's a pedophile" charge when it is politically convenient.

Sue

So now Foley's problems are Bush's fault.

In Scary's world, all roads lead back to Bush.

verner

MayBee:But it's stuff like this that makes me squirm when we're talking about 17-year old frightened children, and calling Foley a pedophile.

I see your point MayBee. It really depends on the kid. My grandmother was married to my much older grandfather at 16. My great aunt married at 15. (OK, I'll admit it, I am from the south, LOL--but at least they weren't "kissing" cousins!) I've also worked with 17 year olds who are on their 3rd baby.

And then there's the 25 year old beauty queen teacher in Texas charged with having a fling with an 18 year old student. Should she lose her job? yep. But jail?

Then again, I have a 15 year old who (thankfully) still IS a child. She has lots of friends, and likes the usual teen aged things like music and movies, but doesn't even wear make-up yet--because she doesn't want to. Her role model is Audrey Hepburn, and she loves Harry Potter. If a 53 year old went after her, the least of his worries would be the police.

Sue

Maybee,

The guy from the department of homeland security. I don't remember when it happened, if it was in the last year or not, but that is the only I can think of.

Sue

Look, there is no excuse for what Foley did. But to pretend it is a republican problem only is playing ostrich. From the left's outrage it would seem the only problem is they hypocrisy of the republican party itself. Moral values. I have seen very little actual condemnation of his actions. But tons and tons of his republican affiliation and the words hypocrisy and family values thrown around.

clarice

Let's see another Plame type set up and LJ just happens to pop in?

You are too obvious, LJ.

Sara (Squiggler)

You've nailed it Maybee. I was the guardian for a teenager a couple of years ago. A young man who came here when he was a sophomore in high school. He was a star football player and very popular and my house was always full of young people. His bedroom was on the first floor around the corner from the family room and furnished more like a study with two daybed/couches so the kids would hang out in there and play video games and listen to music. The rule was that the door had to remain open -- ALWAYS.

Well, one day I came downstairs and realized it was very quiet, yet a quick look showed me there were 3 cars in the driveway, so I knew there were kids around somewhere.

Finding the door closed, I, of course, opened it and walked in without knocking. Not a good scene. There were two couples, on two twin beds, each kid in a state of undress and obviously sex in the process.

I startled them and the look on their faces was enough satisfaction for me. I quietly said, get dressed and get your butts out to the family room -- NOW!

When they sheepishly appeared, I asked the girls for their parents' phone numbers and immediately the begging started, "please, please, don't call my Dad, etc." I then asked them what brand of condom they were using. None was the answer. Idiots! So I then launched a Mom lecture that would have made all our grandmother's proud. Grounded my ward and told the rest to go home while I decided what I was going to say to their parents.

I left them dangle for hours and then called each of the three who had left and told them I was going to let them off my hook but that if they continued on that route, they would get caught out in the end.

My ward was convinced he was forever ruined in school, but I didn't care about that. Besides, I knew as soon as he scored the next touchdown, he'd be back in good graces and he should worry more about whether I was going to pull him off the team and ruin his chances for that scholarship he was sure to get.

topsecretk9

--The guy from the department of homeland security.--

Was a Democrat.

Cecil Turner

In Scary's world, all roads lead back to Bush.

I'd note from the earlier page sex scandal that Gerry Studds used the "consenting adults" defense and apparently got away with it:

Studds, however, refused to apologize (even calling a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that they were consenting adults at the time of the relationship and that it was therefore not the business of others to censure them for their private relationship)
So I'm thinkin' that if there's a legal issue here it must be something along the lines of "sexual harassment." And, as we all know, Bill Clinton has already lowered that bar to the point a snake can't slither underneath it. (And thus we've dragged Bush into it, and come full circle with the "blame Clinton" defense . . . and that's about as many heartbeats as I'm willing to spend on this sordid nonsense.)

Sue

Was a Democrat.

Really? Then I have no idea who Scary was referring to.

Sara (Squiggler)

I cut myself off. So the point of the above was that these were 16 and 17 year olds and one of the things they told me was that "hooking" up was the "in" thing. Hooking up is euphamisim for "getting laid." Or in my day, making out and going all the way.

Is it any different in the world of homosexuals? I doubt it.

topsecretk9

Clarice...yes and just so happens to revolve around the ETHICS group who forgot what they stand for and went to a paper, not police--- involved with Wilson...Smells VIPPY to me.

--------

Sue...yeah, the Homeland Security guy -- after the Dems flipped out -- turned out he was a admitted Dem and donor...so what happened after that - that the dude at Homeland Security preying on children was a Democrat? C R I C K E T S...as in Larry and his brethren suddenly could care less.

Sue

Is it any different in the world of homosexuals? I doubt it.

You know, for some reason, I haven't thought about the homosexual angle. I don't think that is the issue. The issue is a 50+ year old man and an underage child. And yes, I consider a 16 year old a child. Whether the law recognizes him as such doesn't matter to me.

Birdseye

Forget politics good people.

At the end of the day, we are better off that a person who is thoroughly unfit to be a congressman has resigned. And I hope he will receive just punishment, whatever that is. Now, I wish Bill Clinton had done the same to restore some moral authority in the land when the world learned that he had oral sex with an intern right there in the Oval office. Where else in the civilised world can a leader remain in office when he is caught with his pants down in the office, literally speaking? Ah, but in America it is different and the august Senate backed this up and so Clinton remained in office. And if Bill Clinton were allowed to run for the office of POTUS again, I bet he will be re-elected. Never mind the Lewinsky affair or that he and his gang were cowards in the face of Osama bin Laden. Why do Americans (at least 50% of them) behave like this. Why can't this 50% see the right from wrong?

As for Hastert, we now know that he was told months ago about Foley's problem. Yet he allowed Foley to remain in the chair of a committee dealing with children. And please do not forget the way Hastert objected to the FBI's search, with a court warrant, of Jefferson's office when there was a high probability of a crime having been committed. Are there many more congressmen who are unfit for duty? In any case, Hastert is truly unfit to lead the Republicans in Congress. So I hope he will be booted out.

Imagine what is going to happen on the Sunday talk shows. Imagine the glee on the Tim Russet's face, the Democratic Party's chief spokesman. Republicans on these shows had better remind people about Bill Clinton's foley. Er, I mean folly.

Sue

Sue...yeah, the Homeland Security guy

You will have to await Scary to clear it up then. I didn't know the DHS guy was a democrat.

verner

OK, let me get this straight. Bill Clinton rapes Juanita Broadderick, drops his pants in front of Paula Jones, shoves Kathleen Willey against the wall and gropes her breasts, get a BJ from intern Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, and it's his private live--an invented attack from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy machine.

Yet it's Bush's fault when one of the 200+ repub members of congress sends "private" salicious IMs to an age of consent ex-page (who could have put him on his block list any time he wanted to.) A congressman, who by the way, got booted the minute the IM's were brought to the leadership's attention. A member of congress who, let's add, is being universally denounced by members of his party for his immoral (yet apparantly, not illegal) behavior.

And somehow the IMs end up in the possession of the very same CREW who is involved with Joe and Valerie Wilson and the VIPS--all know for their covert/black bag ops. Tooo funny.

By the way, how many democrat members of congress read Juanita Broadderick's sworn testimony? That's right--ZERO.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

That's the same ABC article I linked to, and it doesn't mention CREW at all. It sounds like ABC was contacted directly by other pages after the email story was published. Are you sure someone is not confusing the emails (which CREW did post) with the more explicit IM's?

JM Hanes

Birdseye:

"Where else in the civilised world can a leader remain in office when he is caught with his pants down in the office, literally speaking?"

I'd guess pretty much anywhere outside of the Anglosphere. France, fer sure.

topsecretk9

--And somehow the IMs end up in the possession of the very same CREW who is involved with Joe and Valerie Wilson and the VIPS--all know for their covert/black bag ops. Tooo funny.--

And then Larry Johnson makes an appearance, yep.

bill

It appears there are two distinct events trying to be meshed into one. The emails and the IMs. As I see it, Hastert was told by Reynolds long ago about the mostly innocuous emails and he told Foley to knock it off. Foley then switched to IMs. Hastert thought he had fixed the problem.

Last week we seem to have Hastert and Boehner acting as if they had the facts, the content of the emails, then the IMs get sprung on them making it appear as if they are lying, covering up, or whatever else the Democrats dream up. It is quite conceivable that Hastert had no knowledge of the IMs until they were shown to him late last week by this CREW/Soros group, at which time he asked Foley to resign. BTW: Hastert can't force Foley to resign, only ask.

I see nothing improper on anyone's part, in fact I doubt you could get a conviction on emails and IMs much less find anyone to prosecute. Look at it this way, Foley resigned, more than I can say about the Democrats bad apples who seem to still be sitting there next to the Klansman.

So instead of an investigation, the Rep already resigned, why not try criminal charges Ms Pelosi ... LOL.

Looks to me like a classic dirty trick with no there there.

topsecretk9

Bill

It sounds just like the - I debunked the forgeries and told the VeeP so- gambit exactly.

Neo

As the House read their censure of him, Gerry Studds turned his back and ignored them.

verner

Bill:So instead of an investigation, the Rep already resigned, why not try criminal charges Ms Pelosi ... LOL.


Yeah, that's the ticket! That should please the voters back home!

Terrye

My mother was 17 when she married my Dad in 1948 and they remained married until his death. He was 25, does that make him a criminal? I too think that the characterization of every teenager as a child is not right. They can drive at that age.

I think that this whole thing is just plain nasty and Foley should have resigned a long time ago, but we should keep it in perspective. I am not ready to hang Hastert and to be honest, I smell a rat.

clarice feldman

JMH--The ABC CREW nexus seems obvious . I am trying to remember where I read the IMs came from CREW. I'll post it when I find it. It may have been the obvious nexus that raised the suspicion. ABC runs with the story and the suddenly too private to be viewed by the Republican leadership appear on the CREW site along with a demand for the appointment of a special counsel.

Now, it is possible that ABC got all that by themselves and CREW had nothing to do with it.
OTOH the St Pete Times and an Iowa paper got the early emails, too, and never ran with them--obviously because they were not sexually explicit. And ABC might have gotten them from the same source and done some digging...

MayBee

hen again, I have a 15 year old who (thankfully) still IS a child.

Oh verner, you are so lucky! And for the record, my own son is not of the Laguna Beach variety. Luckily, he and his friends are still very much teens, not adult wannbes.

However, when we first got computers I told them about internet predators/fakers/soliciters. And although I would love it if he got to be a Capitol Hill page, I wouldn't send him off without a warning about acceptable behavior- his own or others.
I would be horrified to find out he had IM'd a Congressperson (or another 15 year old, for that matter) about his masturbation techniques and personal measurements.

SunnyDay

Well, if you take my personal opinion out of the picture, if the kid had reached the age of consent, had not told Foley to stop, and it isn't against any congressional rules - nobody's mentioned that - then I would say it's really a non-issue that's being made into an issue because of the election.

Is it against House rules? Or do they just think it's a bad idea? And if the kid was no longer a page, would the rule, if there is one, apply?

Somebody had to save the instant messages. Once saved, unless they were password protected, anyone who had access to the computer had access to the IMs.

verner

"I'd guess pretty much anywhere outside of the Anglosphere. France, fer sure."

Mitterand's love child was at his grave along with her mother and France's former first lady, IIRC. I've had french friends tell me that they judge their presidents by the mistresses they keep. Don't know who Chirac's is, but she must be a very very cheap hussy.

topsecretk9

--CREW site along with a demand for the appointment of a special counsel.--

OK...this is the classic Wilson personally debunking the forgeries at behest and to the VP - go to reporters swindle, Hassert in the role of Cheney here...You'd think they'd dream up a better scheme.

And I second their call for a special counsel -- one where the council asks Crew why they didn't go to the police immediately BUT instead a reporter - and allowed children to be at risk.

MayBee

clarice- here is one thing from FoxNews
The e-mails were posted Friday on the Web site of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington after ABC News reported their existence.

Naomi Seligman, a spokeswoman for CREW, said the group also sent a letter to the FBI after it received the e-mails. CREW did not post their copies of the e-mail until ABC News reported them, instead waiting for the investigation.
----
Hard to tell the order of things.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame