Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« NY Times Delivers Front Page Murtha-Basher | Main | Foley And The Law »

October 02, 2006

Comments

davis

Tony Snow accurately refers to the email messages as "naughty emails". Until the instant messages (of dubious origin) were released later, those naughty emails were all the House leaders were aware of. This is being blown out of all proportion.

Neo

The notification appears to be spotty.

Even ABC has "Several Democratic pages tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley" in their piece that pages were warned.

Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominate them for the page program.

Sounds like the Republicans were warned, but for some reason the Democrats were not.

Neo

I'm not trying to make excuses but ..

since the whole 1997/98 Lewinsky (White House intern) matter, not to mention the 1983 House intern scandal, any parent of an intern or supervisor of interns that doesn't tell interns to watch their backsides, etc. is not doing the interns any favours.

With the hall filled with duly elected drunks and lechers of the likes of the Kennedys and previously Gerry Studds, they should be warned about the possibility of this sort of lewd behaviour.


At least, Foley had the good sense to resign. Something that every drunk and lecher on Capitol Hill should see as their future. The Public will now settle for nothing less.

clarice feldman

Again--the NYT is afraid of homophobia or appearing to support it.

Seems to be going over Pelosi's head though. Good. Get enmeshed in this charade and offend a major constituency in the bargain.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

My compliments on your second piece on this at AT. When are you sleeping these days?

Bob

Clarice you made it to the top at http://lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=299198>Lucianne

with your American Thinker article.

Nice job!

clarice feldman

Thanks. I never sleep any more. This has to stop.

clarice feldman

(There's a good one on Armitage coming tomorrow--I wrote it last week.)

SunnyDay

LOL, I would think the NYT would be on Foley's side! I guess they're standing back a little til someone figures out whether he actually broke any laws.

clarice feldman

How do you square demanding the Boy Scouts permit gay scout masters with a claim that a reputed homosexual's innocuous emails warranted a full bore investigation? You can't, I think.

SunnyDay

On Fox right now - the blogs and origin of the story.

SunnyDay

That was a little touch and go on Fox, feed them some more questions, Clarice. ;)

clarice feldman

Oh my, SD, I can write but cannot make them read.

Sweetness & Light reminds us of convicted Congressman Reynolds and his new role as Jesse Jackson "youth counselor" just in case you think the Dems' suggestion that Hastert should have conducted an investigation still sits well with you.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/does-anyone-in-our-media-remember-mel-reynolds

Jane

I dunno, I'm skeptical of what is going on at the NY Times. I'd look for a bigger story there.

clarice feldman

Like what, Jane?
I think Pinch has been very solicitous of gays and he sees what Pelosi doesn't--the logical trail to this kind of charge.

You know all Congresscritters and party staff (i.e. official photogs , etc) have private hideaways hidden around the Capitol.
When will they initiate pariatel rules like they used to have in college dorms-- open doors and feet on the ground directives-- for those offices?

Jane

Like what, Jane?

Beats me but I'd bet some sort of internal revelation of their bias or something that will be very harmful when it gets out - because this Foley story, coupled with the Murtha story is just too big of a turn-around for a Monday morning.

I've also noticed that no one, on either side of the aisle has condemned Foley because he is gay. If nothing else, that is real progress.

Jane

What I will say I'm impressed with is that Foley has at least acted with honor, and that it is a stark comparison to how Clinton or any of the other dems acted under similar allegations.

ed

"Honor"? Jane you have read the IM's right?

clarice feldman

Be careful, Jane--In an hour or so the sinosphere will take your post and run with a claim that the WH is holding indictments on the NSA leaks over the NYT until after the election.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

Carrying over from the last thread, I don't think you were too kind to Hastert et al, per Kaus. Can you imagine the howls of protest should the Speaker start demanding access to other Congressmen's computers and private correspondence?

Should Hastert be expected to launch an investigation at every hint of sexual impropriety (and the emails in question at the time were, at most, a hint), he'd need to add a whole new division to the Capitol Police force. They could haunt the halls of Congress with special issue Taliban-style staffs in hand...

If anyone could be faulted here, it would be Rep. Alexander who declined to register a complaint with the Ethics Committee, and his reasons for not doing so, at least officially, seem plausible enough.

I also think Kaus himself underplays the dirty tricks aspect here, so to speak. While he may be right that "The gambit only worked because Foley was guilty," I think the whole blog laundering phenom will end up being a significant part of the scandal -- assuming the story actually survives the next couple of news cycles.

clarice feldman

Thanks. I think he was too strong in saying my argument "failed". I do think I laid out some sensible questions which so far, including one only the( very solicitous to gays) NYT has the wit to notice--How far can the Dems carry this argument without looking like gay bashers?

AMDG

I do not like this one bit.

Whether this is a set-up by CREW or not the issue to me is how much of the'naughty' e-mails did the leadership know about. They are creepy enough and a clear indication that Foley is probably a preditor - is sweeping it under the rug no way to handle it. Just ask the Archdioeces of Boston. This could be Alcee Hastings' and John Conyers'tickets to chairmanships.

As soon as the leadership saw those e-mails they should have called Foley in and told him that they were referring the matter to the FBI.

As a Republican I expect more of the leadership than to act like Democrats.

clarice feldman

BTW the people bashing hastert the hardest are very socially conservative and very partisan Dems. Go figure--It's like the Hitler-Stalin pact.

clarice feldman

amdg--Once again (same to you TWilliams) all Hastert knew of were the emails to one former page..which I wouldn't even classify as naughty. They ask how he survived Katrina, how his vacation went and would he send a "pic".

Straighten up and read right.

Sara (Squiggler)

I think what bugs me the most about this story is the self-righteousness of those who are criticizing Foley. I do not condone any old man's sexual fantasies being foisted on our youth anymore than anyone else, but putting the IMs aside and looking at the emails, which is all the leadership knew about, I would suggest that you prudes out there go to any MySpace site or to any of the matchmaker sites and read the profiles. You will see far far more explicit stuff posted in public profiles than you see in these emails.

When I had a profile up on Conservative Match for awhile, I got dozens of contacts from men ranging in age from 20 to 75. For a woman who recently entered her sixties, it is very strange to get email match contacts from 20 year olds. These emails are very explicit with direct questions to me about my sexual preferences. The age of the sender is not a factor in how explicit the questions are. I've been asked if I'll "go down" regularly, whether I'll dress in leathers and high heels, or all white with a feather boa, or high heels, garter belts, and whip. I've had guys who want to know how I feel about three-somes, about sex with other women where they can watch, I've been asked if I will be a "Mommy" and diaper them, I've been asked if I'm willing to spank. Some get even more disgusting. One of the worst, IMHO, was a guy in his 30s who asked if I was domineering and would order him to give a BJ to another man while I watched. Now to me, that is a real gag and far worse than anything Foley did.

The idea of a "friendly" email asking for a picture being in the same league is crazy. Even the IMs are tame compared to some I've received unsolicited on AOL or thru ICQ.

Jane

Honor"? Jane you have read the IM's right?

ed,

I haven't seen the IM's. The "honor" part was the resignation. I'm so glad Foley didn't wag his finger at us and tell us to mind our own business or worse lie about it and waste all our time.

boris

read the IM's right?

Read some, kid stuff compared to language used in boot camp back in 1965 when I enlisted at age 17.

Extraneus

Pun intended, Boris?

(Just in case boot camp really isn't *that* much different from how I'd imagined it, the IMs are here, linked via the box mid-way down the article. Don't read them right after lunch.)

Jane

Hastart is talking now, trying to cover his ass. I'd prefer he get to the truth of the matter instead.

I've seen the first 3 IM's in that article and they sure as hell don't make me all that uncomfortable. I can't get the other PDF's to open, which is too bad, because I'm always interested in seeing if the same things make me uncomfortable as everyone else.

clarice feldman

Jane, I'm told Hastert asked the investigators to find out who had the IMs and when they had it.


Bob

Read some, kid stuff compared to language used in boot camp back in 1965 when I enlisted at age 17.

boris, I'm sure it's nothing compared to the Clinton/Monica phone sex tapes!

cathyf

Jane, Taranto linked this morning:

"The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex," ABC reports. But it did post a long exchange, taking nine Web pages, with the warning READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED. We will emphatically second that advice; reading through just the first few pages made us feel unwell. But for the record, it is here.

AMDG

Clarice Says:
[I]BTW the people bashing hastert the hardest are very socially conservative and very partisan Dems. Go figure--It's like the Hitler-Stalin pact.[/I]

And

[I] amdg--Once again (same to you TWilliams) all Hastert knew of were the emails to one former page..which I wouldn't even classify as naughty. They ask how he survived Katrina, how his vacation went and would he send a "pic".
Straighten up and read right[/I]


AMDG Responds:
1. If you are correct regarding what Hastert knew (which would not be very much) than I stand corrected. If that is the case then he needs to get out there right now and unambiguously set the record straight and do it again and again and again until even the MSM cannot avoid it. Including the fact that Democrat leaning groups with partisan agenda knew about the more damaging IM’s and held to them, putting potential victims at risk in his record straightening should be repeated as well.

2. I cannot help that the Democrats are trying to make hay of this. I do know that even the hint of looking the other way will cause immeasurable damage to the Republican Party. The crisis on the Archdiocese of Boston was not due so much to the predators themselves but the way that situation was handled (a note about this is that the Archdiocese had virtually eliminated the problem by the 1990’s – the blow up in 2000 related to cases in the 70’s and 80’s).

3. We need to face reality. The rules for the Democrats are different. There hypocrisy will go unchallenged by the MSM. If the Republican house leadership did anything that can be logically interpreted as sweeping this matter under the rug we are in big trouble. This needs to be nipped in the bud now.

clarice feldman

Well we're learning. Hastert's demanding the investigators find out who had the IMs and when is what I call a reverse Plame--It is exceedingly unlikely the question can be answered in 5 weeks and it'll hang in the air thru the election.

AMDG

Sara Says:
[I] I think what bugs me the most about this story is the self-righteousness of those who are criticizing Foley. I do not condone any old man's sexual fantasies being foisted on our youth anymore than anyone else, but putting the IMs aside and looking at the emails, which is all the leadership knew about, I would suggest that you prudes out there go to any MySpace site or to any of the matchmaker sites and read the profiles.[/I]

AMDG Responds:
Sara, the problem is the position that Foley held – the e-mails are creepy and a clear indication that Foley has problems. If one follows your logic than a reasonable conclusion is that you were bugged by those who criticized Clinton for using the oval office to turn an intern into a humidor.

Regarding your experience on Conservative Match – it surprises me to learn that Jim McGreevy went trolling there.

Sara (Squiggler)

Saw this just now:

Drudge is reporting Foley is entering rehab for alcoholism:

Painfully, the events that led to my resignation have crystalized recognition of my longstanding significant alcohol and emotional difficulties.

I strongly believe that I am an alcoholic and have accepted the need for immediate treatment for alcoholism and related behavioral problems.

AMDG

The IM's were held by George Soros through a group that he funded. By holding them they potentially facilitated a predator

There should be an immediate demand that the Democrats forswear any direct or indirect help from Soros’ money.

Sara (Squiggler)

AMDG -- I don't see it that way. I worked for a female Member of Congress and we were always asking for interns and our youthful volunteers to leave email addresses, pics, etc., and to stay in touch as they went off to college. Good volunteers with an interest in politics are nurtured and mentored. We sent reps to every scouting event where a young man received his Eagle scout award. We sent reps to graduations and gave out awards. So, for a Member to stay in touch is not unusual and in most cases is highly desired. These kids going off to college are already starting their networking and having a Member speaking for you is a powerful in when they are ready to job hunt.

Jane

Well I've done my required homework, read the IM's and they are inappropriate for a congressman and a Page but not all that shocking and over the top. It just sounded like sex talk to me - and I'd bet every single person criticizing Foley has entered into that at some point - at least I hope they have.

And I bet Foley resigned under sheer embarrassment. As I said earlier, at least he has some shame; people like Clinton have none.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well, if as is now claimed by Foley, he has a severe alcoholism problem, there is no telling if he even remembers having written half the garbage he wrote in those IMs. No excuse, but definitely an explanation of where his judgment went in doing so.

Sara (Squiggler)

Jane, I feel the same way and the point I've been trying to make. Even the IMs seem tame to me compared to some things I've received unsolicited. And, I would hate for anyone to see some of my private correspondence between myself and the person I was involved with physically.

Just proves my Aunt was right ... never put anything in writing you wouldn't want your Mother or your minister to read.

clarice feldman

And for Chrissakes --make no videos.

Sara (Squiggler)

LOL. That too, Clarice.

Jane

So after reading the exchange what occurs to me is how all these elected officials pretend to be such bloody prudes. Elected officials are weird beyond recognition, and that includes sexually weird. These are people who think they have to drink a beer in private, never mind engage in hotchat. Sheesh what a bloody joke. And the ex-page didn't sound the least bit reticent in the exchange either.

And let's not forget about this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

boris

the e-mails are creepy and a clear indication that Foley has problems

The emails Hastert and Reynolds had access to might seem creepy in hindsight and they were enough to raise some concern but "creepy" is not a "clear indication".

Back before gay and queer became slang for homosexual, creepy and queer used to mean approximately the same thing. Claiming that "creepy" qualifies as a flashing red warning has more than a hint of profiling.

maryrose

clarice:
Wonderful article. If you lack sleep, try taking little naps in the afternoon.

Sue

MySpace site or to any of the matchmaker sites and read the profiles.

Why? Are there other congressmen/congresswomen posting there to 16 year olds? Or are you referring to how one 16 year old talks to another 16 year old? Just so I know how prudish I really am. Because how teenagers talk amongst themselves is not the issue here.

clarice feldman

Thanks, maryrose

TexasToast

Jane, I feel the same way and the point I've been trying to make. Even the IMs seem tame to me compared to some things I've received unsolicited. And, I would hate for anyone to see some of my private correspondence between myself and the person I was involved with physically.

Well, yes, of course, but you don't have a fiduciary duty to your correspondant. Remember that teacher who went to jail after she got pregnant by the high school kid? They eventually married, but that doesn't make it right. She had a duty not to use her position to exploit those to whom she has a responsibility.

As to only knowing about the innocuous e-mails - ABC followd the trail to the IMs in 24 hours - not months. Was not the slightest suspicion raised in the mind of anyone in the leadership's mind - after apparently repeated warnings - or did they just not want to know?

Hear no evil - see no evil.

boris

after apparently repeated warnings

What repeaded warnings? Or is that just some made up BS.

boris

Italiacto!

clarice feldman

Made up BS--

Bob

Well I just read the IMs, and to be honest they were a lot more tame than I expected... mostly because the "page" seemed to be just as into it as Foley. I mean how many teenagers feel that comfortable talking to a grown man that long about such a perverted subject? If you didn't know Foley's age it would have been nothing different than dorm or locker room banter. However the young man should have realized the more he discussed details of his self indulgence, the more Foley escalated the level of the conversation. I wouldn't say the kid encouraged Foley, but he sure isn't innocent on this either. This was a two way discussion over the Internet and he was not cornered in some backroom closet. He could have left the conversation at any time.

This is as embarrassing for the kid as it was inappropriate for Foley to initiate it. No wonder his parents didn't want this to go any further.

Terrye

I don't think there was a cover up. Too many people were involved. After all look at what happened. How do you cover this up?

Bob

Texas Toast... are you saying Clinton jumping the bones of an intern was wrong... ya know Billy had some fiduciary duty too! Or like most Democrats, do you feel girls like Monica, Juanita, Paula, etc. were just asking for it!

Extraneus

Considering how fast he resigned, and the fact that the emails aren't enough to force that, I don't doubt the IMs, but is it only ABC certifying their authenticity?

cathyf
the e-mails are creepy and a clear indication that Foley has problems.
Well the only "problem" that the emails clearly indicate is a "problem" well-known to anyone paying attention -- that Foley was one of the few congresscritters who was nice to the pages. Perhaps there should be a full-bore investigation of every other congressperson who is not an asshole when dealing with underlings (pages, security, cleaning people, cafeteria workers, etc.) From what I've heard about DC, they are so few and far between that it should be a small investigation.

A modern version of Diogenes -- The Search For a Non-Asshole Who Is Being Nice Out Of Something Other Than a Nasty Perverted Motive

TexasToast

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

“I don’t think it would pass the sniff test. ... 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.”


Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va

Sara (Squiggler)

Why? Are there other congressmen/congresswomen posting there to 16 year olds? Or are you referring to how one 16 year old talks to another 16 year old? Just so I know how prudish I really am. Because how teenagers talk amongst themselves is not the issue here.

Frankly, I do not see the age or the position of the correspondents as having anything whatsoever to do with the content of the messages. If teenagers talk among themselves this way, why would they see anything out of the ordinary about anyone of any age talking that way? Doesn't wash.

Fiduciary duty? What duty did Foley have to a former page who was initiating contact on a personal level? It wasn't like Foley grabbed him and locked him up and forced him to participate. There is no indication that Foley traded jobs or money to force someone to participate.

We long ago left the Leave it to Beaver world. Kids now think it is a mark of shame to still be virgins past the age of 14. C'mon do you really think these IMs weren't being enjoyed by the recipient either because he is also gay or as a point of amusement for he and his buddies?

Sara (Squiggler)

The Congresswoman I worked for had a young highschooler in her office who during the time he worked there had a terrible thing happen within his family when his father killed his Mother. At 16 he was left to be the guardian over his younger brothers and sisters. My boss heard about it and took this young boy under her wing and became like a Mother to him. They were very close. She gave him jobs, got other contituents to pitch in and give him aid and eventually she paid for his education where he became a lawyer and is now a judge. She took him on out of the country trips as her personal aide. She was 67, he was 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. By your definition, she is a pervert.

Jane

Well, yes, of course, but you don't have a fiduciary duty to your correspondant.

Texas toast,

A fiduciary duty? DO you even know what that means? Sheesh. And assuming you do, which I doubt, what does a fiduciary duty have to hot chatting?

Boy are you stretching. You must have twisted yourself into a pretzel over Clinton.

Or maybe not.

Rick Ballard

Jane,

TT is mixing up this one with Barney's fiduciary responsibility as the lessor of a male brothel to his tenant. There was a breach on Barney's part given that he knew that his tenant was conducting busines and threw him out without fair warning.

Jane

Wouldn't you just love to get a look at Bill Clinton's IM's?

Then we could talk about his "fiduciary duty".

What a joke.

TexasToast

Jane and Squiggler

from the Latin fiducia, meaning "trust," a person (or a business like a bank or stock brokerage) who has the power and obligation to act for another (often called the beneficiary) under circumstances which require total trust, good faith and honesty. The most common is a trustee of a trust, but fiduciaries can include business advisers, attorneys, guardians, administrators of estates, real estate agents, bankers, stockbrokers, title companies or anyone who undertakes to assist someone who places complete confidence and trust in that person or company. Characteristically, the fiduciary has greater knowledge and expertise about the matters being handled. A fiduciary is held to a standard of conduct and trust above that of a stranger or of a casual business person. He/she/it must avoid "self-dealing" or "conflicts of interests" in which the potential benefit to the fiduciary is in conflict with what is best for the person who trusts him/her/it. For example, a stockbroker must consider the best investment for the client and not buy or sell on the basis of what brings him/her the highest commission. While a fiduciary and the beneficiary may join together in a business venture or a purchase of property, the best interest of the beneficiary must be primary, and absolute candor is required of the fiduciary.

I have a passing familiarity with the term since I am a board certified lawyer in Trusts and Estates. I'm all for privacy, but this seems to be a classic case of using a position of trust for “personal” benefit - almost a classic sexual harassment fact pattern. When the company gets hung, its almost always for not reacting to the signs quickly enough.


Meant to include this link before.
AmericaBlog

Jane

TT,

Your "passing familiarity" seems to belie you. This wasn't a Foley constituant, but I guess you didn't know that. And Foley was not acting in his role of congressman. An example of that would be coercing an intern who worked for you to have sex with you. Surely as a trusts and estates lawyer you can discern the difference. (BTW how does one become board certified in law? Is that a state distinction?)

You accumulate money for your client, place it in your iolta account until disbursement - you have a fiduciary duty to disburse it properly. Or you sleep with someone taking under the will you are probating, a person you don't represent, and you whisper little trust and estate secrets in their ear - that would be a breach of your fiducuary duty.

But please, lay out the facts where Foley had a fiduciary duty in relation to this victim, and how exactly he breached it. Pretend we are the jury and convince us.

Bob

Yeah TT, I'd say you have a "passing familiarity" with the definition of the phrase fiduciary duty...

I think the point everyone is making here, is that Foley had NO fiduciary duty to anyone in this matter. This was a personal screw up, that did not impact anything he did as a legislator... other than the embarrassment.

God I'm glad your not my T&E lawyer...

Sara (Squiggler)

I know what fiduciary duty means, I was the trustee for a family trust for several years.

None of these pages worked for Foley. They had their own adult supervisors, living quarters and rules of the road. As far as we know, the contact with the FORMER pages was made after they were no longer pages.

So where is the fiduciary duty? There isn't one, nor is their any employer/employee relationship.

Plus, the pages initiated the contact.

TexasToast

Jane

As a lawyer, It would be a breach of duty requiring me to withdraw to be “whispering trust and estate secrets” ; ) with anyone involved – and even the appearance of such would make me run for the exits. “Hot chat” with you might be fun, but if you were a client it would be very stupid.

Your point is well taken if these were people he met on the Internet who just happened to be 16. That bothers some folks enough to pass laws making it illegal, but that is not the fact pattern we have here. Foley, however, was allegedly acting in the role of a “teacher” or “mentor” – and using his position to put himself in a position of trust with these pages. This position of trust makes the direct quid pro quo you are asking for simply unnecessary.

The developing law of sexual harassment cases gives me the willies – it’s a “Scarlet Letter” type accusation that, true or not, can really destroy promising careers. Apparently though, this guy wrote his own letter.


PS It is a state designation.

Sara (Squiggler)

Foleygate: What Stunk Like a Rat, Was a Democ-Rat!

Neo

I understand that the IMs went to a still yet unidentified person, but apparently there is mention of college, so more than likely the person was over 18.

My mama taught me to walk or run away from this kind of behaviour, so I am interested to hear just what kind of story emerges as to why the IM exchange went on for so long. Why wasn't the "offending" IM stream just dropped immediately when it got "weird" ? So, perhaps this is "consensual" ?

I don't expect the FBI to press any charges.

Sara (Squiggler)

From the above link:

Here are the threats and plans to destroy Mark Foley printed at a Leftist-haters blog back in March of 2005:

Birds of a Feather
Two haters, one picture:
Gay-bashing straight man John Ashcroft and Gay-bashing gay man Mark Foley

This is United States Congressman Mark Foley
He voted this week for a law to allow hate groups to fire gay and lesbian people at will
The law he is supporting will overrule ANY local laws on the matter.
MARK FOLEY IS GAY
MARK FOLEY WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITE HE IS THROUGH A MAIL AND INTERNET CAMPAIGN THAT WILL REACH INTO EVERY HOME IN HIS DISTRICT.

THIS MAN IS A DANGER

TO GAY MEN AND LESBIANS

DO NOT SLEEP WITH THIS MAN
IF HE CRUISES YOU IN THE BATHROOMS OF CONGRESS,IGNORE HIM!
IF HE HITS ON YOU AT THE NEXT REPUBLICAN CONVENTIONIGNORE HIM!

THE NATION MUST BE WARNED ABOUT THIS
ABOMINATION IN THE GAY COMMUNITY

Please to support our educational and advertising campaign against this right wing hypocrite, click here and join the battle for true lesbian and gay liberation.

**COMING MONDAY ON BLOGACTIVE:** The entire Mark Foley story...Read about my recorded discussions with staff members and former staff members of Rep. Mark Foley...Read about how Mark Foley hit on men less than half his age at the Republican convention...Read about how Mark Foley voted to remove protections from those same young gay men and lesbians and anyone else violating a local discrimination law!!!

And back in 2004 there were open threats in the Washington Blade by Rogers targeting Foley:

20 offices said targeted
Not likely, say Mike Rogers and John Aravosis, the two men loosely heading an ongoing outing campaign on the Hill. As the date nears for a Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban gay marriages in the Constitution, Rogers said the outings have picked up steam — from 13 documented offices to nearly 20 currently on a target list provided by Rogers to the Blade.

In addition to Tolman, Rogers and Aravosis, working in tandem but not together, claimed in the last week to have outed via the Web Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida.

While Tolman confirmed he is gay, the Mikulski’s office refused to comment on speculation she is a lesbian, something Aravosis implied last week on his site.

A spokesperson for Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) also declined to comment after Aravosis specifically asserted that Foley is gay on his Web site last week.

Both members of Congress have long been the subject of rumors about their sexual orientation.

boris

even the appearance of such would make me run for the exits. “Hot chat” with you might be fun, but if you were a client ...

So zero tolerance for "hot chat" with a "client" but for interns spoo on blue is okeydokey.

Sara (Squiggler)

So this outing of Mark Foley is not about any outrage at what he may or may not have done to children, if you call someone of legal age a child. It is all about the militant gay community getting revenge for Foley pushing the laws to protect children.

So, all you who want Foley's head are playing right into these sickos game plan.

Jane

Foley, however, was allegedly acting in the role of a “teacher” or “mentor” – and using his position to put himself in a position of trust with these pages.

Alleged by whom? As I understand it this was a college student, that he corresponded with after his tenure as a page.

If you get involved with your ex-boss 2 years after you leave the firm and he breaks up with you, are you going to claim he has a fiduciary duty to you? I suggest if you do, you will be laughed out of the bar.

Now you can argue that Clinton had a fiduciary duty to Monica, under your criteria. Clearly she was his employee, and clearly she was still in his employment at the time when he was diddling her.

Perhaps the statute of limitations has not expired on that, but I'd bet a lot of money you made no such claim at the time.

PS It is a state designation.

Interesting. Does it require more than passing the bar?

PeterUK

"Remember that teacher who went to jail after she got pregnant by the high school kid? They eventually married,but that doesn't make it right. She had a duty not to use her position to exploit those to whom she has a responsibility."

This figures,in the new liberal utopia love becomes exploitation.

Enlightened

Jeezuz Sara - That is just apalling. It is so patently obvious that the left is behind this. But you know what really pisses me off? That the right falls into their f--ing trap! Instead of saying NO COMMENT. NO COMMENT. NO COMMENT. They just opened the door for these freaks to get a toehold and spew this hate filled garbage. Foley jumped the shark by stepping down, going into rehab, Hastert bloviating....It took less than 24 hours for everyone on this board to smell a rat. Why can't our leaders smell it too?????Ugh.

TexasToast

Jane

You are of course correct that as a legal standard of care, Foley’s relationship to these pages does not rise to the level of a fiduciary – just as you correctly point out, neither did the Clinton Lewinski relationship. Without research, I will bet the teacher–student relationship is borderline enough to be subject to litigation.

But that is rather beside the point. I’m not trying to put Mr. Foley in jail or allege that the republican house leadership is guilty of a criminal conspiracy – just stupendously bad judgment.

PS Yep there is a specialization test and peer review. I’ve been one for 15 years.

cathyf
Remember that teacher who went to jail after she got pregnant by the high school kid? They eventually married,but that doesn't make it right. She had a duty not to use her position to exploit those to whom she has a responsibility.
It wasn't high school. It was a 6th grader. (And obviously a somewhat precocious one -- 12 years old is a bit young for a human male to be able to impregnate someone.)

Maybe you ought to repair to your fainting couch for awhile if you can't tell the difference between having sex with a 6th-grader who is your student, and a 17/18 year-old alumnus of the page program who no longer works in the same place.

Sara (Squiggler)

Other than resigning and his statement about going into rehab, has anyone seen Foley admit to being the author of the IMs? I haven't. The tone is so different, there are only two explanations, as far as I can see ... either someone else wrote them under his name and this is a giant set up or he was home alone sloshed and his judgment was severely impaired.

I have some familiarity with what is euphamistically called "high bottom drunks" or those who manage to camouflage their alcoholism and maintain their societal position. They drink alone and can write some very very disturbing things while in their depressed alcoholic state.

I've not talked about this anywhere before, but my Mother was one until I was about 17, when she got religion and joined AA and never took another drink. After she died at age 94, I found all her journals that go back to as early as 1917 when she was 7 years old. The ones from just after my father died until she joined AA, about 5 years worth, are frightening and show a side of someone that I never ever saw, nor would I guess anyone who ever knew her would have recognized or believed to be true. After she got sober, the journals change to the person I knew, self-confident, very upbeat, forward looking, excited about everything in her life and my own.

Sue

We long ago left the Leave it to Beaver world. Kids now think it is a mark of shame to still be virgins past the age of 14. C'mon do you really think these IMs weren't being enjoyed by the recipient either because he is also gay or as a point of amusement for he and his buddies?

I'm not sure what your point is Squig. Because teenagers talk amongst themselves the same way a grown man, a congressman to boot, was talking to them, makes it not as bad? I'm not willing to go there. Adults, especially elected ones, have a higher duty to do what is right, not just what is legal, than 16 year olds.

I know I'm almost the odd person out in this discussion, but I can't help but feel very uncomfortable with what almost seems to be excusing away Foley's behavior. IMO, there is no excuse. And just because teenagers are sexually active does not mean they are open game for adults. Even if they seem willing.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sue, the IMs were NOT with a 16 year old. Why do you keep saying that?

TexasToast

CathyF

Its not my fainting couch your side should be worried about (its the value's voter). I mean, I really don't think anything I've seen or heard yet about this story is an impeachable offense. Is it a reason to vote for someone else? Sure. But impeachment? Who could posssibly think that a private consentual relationshiip....

Oh, wait, ....

Sue

What age was the person who was IMing with Foley? I really don't care if the person was 16, 17 or 18, he was still in HS. And I am not willing to excuse Foley's behavior because the person involved might have been of a 'legal' age. Had it been my son, we would be discussing where his hat would be perched after I blew his head off, not whether it was 'legal' or not.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sue, did you attend college at a convent for nuns? I sure didn't and I was a freshman in 1963. What was in those IMs would have been tame even back then. I just don't understand your moral indignation over alittle sex talk among two consenting adults. The emails were to a 16 year old and there is nothing sexual at all in them. What is your beef besides being convinced that a gay man is somehow a pervert just because he is gay?

Sara (Squiggler)

Foley's attorney has made a statement on Foley's behalf. The gist, he never had inappropriate contact with a minor. Ever. He is not a pedophile. He is gay. They are not synonymous.

Sara (Squiggler)

He was not in high school. He was in college.

boris

somehow a pervert just because he is gay?

Some parents may be more strict than others about sexual activity between their children and an older adult. It doesn't have to be gender neutral or orientation neutral.

Sue

Sue, did you attend college at a convent for nuns?

Not hardly.

What was in those IMs would have been tame even back then.

And I wouldn't be outraged had it been IMs between 2 teenagers.

What is your beef besides being convinced that a gay man is somehow a pervert just because he is gay?

Is that what you are getting from my posts? Because I would have blown his head off had he sent those IMs to my high school daughter.

The better question is why you are defending Foley's actions. Question the timing, but defend his actions?

Sue

Where do you get he was in college? Post a link.

boris

But impeachment? Who could posssibly think that a private consentual relationshiip....

Fingers moving a little too fast?


For the record ol' BJ did more than spoo on blue. There also was the hypocrisy aspect of the most powerful liberal feminist man in the world being serviced on the job (so to speak).

maryrose

Sue:
I agree with your statements. As a teacher of adolescents we act "in loco parentis" while they are in school. Texas Toast is correct. As educators with students entrusted to us there is a definite line and we are all familiar with school law on this. The following congressmen are wrong no excuses:
Kennedy- drug or alcohol rehab notwithstanding he should be out-
Foley: Inappropriate behavior with juveniles-out
Jefferson: misappropriation of funds-out
Mollohan -perks to partners and friends-out
Cunningham convicted felon-out
Interestingly enough the only ones with the dignity to leave are the repubs.

Rick Ballard

Sue,

You're not alone. John Derek, Woody Allen and Mark Foley occupy the same level in my pantheon of scum. As do all ephebophiles. Slightly higher than pedophiles but the distinction is minimal except regarding legal consequence.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sue, the link is in the IMs where the writer says he just got back from a college class. And he was a FORMER page. I'm guessing he was probably around 19.

MayBee

I can't get the other PDF's to open, which is too bad, because I'm always interested in seeing if the same things make me uncomfortable as everyone else.

Can anybody get the second ABC file (the one that says read IMs to other pages) to open? I noticed that PollyUSA said she couldn't either.

Sara (Squiggler)

I do question not only the timing but who is behind the outing and the motives driving it. I don't support Foley in anything because he has hurt all those who worked for him, he has hurt his contituents, his family, etc. What I don't see though is anything he has done that is deserving of such moral indignation, to me that is just phony political rhetoric that is misplaced.

Also, I have no illusions about the delicate sensibilities of teenagers today. There aren't any.

And, I know for a fact that school districts all over this country regularly hold warning sessions for students and parents alike to tell them the dangers of internet predators, how to avoid them, what to do if your child appears to be the target of one, etc. It is standard in almost all schools. These kids are well versed and if the parents aren't, that's their fault. The information and warnings are out there for everyone.

These kids are out there trolling for easy marks. Like I mentioned yesterday, all you have to do is go into one of the forty-fifty-or sixty something chatrooms for a few minutes and I guarantee you will be propositioned by someone billing themselves as a teenager looking for a good time with an older woman. I expect the men get the same.

Sue

Sue, the link is in the IMs where the writer says he just got back from a college class.

An AP class is a college course taken while you are in high school. At least it is in my neck of the woods.

Sue

to me that is just phony political rhetoric that is misplaced.

We will just have to agree to disagree then. Because politics plays no part in my "phony rhetoric", misplaced or otherwise.

Sara (Squiggler)

That is fine with me. I guess I am one of the last hold outs against the nanny state. And I'm far too much of a libertarian to think anyone has the right to interfere with what two consenting adults do. If the email to the 16 year old was sexual or predatory, I'd be all over it. To a former page, a college student or older, I just don't see where the outrage is. What they say to each other is their business.

We don't even have confirmation one way or the other as to who the actual person is who participated with Foley in the IMs. In fact, we have no proof yet that it was in fact Foley. With some of the info from that 2005 threat to ruin Foley by the militant gay group, this could be a giant set up.

Jane

But that is rather beside the point.

TT

Huh? Since it is what you alleged and what I responded to, it's hardly beside the point. You said Foley breached a fiduciary duty. He didn't. Period.

Now if you want to make another broad based allegation that is not true based on your 15 years as a lawyer I'm all ears.

Oh and don't misrepresent what I said. Under your criteria Clinton indeed breached a fiduciary duty when he diddled Monica. Did you complain about it at the time? You were a lawyer then too. Or did you decide it was okay to lie under oath if it was just about sex? You get extra points if you answer honestly.

topsecretk9

Its not my fainting couch your side should be worried about (its the value's voter).

Umm, sort of. It's pretty evident Foley and others are being targeted because they are Gay and have voted against Gay Marriage.

Mike Rogers is bragging about his work here, outing Gay GOP men opposed to GM and sitting on the info so as to spring it one them.

Not sure many values voters who are disgusted with Foley are going to flock to Dems who will legalize Gay Marriage.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame