Powered by TypePad

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

September 30, 2006



Just think if the evil Bushies were not around and Saddam was still in power his son the child molestor and baby killer would still be plying his trade.

Um, yeah. What sensible person could miss the Saddam connection?!?

Comedy gold! Keep 'em coming, boys 'n' girls! Gimme more!


Grown ups are disgusted by all sexual predators Paul, not just republicans...when you and John Cole (and I think you are DougJ being like 40 different people tonight\) start a webblog hand-wringing over the Democrat Homeland Security guy setting up dates with a little girl or say the Kennedy who got jiggy with it with his teenage babysitter, then I'll think you care.

Otherwise, get over yourself.


In the St Pete paper's explanation I really want to know WHO the blogger was who posted the emails with the Louisiana boy. From what they said it looks like the posted emails prompted Foley's political opponent to call for an investigation.

Just reposting the email probably wasn't enough for the Note but the added attraction of a call for an investigation sealed the deal and prompted exposure of the damning IM's.

I'm not excusing Foley at all, I'm just curious in a political way as to the identity of the original blogger.


Let's be realistic - would Dennis Hastert, or any other sane politician, ignore evidence like this? Of course not. He has too much to lose.

I think every court in the land regards the "But Your Honor, OBVIOUSLY I had too much to lose by getting arrested" defense as bulletproof.

The straight lines never end!



Well actually the Saddam connection came to me because of the children that were murdered and abused and raped and tortured and starved and deprived of decent medical care by his regime while his son made a habit of having young girls brought to him for a lot more than exhanging emails.

As a general rule whenever a particularly hyperactive sort of lefty starts hooping and hollering it is only a matter of time before impeachment and war crimes are brought up and since the hour is late I thought I might as well save us a few steps.

BTW, I do not like Foley, not one bit.



What crime?


Democrats never cease to amaze me...they care alright, they could give a crap about exploited, abused, harassed, raped and in some instances DEAD at the hands of Democrats, yet suddenly take up

"in the court of law"


Gabriel Sutherland

Dennis Hastert can't be Satan. Satan is cunning and effective.

granny: ABC News scooped by a blogger.

That blog is an interesting history is just what blogs can do to harness information.


Well actually the Saddam connection came to me because of the children that were murdered and abused and raped and tortured and starved and deprived of decent medical care by his regime while his son made a habit of having young girls brought to him for a lot more than exhanging emails.

In other words, a sustained, coherent argument is beyond anyone in this case, or maybe sustained, coherent argument is beyond you in general -- so you need to drag in irrelevancies. Got it.

JM Hanes


Foley resigns as his salacious IM's come to light and the Dems immediately demand an investigation of....Hastert. Now there's a logical pretzel for your collection.



What crime?

It was a metaphor. Sheesh. Do you really need it spelled out?

clarice feldman

The blogger--http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/2006/09/shocking-emails.html--is anonymous.
The site was set up in July. Posting some old stuff.Was not very active and suddenly in Sept started posting the emails.
The emails that are innocuous. And we are to believe this got everyone off the time when papers like the St Pete paper tried and could get nowhere with it?

Ah. Sure.

If anyone knows how to find out the site's owner, let me know.

Gabriel Sutherland

You want to guarantee a loss in an election? Do something to make soccer moms doubt your integrity.

If Hastert and Boehner knew about Foley's activity, and did nothing, then the whole Republican leadership is in doubt.

This isn't a gay issue. It's inappropriate contact with a minor.

Gabriel Sutherland

clarice feldman: Read all the posts on the blog. You'll see that the author claims that they started receiving emails from multiple sources claiming they were privy to inappropriate contact between Congressman and minors on Capitol Hill.

I think that astroturfing is in play here, but we need to see some evidence of that in order to claim it.

clarice feldman

I think so, too.


Points to consider

1) pages are high achiever smart kids, not dummies

2) Clarice could advise on warnings issued of improper behavior as part of the introduction phase before pages are let loose

3) Even if the only original info was overly friendly, were current pages brought up to speed on the potential problem without naming a source, ie review of cautions to pages

4) Only former pages, unknown how many, who by now are even older

5) Even when I had HOT im's with my wife when I worked out of town for extended periods I didn't capture scripts for replay later

altogether something doesn't fit, like wrong sized lego blocks


Foley resigns as his salacious IM's come to light and the Dems immediately demand an investigation of....Hastert. Now there's a logical pretzel for your collection.

Maybe it's fortuitous timing, maybe it was leaked. Y'know what? I don't care. In fact, I'd rather like to believe that the Dems did have a hand in it -- because that would mean that they've finally realized the Republican rules of play, and are dishing out what they've been taking, mutely, for too many years. In fact, as chance would have it, today I happened to talk to a Dem Senate candidate, and I urged him (harangued, even) to play up this Foley-Hastert-Boehner thing every chance he got. You gonna try to persuade me that the GOP of Rove and DeLay wouldn't do the same?

In any case, as always, so far it looks like the real scandal here is the cover-up, and that appears to reach high and deep into Republican Party territory. The party of DeLay and Abramoff. Lotta rot there. I might also note that if there's one thing that Dems envy about the GOP, it's party discipline. Maybe there's a whole lot more behind that wall of silence. But of course, with effective one-party rule, we won't find out, will we?

clarice feldman

sglover--give it a break. You're talking to people with IQ's far higher, a sense of history far deeper, and a knowledge of current affairs stratospheric compared to those of your obviously usual audiences.

Gabriel Sutherland

sglover: The coverup relates to Republican leadership snoozing on Foley's inappropriate contact with a minor.

The public story seems to have been put off the radar at the request of the parents. They merely asked Alexander's office to address the matter with Foley so they could all drop it.

Abu Al-Poopypants

Dem Studd's ACTUAL diddling on young men got him re-elected!

5 times, by those oh-so-openminded voters of my state. Now, after extreme gerrymandering, the same area is represented by former gay brothel-owner Barney Frank.


House Republican leadership had evidence that Foley was sexually harassing boys; they did not act, then lied about it when the story broke. What's so hard to understand about that?

James B. Shearer

Rick Ballard asked:

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

It would have involved asking some of the other pages about Foley. Apparently his proclivities were common knowledge among the pages. Also Foley could have been asked if he was "mentoring" any other boys.


The Level of Hypocrisy is truly breathtaking.......

.....and sadly it distracts from the more important issues addressing

the republic.

Jason Leopold

I am posting up a storm here tonight, using all sorts of aliases. I also wrote a book and my wife is a producer and you can not say Rove was not indicted until Fitzgerald says so. I will go back to my alias "*" now.

clarice feldman

Gabriel, according to the St Pete paper, Foley's opponent claims he learned of the correspondence from this new, obscure blog which has hardly any posts before this and nothing of current interest.

It's as likely as Lucy Rameriz handing Burkett Bush' TANG records.



I have to agree with you, this one has all of the stink, but none of the think.

Waiting for furthur developments.

clarice feldman

I'm going to bed. I wrote a piece on this and sent it to the American Thinker. You might want to check tomorrow to see if it's up.

Foley's opponent found it on that blogsite? C'Mon?

The Republican leadership deliberately sat of this? C'mon.

Soros' CREW and a reporter at ABC with such a redolent reputation just were simultaneously working on the same story? C'Mon

And the big stuff is from anonymous sources that can't be confirmed? Give me a break!


There is a major timespan involved her, at a minimum from last spring.

Just playing devils advocate here since TM said effectually bounce all your throughts off the wall.

So lets play it like Crew knew, or at least they thought they did.

Crew said they gave a heads up to the FBI, enough time has passed that perhaps an FBI guy could have been trolling for Foley to build a case and that is the resulting offending im's.

Too many players, too many options.

Foley is still wrong on all aspects, no doubt about that, but there are just too many what ifs with the limited imformation in the public domain.


There have been a lot of words and pixels colored with all this discussion, but still there are few established facts.

Yes we have some data points, but they are all grey and confusing.

Most can see that there is not enough substance here yet to draw any reasonable final conclusion.

It is like the first reporting of Katrina, evocative but sadly wrong.

I will await furthur clarification, but I will also consider the sources as to how I weight them.

To me , not an unreasonable approach.


It looks like those emails were faxed to that blog, not emailed. Either that or the blogger has a horrible scanner. The print is horrible and they are skewed on the page.


SlimGuy: Most can see that there is not enough substance here yet to draw any reasonable final conclusion.

I don't know what kind of roadmap you generally require, but much of the information seems pretty clear to me:

1) Foley was trolling for young men in the 16-17 age range among the pages and former pages.

2) The Republican House Leadership were months ago made aware of at least one instance that, although possibly ambiguous in nature, was at least enough of a concern that they addressed it with Foley directly.

3) There was no serious investigation made of Foley's contact with pages and no information was provided to the Democratic member overseeing the page program.

4) Hasert has been caught lying about his previous knowledge since the story broke (possibly multiple times).

That wasn't really so hard was it?

I think everything else lies in the realm of speculation. However I would start by speculating that everything that is coming out about Foley since the story broke seems to point to him having a fairly well known reputation around the hill for his sexual proclivities - which makes me wonder why they didn't actually conduct a real investigation when the first instance arose (innocuous or not)? Smells like cover-up to me.

I'll further speculate had Hasert simply been forthright when the story first broke, he'd be sweating a lot less now. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but only because it wasn't handled properly in the first place.

Check out: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/


All you people accusing CREW of holding on to these emails until now better get some better information. They turned them over to somebody as soon as got them. It will break your heart to learn who.


heh. This is embarassing!
With a link to this thread (at the word here, Glenn Reynolds says:
UPDATE: One of Capt. Ed's commenters is citing TV reports that Hastert asked Foley to resign as soon as he saw the IMs. I haven't seen those, but stay tuned. Lots of discussion, some of it informed, here.


OK, via Kos.
On August 21, a Palm Beach Paper wrote:


By Larry Lipman
August 21, 2006

Tim Mahoney says Mark Foley has a “dirty little secret.”
He then went on to say the secret was that he was not "bipartisan", but a Kos diarist saw this as gay baiting and posted a

To which one person responded (note the date)

The Real Problem With Foley (0 / 0)

It's not that he's gay. It's that he constantly hits on underage interns on The Hill. You guys talk about an "open secret" well Foley's eye for the young boys in the White House and around the Capitol is what has the Republican bosses scared to death. It's just wrong that this guy can hit on young boys and still be in the leadership.

by WHInternNow on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 05:48:09 PM PDT
This person later posted the following diary
Congressman Mark Foley Emails to Intern
by WHInternNow
Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 11:25:31 AM PDT

I have been reading with interest the various discussions with regard to Congressman Mark Foley. I am a White House Intern and have been in personal contact with Congressman Foley on numerous occasions.

Today I Googled Congressman Foley and came upon this website:


I was just shocked by what I found. I am especially upset by the dismissive attitudes I found on the web from those who know about Congressman Foley's bad behavior in Washington. I'm sure his conservative base in Florida would not approve of him sending these suggestive and leading emails to underage interns.

* WHInternNow's diary :: Permalink ::
* Discuss (17 comments)
These were the only two posts made by this person at Daily Kos.

I'm guessing this is the blog creator, no?
It looks like they were prepared on Sept 5 to move forward with this, and the opponent knew in August.


Foley is not accused of ever touching the guy right? He talked dirty, absentee and left it at that? It's not like he brought him to his office, had his secretary run interference and have him service him - right?

And he didn't deny the dirty talk, but rather immediately resigned - right? He didn't put the nation through months of denial while the enemy was getting ready to attack. He took his lumps and went home.

You know what is interesting about democrats? They don't stand for anything. There are no lines in the sand for them. When someone on the left - Bill Clinton, William Jefferson, Cynthia McKinney, Patrick Kennedy do stuff, they spin themselves into denial. They give us all sorts of reason why it is A-OK. ("Monica was a stalker, you shouldn't enter my office, the guy did it because I'm black. it was the ambian")

But you have no-contact incident with a guy who resigns when caught and suddenly they are outraged by that behavior.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.


Are the Instant Messages genuinely Foley's?


Foley is a pig... it's that simple.

end of story!

The way the Democrats and their moonbat base are yelling you would think they've stumbled upon a blue dress. If Clinton's lies were only about sex, why are they so worried about a Gay man pursuing his personal sex life. When I was in Catholic HS 35 years ago, everyone knew which priests were "loose in their loafers" and predators. If you didn't, you were either totally clueless or somewhat interested... if ya know what I mean. Point being, 35 years ago, a sixteen year old had a good understanding of the world they were living in, so I can't imagine that today it's any different. I'm not for one minute condoning Foley's behavior, nor any predators for that matter, but just saying this has always been a fact of life. Solicitations of a sixteen year old by a gay man is not a crime in my book... it's just vulgar and unfortunate... and in my HS would have been responded to with the threat of a good ass kicking... even if it were a priest!

Now if the "page" had responded favorably to Foley emails, the only cries from the Democrats would be them ridiculing the Republicans for not giving them the rights to marry.

Now with regards to the "who knew and when did they know" non-sense. It looks to me that the Dems had more to gain by keeping quiet than the Republicans on this.


Has anyone yet explained how crew came up with the IM's? Would'nt that be illegal hacking into Foley's computer? Or has someone suggested that they set Foley up and either used some house pages to trap Foley or Foley was'nt even talking to a house page;it was crew people. Crew learned from that televised story about "child predators on the internet" I'm surprised they did'nt lure Foley over to the kid's house and catch him on camera with his pants down.


Clearly some have strong feelings regarding the sexual nature of the Foley story. Of course some of it is insincere politics from the BJ party, but there is genuinie outrage as well.

Based on what's credible at this time there was no basis for Hastert to take action on the early emails. Claiming with hindsight that was actionable implies an environment where every Republican has to be some kind of puritan saint. That happens to be an image used against Republicans by those who were able to claim Clinton's impeachment was just about sex.


I am shocked that Foley thought he could keep those IMs hidden or that the pages would keep quiet forever. Hubris. If we're going to talk about Clinton, that's the comparison I'd make. Clinton was being investigated for sexual harassment and he went ahead and fooled around with an intern.
Why do these guys assume they won't get caught, when they are involving- and depending on the silence of- people they hardly know?


John Hinderaker

So I'm not particularly surprised that Foley wrote some "over-friendly"--I'm sure I would find them creepy--emails to one or more underage pages. He has resigned, which is appropriate. Studds and Franks should have resigned, too. But, in view of the history of far more egregious cases in the House, the idea of pursuing the House leadership on a "when did they find out that Foley sent a creepy email" basis seems ludicrous, and is understandable only in the context of two facts: Foley is a Republican, and there is an election in five weeks.

Pretty much my take as well.

Also this:

Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) had an affair with a teenage male page that, I believe, included sex within the precincts of the Capitol Building. Studds refused to admit that he had done anything wrong, and turned his back on the House when it censured him for this misconduct in 1983. The voters in Studds's district didn't seem to mind; they continued to re-elect him until he retired in 1996. He is remembered mainly as a pioneering crusader for gay rights.

Just something to keep in mind when leftist trolls go apesh!t about a gay Republican flirting with yoots.

The Other Steve

It is truly pathetic that anyone here is comparing this to the Lewinsky scandal.

Let me give you a hint as to why:

These pages are 16 years old!

It's one thing to look the other way when consenting adults are playing footsies. But to look the other way when you've got a child sex predator running around the halls of Congress. Do you have any connection with reality left at all?

Is maintaining power in Congress so important to you that you are willing to look the other way from child sex abuse?

I thought this was a silly partisan scrap, until I came here and saw people defending the Republican actions on this.

Rick Ballard


Cunningham thought he could get away with it as did Mollohan, Ney and Jefferson. So far Mollohan and Jefferson are still sitting in the House, although I have a suspicion that Jefferson may be singing like a canary in a plea bargain that may come to light quite soon. Dumping this right now isn't good politics - it's two weeks early.

This might be a preemptive move to cover a soon to be revealed deal with Jefferson.

These guys do it on the basis of the protection of honor among thieves, every member knows that there is an opposition research folder containing something that they would prefer not see light. Many times its only something that might only cause embarassment but there is always something. The folders are opened with extreme care because payback is so darned uncomfortable.

As the campaign enters the mud wrestling stage about the only thing that would be surprising is for a Democrat to take responsibility for his actions. That would be a real shocker.


from child sex abuse?

As someone who enlisted at age 17, these aren't "children".

And there is a big difference between "creepy" and abuse.

Foley resigned, as Clinton, Franks and Studds should have done. Nobody is defending Foley here. If you want to complain about us defending Hastert and the Republican party for not forcing Foley out at the first hint he was gay or flirted with yoots, you will need to improve your reading comprehension skills.


How exactly could Republican leadership have even forced Foley out of congress even if they were so inclined to do so at the first hint he was gay or flirted with yoots?


Like others, I want to know the truth about this time-line , how the IM's were retrieved, and if it was a "chat set-up" IF it was a "chat set up" Foley is still a pervert and i'm happy he's gone, but it would tell us more about the rections of the leadership.
Also, it would be a great story . If indeed the GOP has info about Jefferson's squealing on others, it might be a good time to release it!


see above (I mean "tell us more about the reactions of the leadership)


Has their been any judgement that a law was broken here, or is this just lewd, rude and revolting behaviour ?

Cecil Turner

Just something to keep in mind when leftist trolls go apesh!t about a gay Republican flirting with yoots.

Did you say . . . "Utes"?

"Excuse me, but I think a modicum of gratitude would not be outta line here."

"You think I should be grateful?!! ... Boy, that's one hell of an ego you've got!"

And while it is funny to be moralized at by the likes of Larry "They Must be Allowed to Leak" Johnson and Doug "ProTroll" J, this just doesn't rise to the level of Teddy K on waterboarding. The nutroots obviously think they have a national-level biggie here, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it generalizes. (Though it at least provides an opportunity for a more traditional use of the "Chickenhawk" term.)

Sara (Squiggler)

Neo - The age of consent in DC is 16 and in addition, there was no actual contact, so what laws could have been broken other than the law of "don't be stupid."


They just interviewed an ex-page on Fox. He stated that the sexy comments with Foley did not occur until AFTER the pages left the program. So, I don't how the leadership and Hasert could be responsible unless they were told about it. Foley seems to have known what he could get away with without violating any laws, and to have acted accordingly.

As for Andrew Sullivan's comments that this behavior was the result of the closet--my question is, what closet? It was no secret that Foley was gay, he just didn't publicize it. So what. Did he ever deny that he was gay? There is a big difference between being an unmarried gay male and choosing to keep your lifestyle private, and living the life on the low-down like McGreevy did.

Surf the net to know that this type of behavior is not all that rare. I seriously doubt that all the pics of barely legal boys, and "looking for a daddy" personal ads are simply there for closeted gay men. And as the reports indicate, Foley was very slick, and appears to have waited until they were "legal" under the law before he started all of the dirty stuff.


Has their been any judgement that a law was broken here, or is this just lewd, rude and revolting behaviour ?

My question exactly.

Face it, lewd and revolting is "in" these days.

disclaimer: I think Foley's behavior is revolting. But whether it is illegal or against House rules is actually the point, I think.

From my personal POV, I would call it perverted, sick, and an abuse of power. I'm glad he's gone, politics be damned, let the cookie crumble.

But I do believe politics is involved. The pattern is there.

mark c.

I think the only way to handle this politically is with the truth. the guy's a pervert and we told him to resign. straight forward timelines with facts where necessary to provide context. no excuses. no yeah, but Clinton did this or that. answer every charge with facts. Parsing makes you look guilty of something.


Is maintaining power in Congress so important to you that you are willing to look the other way from child sex abuse?

Other Steve... you must be joking. You think it's the Republicans we are defending. Get real! As many have pointed out, where's the crime. No one here has argued that Foley's act wasn't disgusting. However the young mans family asked that it not be disclosed, so it would seem to me, that it's the Democrats rolling this out in an election period that needs to be criticized, and not the Republicans.

And technically speaking a intern in a blue dress is no less of a "child" when it comes to having a predator in Chief in Washington.

At least the Republicans take their trash out to the curb, when it starts to stink. Democrats on the other hand simply ignore it.


Hinderaker's reference to Studds only reminds us that pages have been targeted before, and still the House leaders didn't treat the Foley situation seriously.


Hinderaker's reference to Studds only reminds us that pages have been targeted before, and still the House leaders didn't treat the Foley situation seriously.


still the House leaders didn't treat ...

Hey Studds remained in congress until he retired. Actual "sex" not sex-chat. After that how serious should they be about asking for a "pic".


I'm not defending Studds or the leadership in that era, just pointing out that with an earlier case involving a Page, the House leadership should have treated the Foley e-mail more seriously. It's not as if it hadn't happened before. (There was also a Republican the same year- Daniel Crane, IL - but he was with a girl). Discussion of the earlier incidents only makes it look worse for the House leaders.

Gerry Studds (D-MA)

Is sending creepy emails a crime?

What about posting creepy comments on Internet blogs? If so, that "leo" dude is in big trouble.

If the Dems want to focus on Foley, more power to them (beats the NIE and Woodward book). The Dems released the Foley thing way too early. They should have sat on it for another 3 weeks. Rove is still sitting on the GOP October surprise.


You wrote, "Otherwise, I can't think of a reason not to quickly boot Foley in 2005 when indications of a problem first came to light."

The obvious answer is because it would make the party look bad and put another otherwise safe seat up for grabs, bad in light of DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, and maybe others to come. They held off as long as they could, but then there was a public airing and Foley had to go. There is no need to look for a more complicated answer than this. Good luck, though.

As for whether what Foley did is illegal, it is in fact illegal (under the federal law that he sponsored) to solicit sex from anyone under 18 via the internet. (Ironically, the age of consent for actually having sex is 16 in many places, but federal law is what counts in this case).


I mean this as a friend: a lot of you sound like the parodies of you I used to do. Take a step back, have a drink or pray or whatever it is you do to relax, then come back and reread your comments.

Friends don't let friends comment drunk (on Kool-Aid). And that's what a lot you are, right now. Seriously -- you guys aren't dumb enough to believe some of the stuff you're writing (about how Clinton was worse, about how this was a set-up, about how kids "know what they're doing").

T Miller

Hastert is memory-challenged. He may need to use the Libby defense - too many other important things on his mind.


The great unwashed see a homo preying on young boys. Period. It's notinnocuous, and it's not a non-story as many of my politically connected bretheren may think. Ya gotta look at what the typical every day peole think. If this gets signficiant play, then it's bad news for the republicans in this election cycle. Whether right or wrong...and it is just fucking wrong and stupid, the price will have to be payed. And that my friends, means we just wasted 5 years in the WOT, because it's all going to be dismantled by the democratic party. You know the homo lovers, who love to slather on the anit-homo bile when it's to their political advantage. Thanks repbulican party, thanks a whole fucking lot.

clarice feldman

My blog on this story:



One more thing, then I'm out -- I think he'd be in more trouble if this were 16 year-old girls. T-Mag's right about that even if I think his reasoning is wrong.


Clarice's article is up now on American Thinker and is a must-read. In my opinion, the Republican House leadership should hire Clarice to coordinate their response to the Foley matter. Because so far, the House leaders have been putting out contradictory, self-serving statements that make some of them look foolish. They need to get their act together, coordinate their message, put the Democrats on the defensive, and stay focused. In short, hire Clarice.


how Clinton was worse

The points about Studds, Franks and Clinton are not to defend Foley, he resigned unlike Studds, Franks and Clinton. The point is that blaming the Republican leadership for something (1) they didn't do and (2) Democrats routinely get away with is (3) uncalled for.

clarice feldman

Thanks. I like working at home in my pjs and smoking.

My memory was wrong on Franks' knowledge of the prostitution ring being run by his lover out of his (Franks') basement. Steve Gilbert reminded me there was some evidence he did know.

washingtonpost.com: TV Movie Led to Prostitute's Disclosures

In late 1985, Gobie says, he began to use Frank's apartment and two other locations for prostitution. Frank knew about the prostitution all along, but it was never explicitly discussed, Gobie says.

"He knew exactly what I was doing," Gobie said. "It was pretty obvious. If he had to come home early {from work}, he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing."


Tom Maguire

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

Since Foley is from Florida, could we hold out for "GatorGate"? (I assume that "GAtorAid" is out of the question).

Sara (Squiggler)

I just don't get what has everyone all up in arms here. And why is Foley a pervert unless you are calling him that because of his homosexuality and you consider all homosexuals perverts. In Foley's case, the young man was well over the age of consent, the contact was verbal only, know physical contact, and the young man was no longer part of the page program. Go spend a couple hours in an AOL chatroom and I guarantee you will be soliticted by some guy or gal advertising they are young and ready to show you a good time or that they are looking for a partner for cyber sex. It happens a gazillion times a night. But what is Foley's actual crime besides writing a few things that give someone not interested in cyber sex the creeps?

This scandal is 100% political and very fishy.

Sara (Squiggler)

**no** not know physical contact


The points about Studds, Franks and Clinton are not to defend Foley,

Then what, pray tell, are they. Just random warm memories?

T Miller

Deflection points. They aren't very effective.

tom swift

Here's a little history from an ex-constituent. Studds was reelected because we thought he was a good, hard-working, and, in the main, honest man. He was on some committees covering waterways, Coast Guard, and like issues, and generally did good work there. Since his district was a big sandbar which hangs out into the North Atlantic with no visible means of support, waterways were important to us, the inhabitants of that sandbar. On such issues Studds was considered sensible. His major weakness was that he went absolutely haywire whenever gay issues of any sort cropped up. Let's just say that "objectivity" wasn't his strong point there. However the general consensus seemed to be that sure, he's nuts when it comes to gays, but he's pretty solid on waterways, and which is more important? We went with waterways, and kept sending him back to Congress with large majorities until he decided to retire. We don't remember him as a champion of gay rights. We voted for him despite that. Gay rights weren't at the top of our worry list back then. Now if I lived in Provincetown, I might have thought differently, but I was some thirty miles further inland, with most of the other voters.


Then what, pray tell, are they

Example of how the Democrat party deals with real sexual predators, not just chat.

Resign? no

Removed? no

Supported? yes

Compare to the Republican party ...

Jason Leopold

It looks like those emails were faxed to that blog, not emailed. Either that or the blogger has a horrible scanner. The print is horrible and they are skewed on the page.

Yeah, looks like it to me too, especially since there are only like 6 posts on the blog, it's hard to beleive this was a popular stop with massive tarffic set up just months ago...also good catch on the Kos diaries...looks this was all laying in wait stuff, sick.


An interesting set of comments - with some surprising (and also some very predictable) comments.

Three points:

1. Its hard for me to get all that upset about a 16 year old being "exposed" to things like this. Thirty-five percent of the population has sex before 16.
Romeo and Juliet were 14 and 13, IIRC. "Marriages" through most of human history (and in many societies today) occur shortly after puberty - and that preceeds 16 in almost all cases. "Adulthood" at 18 (or 21) is a recent thing - and the laws regarding the age of majority are anything but consistant. For instance, in Texas, one can't execute a will until one is 18 unless one is married or in the military. One can get married at 14 or join the military at 17 - but one can't buy liquor until reaching age 21. However, one can witness a last will and testament at 15 because wills are rather ancient documents - if one could handle a sword, one could take an oath. Thus, its really hard to see how Foley's "correspondance" with a consenting 16 year old is any of our damn business. If he was not consenting or was objecting, that is a horse of a different color.

2. Clinton was impeached for a "lesser offense". I know, I know - he was impeached for lying about it - just like everyone else does.

3. The house leadership is caught in the position of many, many companies when hit with a sexual harassment lawsuit. They appear not to have taken it seriouly until it was too late. Its not the crime - its the cover up.


Clarice, you could do that from home. ;) I'm making more money playing on the internet than I ever made in my life getting up early and wearing pantyhose and heels.

Sara (Squiggler)

SunnyDay, boy oh boy would I like your secret. I haven't been able to work due to my back and I'm about to lose my house if I don't find some income real quick.


"lesser offense"

So sexual harrassment (Paula) sexual assault (Kathleen, Juanita), perjury and spoo on a blue dress a lesser offense than sex-chat.

At least Republicans aren't big hypocrites when it comes to elected officials acting like predators.

Tom Maguire

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.

Apparently correct, as to the page upon whom the initial story was based.

As a bonus, Foley's office claimed that they always ask pages for a picture so they can get a memory jog if the page ever asks for a recomendation.

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

The Dems are winning! The *first* ABC story had some relativelytame emails. Per ABC, this happened next:

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.

Whether you believe that an ABC story posted online could drag pages and former pages out of thr woodwork overnight is a bit of an article of faith.

I know kids are online and IMing their friends all the time. Still, that seems like a quick response.

"I think the Captain and I are on the same page."

Well that could have been worded better, considering the subject matter we are discussing.


Okay, anyone who thinks that George Soros "set Foley up" is a raving lunatic.

Anybody who conflates "A group funded by Soros orchestrated the timing of this release for political gain" with "Soros set Foley up" is an idiot.

Is everyone really sure that the IM's are real?

Pretty sure, or where are Foley's denials?

Creepy email to kid + fixation with exploited children = likely sexual predator. Don't you think?

Sure, and he was gay too - should they investigate, or just commence stoning him?

Apparently someone talked to Foley; I guess they should have searched his home PC.

Just wondering now - one of the ABC email swas from 2003. Are the dates known on all of them, and were any from after the fall of 2005/spring 2006, or whenever it was that Foley was confronted?

Gabriel Sutherland

To answer one question; Foley has denied on multiple occasions that he is a homosexual.

That's not the issue. I'm not sure what the criminal implications are here, but I'm focusing on the political crimes. Republican leadership cannot possibly hope to protect one of their own members that is soliciting minors for sex. The Republicans no that the Get Out The Vote effort is key to winning close races. Do you think that sitting on the Foley information and praying it doesn't leak is a good political strategy?

I can't think of a better way to tell Values voters to stay home on election than to have the October prior to the election dominated by headlines where Republican leaders protected a potential sexual predator because he was a congressman.

The parents of the Louisiana boy asked Rep. Alexander if they could talk to Foley in order to drop the entire matter. Clearly the parents of ONE BOY wanted Foley to stop. However, the Republicans should have immediately launched an investigation into Foley's activity. Were there other boys? The leadership was aware of the 'closet' rumor surrounding Foley. They were instrumental in seeing that he withdrawl from the 2003 Florida Senate Republican primary.

The Studds case is different. Studds is a sick freak. His contact with a page was allegedly consensual. The 17 year old boy appeared with Studds in press conference in the 80s claiming they were in love, etc. I still think that contact with a page is enough to send someone back to their district. But I bet Studds had 100% ratings from the ACLU when it came to tearing down age barriers that the ACLU so strongly pursues.

Sara (Squiggler)

Can we quit saying "soliticted minors" please. The first emails were initiated by the 16 year old. In Washington, D.C. 16 is the age of consent, so where's the crime?

clarice feldman

TM, that instant response point is excellent. It plays into my suspicion that someone had these IMs for a while and just sprung them for political reasons.(Raising I should think some serious questions about who wasn't do what they could to protect other young men.)

I only recall a 2003 date on the IM I saw, but I haven't gone back to look at all of them.

Are the IM's authentic? I don't know. But I recall one of them talked about college so it may be that we are talking about what we'd all consider an adult. Would Foley have resigned if these weren't authentic? Maybe. I expect he reamined closeted because he knew that being gay would cost him his sear.

clarice feldman

***he remained closeted because he knew that being gay would cost him his seat.********

clarice feldman

Steve Gilbert has told me this and I've advised my editor to correct it--(It does not detract from the other journalistic errors by Ross, but he shouldn't be charged with something else that is not true.)

"I read your piece so quickly I didn't see the bit about me:

But all of these recent achievements pale in comparison to Mr. Ross’s earlier journalistic lapse, if an earlier entry in Wikipedia is to be believed. For it claimed Ross who was responsible for Dateline NBC’s rigging of truck fuel tanks in 1993.

I've seen been old by several posters commenting at S&L that Wikipedia was wrong about that and Brian Ross had nothing to do with the Dateline Report in question.

I didn't remove it from the original article because of what I posted in the comments -- but I probably should note that the point is/was contended. And, in fact, it was removed from Wikipedia's entry on Ross.

Sorry for the confusion."

clarice feldman

Steve has written me again to say that he accurately reported that is what Wikipedia said. It's just that he cannot be certain that information is correct--it is disputed in other words.

T Miller

You would expect groups of pages - like any other young people - to have each other's email and IM addresses. So one person could hear about an upcoming Foley story, and they would all know about it in minutes.

As for storing IM's, this will happen automatically with most software. So anyone who got an email or IM from Foley would most likely have it archived and easily accessible. There may have been a coordinated attempt to "get" Foley, but it wouldn't be necessary. It will be interesting to see if any onther messages come out.

Gabriel Sutherland

Sara (Squiggler): What's the legal age of consent in Louisiana?

Again, I'm coming at this case from the political angle. Relationships between members of Congress and high school students in Washington to learn about Washington is entirely inappropriate. Male, female: that's the question. Members of Congress should not be pursuing relationships with people that work for Congress, especially high school students.


Members of Congress should not be pursuing relationships with people that work for Congress, especially high school students.

Exactly. And this is how it sends it all back to a Monica/Bill thing. It is an abuse of power (if a proven) between a powerful politician and youth employee. Dems always assured everyone that that they only understood that concept IF it was illegal.

I never gave a darn about Monica except on the principle. I don't even know for sure that Foley sent the published IMs at this point or who to or their age.

It looks like a Dem attack. If Foley allowed himself to be set-up....tough. Glad to see his backside.

But enough already with calls on the leadership. Great article clarice.

clarice feldman

Foley's outa there, and while it is interesting to learn the mores of others, the real question to me is whether the leadership is being falsely accused of behaing improperly .As far as I can tell, they did not, and this is being spun to turn off social conservatives support at the polls and tar Hastert.

If you're going to let the Dems pull this red flag waving business, you'll see this stunt pulled every election from now until you die.

Go back to TM's point:How likely is the ABC story that overnight after it printed the innocuous emails, they received the salacious IM's dated years before? Not very, I say. And what does that mean? To me it means that if those are true, people held on to evidence that would have forced the leadership to remove and replace Foley and protect other pages for purely political reasons. Think about THAT.

Sara (Squiggler)



Louisiana law allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty for people
convicted of having consensual sex with a person under 12 years old. The
Louisiana state Supreme Court declared the law constitutional in 1999
because of a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling addressing the rape of an adult,
not a child. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1977 banned the death penalty for
raping adult women, but the justices did not say whether it could be applied
to child rapists. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the 1999 Louisiana
case, allowing the death penalty law to stand.

But how would that apply since if the young man was a page, he would have to be in Washington, D.C. not back home. And besides, the emails to him were entirely innocuous.


From the Corner:

Some points the Speaker's office emphasized on the Foley matter:

* No one in Leadership knew about these Instant Messages. They did not surface until Friday. They were not part of any of this concern expressed from Rep. Alexander's office and the instant messages are apparently with an entirely different person. (People generally do not understand the difference between emails and instant messages — there is not a permanent record of an instant message unless someone prints it out.)

* Also, the family who contacted Rep. Alexander did not want the emails shared but said they were not sexual.

* The Leadership very quickly did [an] internal review once they learned of these instant messages on Friday and have responded very quickly on this entirely new, unknown and entirely indefensible information in the instant messages.

And, double emphasis on: "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. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time."

In other words, they did not know. Of course, anyone listening to ABC would not understand that. On the radio, they reported "e-mails of a sexual nature" and did not make it clear that the "overly friendly" e-mails were sent to a page, and the "sexual" IMs were sent to an ex-page--three years ago. Hasert's office needs to go after that agressively, and make sure they set the record straight.

If they're smart, the GOP can turn this to their advantage. You mean CREW (unlike Hasert)had the goods on Foley, and SAT ON IT FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS! Pretty shocking, and maybe illegal? Do the democrats really want to go there?

clarice feldman

Here are some important updates to the story fro Rick Moran (dissecting the blog site that started it all) and Gilbert who shows thru Alexa the non traffic on the site until the emails were printed there.



Again, I'm coming at this case from the political angle

With a little too much hindsight AFAIC.

Sara's question was about criminality. That seems unlikely given the Studds case. The issue isn't Foley's propreity, he's gone. The issue is how much the Republican leadership should have done based on a non sexual email exchange with an ex-page apparently initiated by the boy whose family did not wish further investigation of.

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.

Sara (Squiggler)

I have serious doubts about the validity of the IMs. First, contrary to what someone else just said, IMs, unlike emails are not saved automatically. You have to make a conscious effort to save them to a file. Second, the tone changes so drasically, it makes me suspicious as to who did the writing. And third, for all the reasons Clarice has also stated. That suddenly appearing blog is the most suspicious.

clarice feldman

The IMs did NOT appear on the blog Sara..only the emails.

The only source for the IM's is ABC. Which hasnot revealed the identity of the correspondents and whose story--they got this overnight is fishy.


For those who desperately try and spin this by yabbering about age of consent:

1) Foley is accused of soliciting, not having, sex.
2) Foley cosponsored a Federal law prohibiting such solicitation of people under 18 on the Internet.
3) There is no ambiguity in the law.

Hell, even members of NAMBLA should be offended by the massive hypocrisy involved in this case.

Those who are trying to spin this as being innocuous should learn more about this law.

Sara (Squiggler)

Look, I don't want to leave the impression that because I don't see any criminality here and because I question the validity of the IMs that I excuse Foley, because I don't. I charge him with overriding stupidity and lack of forethought as to what his actions could cost his party by his selfish acts. But, that said, I worked for a Member of Congress and I know firsthand that sex in Congress is quite common and there are many young people who are more than willing to lie down for anyone they think can further their career or give them access to the upper echelons of power. I've seen it dozens of times. I know one young campaign worker who slept with every Secret Service member she could in the hopes of getting special favors to get into otherwise closed events. Sort of like Monica with front and center position on the rope lines. I know another who contracted herpes from a then Congressional candidate who she had an affair with while on the campaign trail.


Federal law prohibiting such solicitation

So you can produce an example of Foley setting up a meeting with an underage subject?

The comments to this entry are closed.