Powered by TypePad

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

October 02, 2006

Comments

Terrye

T Miller:

See this is the point, on one hand you think Hastert should have done something to Foley based on that email whether the parents wanted it or not and on the other you hesitate to have them become public. Do you think for one minute that if Hastert had tried to either expel or censure Foley based on a somewhat innocuous email he could have accomplished it without the identity of the people becoming known?

How? For one thing Foley might have made that information and the emails public himself if he really thought they were not that incriminating and if he is being publicly rebuked, why wouldn't he?

The press would have tracked it down for sure anyway. There just were not many alternatives at that point.

Too bad Foley did not resign then.

mayfair

Terrye---- "I saw that post from Daily Kos myself, but I do not remember who came up with it at first. It is not just something clarice came up with."

You are thoroughly missing the point. It's not a question of who came up with it. The problem is that Feldman made a very blatant and material factual error. She also seems to have no intention of fixing it, even though I've alerted her to the error. That makes it more than error. That makes it a lie.

T Miller

The problem today is not about outrage from the Left but outrage within the Right. But I've decided to log off and continue watching Fox News, where the Foley resignation seems to be only about emails, and the Democrats have got their shorts in a knot about nothing. It is so reassuring.

mayfair

Clarice-- "I think Mahoney, SSP, the Dems and ABC put the story out using this amateur deflection to hide the source of the information."

I'm well-aware of the fact that you are making this allegation. However, you completely ignored my question. You made an allegation about timing ("the disclosure in ABC was made just one day after Fley's name could no longer be replaced on the ballot"). But if this was a coordinated effort, as you claim, and if the idea was to keep a lid on it until it was too late to get Foley's name off the ballot, then why use the blog to let the cat out of the bag on 9/24, which was several days before the deadline? Why not wait a few more days and be that much more certain that the GOP would be trapped on the other side of the deadline?

Terrye

mayfair:

Why don't you let respond before you decide she made a factual error?

Terrye

T. Miller:;
well the Right or the Left is always outrage dabout something aren't they?

Terrye

mayfair:

Are you suggesting this was not in anyway coordinated? All this stuff just sort of magically appeared at the same time?

clarice feldman

Well, the idea of these things is to build up suspense and keep the story going *drip drip drip* day after day to make the public think it's true. You never spring the whole shebang in one pop.
Innocent emails peddled for a while.No media takers. No story.
Black blog runs emails
Mahoney claims he spotted them in this blog no one but JL and LJ likely ever saw or knew about.

Mahoney demands investigation.
Brian Ross prints this, using the demand as a handle.
Next day --as if my magic--the IMs show up
Another story
(Rinse repeat)

See the Dem Playbook I just posted and the history of the last 6 mos of Dem planning in this District.


*****

And now, for a lighter touch> Why is the 2006 Dem campaign strategy outing gay Congressmen whom they've embraced hithertofore?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y23/drsanity/dems.jpg

SunnyDay

Hannity is talking about it.

Sara (Squiggler)

Mayfair:

Here is Clarice's post on a quote from the other thread:

October 02, 2006
Foley: The Democratic Playbook
It may not be as smooth as the Republicans' Stirling engine, but the Democrats' party committees are hitting on all cylinders today. They want candidates in each and every House and Senate race to push the Foley scandal to its hilt.

(Sample DSCC release: “Foley Sex Scandal Hits DeWine.” Sample WI Dem party release: “Foley Scandal: What Did Green Know and When Did He Know it?”)

Here's Dems' playbook:

1. Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There's no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley's cybersex IMs. There's plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the "overly friendly" e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the "GOP's knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails."

2. Enlarge the wedge between House leaders. The tension this weekend between Speaker Dennis Hastert and NRCC chair Tom Reynolds was thick. Dems want it to suffocate the party and throw the Republicans even further off their game.

3. Be aggressive about how Dems will -- and are -- protecting children. Dems want to keep the issue poisonous in a way that's clear and direct to middle America. (In other words: this ain't earmarks.)

4. Choose unimpeachable spokespeople to be their public face. The DCCC has enlisted Patty Wetterling, its candidate for MN 06, to call for "a thorough investigation" of the House leadership over Foley. Wetterling's son, Jacob, was kidnapped in 1989.

5. Deride the Republicans for incompetence. How can you possibly trust them with national security if you can't trust them with your own children?

6. Bring up Terri Schiavo's case and compare the heated GOP attention back then to their allegedly lax attention to the welfare of their pages.

7. Compare what the GOP leadership says about Foley with what Republicans said about Jack Abramoff.

8. Use the Foley cash. Already, the DSCC wonders why George Allen didn't immediately return the Foley. The quotable Phil Singer: “It is more than a little disturbing that Allen apparently sees nothing wrong with holding on to contributions he got from an adult who has been caught sending sexually explicit email to children." Allen and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) will return the cash. But the NRCC already spent the $550K and won't.

Here's what the Democrats hope to accomplish:

1. Republicans will flinch before they try and use "values" as a cudgel. Can this NRCC ad against Brad Ellsworth be run in this environment?

2. Democrats now have a new way to respond to the Republicans when they go negative: "They're just trying to distract you from the scandal."

3. GOP candidates will be thrown on the defensive, generally.

4. Link House candidates -- and not just Reynolds -- to the sense that that the GOP was hesitant to investigate or even poke around into Foley's life because they didn't want to jeopardize their majority. That is, they craved power to the point where they ignored or suppressed warnings.

Posted at 04:00 PM

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/now_dems_try_to.html

Posted by: clarice feldman | October 02, 2006 at 05:52 PM


SlimGuy

So what I have gathered from chasing this story down

Foley scanned pages for likely gays or gay leaners among the pages

He was smart enough to keep all he approached above the legal age limit

Rodgers who runs a gay activist blog and edits another websites gay section at Raw Story if memory serves.

Rodgers agenda is he outs any closet politicans or key staffers who oppose his gay agenda as he sees it.

He has posted open letters on his blog that are almost straight extortion to out someone pending on their vote position on the Alito Nomination

He has a well know longstanding running battle with Foley lasting over 3 years.

He admits on his blog to being a participant in the situation leading up to Foleys outing but claims he only played a small part.

Rick Ballard

"The boy's identity would then be known, and both he and his parents have made it obvious they don't want to be identified."

The boys identity will be out within days and the proximate cause of that is Foley's Democrat opponent. Take it up with him.

When the identity does come up the boys parents will be run through a FEC check faster than you can say Valerie "Go Kerry" Plame. I'm just very curious as to what the value of a page's appointment might be.

MayBee

That makes it more than error. That makes it a lie.

Is she going down, mayfair?
What is it with these @lycos.com commenters?
My favorite so far has beent he defense of the Thomas White emails by tanyadc@lycos.com

SlimGuy

Rick

I have seen at least 3 sites today that give independent claims they know who the young man is and are threatening to out him sooon

Sara (Squiggler)

Via Snopes

“Claim: “An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.

Status: True

Jessie Jackson has added former Chicago democratic congressman Mel Reynolds to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition’s payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton’s last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud & lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious; however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.

This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.

His new job? Youth counselor.

clarice feldman

mayfair with all the threads here and all the research and correspondence I've had today, I overlooked your plaint.

The date of the kos backhanding the claim seems less important to me than the point that on the same sort of evidence the Republican leadership had even los backhanded it.

And in context you can hardly miss that.

Terrye

And what can the Republicans say to the Democrats claims they are lax on values?

Monica Lewinsky? I don't know but the party of Hollywood will find this a tough sale. People are not that naive.

I hope.

MayBee

It would be easy enough to find the boy's identity now. CREW left all kinds of clues, not the least of which was the fact that he was the page from LA. All you'd have to do is search for the farewell speech where they name all the pages from that year.

I actually was googling Loraditch yesterday and found a site with the email address of every single page from his class. I'm sure they aren't pleased with Loraditch going public.

I would say these people's identities were not well protected by ABC or CREW. I feel really sorry for them.

clarice feldman

I think there may be more reason than that for the pages to be angry at Loradtich. Just my hunch.

Rick Ballard

Where does the LA Congressman who appointed this page stand in all of this? Did the concerned parents camp in his office with the emails clutched in their hands demanding that he do something? Did he refer them to someone else?

There is a chain fo responsibility in this and the first link is the Congressman who made the appointment.

verner

I'm pretty curious about all of that too Rick. Louisiana politics is super dirty. We have no idea what is really going on there.

But the real key is those IMs. Without them, the e-mails are nothing. The identity of the ex-pages who were involved, and how they ended up in the scummy Rodger's hands is the what needs to come to light. I would imagine that he had them long before the LA parents took their e-mails to Alexander's office.

As I've said before, Foley is a sick sick man, and deserves what he gets. But in reading some those IMs, the kid on the recieving end was not exactly an innocent. If he had lived in DC for a year, he knew exactly what he was doing. And I would imagine the same could be said of the others.

I am also suspect of that Loraditch boy. He knows much more than he is saying. And he sure is changing his story, not a good sign.

Am I upset that Foley is gone? Hell no. But this is not about Foley, and never has been. He's just one little seat. This is about smearing Hasert with a cover-up charge, and trying to bring down the republican congress. And all of those repub. fools who are demanding that Hasert step down need to wake up and get real to what is really happening.

Terrye

And they can thank the usual suspects.

I have to wonder, if anyone really cared about the kids...why didn't they take the IMs to Hastert and tell him that he had to deal with it or they would go public. At least give him an oppurtunity to protect the privacy of the people involved by dealing with Foley some time ago.

Oh yeah, right...there is an election coming up isn't there?

Terrye

verner:

They are hoping that by getting rid of Hastert they will make the Dems go away.

Kind of like appeasement in a way. Feed the alligator so he won't eat you.

BTW

Q: How will George Bush and Mark Foley be treated in our history books?

A: Each will get a few pages.

Terrye

BTW:

Better than Clinton. He will get a centerfold.

MayBee

You know, I am a person that believes that for every FBI sting operation where they pose as a 14 year old to snag older men,
they should pose as older men and snag the real 14 year old girls that respond. Then they should notify the parents "look what your kid is up to! Save her from herself!"

The 16 year old that didn't feel right about the emails had great instincts, and that's how we want our teens to be. Not every inappropriate-feeling contact needs to have a federal case made out of it. Learning to properly recognize and deal with situations that feel unwanted and inappropriate is a huge part of becoming an adult.

It is the adults around that family that made it into a political show. Which is why I find the politics around the Foley case fascinating. I can be interested in the politics without thinking Foley did anything I condone.

Terrye

I always wanted to ask someone like BTW.... do you have no shame?

I mean when you think of Democrats like Studds and Clinton screwing around and not only not resigning but being all defiant about their bad behavior, does it not strike you as being just a tad dishonest?

And then of course there is the 90's when we all had to listen to the UN and Clinton and Tenet and just about everyone claim Hussein was a dangerous man with weapons stockpiles etc and now it is as if none of that ever happened. As if Zinni did not tell the Congress that Saddam was our biggest threat, as if Clinton never said Saddam had to go... as if Tenet never promised the weapons were there. How does the left explain this apparent disconnect from reality? Do they even care?

And the votes. Ah yes, the sacred votes. Unless of course your side loses in which case it is all a fraud...or unless of course the people voting are Iraqis making history in which case it is all a scam and we should bring back the dictator. So much hypocricy, so little time.

topsecretk9

WATimes is calling for Hassert to resign...at this point might be best thing

topsecretk9

then we can begin talking about the Democrats non existent platform!

topsecretk9

Mark Levin says...

...the Washington Times, which is despised by the rest of the media, will miraculously become an important authoritative source — representative of conservatives and conservative thought.

Yep.

Dave

"Back in Sept not 4 days ago"

Slim, please try to pay attention to what was actually said. May didn't say the Kos diary was 4 days ago. He said it was 4 days prior to the ABC story. That's a fact.

clarice feldman

TS--that would be stupid! It would be as dumb as Hadley retracting the perfectly accurate 16 words in the SOTC address was.

It would only add credence to the false claim that the Reps knew and didn't care.

Honestly..what is the Wash Times thinking?

MayBee

I think many Reps haven't forgiven Hastert for his posturing on the Jefferson investigation. Reps are using this to dump on Hastert again.

clarice feldman

It's still a stupid idea. It will only be used by the Dems--as they used Hadley's boneheaded play--to suggest the Republicans are guilty of something of which they are not.

topsecretk9

Bottomline, Clarice...if Hassert resigns, Foley's in rehab, the matter is in the hands of the FBI, voters are not going to want to hear Dems drone on and on about this in place of their platform - especially given that Dems -coddled and rewarded the same exact behavior their pretending to care about now.

SlimGuy

Dave you are correct, she stated it right, I missed it since I have been following so many links and sites today I made the error, thanks for pointing it out.

SlimGuy

Rodgers on his site claims connections with the dems.

Aj Strata has picked up posting on the dems site that were later deleted by the site since they don't want to acknowledge the connection in case of blowback damage control.

The site was one of the Democratic committee sites I would have to go back and look at which specific one, he claims coordination or contact with someone named Burton there.

Rodgers was after Foley, the dems are spinning it for all collateral damage they can get.

Hastert was between a rock and a hard spot, he had to walk the very fine line of going after Foley on the over friendly emails he never personally saw and be trashed as a homophobic right winger or now be charged with a inadequate punishment or coverup.

Sort of damned if you do or damned if you don't. Ain't PC such a blunt club when swung for effect.

topsecretk9

I would say these people's identities were not well protected by ABC or CREW. I feel really sorry for them.

You know what MayBee, that's right. Loraditch sorta belatedly took down his web forum, but they're cached...I noticed there were all kinds on IM handles and myspace pages and so on available.

Pretty bad.

I also think it was wicked wrong of Crew to leave the names of some mentioned IN the emails free of black out.

clarice feldman

The Washington Post reports today http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200333.htmlthat the FBI received the emails from C.R.E.W. in July and concluded:

[quote]

An FBI official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the field office concluded that the e-mails "did not rise to the level of criminal activity." The bureau announced Sunday that it would begin a preliminary investigation into Foley's more explicit electronic exchanges with teenagers.[/quote].

For those yammering that the Republican leadership failed to act forcefully enough, it is now clear that it, like the responsible media which received the same emails and now the FBI all concluded the material was insufficient to proceed further.


topsecretk9

I had a hunch that was the case.

SlimGuy

Just for a little advanced warning.

Rodgers is claiming that Foley is not is only target, he is claiming there will be another soon.

MayBee

If it became the standard that an email asking for a picture or commenting on the appearance of a same-sex teen became enough to launch an FBI investigation, the Democrats would rightly be furious.

Hastert should propose a law for that today.
He should call that bluff.

topsecretk9

There is something sorta weirdish sick about Brian Ross's solicitation deal he has going...wonder what he would do if he got a note that a dem leched a page or someone?

I wonder how many papers are out there are sitting on crap about Dem misconduct equal to Foley's they earlier concluded did not rise? Do they have any justification now?

SlimGuy

One thing Rodgers stated as to reasoning for his timing was is that he was trying to knock Foley out of a strong republican seat district and hope the reps could not recover.

However today the reps picked a guy to fill the spot in the race and he has a strong chance of holding the seat.

SlimGuy

TS

There are at least 5 blogs right now talking about the Roberts input on the case. He himself has also acknowled that he has sourced some stuff to the media but is not saying who or what.

Nowhere is this even whispered at in the MSM

clarice feldman

Just saw a poll of that District which asked likely voters if Foley is replaced who would you vote for and with all this the Dem was only up 3...It is a solidly conservative district which Foley won by 68% last time. I would not count this as a Dem pickup. You can be sure that Jeb will be out there campaigning for Negron, the likely replacement as well lots of other popular conservatives .

SlimGuy

Clarice

Negron is the pick, he just ran for state treasurer and has name knowledge , also his opponent was a rep and switched to be a dem which may have some dems leary.

SlimGuy

Part of what makes it iffy is that the district streches from the east coast to the west coast of FL and has seen a lot of population growth so polls may not reflect the true population balance.

SlimGuy

Just a point , the day the Foley emails showed up on SSP, Rodgers was the third commenter on the thread.

In short order the news showed up at Kos as documented earlier and also on Wonkett.

Yeah I bet Wonkett was one of the 1.2 readers per day the site was getting.

SlimGuy

Clarice

You are correct that Jeb will help, but consider this, I don't know his residence address so I can't tell but he could be in Rush Limbaugh's district.

Think about that!

MayBee

Yeah I bet Wonkett was one of the 1.2 readers per day the site was getting.

What would one have to be googling for, for that site to come up (and seem worth clicking on)?
Was google even catching that site then?

SlimGuy

Negron is a three term state legislator another factor in his favor

BTW

"I mean when you think of Democrats like Studds and Clinton screwing around and not only not resigning but being all defiant about their bad behavior, does it not strike you as being just a tad dishonest?"

Let's see. One had sex with a consenting adult. The other is sexual predator preying on children. Yeh you keep pushing the Clinton comparison. I mean please keep pushing it!

BTW

Foley resigned. He folded up like a 5$ Wal-Mart lawnchair. He collapsed like a Halliburton overpass. He ran like a republican being chased by the islambogeyman.

Yeh I think you're on to something here. It must all be a terrible miscarriage of justice before justice was even brought to bear.

Dick, George meet Saadam ... your cellmate.

topsecretk9

The other is sexual predator preying on children. Yeh you keep pushing the Clinton comparison. I mean please keep pushing it!

I'll stick with sicko Studds rewarded with retirement!

MayBee

The ABC News Blotter says:

A former senior Republican official in Congress says Foley was one of a handful of members and staff whose behavior with pages was being closely watched.

----
As most of us suspected.
I wonder how many are being watched, but not closely.

SlimGuy

I wasn't jesting about the number of visitors to the SSP website, see the statistics here

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=medium&compare_sites=&y=r&url=stopsexpredators.blogspot.com#top

SlimGuy

the link is too long for here, go to alexa.com
and search for stopsexpredators.blogspot.com

BTW

Do you think Bush will clear the use of torture on Foley and Hastert?

Dave

"Why don't you let respond before you decide she made a factual error?"

Terrye, with or without a response from Clarice, it's clear that she made a factual error. I'm surprised you can't figure that out on your own. But what now also seems clear is that she has no intention of fixing it. Then again, maybe she intends to fix it but for some reason hasn't said so.

"Are you suggesting this was not in anyway coordinated? All this stuff just sort of magically appeared at the same time?"

Have you ever noticed how information, especially scandalous information, spreads on the internet? One day it's nowhere, and the next day it's everywhere. Must be a big conspiracy!

Grow up. It's the way information spreads in social networks since the beginning of time.

MayBee said "Is she going down"

What are you talking about? Clarice seems to have no interest in correcting her errors. What does that have to do with oral sex?

Clarice, you said "The date of the kos backhanding the claim seems less important to me than the point that on the same sort of evidence the Republican leadership had even los backhanded it."

Placing the Kos diary a year earlier than what's true is a very material error. It also serves your laughably specious fantasy, that Dems were sitting on information for a long time. So I think the error is no accident, and I think your highly irresponsible reluctance to fix it is also no accident.

As far as I can tell, you seem to have no intention of fixing the error. Is that your usual approach to serious factual errors?

Aside from that, it was not "the same sort of evidence." Here's one important difference: the CREW material, sent to the FBI, included the kid's reaction (where he used the word "sick" about a dozen times). That very important information, which was presumably known to Alexander and other Republicans, was not posted on SSP, and was therefore not seen at the time by Kos readers.

You're also missing a fundamental aspect of how Kos works. It's very easy to check out a diarist's Kos history. This diarist's history is visible here. What is the history? Essentially he had none. In other words, he showed up and registered at Kos specifically for the purpose of posting this diary. This is also reflected in the diarist's very recent Kos userid: 102541. Another troubling sign was the fact that the diarist didn't comment in his own diary.

The culture at Kos is to be deeply, deeply skeptical under such circumstances. For one thing, the whole matter could easily have been a hoax. This is not even remotely the same situation Hastert's office was in: they knew there was a real teen and a real set of parents who were expressing real concern, and this is what prompted the call from Alexander's office. All these people knew it was no hoax.

The fact that you're trying to draw some equivalence here, where there is no equivalence, just serves to demonstrate how desperate you are.

BTW

Bush and the repugs lost the juice. Now comes the feeding frenzy!

BTW

What is the argument here? Foley resigned. Doesn't that mean something to you? Brace yourselves for the widening scandal that is sure to follow. Nobody folds that easily unless there is a lot more to follow. A lot more.

Sara (Squiggler)

What the hell are you babbling about, Dave?

What would you have had Hastert do that wasn't done? He turned it over to Shimkus, who was in charge of the page program. He spoke to Foley. The parents made it clear that they did not want to go further and that they wanted to keep this quiet (a desire Dems obviouly did not think worth honoring) and the FBI says nothing in the emails rises to criminality. So what should Hastert have done?

This is so much BS and nothing but a ginned up scandal to obscure the fact that dems are hopelessly out of step with the general public and are nothing but a bunch of cut and run cowards who celebrate terrorism and mock anyone who thinks terrorism is a real threat.

What is so laughable is that this whole thing was promoted by a militant gay group who didn't think Foley was gay enough to suit them.

Sara (Squiggler)

Have you noticed the dem's pattern when it comes to minorities ... Foley a gay Republican isn't gay enough, Steele a black Republican isn't black enough, Gonzales an Hispanic Republican isn't Hispanic enough, and countless Republican women aren't feminist enough because they are wives, mothers and homemakers.

Dave

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. Here's some of what those emails said:

I just emailed will ... hes in really great shape ... i am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym ... send me an email pic of you ... how old are you now? ... what do you want for your birthday coming up

Why is a 51-year old man casually remarking to a 16-year old that the man knows another young man who is in "really great shape?" And that he is "now heading to the gym?" And that he wants an "email pic?"

Here are the remarks of the teen, discussing this matter with someone else:

This freaked me out ... I have [a friend] saying that she thinks it is weird that he even asked for me e-mail, much more what he said ... For some reason he likes to talk about riding his bike a lot ... I don't want to try at find meaning in that . AHH!! lol ... Sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick ... If you can, mention this Rodney so he is aware. I wonder what he would do about it. ... Well. It's late and I have freaked out enough tonight.

By the way, part of the background here is that "everyone in town knew Foley was homosexual" (your words). A heterosexual adult male is not likely to hit on a sixteen-year old boy. If the adult male is a homosexual, the odds are obviously higher. The exact corresponding analysis would apply if the teen was a girl and the adult male was straight.

Is there enough information in the text I quoted to prove that a crime was committed? Of course not. Is there enough information there to give Hastert a basis to boot Foley out of office? Perhaps not. But there's definitely enough information to create a feeling of concern.

Any parent aware of this would be concerned. And that's exactly how Rep. Alexander and his chief of staff reacted to this material: they knew the parents were concerned, and they were concerned themselves. And that's exactly why they called Hastert's office, in 2005.

And you are fully aware of all this, because this information (that Alexander and his chief of staff were "concerned," and that's why they called Hastert's office) is found in a statement issued by Hastert, and recently you quoted from that statement.

The text was obviously enough to make Alexander and his chief of staff feel concerned (aside from the teen and his parents), and they were sufficiently concerned to report the matter to Hastert's office.

Why was it reasonable for Alexander to be concerned, but not reasonable for CREW to be concerned? Why was it reasonable for Alexander to alert Hastert's office, but not reasonable for CREW to alert the FBI?

And thanks for pointing to that helpful WP article. Of course you didn't quote the part which blows your nonsense out of the water:

Some House Republicans said yesterday that the FBI and House leaders erred in not considering the e-mails -- and the concern they raised among the recipient's parents -- as justification for an inquiry.

"This thing should have been looked into months ago," said Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), who said he was "disgusted" by his leaders' response. "That's abnormal for a 52-year-old man having those kinds of e-mails going to a 16-year-old child."

In one, Foley asked the boy to send a picture of himself, which reportedly alarmed the youth and his parents. Hastert agreed yesterday that an adult's request for a teenager's photo "would raise a red flag."

Please note that what Hastert and Jones are discussing above are the emails, not the IMs. These are the emails you repeatedly call "innocuous."

You need to do a better job of coordinating your talking points with Hastert. "Innocuous" emails do not raise a red flag. Actually, you need to do a better job of coordinating your talking points with yourself. In one of these threads you called the emails "creepy but inncouous." Is that like false but accurate? Get your hands on a dictionary and look up "creepy" and "innocuous." Then try to imagine how anything can be both of those things at the same time. But we know you have an awfully good imagination, so I think you'll manage.

So it was very appropriate for CREW to submit the emails to the FBI. And one of many things that need to be explained is why the FBI sat on them, when even Hastert now admits they "raised a red flag."

But even though you have absolutely no facts and no reasoning to support it, you make slanderous claims like this: "The democrats have been planning this for at least six months, probably longer. The evidence is to plentiful to ignore. ... the dems are traitorous conspirators." And you encourage others to spread the smear: "Macs got a long post up with several indications sprinkled in it that the Dems knew about the IMs earlier than ABC did." Mac's "indications" are nothing but pure garbage.

You're a joke. You're only serving to prove that the GOP is desperately groveling for votes from the handful of people who are too dense to see through the crap you're dispensing.

MayBee

MayBee said "Is she going down"

What are you talking about? Clarice seems to have no interest in correcting her errors. What does that have to do with oral sex?

Ohhh, funny funny joke.
Actually, it was in reference to another commenter that blew through here one day, demanding clarice correct an error and saying "You're going down!".

Which leads me to the next point I'd like to make, dave...
The culture at Kos is to be deeply, deeply skeptical under such circumstances.

The culture at Kos is also to troll-rate into oblivion any comment that, like yours, shows up out of the blue and disputes the general consensus. The myriad "You're going down!"-type commenters that are on this blog would be gone from Kos.

Here you are disagreeing and your comment will be available for all to read. That's the culture here. It's kind of nice, isn't it?
Anyone can see how the culture at Kos works, but certainly not anyone can participate.
So...welcome aboard. I hope you feel free to stay and debate your points.

SlimGuy

Sara

I don't know about you but I am tired, have been doing a lot of surfing today, going to go and relax now and come back in the morning to see if I can adsorb how our recent visitors deconstruct all the facts picked up today.

I hope I can learn something from them and all the factual evidence they present.

See you and all the others in the morning.

clarice feldman

I'm too tired for a lengthy response, Dave. To my mind this was CREW operating with others. They had the same emails Hastert did and sent them to the FBI in July. I don't care what preeners said, the truth is the FBI said they looked into it and those emails were insufficient to begin a criminal investigation.

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

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

Now, it is obvious to me that CREW got them from some office on the Hill and sooner or later--I expect sooner because they stupidly left in place the Fax machine No on the site, we will find out where that came from.

(I doubt CREW would have acted if the emails just were thrown over the transom BTW) and at that point with the parents trying to keep this private we know only they were given to the Republican leadership to deal with. Which means few people had them who were not in the Capitol and thsoe who did had no interestin making them public.

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 (Alexa). Trust me, someone tipped them off to go there.


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.
Whoa..Pardon me, but this is getting to smell like the Fulton Fish Market on a day the water's been shiut off.

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

topsecretk9

Do you think Bush will clear the use of torture on Foley and Hastert?

Posted by: BTW | October 02, 2006 at 09:31 PM

Are you in favor of it?

clarice feldman

As for the date of the Kosdiary comment, a Tom posted a reference to it at the top of one of the older threads. A commenter of great probity described it as I did and I failed to double check the dates.

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

Niters.

MayBee

From Dickerson at Slate, encouraging Dems to be careful:

This is about preying on a young person, not sexual orientation, say Democrats. They're right. These pages are not just young; they are employed as part of a compact. Parents send their teenagers to Washington thinking they're being looked after. One former page told me the power relationship was so skewed that she would have been thunderstruck if a member had talked to her at all. But what if the inappropriate relationship were between a congressman and a 16-year-old female page? Would GOP leaders face the same outrage for missing the warning signs? What if we were judging their actions toward a congresswoman who asked for a picture of a 16-year-old female page? 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.

Dave

Sara said "What would you have had Hastert do that wasn't done?"

At the very, very least, he should have asked a few questions. As far as we can tell, he didn't. He also should not have lied to us a few days ago. But he did.

He also should not have kept this matter a secret from two of the three people in charge of the pages program. But he did.

It's very, very obvious that his priority was protecting GOP butts, not protecting vulnerable teens.

"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.

"The parents made it clear that they did not want to go further and that they wanted to keep this quiet"

Like lots of other things, this gets repeated over and over again even though it's pure unadulterated nonsense. What the parents obviously cared about was protecting the privacy of their child. This means that the parents, for example, did not want their child to be called as a witness in a trial. They did not want their child's name to be released to the public. All very understandable. But none of this has anything to do with Hastert conducting an investigation.

Here's an example of part of what such an investigation would look like: talk to other pages. See what they say. Efforts such as this would have in no way defied the wishes of the parents or endangered the privacy of the original reporting teen.

This is so screamingly obvious it's amazing you couldn't figure this out on your own.

Needless to say, nothing like that was done. There is no excuse for this whatsover.

"a desire Dems obviouly did not think worth honoring"

More pure baloney. Do you know the name of the child? I don't. The child remains anonymous. That's obviously what the parents are concerned about, and it's all they have a right to be concerned about. So please stop making things up.

"the FBI says nothing in the emails rises to criminality"

I agree. That doesn't mean they're "innocuous," as Clarice repeatedly claims. The emails were a legitimate basis for concern. Even Hastert now admits they were a "red flag." The FBI is going to need to explain why it swept them under the rug. The emails didn't provide a reason for an immediate arrest, but they provided a reason to ask questions. This applies to Hastert, and it applies to the FBI. Both parties need to explain why they dropped the ball.

"What is so laughable is that this whole thing was promoted by a militant gay group who didn't think Foley was gay enough to suit them."

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

MayBee

The FBI is going to need to explain why it swept them under the rug.

So you support the FBI launching an investigation based on emails passed along by a political group, containing pieces of third-hand emails which ask about the weather and ask for a picture? Does that rise to the level of an FBI investigation to you?
I want to know.
Because if it does, I say watch out witch hunt.

Dave

"it was in reference to another commenter that blew through here one day, demanding clarice correct an error and saying "You're going down!". "

May, thanks for explaining. Presumably you can understand why I was confused, because I was completely unaware of that background. Let me know if there are any other cool "in" jokes I need to watch out for.

"The culture at Kos is also to troll-rate into oblivion any comment that, like yours, shows up out of the blue and disputes the general consensus."

Uh, I didn't realize I had wandered into the Kremlin, where it's a crime to say something that "disputes the general consensus." Or the Bush White House, I guess.

If you can show me any proof that well-documented, factually-correct comments are routinely troll-rated at Kos, you should do that. Unlike some people, I don't assume something is true simply because I read it on a blog somewhere. That goes for the statement you just made.

Also, it's worth realizing that Kos has a stated policy that the purpose is to promote a Dem agenda. If there's a similar explicit policy here, you should let me know where I can find it.

Speaking of oblivion, it's worth realizing that Maguire has a history of beheading (i.e., banning) commenters who throw in more truth than he can handle. And on occasion this goes hand-in-hand with deleting comments. So Kos is not the only place where oblivion can be found (although there it's done by other readers, via their ratings; here it's done unilaterally by the host). Along these lines, don't be surprised if certain comments (and/or commenters) here start to mysteriously disappear, with no comment or explanation from the host.

"Here you are disagreeing and your comment will be available for all to read"

We'll see for how long. By the way, it's not just that I'm disagreeing. It's that I used documented facts to explain myself. I think that in itself is sort of a culture violation here.

"So...welcome aboard. I hope you feel free to stay and debate your points."

I sincerely appreciate your sincere welcome. But whether or not I'm really "free to stay" is unfortunately not up to me.

JM Hanes

Dave:

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

Was the self-hating bit on today's list of talking points? The reasoning behind this particlar slam seems to be that any gay who admits to Republican tendancies must, by definition, despise himself.

topsecretk9

Yeah, JMH

Pretty surprised the Dems are letting their minions strike such a homophobic pose.


Why did the creepy black stop pred site take down their comments?

JM Hanes

tops:

"Why did the creepy black stop pred site take down their comments?"

Maybe it had something to do with the info SlimGuy posted above:

Just a point , the day the Foley emails showed up on SSP, Rodgers was the third commenter on the thread.

In short order the news showed up at Kos as documented earlier and also on Wonkett.

Yeah I bet Wonkett was one of the 1.2 readers per day the site was getting.

topsecretk9

JMH...I read that, but I don't altogether get it....what does that mean...

topsecretk9

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

No doubt...

Unitended consequences (WSJ)

...But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. 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. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?
Sara (Squiggler)

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.

Dave, your babble is getting old. We all know the talking points and repeating them over and over isn't going to convince us that you or any dem gives a rat's ass about the former page or his parents. You are preening around thinking you really pulled a fast one. Well, get over yourself. This libertarian will not be persuaded by your nanny-state, homophobic blather.

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. That is how delegation of authority works. I realize this is a hard concept for lefties to grasp as they seem to think George Bush has magical powers to control every single facet of every life in the entire world, but large structured organizations work on the delegation principal. Hastert did what his role as Speaker required, he spoke directly to the Member while Shimkus took care of his area, the Page.

As far as I can see from what you posted, 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. That says a hell of lot more about you and your sexual appetites than it says about Foley's.

You know how I know that Repubs will come thru this stupidness just fine? Because the issue has brought out all you trolls trying so hard to convince everyone that suddenly you have no spots and that you actually care about this subject for any other reason than gotcha.

topsecretk9

And speaking of...Ace has:

Democratic Strategeist Bob Beckel: Fact That Mark Foley Was Gay Should Have "Raised Questions" About More Innocuous Emails – Ace

Likens Gay Man Around Boys To Notorious Bank Robber Willie Sutton Hanging Around Banks

Nice. Can you say GAY W I T C H H U N T....

BTW

"As far as I can see from what you posted, 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."

The religious right is going to love this. The righties speaking out against homophobes (that aren't really homophobes). The righties are severely disoriented.

BTW

Marco!

SlimGuy

Sara

I woke up after going to bed an looked over what has happened since then before I go back to bed.

I hoped they could present logical arguments to all that others have posted here today, but sadly we have been disapointed.

Your comback was good.

You go girl, you rock.

ps
Hope your back is better.

BTW

Polo!

JM Hanes

tops:

According to SlimGuy here and also here Rodgers is part of the gay jaugernaut which has been gunning for Foley. I assume his remarkably speedy arrival on the scene at the STOP site is seen as hinting at possible collusion of some sort or at least an inside track on the timing.

SlimGuy

JM

You got it right, this guy who is heading all this up is very commited to his goal.

Many sites have picked up the linkage independently with their research.

Rodgers is a loose cannon with a George Soros complex that want's to take down any one who doesn't fit his agenda. He has others supporting him at another publication called the Washington Blade , another gay paper rather than a blog , but it has a website.

Left gays support their agenda, right gays are by their definition repulsive and bad.

Rodgers has a take no prisoners agenda, he is totally a scorched earth person.

He jumped the shark at the advent of the Alito vote and threw out the rear view mirror after that.

Read his site blogactive to get the details.

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.

Somehow I don't think he will be invited to my next BBQ.

But hey thats just me.

SlimGuy

JM

Many of the blogs I have visited today express the opinion that his visit and being the third commenter to the email post thread was an intentional strawman diversion.

The site had nill traffic until the emails appeared , peaked that day and now is only visited by those reading the site to determine the facts independently.

The obscure site owner has not posted since all this followup has occurred and the news coverage. It just died and immediate death. How quaint but unbelievable.

SlimGuy

Ok I got it , just like a CIA shell company an unknown blog in existance for a couple of months that had less than 50 visitors broke the initial story of the Foley emails and had 4 people email the blog hoster about their trials and travails to the Foley menace amoung our population.

And then simultaneously someone posted at Kos with a totally new thread linking to the site and Wonkett also hit on this jewel of the Nile to spread the gospel.

Ok I got all that....and I wanna bet on the trifecta on the 5th race at belmont tomorrow because I'm suddenly feeling real lucky.

topsecretk9

I assume his remarkably speedy arrival on the scene at the STOP site is seen as hinting at possible collusion of some sort or at least an inside track on the timing.

You mean THIS?


topsecretk9

thanks JMH..

SlimGuy

hoster about their trials should have been Foley and their trials, I'm going back to bed, see everybody in the morning.

SlimGuy

TS

Many have suggested a sockpuppet with a home called a new blog shell company.

Does that fit or should we aquit?

SlimGuy

To answer your specific this question, yes he was the third poster in that thread when the emails appeared after less than 50 visitors at that site in it's prior history.

Crystal ball anyone.

SlimGuy

Following up this was the most active post day of the whole site history,,38 posts if I remember and another poster was a reporter from from Miami who wrote a gay oriented column and website.

The symentry how compelling and the karma is so shocking.

I must submit to the twirling of the fates!

Allahs will or whatever.

SlimGuy

Personal note to blog software writers, geez come up with an automatic spellchecker, you are holding back the revolution!

Learn it , live it, love it!

anonymous

Mark Levin says...

...the Washington Times, which is despised by the rest of the media, will miraculously become an important authoritative source — representative of conservatives and conservative thought.

Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 02, 2006 at 07:07 PM

You do know who owns the Washington Times, don't you?

And do you know which former President has close ties to the owner?

SlimGuy

I see the second shift has arrived, and I am going back to bed.

Will promise to listen to their revealing factual counter argument in the morning.

Everyone can have their opinion, but they don't get to choose their set of facts.

Amazing how the visitors of note minimize the facts and present retoric. It sounds good but like a chinese meal it doesn't satisfy in the long run.

topsecretk9

Rogers has been gunning for Foley for a while ...and he's threatened to out a senator in January for voting for Alito

UPDATE: Some of you have asked if he will be outed tomorrow. No. The blog will report on this closeted Republican Senator between tomorrow and a time when it may most impact the reelection effort of the Senator. Just because the Democratic establishment has given up the fight for our Nation, doesn't mean this site will...


Rogers

Well, actually it doesn't look like the Dem establishment has given up, in fact it looks like they are in coordination the Gay withch hunt, at least Bill Burton at the DCCC is cordinating with Rogers:

I am glad my work on this is finally coming to fruition. I spoke with Bill Burton at the DCCC about this and I’m so glad you guys were able to jump in on the heels of my work.


Totally reminds me of that Burkett guy just happen to be able to Cell Joe Lockhart on the campaign trail!

SlimGuy

TS

Rod Serling has got the pattent.

This is not a rerun of any 24 eppisode I have seen, which at this point is zero. Heard about but ain't watched it.

Mc Giver on steroids , hush my mouth!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame