Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Foley And The Law | Main | The Times Throws Condi A Rope »

October 02, 2006

Comments

Dave

Clarice--- "I'm too tired for a lengthy response"

I'm not in a giant rush. Why don't you get some sleep, and then you can provide your lengthy response. It's also no surprise that you're tired, since you've posted about 150 comments here since your first one on the subject about 60 hours ago. Assuming you're doing this 12 hours a day, that works out to about one comment every 12 minutes. Of course that's in addition to what you've posted at TAT (two or three articles in the last couple of days).

It's nice that you have a lot to say. It's too bad so much of it is trash. But maybe that's part of the job description.

"To my mind this was CREW operating with others."

Let us know if you have any facts to support what's going on in your "mind." So far, you haven't presented any.

"the truth is the FBI said they looked into it and those emails were insufficient to begin a criminal investigation"

You, Hastert and the FBI need to do a better job of coordinating your alibis, since Hastert just admitted the emails (not the IMs, the emails) were a "red flag." That means someone should have been interested in asking a few questions. I guess Hastert and the FBI don't like asking questions that might make the GOP uncomfortable. They figure it's better that some vulnerable pages be uncomfortable.

"Those emails were the same emails Hastert saw and couldn't proceed further with."

That idea of "couldn't" is a big joke. I've already explained that it's complete nonsense to suggest that Hastert's hands were tied, simply because the parents very reasonably desired privacy. This in no way prevented Hastert from conducting a proper investigation. Such an investigation would have included talking to people like Loraditch:

Former page Matthew Loraditch said yesterday that he has known for years about the "creepy" messages three 2002 classmates received from Foley. He said Foley sent them after the boys had finished the House program. Each began innocuously but took a turn in tone, said Loraditch, a senior at Towson University.

"They became explicit and similar to what we are seeing on the Web sites right now," said Loraditch, 21, who runs the U.S. House Page Alumni Association's Internet message board. Those who received them "didn't do anything beside telling other pages about it."

Foley's long track record of despicable behavior was apparently no giant secret. Please explain how it was that the anonymous teen's parents somehow prevented Hastert from asking Loraditch (and/or countless other pages) simple questions about Foley. Such questions could have been asked without saying anything to compromise the privacy of the reporting teen. This is so elementary and obvious it's startling that anyone thinks this alibi will float.

Here's the shocking truth: as far as we can tell, Hastert didn't lift a finger to attempt any such information-gathering. Probably he saw no need to bother because he was already well-aware of exactly what had been going on under his nose, for years.

"Those were the same emails a number of media--including the St Petersburgh Times had and couldn't go further on."

More complete baloney. Who do you think falls for garbage like this? The job of the press is not to police the House. That's Hastert's job. The job of the press is to report news, if it's reliable. Here's what the press didn't have enough information to do: go public. Guess what: Hastert also didn't have enough to go public. No one is suggesting that Hastert made a mistake by not immediately going public. Hastert made a mistake by not asking questions. He could have and he should have. Nothing was stopping him from doing so, and the emails were a very good reason to do so.

The fact that the papers weren't in a position to print is not a basis for claiming that Hastert was not in a position to ask questions. He was. You are an endless source of false equivalences. This is one of them.

"it is obvious to me that CREW got them from some office on the Hill"

If it's "obvious" to you, you should share the facts that make it obvious, so that it can also be obvious to people who prefer to rely on reason rather than imagination. So far you haven't shared any such facts.

"I doubt CREW would have acted if the emails just were thrown over the transom BTW"

I tend to agree. I think CREW acted because they had heard, directly and indirectly, from lots of scared pages who couldn't believe that Foley was still getting a free pass from his management, year after year after year. Like the people at Kos who didn't take that diary seriously, CREW is not going to instantly embrace documents without context and some kind of corroboration.

"at that point with the parents trying to keep this private"

More baloney. Please identify what you mean by "this." It's a matter of common sense to understand that the parents cared about their privacy. There's no reason to think they had any concerns beyond that. And even if they did, their rights are limited to privacy. In other words, they had no right to say (e.g.) "please don't investigate Foley." They only had a right to say "leave us out of it." And there is no indication whatsoever that they ever said anything beyond "leave us out of it." So this is another pathetically lame alibi that convinces no one who has a pulse.

"Which means few people had them who were not in the Capitol"

That's pure speculation. For all you know, lots of pages in lots of places have been quietly confiding in each other with regard to all sorts of IMs and emails that Foley has left behind over a period of years. Pay atttention to what Loraditch said about three classmates who had gotten "creepy" messages, which eventually "became explicit," and about how people were "telling other pages about it."

"thsoe who did had no interestin making them public"

It's absolutely correct to suggest that these pages are afraid of Foley, for good reason. What's disgusting about the situation is that he exploited people who were quite weak, especially relative to him. This is the essence of abuse and harrassmant, sexual or otherwise. The power imbalance and resulting fear is why he was able to get away with it for so long. But he pissed off so many kids and parents that it finally it caught up with him. People finally realized that mostly they just had to be careful about redacting their own names.

By the way, I think SSP was indeed created by injured pages, specifically for the purpose of encouraging other pages to come forward in a safe way. And I think ultimately that's exactly what happened.

"When it was clear that was not enough the IMs show up"

More nonsense. Families had been holding those IMs for years, afraid to speak up. When Brian Ross launched the story (on 9/28, discussing the emails), these families had reason to feel encouraged that finally somebody was giving a shit. So they called Ross and the next day he was discussing various IMs with Foley.

Here's my speculation: lots of people, including Ross, knew there were IMs like that floating around. He wanted them, and he understood that sources would be afraid to take any chances until he demonstrated to them that he was serious. So he did that, and sources responded.

"When it was clear that was not enough the IMs show up and they show up in the most amateurishly conceived route possible. A black blog viewed by a handful of lefty sites and virtually no one else"

What on earth are you talking about? Are you having a dream? We know that SSP posted a portion of the email information that's been discussed. But where did you get the idea that SSP had anything to do with the IMs? There you go again, making up more nonsense that has no basis whatsoever in objective reality.

This is what we know about how Ross got the IMs: they were provided to him by "by former male pages."

I think it's fair to claim that SSP had a role in getting the story off the ground, with the emails. There's no basis to suggest they had anything to do with the IMs. But of course having no basis doesn't get in the way of you making all sorts of claims.

"Trust me, someone tipped them off to go there."

You have a track record of making things up, so trusting you is something I'm not inclined to do. I think you're claiming someone told Ross to go to SSP to find the IMs. Really? How come I can't find them there?

Anyway, it wouldn't matter if SSP was a channel for the IMs. I think SSP was indeed specifically set up by one or more pages who had decided that Foley's time had finally come. Their drive for revenge was entirely righteous.

"About the same time the fax is received at CREW something strange happens in FLa. A very safe Republican seat is contested by a very leftwing guy who hasn't a chance in hell in winning. The party yanks him. They replace him with a moderate and they start pumping money into this longshot race."

Are you high? Do you live on a planet where time travels in reverse? Lutrin was out of the race no later than 3/18. He had been under pressure to step aside for months, as documented here on 2/12. The date that appears on the faxes is 5/29. That's what you call "about the same time?" Why not just point out that both events happened in the same millenium? On a cosmic scale, that's also "about the same time."

"A very safe Republican seat ... this longshot race."

Really? You should tell us what you know that Charlie Cook doesn't know. He's considered a respected non-partisan analyst. Here's his "COMPETITIVE HOUSE RACE CHART" released on 7/12/06. He picks 73 seats he considers competitive (about 17% of the House). Guess what: FL-16 is on this list, which means he thinks it's more competitive than at least 83% of the House. And he gives it a PVI ("Partisan Voting Index") rating of R+2. This mean this district was only 2% more R than the whole country, in the last couple of presidential elections. Given that other seats he considers competitive have ratings up to R+19, R+2 is pretty weak. No wonder DCCC pressured Lutrin to step aside in favor of someone who actually had a chance.

"You are welcome to believe the Dem fairy just plopped this in the party's lap. I don't think so."

Don't you realize how this all came about? I have some shocking news. It's about time you knew the real story. For years, Soros has been exercising mind-control to get Foley to prey on vulnerable teens. Then, Soros exercised mind-control to get Hastert and his pals to consistently look the other way, even when a "red-flag" (Hastert's term) was waved under his nose. This set the stage for the further mind-control that's happening right now. This includes such things as Ed Morrisey calling Hastert a liar, and the Washington Times calling for Hastert's resignation.

There's only one possible explanation for such a remarkable series of events: Soros and his secret mind-control. Amazing but true. Save yourselves while there's still time.

Aside from the problems I've pointed out, everything you said in your comment makes complete sense.

"this is getting to smell like the Fulton Fish Market"

Check your shoes.

PeterUK

"He turned it over to Shimkus"

That's called passing the buck. Not my idea of a what a leader does, when the welfare of one or more teens is possibly at stake."

No it is called informing the proper authority,the man directly in charge,something you might have known if you had ever been in any position of authority.


"What is so laughable is that the GOP is full of dangerously pathetic self-hating hypocrites like Foley."

Unlike the Democrats who number in their ranks felons and drunk drivers.


"Clarice, an even more important issue is the way you've been repeatedly suggesting that CREW (and/or others) were deliberately sitting on the IMs. You have made that vile insinuation in these threads at least a dozen times. When you were asked why you think CREW had the IMs long before the rest of us, this was your distinctly feeble answer:

CREW has not indicated that it had or passed on the IMs. Nevertheless are you suggesting the FBI investigation was sought on the basis of emails asking hot stuff like ''How was your vacation?"

The emails CREW sent to the FBI on 7/21 said a bit more more than "how was your vacation." These emails had been sent to a 16-year old by someone who is 35 years older.

So which are you claiming, CREW did or did not have the emails earlier than 7/21 ?
How exactly did CREW obtain these?

Dave

c- "A commenter of great probity described it as I did and I failed to double check the dates."

Really? A commenter here? You're suggesting that you got the idea that the 9/24/06 Kos diary is a year old from a commenter here. I have made a serious attempt to find such a comment, among the 800 or so, and cannot. So maybe you can tell me where it's hidden. Then again, this latest statement of yours might be another complete work of fiction, like so many of your statements.

I notice you've studiously avoided answering this question: are you going to correct your mistake? Before or after 11/7?

"The point as I spoke to an earlier poster was not the date of the comment (Which in any event predated the ABC story which shows some foreknowledge on his part)"

Indeed, the pissed-off pages behind SSP presumably had certain information before Ross did. Which is surprising why?

"if the story wasn't good enough for Kos why are we surprised it wasn't good enough for Hastert?"

I already answered that question. I realize we can rely on you to completely ignore what I said. I see the Clarice bot is set on auto-repeat.

May --- "So you support the FBI launching an investigation"

Even Hastert says these emails are a "red flag." Yes, when the FBI receives a "red flag" indicating minors might be in danger of sexual abuse, they should pick up the phone and ask a few questions. I think the safety of children is worth spending a dime on a phone call.

"Because if it does, I say watch out witch hunt."

I didn't say the emails are a basis for the FBI to burn someone at the stake. I said they're a basis to make some phone calls. If that distinction is over your head, I can't help you.

"For GOP leaders to pay a heavy political price requires either more evidence that they really knew what Foley was doing or for Democrats to form an alliance, at some level, with people who find homosexuality outrageous no matter what the age."

Certain people really, really want to make this about gayness. It's not. It's about power and exploitation. It's about a very powerful person taking advantage, repeatedly, of much weaker people. Oh, I forgot, that's the business the GOP is in, anyway. Never mind.

Dave

J----"The reasoning behind this particlar slam seems to be that any gay who admits to Republican tendancies must, by definition, despise himself."

Next time try to get by without the straw man. Not "any gay." A gay who hides it, and also acts it out in a seriously fucked-up secret life, with lots of secret booze on the side. And also serves the party that does gay scapegoating at the drop of a hat. Add all that up and it equals self-hate.

This might help you understand the concept of self-hating: picture a black guy wearing white sheets.

t-----"Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys"

English translation: "even though we call ourselves the moral values party, and even though we keep banging drums about the ostensible importance of protecting children, we shrink from doing the right thing because we're terrified of mean nasty Pelosi, who might say some things that will hurt our feelings; excuse us while we go suck each other's thumbs."

Personally, I'm not inclined to "leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys." However, kids shouldn't be pressured into sex. Not by each other, and definitely not by someone 35 years older, who happens to wield a lot of power over them. Read the IMs. Pressure to have sex is exactly what this was all about.

"Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters?"

No. Being gay is not the issue at all. Being sexually exploitive is the issue. That has nothing to do with gayness. Leave it to the homophobic GOP to not be able to grasp something so simple.

Stephen

So, let me get this straight: The Miami Herald and the Palm Beach Post both had these "overly friendly" e-mails and thought they were strange, but ambiguous; I thought I heard Brit Hume say on Monday that Fox News also received these "overly friendly" e-mails and thought them strange, but ambiguous; the FBI had these "overly friendly" e-mails and thought them strange, but ambiguous. Yet, Denny Hastert and the Republican leadership should be held responsible for not "outing" a gay Congressman for strange, but ambiguous "overly friendly" e-mails. This is absurd. Also, it stretches the imagination to believe that whoever sent these "overly friendly" e-mails to ABC, the Miami Herald, the FBI, and the Palm Beach Post did not also send them to CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times -- all mouthpieces for the Democratic Party. Has anyone asked their spokespeople whether they received these "overly friendly" e-mails before the ABC story broke? And, if they did, why didn't they do anything about it? Have any of these organizations affirmatively stated that they did not receive the "overly friendly" e-mails? I can't believe the media savvy leaker didn't sent the same e-mails to those organizations. Just wondering. And, if the IMs are true (as opposed to "fake, but accurate" IMS, not the e-mails), they are reprehensible. However, the page who allegedly received these IMs, who would now be an adult, has not come forward and remains anonymous.

Dave

s-------"As for Shimkus, it is not passing the buck to have the person actually responsible for the entire Page Program dealing with a Page issue."

If Shimkus had behaved responsibly (which would have included informing the other two people in charge of the page program), you might have some kind of a point. He didn't, so you don't.

"This libertarian will not be persuaded by your nanny-state"

If insisting that pages aren't sexually abused is your idea of a "nanny-state," let us know what name you use for a state that does a remote video-diagnosis of Terri Shiavo.

"large structured organizations work on the delegation principal"

I happen to know a thing or two about "large structured organizations." When they're healthy, they work on certain simple principles: the buck stops at the top, and accountability matters. When they're dysfunctional, it's all about plausible deniability and searching for scapegoats. You decide which model best describes our GOP-controlled Congress.

"Hastert did what his role as Speaker required, he spoke directly to the Member"

What are you talking about? What "Member?" Are you suggesting Hastert spoke to Foley?

"you are a raging homophobe who believes that just because Foley is gay it automatically follows that he wants to get in the pants of every young male who crosses his path."

I don't think that's true. I think Foley focussed on a certain select group of young males: those who were vulnerable to him, because of what they wanted, and who he was.

PeterUK

"Please explain how it was that the anonymous teen's parents somehow prevented Hastert from asking Loraditch (and/or countless other pages) simple questions about Foley. Such questions could have been asked without saying anything to compromise the privacy of the reporting teen."


This is what I love about the left,the wonderfully Leninist,"you can't make an omelete without breaking eggs".
Dave you are either a charlatan or a naive,if you know politics and the MSM,they will lift heaven and earth to disclose the identity of the page,and you as a good little moralising liberal will have played your part.
The young man will get no peace,there will be a question mark over him the rest of his life,yes Dave that is a small price to pay for giving your principles their feel good factor and for the slavouring political ambition,though I doubt if you will be thrown any crumbs.

Terrye

Did BTW crawl back in his coffin? Ahh, now I see another ananymous is here. So unoriginal, how about calling yourself left wing avenger or something dramatic like that?

I don't really care what the Washington Times says. I don't even really like Hastert all that much, but I don't think that it is a good idea for him to resign over this. I don't know what these people thought he was supposed to do.

It is interesting however to watch the Democrats turn into homophobes.

What does Beckel thing the House should do? Does he think Barney Franks should be banned from ever coming near a male page?

PeterUK

£A gay who hides it, and also acts it out in a seriously fucked-up secret life, with lots of secret booze on the side."

So one of your issues is Foley was in the closet?

"I think Foley focussed on a certain select group of young males: those who were vulnerable to him, because of what they wanted, and who he was."

No evidence opinion,Foley most likely focussed on them because the were there.

Dave

t-----"Likens Gay Man Around Boys"

Keep trying really, really hard to make it about gayness. It's not.

We'd have essentially the same situation if Foley was straight and he was hitting on 16-year old females.

j-------- "According to SlimGuy here and also here Rodgers is part of the gay jaugernaut which has been gunning for Foley"

News bulletin! Honorable, proud gay people are really pissed off when an abusive closeted jerk like Foley gives them all a bad name! And they do what they can politically to oppose him and educate the public about his despicable behavior! Man bites dog! Read all about it!

Luckily, though, we've got all the GOP loyalists who are eager to paint Foley as the victim. After all, someone was "gunning" for him. Poor guy!

PeterUK

Terrye,
"I don't even really like Hastert all that much, but I don't think that it is a good idea for him to resign over this."

Here we have Plame redux,another politico/legalistic way of removing a political opponent,its what Democrats do in lieu of policies.
But the Democrats must not scream "morality",othrerwise they wouldn't take so much money from Hollywood,as you said timing is everything.

PeterUK

"News bulletin! Honorable, proud gay people are really pissed off when an abusive closeted jerk like Foley gives them all a bad name!"

So it is all about Foley being in the closet for you Dave?

Dave

s----"He has the gall that he can override the choices of voters in whoever's district he chooses to attack and extort his own agenda or destruction."

More of that darn Soros mind-control. It's unbelievable! It can actually "override the choices of voters!" Amazing how that works.

Actually, you're confused. It's Diebold that's in charge of that process ("override the choices of voters").

"an unknown blog in existance for a couple of months"

What's the big mystery? The story was starting to come out. Too many pages had been abused too many times, and too many people were hearing about it. The story heated up last fall, when Alexander called Hastert. Various people decided enough is enough. Probably they thought for sure Hastert would act, and were shocked that he didn't. Maybe some kid called CREW. Maybe some other kid called Ross. Maybe some other kids thought it would be a good idea to start a blog, as a way to attract other witnesses to come forward with documents.

I think it's clear enough that someone started SSP specifically for the purpose of turning up the heat on Foley. So what? What does that prove, beyond what it simply is?

You're seeing lots of other things, but that's only because your hat is too tight.

"And then simultaneously someone posted at Kos with a totally new thread linking to the site"

It's pretty darn clear that the Kos diary was posted by the person behind SSP, or someone close to that person. So what?

"Wonkett also hit on this jewel of the Nile to spread the gospel."

The kids behind SSP were doing what they could to get someone, anyone to notice. They were probably emailing every blogger they thought would be sympathetic. What about this do you find remarkable or hard to grasp?

verner

Yeah Peteruk. The thing that's cracking me up about this Dave guy is the implication that the only gay men who like em young are the self-hating sickos in the closet.

I realy think that Dave and others need to step back and take a look at the implications of their charges against Hasert et. al--that they didn't do anything about Foley. They are basicly saying that any time that a gay man sends innocuous e-mails to a teenaged boy in his acquaintance, that is the grounds for a full investigation into his activity. They are saying exactly what the "homophobe" Christian right believes, that all gays are chickenhawks until proven innocent. And if they don't think that's going to have an impact on the "honorable" gay community, they are full of it.

PeterUK

"think it's clear enough that someone started SSP specifically for the purpose of turning up the heat on Foley. So what? What does that prove, beyond what it simply is?"

"The kids behind SSP were doing what they could to get someone, anyone to notice. They were probably emailing every blogger they thought would be sympathetic. What about this do you find remarkable or hard to grasp?"


Timing dear boy, timing,this is after Foley resigned,after the young man in the emails had ceased to be a page and gone to college and just in time for the elections.
..and now some outrage about the Hollywood "Meatrack" if you please.

Syl

Man, that Dave guy is red with outrage. Seems to be a little too much in my eyes.

If a straight guy sent an email like that to a 16 year old, he's told to refrain because even the hint of impropriety is frowned on.

But if a gay guy should do the same, then it's different and all hell should break loose!

IMNSHO we're either looking at a raging homophobe, someone who is overcompensating, or someone who hates Republicans more than anything else in life.

boris

All of the X rated stuff apparently happened with a male 17 or older. One might still assert that 16 yr old girls need shelter from nasty chat but 17 yr old young men are military age. I enlisted at that age.

So "children" ??? No, young men. Boot camp jargon makes this stuff look silly.

That doesn't excuse Foley's misbehavior and inappropriate conduct but the fainting couch pose, especially by suddenly prudish homosexuals is ridiculous.

boris

IMNSHO we're either looking at a raging homophobe, someone who is overcompensating, or someone who hates Republicans more than anything else in life.

IMNSHO we're looking at an act. By people who perhaps have had to act like something they're not since childhood and are mad as hell at the rest of the world over it.

verner

Boris:So "children" ??? No, young men. Boot camp jargon makes this stuff look silly.

Yeah Boris, a 17 year old child that talked dirty back for nine pages, let's add.

I asked my 15 year old what she would have done. The first question she had was "why did the kid give him his IM?" Then she said that she would immediately put the creep on her block list and tell me.

So why didn't any of that happen? We're talking about very intelligent kids here, who had lived in Washington on their own for months. If they thought that Foley was some kind of dangerous perv, they had a responsibility to tell those in authority in the Page program to asssure that no one got hurt. Heck, that Loraditch kid said he knew for years--why didn't he tell? He claims to have been very close to the program administrators.

By the way, Foley is now saying he didn't touch any of them.

PeterUK

What is so utterly shameful,is all the faux outrage and pretended concern for the Page,when it is an absolute certainty that the furore will result in the young man's identity being revealed.This is despite his parents wishes,despite the likelihood that he will be tainted with the "there's no smoke without fire" innuendo for the rest of his life.
The politics of the water closet indeed.

Dave

p------"it is called informing the proper authority,the man directly in charge"

It's true that Shimkus is chairman of the Page Board. It's also true that two other Reps. are on that board: another R and a D. Did Shimkus tell them? No. The D, Dale Kildee, has been in that role for twenty years. He should have been told. Shimkus has now admitted that. The other R, Shelley Capito, should also have been told. Here's what she said recently:

"There’s only three of us on the page board. I feel that we should have been informed,” Capito said. “I’m absolutely disgusted by what I’m hearing. I was caught totally unaware.” ...

Capito said she would have been very concerned if she had read those e-mails. “I don’t think it would pass the sniff test,” she said. “Even asking those questions — that is not normal between a 52-year-old adult and a 16-year-old. It’s not like they’re family friends or anything. I think it would raise some serious questions. But I wasn’t given that opportunity.”

Note to Clarice: please let Capito know she's all wet. What does she know? She only helps run the page program. What an alarmist. The emails were innocuous, you insist. Please, ring her up. I'm sure she'd like to benefit from your expertise.

Anyway, as far as "informing the proper authority," that barely happened. Two-thirds of the Page Board was kept in the dark. There's a word for this: cover-up.

"Unlike the Democrats who number in their ranks felons and drunk drivers."

Hey! Look! Over there! Look at that shiny object! It's an old story about some drunk D! Pay no attention to Hastert's covering for a sexual predator!

"So which are you claiming, CREW did or did not have the emails earlier than 7/21 ?"

CREW passed them along to the FBI the day they got them. I've said nothing to suggest otherwise. In other words, your question makes no sense.

"How exactly did CREW obtain these?"

I think that for months various outraged pages and parents have been shopping stories and documents to anyone who will listen, especially after they noticed that Hastert wasn't paying attention. It's a good thing that CREW was.

But I realize you're terribly offended that a predator has been outed, and you're working overtime to paint him as a poor victim of some vicious conspiracy. Welcome to the GOP, where day is night.

Syl

And it was FORMER pages. All have them were out of the program.

That's a huge detail.


MayBee

May --- "So you support the FBI launching an investigation"

Even Hastert says these emails are a "red flag." Yes, when the FBI receives a "red flag" indicating minors might be in danger of sexual abuse, they should pick up the phone and ask a few questions. I think the safety of children is worth spending a dime on a phone call.

You are loving the red flag quote. It was a red flag that it was beyond the norm, and to warn Foley to cut it out. As adults, we all see that. Sure they gave him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't some stalker/raper- he's a peer, a Congressman. They did what the FBI would have done- asked him about it, put him on their private watch list, and told him to cut it out. He did.

Other than that, who are they going to ask, without it being a tremendously intrusive non-investigation?
Because last I heard, the left thought FBI agents at an anti-war rally, or FBI agents showing up at a mosque, or FBI having access to Library records was an enormous invasion of privacy. And that is less invasive than actually asking other people questions about your personal behavior. I would balk at that.

"Because if it does, I say watch out witch hunt."

I didn't say the emails are a basis for the FBI to burn someone at the stake. I said they're a basis to make some phone calls. If that distinction is over your head, I can't help you.

A witch HUNT doesn't involve a stake. This is the FBI. The FBI. The highest law enforcement agency in our country. They don't just make phone calls when someone sends them a copy of fourth-party emails asking for a picture. They do real, live, criminal investigations.


OK.
I have in my possession copies of some emails. These emails were sent by a 16-year boy old to Jerome Alexander at Mark Warner's office. It seems that at Yearly Kos, this sixteen year old told Markos that he wanted to work on Lamont's campaign, so they exchanged email addresses.

Kos emailed the kid, you know, just chit chat. Then he asked about the kid's birthday and asked for a picture. The kid thinks, Kos is a grown man and this is creeping me out, so he emails Jerome to say "What do you think?" and he passes along Kos's emails.

Jerome talks to Kos, and Kos says "you know, I was just being friendly. I'll stop emailing the kid," and he does.

Well, now I have a copy of the emails. I'll not tell you how I got them, but maybe someone at Warner's office passed them along. I've read rumors that Kos is gay, so I get suspicious about why he would have sent those emails to a 16-year old boy. Plus, I don't like Kos's politics. So I pass the copies of the emails to Focus on the Family.

Focus on the Family sure doesn't like Kos, plus they don't like his stance on gay issues. Focus on the Family then sends my copies of copies on to the FBI.
Should the FBI investigate Kos, based on Focus on the Family's request?
Should they call him?
Call his wife?
Start a file on him?
Call everone at Yearly Kos to find out if he'd been emailing other people?

verner

Dave:I think that for months various outraged pages and parents have been shopping stories and documents to anyone who will listen,

Yeah, shopping them to democrat operatives who held on to them for months--and keeping them away from the only people who would have immediately acted upon them--namely those responsible for the page program.

Why don't you try spreading that crap to someone who actually was born under a cabbage leaf.

boris

Did Shimkus tell them? No

By all means lets "criminalize" all contacts between ex pages and congressmen containing suspicious language like "how was your vacation". Lets pretend that rational. Not.

One reason the page program exists is for young men and women to make contacts for future networking when entering a career in governmnet service. So this: "It’s not like they’re family friends or anything." sounds exactly like partisan bunk.

MayBee

CREW passed them along to the FBI the day they got them. I've said nothing to suggest otherwise. In other words, your question makes no sense.

Oh, I've seen something to suggest otherwise. The fax date on their PDF, May 29, 2006.
If that isn't when CREW got the fax, who got the fax that day.

I just saw on CNN that this young man's family has been identified in LA, and he is getting hounded by media.
CREW did a horrible, dishonorable job of protecting his privacy in the fax they displayed on their website. They also also gave clues invading the privacy of two other pages from his class.

It wasn't what they wanted, but it was what CREW wanted.

verner

Oh MayBee, don't forget the "youths" whose names were mentioned that were left UNREDACTED by the noble CREW.

CREW's director used to work for the scummy Soros "Media Matters", and Ms. Melanie worked for Conyers. They are the first people I want to put in front of a grand jury--right after Rodgers, and whoever put up that SSP blog.

Dave

Stephen---"The Miami Herald and the Palm Beach Post both had these 'overly friendly' e-mails and thought they were strange, but ambiguous"

No. The problem was not about ambiguity. The problem was that the papers could not print such a serious allegation in the absence of single named source. It's that simple.

The kid, understandably, didn't want his name in the papers. This forced the papers to hold the story. This has nothing to do with Hastert's complete failure to do anything remotely resembling a serious investigation. He needed neither the kid's name nor permission in order to do that.

"I thought I heard Brit Hume say on Monday that Fox News also received these 'overly friendly' e-mails and thought them strange, but ambiguous"

Let me know why I should give any serious consideration to any statement on this matter coming from Fox.

"the FBI had these "overly friendly" e-mails and thought them strange, but ambiguous"

The FBI definitely dropped the ball, and has some explaining to do.

"Yet, Denny Hastert and the Republican leadership should be held responsible for not 'outing' a gay Congressman"

I realize you folks are completely addicted to those little straw men you hide behind all the time. Say, how about you use them only in alternate comments, instead of every single one.

No one is suggesting that Hastert should have responded to the emails by immediately outing Foley. Hastert should have responded to the emails by asking a few questions. He didn't. Now even Hastert has admitted the emails were a "red flag." Capito now says the emails raise "serious questions." Not the IMs. The emails.

Clarice, pay attention. "Innocuous" was yesterday's talking point. Please keep up. Even Tony Snow is not talking about "naughty" emails anymore, as if Foley was simply an impish rogue. Boys will be boys!

"if they did, why didn't they do anything about it?"

Probably for the exact same reasons as the other papers. Were you really not able to think of that answer on your own?

"Have any of these organizations affirmatively stated that they did not receive the 'overly friendly' e-mails?"

No. And Harry Reid has not "affirmatively stated" that he has finally stopped beating his wife. QED.

"the page who allegedly received these IMs, who would now be an adult, has not come forward and remains anonymous"

Big surprise. Maybe he'd like to not have the GOP wreck his career. Keep in mind he was most likely a GOP guy to begin with.

By the way, keep in mind that according to ABC, the IMs were in connection with multiple pages. Plural.

PeterUK

"It's true that Shimkus is chairman of the Page Board"

So now instead of your "the Buck Stops here" with the top guy stchick, you now feel that the whole board should be told,make your mind up.

Did you want the problem solved or not?

SunnyDay

Dave sounds a lot like Rogers.

Dave

p-------"you can't make an omelete without breaking eggs"

What a lame non sequitur. I said this: Hastert could easily have asked questions without compromising the privacy of the teen. Your gratuitous cooking lesson does not remotely resemble a response to that issue.

"MSM ... will lift heaven and earth to disclose the identity of the page"

We'll see.

Since you've got your crystal ball handy, I'd love to know all the scores for next week.

"that is a small price to pay for giving your principles their feel good factor"

Guilty as charged: one of my principles is that sexual predators aren't welcome in the House, and I do "feel good" when that principle is upheld. I realize you choose to disassociate yourself with such a quaint idea. That's clear by your sneer as you say "your principles."

T------------- "I don't know what these people thought he was supposed to do."

Hastert was supposed to ask questions. There, did I make it simple enough?

"It is interesting however to watch the Democrats turn into homophobes."

We're not pissed at Foley because he's gay. We're pissed at Foley because he's a predator. But in the GOP, I realize those two words are synonyms, and therefore you have no idea what I'm talking about.

"What does Beckel thing the House should do?"

I have no idea who Beckel is.

"Does he think Barney Franks should be banned from ever coming near a male page?"

Nice job revealing your classic GOP homophobia. I don't think prostitution is a big deal. That's what his friend did. If Franks was straight, and his roommate had been a female prostitute, would you have mentioned him just now? I think not. Nice job revealing what a huge homophobe you are.

By the way, let me know if you can find a shred of evidence that there was ever a problem between Franks and anyone underage, male or female, page or otherwise. In the absence of such evidence, here's the name for what you just did: libel.

boris

Hastert should have responded to the emails by asking a few questions. He didn't.

That's either a lie or you are an idiot. Which?

Florence Schmieg

Is there some sort of secret gay hatred in the Democratic party?? It seems so weird that they constantly are "outing" gays (Gannon, some Washington State politician whose name I do not remember, now Foley). They seem much more obsessed with this than all of the Republicans that I know.

Syl

Dave

Hindsight is 20/20. NOW people think the emails are some kind of smoking gun. BACK THEN they didn't.

Your rhetoric is getting boring.

PeterUK

""So which are you claiming, CREW did or did not have the emails earlier than 7/21 ?"

CREW passed them along to the FBI the day they got them. I've said nothing to suggest otherwise. In other words, your question makes no sense.

Why were they not forwarded to the FBI rather than the political organisation CREW.

"How exactly did CREW obtain these?"

"I think that for months various outraged pages and parents have been shopping stories and documents to anyone who will listen, especially after they noticed that Hastert wasn't paying attention. It's a good thing that CREW was."


Utter ordure,Foley had been long gone,certainly at least one set of parents did not want to go further.These emails were sent how long ago,months years?


"But I realize you're terribly offended that a predator has been outed, and you're working overtime to paint him as a poor victim of some vicious conspiracy. Welcome to the GOP, where day is night."

No I'm "teribly offended" by your hypocrisy,your assumed mealy mouthed concern about a young man over whom the shit bucket is going to get emptied so that you can parade your principles,and by an amazing coincidence do political damage.
Why now? There is an election due,you never noticed?

Rick Ballard

"I don't think prostitution is a big deal."

Obviously not. Do you charge per act or do you use an hourly rate?

I think Frank's work as a brothelkeeper are the highlight of his career - glad you agree.

boris

ever a problem between Franks and anyone underage

Heh

There's still no evidence that anyone involved with sexual material was underage at this point.

Dave

p ---------- "So one of your issues is Foley was in the closet?"

It's not one of my issues, but it was definitely one of Foley's issues. I personally think a closet gay is more likely to act out covertly the way Foley did. If you're too naive to see that connection I can't help you.

"No evidence opinion,Foley most likely focussed on them because the were there."

Foley could have trolled gay bars all over town, especially the ones near high schools, or he could have hung out with the pages. Of course he may have done both. But my speculation is that he preferred the pages, because he had special power over them. Sexual abuse is not really about sex. It's about power.

PeterUK

"you can't make an omelete without breaking eggs"

What a lame non sequitur. I said this: Hastert could easily have asked questions without compromising the privacy of the teen. Your gratuitous cooking lesson does not remotely resemble a response to that issue."

It's a figure of speech sweetlips,Hastert did ask questions he went to the man in charge, Shimkus.
It seems to have escaped you that what is happening now would have happened then,the young man will get outed by pols and the MSM,you have played your ignoble part in this.Doesn't matter to you though does it as long as the Democrats get POWER?

Syl

or he could have hung out with the pages.

ex-pages.

Get your facts straight, sir.

Syl

as long as the Democrats get POWER?

Heh. We'll see about that.

Polling since the media blitz from Foley's district shows only 1% separates the Democrat from a GENERIC REPUBLICAN using Foley's name.

Sweet.

PeterUK

"But my speculation is that he preferred the pages, because he had special power over them. Sexual abuse is not really about sex. It's about power."

Ah1 Speculation rears its ugly head,and a line straight out of the feminists handbook.

BTW Do you know if Foley is active or passive?

boris

because he had special power over them

What power does Foley have over ex pages? None. It's certainly possible an ex page might go along to maintain a possible contact for networking a career in public service, but that doesn't rise to the level of coercion.

As to homophobia ...

In another Foley writes, "how are you weathering the hurricane…are you safe…send me an email pic of you as well…"

The young man forwarded that e-mail to a congressional staffer saying it was "sick sick sick sick sick."

Might be some there doncha think? Claiming that's some kind of "red flag" because the sender is a suspected gay would be sexual profiling. Who might that be on this thread?

Syl

I personally think a closet gay is more likely to act out covertly the way Foley did. If you're too naive to see that connection I can't help you.

How does one 'act out covertly'? exactly?

I guess you think being openly gay means, what, you share your IM's with everyone?

You don't even make sense.

What does happen, is that closeted gays are subject to blackmail and intimidation...especially by uncloseted gays who have an axe to grind with them.

Jane

"News bulletin! Honorable, proud gay people are really pissed off when an abusive closeted jerk like Foley gives them all a bad name!"

Sadly that is not often true of the liberal gay community. Note the HRC's actions (or lack thereof) in this case and in the case of Jim McGreevey. Liberals think being gay is enough, as long as you are liberal. You can be corrupt or closeted or anything else, as long as you lean left. The one thing you are not allowed to be as a gay (or a black for that matter) is conservative. Then being gay is wrong.

Funny watching all that homophobia is leaking out of the left. Par for the course, as well.

Dave

v-----"the implication that the only gay men who like em young are the self-hating sickos in the closet"

There it is, right on schedule, another straw man. This outfit is like a full-employment act for the straw-man union.

I didn't say "only." It's hard to build a straw man without a word like that. I said there's a tendency for self-hating closet sickos to act out. Try really hard and see if you can grasp how "only" means something different.

"They are basicly saying that any time that a gay man sends innocuous e-mails to a teenaged boy in his acquaintance"

Prominent communists like Hastert and Capito are now on record saying clearly the emails were not "innocuous." Sorry to burst your litle balloon. It's not my fault you and Clarice haven't gotten the memo yet.

"all gays are chickenhawks until proven innocent"

That gets a special award for being an extra-large economy-size straw man. Where do you buy them that size?

"And if they don't think that's going to have an impact on the 'honorable' gay community, they are full of it."

It truly brings tears to my eyes that the protection-of-marriage posse is suddenly in such utter anguish about the idea that something might "have an impact on the 'honorable' gay community."

PeterUK

"I said there's a tendency for self-hating closet sickos to act out. Try really hard and see if you can grasp how "only" means something different."

Opinion! Or do you have experience?

Cecil Turner

We're not pissed at Foley because he's gay. We're pissed at Foley because he's a predator. But in the GOP, I realize those two words are synonyms, and therefore you have no idea what I'm talking about.

If we were all too young to remember Gerry Studds (or Bill Clinton for that matter), this would be a lot more persuasive. As it is, it's fairly obvious that Dems in a similar position would have done nothing (or, if forced, compromise on "censure"). In any event, it's hard to see what Hastert might've uncovered in the investigation you propose that'd have led to anything more than a caution. And the bottom line is that if he was a Dem, he'd likely still be in office . . . which appears to be the main difference.

JM Hanes

Dave:

"This might help you understand the concept of self-hating: picture a black guy wearing white sheets."

Thus categorically proving my point.

boris

Consider someone who is not faking the point wrt the "send a pic" email Ramesh.

you've got a reason to act. And you'd have that reason if you were dealing with a 54-year-old man known to be interested in 20-year-old women who was accused of over-friendliness to a 16-year-old girl.

Given the near univeral interest in 20-year-old women by just about everybody, don't see much evidence that this standard is actually in effect. Seems to be more that a little pretending and/or self delusion goin on here.

Dave

p-------------- "Timing dear boy, timing,this is after Foley resigned"

We were discussing SSP. Now you're telling me that SSP was created "after Foley resigned?"

I realize that Clarice has an impairment regarding simple space-time coordinates. Time runs backwards in her world. Poor thing. Now you? It's more contagious than bird flu.

s----------"If a straight guy sent an email like that to a 16 year old, he's told to refrain because even the hint of impropriety is frowned on. But if a gay guy should do the same, then it's different and all hell should break loose!"

If Foley was a straight guy hitting on female teens, the situation would be exactly the same. Only a raging homophobe like you would possibly contemplate otherwise.

Syl

"News bulletin! Honorable, proud gay people are really pissed off when an abusive closeted jerk like Foley gives them all a bad name!"

But they don't care if an uncloseted gay does the same thing?

You are sooooo full of it!

Syl

If Foley was a straight guy hitting on female teens, the situation would be exactly the same. Only a raging homophobe like you would possibly contemplate otherwise.

Not from those emails! It's YOU who are insisting the word was out that Foley was gay and they should have investigated!

What if the word was out that he was straight?

And don't bring up that stupid 'ref flag' bit. That is HINDSIGHT.

boris

If Foley was a straight guy hitting on female teens, the situation would be exactly the same.

Actually not. Unless homosexual interest is known, a man emailing a 16 yr old boy about small talk is not the same situation as a heterosexual man hitting on a female 16 yr old girl.

JM Hanes

Dave:

"It's not one of my issues, but it was definitely one of Foley's issues. I personally think a closet gay is more likely to act out covertly the way Foley did. If you're too naive to see that connection I can't help you."

And you're apparently too obtuse to realize that statements like that are precisely the sort of thing that Dems routinely use to tar Republicans as homophobic bigots.

I agree with you, btw, that Foley's predation is a serious abuse. I just think your assessment of House leadership's response is seriously distorted by your own ideological assumptions about Republicans. The amateur psychological profiling doesn't help either.

Jane

News bulletin! Honorable, proud gay people are really pissed off when an abusive closeted jerk like Foley gives them all a bad name!

So are you gay or are you just speaking for the gays?

The honorable proud gay person in my office thinks that gay people have the right to privacy just like anyone else.

She also thinks that one gay person does not define gay people. They are all different, a lot like heterosexuals.

She also thinks that if the page was not underage - and we know he wasn't, it's no ones business.

Of course the "honorable gay person" in my office is a conservative, which may explain the difference.

Walter

Not that it matters, but 20 years ago I was dating a recent page. The Senator who hit on her (using similarly graphic language) still holds office.

But maybe standards were different then.

Or maybe, because it was in person and verbal rather than long-distance and written, the threat to her innocence was less immediate.

FWIW, like Foley, he did not actively pursue once she made it clear that she was not interested. Still didn't leave her a happy camper.

Foley went farther than most in accepting responsibility for his actions and resigning.

Tempest in a teapot.

I don't think party affiliation matters so much as personal integrity. And if you don't have the modicum of integrity or even common sense to avoid hitting on pages or congressional interns, you shouldn't be in Congress.

PeterUK

"p-------------- "Timing dear boy, timing,this is after Foley resigned"

We were discussing SSP. Now you're telling me that SSP was created "after Foley resigned?"


No we weren't,with so many options where do you lefties keep your reallity?

cathyf
We'd have essentially the same situation if Foley was straight and he was hitting on 16-year old females.
Oh really? A drunk Patrick Kennedy groping a female page at a Hootie and the Blowfish concert sounds like a pretty good approximation of your hypothetical. In fact, it's much more serious -- actual physical contact as opposed to words on a screen which could be disconnected at any time by either party. And the girl who posted it on the page alumni discussion board could be pretty easily found and the circumstances investigated -- how many Hootie and the Blowfish concerts are there in the right time period?

And we all know just how seriously the Democratic leadership has taken this, right?

SlimGuy

A little rebuttal

Dave- You, Hastert and the FBI need to do a better job of coordinating your alibis, since Hastert just admitted the emails (not the IMs, the emails) were a "red flag." That means someone should have been interested in asking a few questions. I guess Hastert and the FBI don't like asking questions that might make the GOP uncomfortable. They figure it's better that some vulnerable pages be uncomfortable.

A conclusion drawn on your part dave, Claire also has the ability to draw conclusions but here you are contradicting a statement of fact she cited

the truth is the FBI said they looked into it and those emails were insufficient to begin a criminal investigation"

So dave’s conclusions trump claire’s facts , how nice.

Dave
Foley's long track record of despicable behavior was apparently no giant secret. Please explain how it was that the anonymous teen's parents somehow prevented Hastert from asking Loraditch (and/or countless other pages) simple questions about Foley. Such questions could have been asked without saying anything to compromise the privacy of the reporting teen. This is so elementary and obvious it's startling that anyone thinks this alibi will float.

So Hastert should go off on a witch hunt on emails he never saw, but was told were only slightly improper. Oh yeah the PC whiplash on that would be so cool to observe.
And the fact that the parents weren’t asking for Foleys head, just that the contact stop.

Dave
Here's the shocking truth: as far as we can tell, Hastert didn't lift a finger to attempt any such information-gathering. Probably he saw no need to bother because he was already well-aware of exactly what had been going on under his nose, for years

Another conclusion from dave the oracle of yawn.

Claire
I doubt CREW would have acted if the emails just were thrown over the transom BTW"

Dave
I tend to agree. I think CREW acted because they had heard, directly and indirectly, from lots of scared pages who couldn't believe that Foley was still getting a free pass from his management, year after year after year. Like the people at Kos who didn't take that diary seriously, CREW is not going to instantly embrace documents without context and some kind of corroboration.

So dave again magically comes up with his conclusion to counter claire’s conclusion, no facts but spy v spy self superiority

Claire
"at that point with the parents trying to keep this private"

Dave
More baloney. Please identify what you mean by "this." It's a matter of common sense to understand that the parents cared about their privacy. There's no reason to think they had any concerns beyond that. And even if they did, their rights are limited to privacy. In other words, they had no right to say (e.g.) "please don't investigate Foley." They only had a right to say "leave us out of it." And there is no indication whatsoever that they ever said anything beyond "leave us out of it." So this is another pathetically lame alibi that convinces no one who has a pulse.

It has already been established the parents wanted privacy and to just have the contact stop. As long as they were not asking for more, just like our police departments, you cant go investigate without someone filing a complaint, you know probable cause and all those niceties

Dave
That's pure speculation. For all you know, lots of pages in lots of places have been quietly confiding in each other with regard to all sorts of IMs and emails that Foley has left behind over a period of years. Pay atttention to what Loraditch said about three classmates who had gotten "creepy" messages, which eventually "became explicit," and about how people were "telling other pages about it."
.
So dave’s speculation is better than claires, it doesn’t matter that likely Loraditch’s statement came out after clair posted here thought on this so she was commenting at the time on best knowledge at that moment.

"thsoe who did had no interestin making them public"

Dave
It's absolutely correct to suggest that these pages are afraid of Foley, for good reason. What's disgusting about the situation is that he exploited people who were quite weak, especially relative to him. This is the essence of abuse and harrassmant, sexual or otherwise. The power imbalance and resulting fear is why he was able to get away with it for so long. But he pissed off so many kids and parents that it finally it caught up with him. People finally realized that mostly they just had to be careful about redacting their own names

Reasonable but still another dave conclusion but no factual backup

Dave

By the way, I think SSP was indeed created by injured pages, specifically for the purpose of encouraging other pages to come forward in a safe way. And I think ultimately that's exactly what happened.
Created and left to die on the vine, wow what a swarm of indignation contrary to your assertions that they wanted to out the story.

Why create it, they already had a forum of former pages where they could discuss it with those who would lend a sympathetic ear

Claire
When it was clear that was not enough the IMs show up
Dave
More nonsense. Families had been holding those IMs for years, afraid to speak up. When Brian Ross launched the story (on 9/28, discussing the emails), these families had reason to feel encouraged that finally somebody was giving a shit. So they called Ross and the next day he was discussing various IMs with Foley.

I am sure that the families have personally contacted Dave and informed him of this

Dave
Here's my speculation: lots of people, including Ross, knew there were IMs like that floating around. He wanted them, and he understood that sources would be afraid to take any chances until he demonstrated to them that he was serious. So he did that, and sources responded

Well at least you admit this is speculation, and I will give you it is reasonable but no proof

Dave
Anyway, it wouldn't matter if SSP was a channel for the IMs. I think SSP was indeed specifically set up by one or more pages who had decided that Foley's time had finally come. Their drive for revenge was entirely righteous

Dave is channeling the pages again about a site they created and didn’t use to any extent
Not that these multiple pages couldn’t have made a combined effort to go to a news source, which he claims they did i.e. Ross so why the tortured method instead.

Dave
Are you high? Do you live on a planet where time travels in reverse? Lutrin was out of the race no later than 3/18. He had been under pressure to step aside for months, as documented here on 2/12. The date that appears on the faxes is 5/29. That's what you call "about the same time?" Why not just point out that both events happened in the same millenium? On a cosmic scale, that's also "about the same time."

A couple of months is short compared to a 5 year or more history of this Foley bad acts

Dave
Really? A commenter here? You're suggesting that you got the idea that the 9/24/06 Kos diary is a year old from a commenter here. I have made a serious attempt to find such a comment, among the 800 or so, and cannot. So maybe you can tell me where it's hidden. Then again, this latest statement of yours might be another complete work of fiction, like so many of your statements

I happen to know Claire visits other blogs and this was commented on at another one and I would have to go back and look to see specifically which one. She did not state it was here, you again made a wrong assumption.

Dave
Luckily, though, we've got all the GOP loyalists who are eager to paint Foley as the victim. After all, someone was "gunning" for him. Poor guy!

No one here has any sympathy for Foley your point is just rubbish

Dave
More of that darn Soros mind-control. It's unbelievable! It can actually "override the choices of voters!" Amazing how that works.
Actually, you're confused. It's Diebold that's in charge of that process ("override the choices of voters").

Wow another strawman silliness. Blogactive is very clear as to their agenda
After that dave rambles on how he is channeling the pages again and their dormant site attack

Dave
Prominent communists like Hastert and Capito are now on record saying clearly the emails were not "innocuous." Sorry to burst your litle balloon. It's not my fault you and Clarice haven't gotten the memo yet.

Wow when did they switch partys

verner

"It's not one of my issues, but it was definitely one of Foley's issues. I personally think a closet gay is more likely to act out covertly the way Foley did. If you're too naive to see that connection I can't help you."


And I also think you're a bit naive about what's "virtually normal" in the "honorable" gay community. You say that those in the closet are more likely to go after willing "youths?" Well that opinion and $1 will get you a cup at starbucks. You have absolutely nothing to back that up. There is a well know obsession with youth and beauty in so-called "gay" culture, and it is most certainly not exclusive to those in the closet.

As far as the rest of it. You don't know a thing about the people on this board. You don't know whether or not we're gay, much less our opinions on the defense of marriage act. And if you don't want to face the reality of this situation, fine by me.

If you don't think this will send a chill down the spines of every single gay man out there who has anything to do with teenaged boys, you are delusional. You have just given gay haters an excuse to conduct witch hunts on any gay man who sends an e-mail to an underaged male--even if they do not use a single word that would suggest sex at all. And the excuse? Well, Denny Hasert had a REPORT of friendly e-mails, from a man that gossip indicated was gay, and he didn't do anything--even though the guy said that the exchange was completely innocent, and there was no sexual language--and look what happened to him! We can't take any chances with our kids!!! We don't have any real proof, but we better check it out and investigate this guy's private life! Who knows, he MIGHT be having consentual e-mails with another kid who is legally old enough to participate!!!

That's where we are honey! Thanks to Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco)--and people like you, who's hatred of Bush has completely dumbed you down.

Sara (Squiggler)

We'd have essentially the same situation if Foley was straight and he was hitting on 16-year old females.

We would not have the same situation at all. First, if the guy were a democrat, the girl would have her reputation trashed with charges like "trailer trash" and the man would be held up as the party's new super stud, manly man. If it was guy on guy, then anyone criticizing the member would be excoriated for gay bashing.

The only thing about this situation that is different is that Foley was a semi-closeted gay who did not like to wear his gayness on his sleeve the way dems think he should have. And his lack of physical contact makes the dems mad because it lets them down. So, hence, go after the leadership and accuse them. Pretty soon it will escalate and somehow somewhere someone will figure out how to call it all Bush's fault.

Dave you sure seem overly invested in this story and very defensive. Thou protest to much. Your attacks on Clarice are totally out of bounds and certainly won't make you any friends in legal circles either here or elsewhere in the blogosphere. Clarice's bona fides are solid. All we know about you is an angry gay man who slavishly worships Clinton and despises anybody with an (R) next to their name.

Now I suppose will have to have another of your full screen responses repeating every point for the umpteenth time saying the same thing over and over and over again, never getting the point that we all heard you the very first time and dismissed your position as being one of a raging homophobic partisan lunatic.

SlimGuy

I just saw at macsmind that the SSP site is there, but the comments for all posts are gone.

Went and check, sure enough no comments anymore.

I still have them saved to my hard drive

Topsecretk9

--I just saw at macsmind that the SSP site is there, but the comments for all posts are gone.-

Yeah, I do too...wonder why they did that though.

Also, I've seen a few people say they've emaild the email addy to the site calling for more info and the "for the children" blogger has NOT responded.OR blogged in such a "high-profile" exposure time.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame