Mark Foley Thread - Blurt Out Your Thoughts

Let's open it up on the Mark Foley story.

I'll start with an answer to "Why would the House leadership ever cover this up?" [Did I make it clear that the question is hypothetical, and that we don't yet know what the leadership knew or when they knew it?]

Answer - if the pages in question had been girls, Foley would have been shot at dawn.

However, picture this headline - "House Leadership Boots Allegedly Gay Republican On Trumped-Up Pedophilia Charges".  Ugly.  Worth Avoiding.  Listening to Andrew Sullivan decry the homophobes in the House would not have been worth it.  So they played it a bit too cautiously and slowly and here we are.

That is one bit of WILD SPECULATION.  Another theory is that we will find out that Foley was some sort of extraordinary fund-raiser, even by the standards of Florida Republicans.  Otherwise, I can't think of a reason not to quickly boot Foley in 2005 when indications of a problem first came to light.

MORE:  Times coverage - Re Hastert's performance, Nun dare call it "Papal".

The key bit seems to be that the e-mails they knew about were much less lurid than the ones that we all learned about after ABC News broke the story.  Helpful emphasis added:

Aides to the speaker and other Congressional Republican leaders said the messages, which an Alexander aide described to them as “overfriendly,” were much less explicit than the others that came to light after ABC News first disclosed the e-mail correspondence with Mr. Alexander’s page. The aides said Mr. Alexander’s office, at the request of the page’s family, did not show them copies of the messages. In those messages, sent after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Foley asked about the well-being of the boy, a Monroe, La., resident. He wrote: “How are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me a pic of you as well.” The page sent the note to a former colleague, describing it as “sick.”

In another message, Mr. Foley wrote, “What do you want for your birthday coming up. . .what stuff do you like to do.”

The e-mail exchanges that came to light after the first news reports were far more graphic. When he was confronted about them on Friday, Mr. Foley resigned. Republican leaders said they had not known about the other e-mail correspondence.

“No one in the speaker’s office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the Internet this week,” the statement from Mr. Hastert’s office said.

STILL MORE:  Re the "Allegedly gay" above - Andrew Sullivan says that Foley was a closeted gay, and discusses the possible psychological consequences:

Equally, the news about Mark Foley has a kind of grim inevitability to it. I don't know Foley, although, like any other gay man in D.C., I was told he was gay, closeted, afraid and therefore also screwed up. What the closet does to people - the hypocrisies it fosters, the pathologies it breeds - is brutal....

What I do know is that the closet corrupts. The lies it requires and the compartmentalization it demands can lead people to places they never truly wanted to go, and for which they have to take ultimate responsibility. From what I've read, Foley is another example of this destructive and self-destructive pattern for which the only cure is courage and honesty. While gays were fighting for thir basic equality, Foley voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act". If his resignation means the end of the closet for him, and if there is no more to this than we now know, then it may even be for the good.

I can not speak with any authority on Mark Foley's personal or political evolution.  However, the Defense of Marriage Act cited by Andrew was from 1996; although their website has been updated, the Google cache indicates that the Log Cabin Republicans had endorsed Mark Foley for the 2006 elections.

Why might that have been?  Here is a Sept 14, 2005 news release from the Log Cabin Republicans praising thirty House Republicans (including Foley) who sided with the Democrats to pass an amendment to a hate crimes bill, extending its coverage to LGBT Americans.

I have no idea what side Foley has taken on other issues over the years, but surely there have been some relevant votes since 1996; this could be a real opportunity for any Foley apologists who care to step forward.

WHERE ARE THE DEMS HEADED WITH THIS?  IF, I say IF, the House leadership only knew about the first, less suggestive batch of emails and let Foley slide with a warning, what will the Democrats complain about - will their position be that gay men who make one mistake should be barred from the House?  What next - just for openers, will they want to re-think their view of gay men leading Boy Scout Troops?  And just what law will they claim was broken of the pages were sixteen or older - it is not clear from this list that if Foley had consummated a relationship it would have broken a law.  [Ahh, apparently age 18 is the cutoff for hot internet chat - do, don't talk.]

Well, since there is no apparent crime here, this is clearly a case for Special Counsel Fitzgerald.  From Clarice Feldman:

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.

THE ABC TIMELINE:  How did the emails arrive in two waves?  Here is ABC News:

This all came to a head in the last 24 hours. 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.

Gee, who knew an on-line posting from ABC News could have such impact, and so quickly?  And who knew these high schol pages could establish contact with ABC News so easily?

This looks like the first ABC story.  How did they get the emails?  Via the Passive Voice:

In the series of e-mails, obtained by ABC News, from Rep. Foley (R-FL) to the former page, Foley asks the young man how old he is, what he wants for his birthday and requests a photo of him.

ABC followed with the ritualistic call for an investigation by Foley's opponent.

Well, journalistic integrity won't allow ABC to duvulge their sources, so readers will be left to their own imagination in wondering whether this was a political hit-job.

This Timeline at TPM is helpful. 

The key for the Attack Dems is to pretend that the House leadership knew about *all* the emails, especially the ones that were brought forward after the first ABC story.  Here is The Nation:

Fair enough. But what do these Republican leaders think about those who knew about Foley's undue interest in male pages, covered the fact up for months – perhaps years -- and then lied about what they knew. Should they, too, face "the full weight of the criminal justice system"?

When the news of Foley's emails broke in the media, Hastert declared, "I was surprised."

Really? That's strange.

Congressman Tom Reynolds, who chairs the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, revealed on Saturday that he had informed Hastert months ago about concerns regarding Foley's habit of sending sexually suggestive – "strip down and get naked" -- e-mails and instant messages to male congressional pages.

Per ABC News a similar quote - "strip down and get relaxed" - was among the emails and IMs obtained by ABC *after* their initial story. 

We have no doubt The Nation will be in a hurry to correct their mis-quote and their false impression as to what the House leadership has admited to knowing.

Apparently, this is the website that started it all - StopSexPredators.blogspot.com.

Amazingly, the site author posted on Sept 4 about "skinterns".  That triggered some reader emails that were posted on Sept 21 and mentioned Foley was one of the "Terrible Three":

After reading your post on skinterns I wanted to fill you in on what really goes on in the halls of Congress.

I used to be a House LA on the Hill working.

When I was working up there, folks use to refer to the Terrible Three – Barney Frank, Mark Foley, and Jim Kolbe.

...neither Frank nor Kolbe have anything on Foley.

People were always talking about seeing Foley lurking in locker rooms around DC looking for sex, how he especially likes teenage boys, and frequents gay bars around D.C. and in his district.

And away we go.

Not that I have a suspicious mind, but if I had a story and was looking for a way to break it into the mainstream, this might be a good tactic.

Presumably someone will do the homework and figure out who the site author is and ask the obvious follow-ups - what did they know and when did they know it, who did the emails come from, how was that verified, etc.

A particular reason to be suspicious is that the "skintern" post focused on scantily clad young women - one might have thiought the reader emails would have included a few more hetero dirty-old-man stories.  Instead, the only two that were printed focused on Foley.

Comments

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Did Foley "solicit" sex with someone under 18? I don't see the proof in that. The IMs were with a former page who was back in college. Was this person under 18? I didn't see any solicitation with the 16 year old.

[granny]

FYI
For future research info, using:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch/advanced_blog_search
you can set the dates you want to search. By searching for dates before this story broke, the stopsexualpreditors blogsite came up.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

John, as I noted above, it's a dumb law: it says that you can fuck a sixteen year old in many jurisdictions, but you can't talk to them about it on IM.

Hypocrisy it may be, but if hypocrisy were an ethical offense in Congress, there'd be no one left.

A consummation devoutly to be wished, but unlikely.

[clarice feldman]

And I do not see a single salacious email to anyone since the passage of the Walsh Act this year.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Just by the way, there are a lot of people saying "No one here is defending Foley", so I want to just make it clear that I am defending Foley. It doesn't appear, as far as I can tell, that he committed a crime; it does appear he had a hot homosexual flirtation with a 16 year old, but that it was neither consummated nor was it non-consensual. To whatever extent it was hypocricy, it is less thaqn desirable; but the way it's being treated by the Democrats appears to be a greater hypocricy.

[clarice feldman]

Thanks, granny. Your contribution to this story was invaluable. I tried to search for the blog that started it and couldn't have found it without you.

[capitano]

Don't see a basis for outrage at the Republican leadership. Especially not by invoking how bad the stuff was that showed up later that should have been prevented. That's a hindsight fallacy. Bad stuff does not retroactively increase the importance of earlier clues.

Really? Well I do.

We're not talking legal defense to criminal statutes or butt covering public relations. The question is whether the leadership of the political party entrusted with the health, welfare and safety of the country has demonstrated that it deserves the confidence of the voters. It looks to me like "Don't ask, don't tell" when it comes to GOP bad actors:

Item 1: Duke Cunningham

Item 2: Mark Foley

A big part of leadership is knowing what the hell is going on; claiming you are clueless in today's political climate is tantamount to acknowledging you are unfit for the responsibility. Hoping you can keep it quiet until after the election doesn't seem to me to be an effective strategy when 95% of the TV and print reporters want the other side to win. Leaders are out in front of this stuff, not playing catch up.

As for all the excuses and finger-pointing at Democrats scandals, somehow I don't think the average GOP voter is going to be comforted by the fact that the House leadership has plausible deniability when it comes to whether their minor children are "fresh meat" for Congressmen.

[granny]

Clarice:
You're welcome. Congrats on your article and also your apparent ability to operate without sleep. It was late when I posted that last night. I'll smoke a toast to you!

[Charles Giacometti]

Assuming this isn't one big practical joke, let me suggest something. Foley is scum. The leadership who protected him is scum. Throw the bums out and get people who actually represent your values. Shame on anyone who defends these creeps, especially if they are only defending them out of blind political allegiance.

[John]

Boris,

Why would a meeting need to be set up? Where in the law does it require a meeting?

[boris]

their minor children ...

... should remain at home with their mommies.

In the modern era gay people are not automatically assumed to be sexual predators. Going after another elected Republican on that basis requires more evidence than a non sexual email exchange with an ex-page.

[John]

Charlie from Colorado,
Of course it's a dumb law...Foley sponsored it and both Bush and Boehner praised it.

What does that say about their intelligence?

[boris]

Where in the law does it require a meeting?

Showing up for the meeting is about the only way to prove intent and get a conviction.

[clarice feldman]

granny, let's clink Carletons..

[capitano]

their minor children ...

... should remain at home with their mommies.

Note to GOP voters: In spite of our claim to be a party of family values, if you choose to allow your children to spend any time around your elected officials you will have assumed the risk that they will be preyed upon by men and women in positions of leadership and trust.

And oh yeah, don't forget to vote for us in November because you can't trust those Democrats -- if the prey on your teenagers it's a badge of honor and resume enhancer to curry the favor of NAMBLA. We're different, we'll make excuses and say we're sorry.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

No Capitano, you take it to the next level and do the dirty deed in the Oval Office and lie your ass off afterwards.

[anonymous]

Sure is some thread you all have got going here. But don't you think it's starting to sound a little shrill and unhinged?

Good luck.

[JM Hanes]

The Very Brief History of STOP THE SEX PREDATORS: A case study in launching oppo research.

Make the World Safer for our Kids: July 28
"This blog is dedicated to exposing sex predators before they can get to our kids. This site is intended to serve as a clearing house for the public to report sex predators and as a resource for concerned parents and citizens."

THE SICKENING SIX: August 17
"Here is a sample of the kinds of sick people who hunt minors for their own sick purposes." Author cuts and pastes six profiles from Crime Library and Wikipedia, then solicits email "to have others added."

NEW PREDATOR EXPOSED: August 24
"Here is a clip from a cnn.com news article about the suspect in the Jon Benet Ramsey case. " Self-explanatory cut & paste.

CONGRESSIONAL CORRUPTION!!!: August 24
"HOLY MOTHER OF JESUS!!! On a whim, I googled 'Congressional sex scandals.'" Author cuts and pastes four profiles from a 1998 Ken Rudin piece in the WashPost and is so shocked that he/she discovers a whole new mission: "IF WE CAN STOP THIS PREDATORY BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF OUR NATION, WE CAN SEND A MESSAGE TO ALL OF THE SEX PREDATORS THAT WE WON'T STAND FOR IT."

GARY CONDIT/CHANDRA LEVY: August 30
Back to cutting and pasting from Wikipedia.

KNOWLEDGE IS SAFETY: September 2
Posts a URL for the DoJ's Sex Offender Registry

SKINTERN CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: September 4
"I came across the term searching another blog site." A cut and paste from Wonkette, prefaced by "I can't believe this environment is tolerated! Who knows what is leads to......." and followed by a URL to ABC News among others.

Shocking Emails: September 21
"I have been away for a while, so please accept my apologies for the lack of blog posts. BUT....while I was away, the blog has been noticed and some shocking emails have been received!!!!"

HOLY COW!!!: September 21
"I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS! This is another email that I received today. I'm absolutely flabbergasted. KEEP THE EMAILS COMING!!!!!"

Emails from Congressman Foley to 16 Year Old Page!!!!: September 24
"I can't believe this was emailed to me? "

NEED MORE INFO!!!: September 28
"What does it mean?"

WOW!: September 29
"Thank you everyone for helping to stop our FIRST sex predator!"

[Jane]

Boy that has Jason Leopold written all over it.

And that of course would explain scary larry's little visit too.

[Semanticleo]

"Sure is some thread you all have got going here. But don't you think it's starting to sound a little shrill and unhinged?"

It hasn't even begun to unravel for these folks, yet. It won't take long for the word
'conservative' to become a perjorative, just as they made it so for, 'liberal'.

What comes around, goes around.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Of course it's a dumb law...Foley sponsored it and both Bush and Boehner praised it.

What does that say about their intelligence?

That it's about normal for members of Congress and other national politician. Of either party.

[Walvoord]

Obviously, atleast to me, this smells of dim. dirty tricks and i'm so happy the FBI is investigating it! I just hope they do it quickly.

[Africanus]

Lol, I find this incredibly funny.
Ofcourse this was a setup! A very good one I might add that hit it's target with the desired effect. It was an excecllent political move by all means.

Regardless of whether the investigations prove the IMs are valid the seat is up for grabs.

The question is whether the Republican party will wake up and fire back!

Yes, I do believe Foley has finally recieved the proper attention he deserves. If he ends up in jail, he will maybe get the attention he has always wanted!

[DMan]

Hmmm.
So, a Republican Congressman sexual predator is exposed and it is CREWS fault!! WOW. What fucking pretzel logic there!!
You people are so fucked up that your heads are coming OUT YOUR ASSES!! It must be as you are spewing total SHIT from your mouths.
That's okay, the country sees you for what your. A poarty of perverted former and soon to be convicts. Be pround idiots!!!

[julia]

DMan,

I think you are the one preoccupied with body parts and obviously have a corrupt vacabulary.

Again, Foley resigned - your perverts are dimocratic "leaders"

[jack e. jett]

please keep in mind that homosexuality is differnt that being a pedophile.
john mark karr is not heterosexual...he is perverted.

jack jett

[Africanus]

Yes, homosexuality is quite different from being a pedo. Right now if one of our cities that is know for it's gay population, the police are trying to stop them from having sex in the local park. One of the residents said if they parents don't want their children to see it they shouldn't go to the park. Total logic there!

D Man

What people are looking at is where the evidence came from, no one gives a rat's butt what happens to Foley at this point.

As for your fellow demo/progs references to NAMBLA, I would not bet most of them vote republican if I were you. They are certainly not conservatives! Look in your own yard, we know full well your members have no shame, only excuses!

[Bruce Moomaw]

While, given the revelations that have come out since, this is water under the bridge (actually, sewage under the bridge would be a more accurate description), let's take a look at your argument: the House GOP didn't investigate Foley AT ALL, because they were terrified that -- if they threw him out of the House on trumped-up charges -- Sullivan would attack them for it. Right. What's wrong with this chain of logic?

Or were you saying that Sullivan, being a fag and all, must therefore naturally have a soft spot for child molesters (which he doesn't); that therefore -- even if they threw Foley out of the House on clearly justified charges -- Sully would viciously attack them for it; and that (given the well-known gay-loving nature of their core constituency) they were trembling in such terror of this possibility that they decided not to investigate Foley at all?

Give it up, Tom. Your watch has stopped.

[GrouchoMarx]

Oh, by the way. To all members of the lunatic left-wing fringe:

In the District of Columbia, the legal age of sexual consent is 16.

Need a link?

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Now, if you're going to start bitching and screaming that even if it's legal, it's inappropriate for a 50-something politician to have sex with an unpaid young volunteer, and any such politician should be forced to resign immediately just for suggesting it ...

... need I remind you ...

[Timtimes]

They all knew it was going on, but the Repugs don't have the plausible deniability that the Dems have because so many people actually brought this to the attention of RETHUG politicians who decided NOT TO ACT ON IT. Enough with 'the emails weren't enough" bullshit people. Even WITHOUT THE EMAILS if you look at what everybody was saying about Foley (warning the pages, etc) it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE this guy was a predator, else why issue the warnings SANS EMAILS, SANS IM's etc? Because EVERYBODY knew he was trolling for pages that's why. The damning part of this is that the THUGS GAVE HIM DOMINION OVER CHILDREN fully aware of his proclivities.

Bad news for the thugs. Gonna be one unhappy FIVE PERCENT of the population (never believed in the 'solid 31 percent majority bullshit 'cause there really ain't that many fools) come election day. The reason some think it's that high is just illusory polling. These thugs don't have enough support to properly run their own dirty tricks anymore. There're outsourcing the harrassment of Ned Lamont to poor college kids just like they're outsouring our military into defeat and ruin.

Glad I never bought into the bogus crap they were selling. Hate to have to deal with all the cognitive dissonance reality is imposing on their world views these days.

Enjoy.

[Africanus]

Lol, repeat your nonsense to each other enough times and maybe you will believe it too. I guess the truth is out how Democrats really feel about gays. Gay + Friendly in any way = Sexual Predator. There party is full of them then, where is the NYT on this one.

"Because EVERYBODY knew he was trolling for pages that's why."

So your saying the Democrats knew too! Don't worry if they some how come to power, they will shoot themselves in the foot with little or no effort.

[scooter_lover]

I love to ride on bike then read this, and you? :)
[url=http://scooter.halloween2006.info]motorcycles[/url]

[Me]

I think Mark Foley is very attractive.

[suzan]

FROM:SUZAN BENARD.
ABIDJAN COTE D'IVOIRE
WEST AFRICA

NOTE:PLEASE KINDLY REPLY ME WITH THIS MY DIRECT EMAIL suzan_bd0000@yahoo.com

DEAR,

I AM SUZAN BENARD.THE ONLY DAUGHTER OF LATE MR AND MRS ELDWARD COFFI BENARD

PLEASE AND PLEASE DO NOT BE EMBARASED,I AM SEEKING YOUR ATTENTION TO HELP ME TRANSFER THE SUM OF($4.5,000,000,00 US DOLLARS)FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATE AMERICAN DOLLARS. IN YOUR ACCOUNT.PLEASE IT IS MORE THAN URGENT,

MOREOVER, DEAR, I AM WILLING TO OFFER YOU 15% OF THE TOTAL SUM AS COMPENSATION FOR YOUR EFFORT/INPUT AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL TRANSFER OF THIS FUND INTO YOUR NOMINATED ACCOUNT OVERSEAS. UNFORTUNATLY I CANT GIVE THE FULL DETAILS UNTIL I CONFIRM YOUR SINCERE MOTIVE TO ASIST ME.

THANKS AND GOD BLESSYOU,
SUZAN BENARD