Powered by TypePad

« Prove There Was A Man On The Moon | Main | I Can Be A Big Man, Too »

October 12, 2006

Comments

Appalled Moderate

Ahh, but -- despite the indication in the article that Hastert should have known what was going on as early as 2003 -- the question for the comments section is not what Hastert's aides were told, but what Pelosi knew, and who the leak was.

(Excuse sarcasm. But the blindness gets increasingly willful on each thread)

Neo

As early as 2000, Trandahl periodically called Fordham to say Foley was spending too much time with pages

I had heard the Fordham had to tell Foley about being overy friendly, but I had never seen anything that indicated this was a needed periodically.

Neo

Yo Appalled, so what did Pelosi know, and who the was the leak ?

You start first.

anon

AM

What "indication" are you referring to? All I saw was more anonymous sources peddling rumours.

The article omits to mention that Fordham has changed his story in the past, and just last week was saying the exact opposite of what he is saying now. Why would the crack reporters at the Wapo omit that information?

Appalled Moderate

What did Pelosi know?

She might want to consider some eye-lifts.

Who was the leak?

Valerie Plame.

anon

What a repulsive hit piece this was. No new information is provided, and none of the existing open questions are even addressed. But we see the usual anonymous sources whispering allegations in the WaPo's ear. Is this reporting or a gossip column?

cboldt

Oh my - Hastert's inner circle is in deep shit now.

In 2003, Trandahl placed another call to Fordham, according to the source. But this time, it was because Foley was seen drunk outside the pages' dormitory after the 10 p.m. curfew, trying to get in. ...

Both Fordham and Trandahl decided that Fordham should call Palmer, according to the source. In a phone call with Palmer, Fordham ... did not specifically mention that Foley was seen outside the pages' dorm.

Fordham = Foley's onetime chief of staff (openly homosexual)

Timothy J. Heaphy = Fordham's attorney

Jeff Trandahl = House clerk Jan 1999 - Nov 2005 (openly homosexual)

Cono Namorato = Trandahl's attorney

There was a big fat coverup by Fordham. After being specifically told that Foley was outside the page dorm, he agreed to do something about it ... and then didn't.

There are other unnamed players too. Who reported Foley's escapade that night to Trandahl? A page? Which page(s) knew of this since 2003 and didn't push it farther?

Good Lt

So what did Pelosi, Smoot and Emmanuel know and when did they know it?

Who turned the IMs over to ABC?

Cliff

Neo said, "what did Pelosi know, and who the was the leak?"

She probally knows a lot, since she has not allowed any reps to be sworn under oath concerning this matter.

If the facts were easily known, then the dems should have known the same facts, and should also go under oath.

Appalled Moderate

OK.

To save some of Tom's bandwidth, let's at least stipulate that the drunk Foley incident did happen

Neo

I reread it. The only things new are:

today .. ethics committee takes the testimony of Kirk Fordham

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) .. yesterday afternoon received an invitation to testify.

Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and his chief of staff are to testify next week

Guess they got a schedule from the Ethics Committee.

Bob

OT - Speaking of things that may or may not have happened!

http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm>'OTHER' STRIPPER IN DUKE LACROSSE RAPE CASE REFUTES KEY PART OF ACCUSER'S STORY
Thu Oct 12 2006 12:34:11 ET

verner

Here's the key paragraph:

As early as 2000, Trandahl periodically called Fordham to say Foley was spending too much time with pages, the source said, and Fordham would have to "pull him back a little." In brief, awkward conversations, the source said, Fordham would tell Foley: "I just got a call from Jeff Trandahl. And Mark, you just need to be conscious of appearances. Everyone knows you're gay. You're being held to higher standards than everyone else. They see the stereotype -- a gay man going after kids."

As far as I can tell, they didn't think that Foley was doing anything illegal (and we still have no proof that he did) What they were concerned about were APPEARANCES, because everyone KNEW HE WAS GAY. So much for the closet. Indeed, we still have absolutely no proof what so ever that he ever had any interaction that could be interpreted as sexual with any current page. ANd the ex-pages that he interacted with were both legal and willing.

Also, I don't think Fordham is credible. He has changed his story too many times. He and Trandel likely kept this stuff "in house", and were probably overly concerned with Foley because they are both gay, and didn't want any negative attention brought to the "pink" mafia on the hill. They knew that people like Rodgers were out there.

This all sounds like BS stuff that would never rise th the level of recquiring the speaker's attention.

And as for the e-mails--as I've stated before, we've never been allowed to read what the LA page wrote to HIM, so it is utterly impossible to properly judge the content of what Foley wrote. It is completely devoid of context, and may look much more "innocuous" that it already does if we could read the entire conversation.

Neo

Cliff: not allowed any reps to be sworn under oath

Hmm .. got a link ?

anon

From AM's link;

Since then, Republicans have assailed the Foley story -- ludicrously, with no evidence -- as being some nefarious plot between ABC News and their political opponents. The insinuation is that these electronic communications were held until this last month before election day.

It is a fact that these electronic communications were held until this last month before election day, not an insinuation.

This ABC web site reads like the Daily Kos in its hostility to Republicans, and in its disinterest in getting to the bottom of this matter. If ABC wants evidence that the Democrats were involved then all they need to do is expend a little effort in trying to find out who set up the stopsexualpredatrs web site. Or do they already know and is the person one of their "confidental sources"?

They might even try asking prominent Democrats what they knew and when. Those would be the actions of impartial reporters seeking the facts.

cboldt

verner -- You're being held to higher standards than everyone else. --


I got a charge out of that one. Homosexuals have to be more careful with appearances? Why? Well, I suppose to facilitate continued "secret" activity that is both legal and icky.


Heterosexuals aren't held to the same high standard - they can be more open because hitting on nubile youngsters of the opposite sex isn't quite as icky.


Hey, I didn't imply that, Fordham did.

Tanya

Shoot the messenger.

Appalled Moderate

anon:

The source of the story is clearly a Republican congresswoman from Florida, who is quoted at length. Hence the requested stipulation on Foley's drunken incident at the page's dorm room.

Appalled Moderate

Excuse -- I meant to say "dorm" not "dorm room"

Neo

Guess Cliff meant this
He asked that Pelosi and Emanuel offer a “yes or no” answer as to whether they would go under oath “to assure the American people that neither you nor your staffs had prior knowledge or involvement — at the strategic or tactical levels — with the release of Foley’s e-mails and/or instant messages.”

Spokespeople for Pelosi and the DCCC dismissed McHenry’s demand as political posturing.

Syl

Are these articles always this confusing, or is this one extra-special-confusing?

I mean if you haven't followed any details you might be able to figure it out after a half hour of diagramming a timeline with names attached....but everyone else on the planet? not so much.


Syl

I mean if you have followed the details you might be able to figure it out after a half hour of diagramming a timeline with names attached....but everyone else on the planet? not so much.


anon

AM

You may be confusing my comments on the WaPo gossip piece with my comments on the ABC blog.

Yes, a Republican congresswoman says she heard about a incident involving a drunken Foley. She heard about it just recently though. Is there some significance to this?

Isn't it a a fact that these electronic communications were held until this last month before election day, not an insinuation? What do you, as a "moderate", think of the political bias on display at ABC?

boris

Hence the requested stipulation

WTF? Unless you can link to where that's been challanged on this thread, your straw dummy is at the wrong address.

Whats going to be the response when the drudgereport scoop gains confirmation?

Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal...

Something like ... "Well Nancy is not responsible for every little thing some overzealous partisan does and there is NO PROOF that she even knew anything about it."

Appalled Moderate

Jake Tapper used to work at Salon -- bias is a given.

The communications were not "held". They were sent all over creation, and people would not do a story on them. My guess is, if you had this discussion at Kos, people would take that as proof of the right wiong news media.

sad

This looks like a situation where exposing the truth should have been enough to send a Republican Representative out of Washington in disgrace. But there also appears to be a strong possibility that someone seized the opportunity to create a "slamdunk" takedown of the Republican leadership at the same time and in the process may have overreached and made accusations for which thay are equally culpable.

boris

and people would not do a story on them

That's the non-sexual non-criminal non-actionable emails.

The scandalous IMs "only appeared" as a response to the blog-laundered email story. Is this serious? Do you actually not get what the discussion is actually about?

Appalled Moderate

boris:

I could tell you where to put your straw man, and it would bring back memories of your boot camp days...

I asked for a stipulation on drunk Foley outside the page's doem not because that idea had been challenged, but because I could see people challenging it. Because much of the other "challenging" going on is carping about minutia in the hopes of convincing folks that nothing really happened here except a political hit.

PeterUK

"Excuse sarcasm. But the blindness gets increasingly willful on each thread)"

Blindness to what? Paedophlia? No! Underage sex? No! A crime? No! Unseemly conduct? Yes.

I would posit that a high percentage of politicians would be in that category,for one side to wag its boney finger in disapproval will cause them to get their arses bitten.

anon

"The communications were not "held". They were sent all over creation, and people would not do a story on them."

Not doing a story on them is plainly holding them. Tapper is being dishonest in alleging that anyone is "insinuating" that these emails and instant messages were held until a month before the election. These are simple facts. The questions for a non-biased media would include who held them back and why they released them now.

The link provided by AM allows for comments to be submitted. There is nothing to be lost by asking a few questions there. Although it looks like your questions will probably be screened out in favor of comments which rant off topic on Iraq.

"Jake Tapper used to work at Salon -- bias is a given."

It's remarkable how many people from the political left wind up acting as supposedly unbiased reporters in main stream media outlets. Bolton at The Hill used to work for The Nation. But anyone who suspects that they are using their media postions to advance the interests of the Democratic party is just paranoid.

boris

but because I could see people challenging it

Do you also see ghosts and flying saucers, how about angels and pink elephants ?

Since it's your straw dummy, tell it to yourself. As if you would even know about boot camp.

Ranger

Appalled Moderate,

The story was clearly held by ABC for about two months. They admit they had it in August, but decided to hold of on it because they had the Katrina (recap of all the crappy reporting they did a year ago that convinced everyone that Bush couldn't lead), and 9/11 (remind everyone that we still haven't caught Osama) coverage to get through. If the story was worth going with in October, then it was worth going with in August, since all they seem to have needed for comfirmation was to call Foley's office. But, of course they didn't have a dummy blog for cover yet and they needed some time to get that set up so they could ease into the story and blame others for posting what was initially (without the IMs) a very weak charge.

anon

AM

Because much of the other "challenging" going on is carping about minutia in the hopes of convincing folks that nothing really happened here except a political hit.

Even Greenwood and anonymous acknowledge that what is going on here is a political hit. I did not think anyone was doubting that. Are you saying that you think the Dems and the media have clean hands here?

verner

The AIM piece http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4931_0_3_0_C/

makes some interesting observations about Trandahl, and it sure looks like he was involved on some level (Likely trying to cover his own sweet ass, and get Hastert, he appears to be another Joe Wilson republican...) but Kincaid is dead wrong if he doesn't think the democrats and the army of Soros were involved. Clearly they were.

I would not doubt that Trandahl was one of the sources for the e-mails (and we know that there were at least two) Trandahl is being disingenuous if he is implying that his goal was to "Protect the children." In his position, he held a whole lot of power and control over what happened.

If he thought Palmer, or anyone else was stonewalling (double entendre there), he could have easily gone directly to either Hastert, or the dem member of the page board. But neither he nor Fordham did that, now did they? In fact, they didn't do anything as far as I can tell, other than warn Foley to stay away from the pages (note the current tense here...)

And I'm sorry, call me cynical, but I seriously doubt that either Fordham, or Trandal had any problem with the "ethics" of Foley having sex with over-aged ex-pages.

boris

hopes of convincing folks that nothing really happened here except a political hit

More straw, same dummy.

The validity of email and IM as admissable "evidence" has been questioned. No thread on the subject here has challanged that Mark Foley emailed "How are you, send me a picture", or that the sex IMs occurred.

The obvious use as a political hit has been challanged repeatedly so it makes far more sense to request stipulation that the emails were shopped by democrat political operatives and that democrat political operatives most likely were involved in providing the IMs for publication.

cboldt

-- The communications were not "held". They were sent all over creation --


Hahahahah. Again with conflating all the communications.


-- if you had this discussion at Kos, people would take that as proof of the right wiong news media. --


I believe that.

boris

If he thought Palmer, or anyone else was stonewalling (double entendre there), he could have easily gone directly to either Hastert

Their stories now look far more like self serving promotion of their concerns that Foley was giving gay men a bad image into a CYA warning that should have been acted on.

Image concerns don't get voiced to straight leadership, they get whispered about behind the scenes.

verner

Indeed Boris, we already have proof that the IMs were supplied by a dem political operative-- courtasy of the WaPO. The source is identified as an ex dem page who was in JE's class, and a friend of both Loraditch and JE.

There is a lot of evidence that it is Zack Stanton. But even if it was not, the ex-page admitted that he wanted a turn to the Democrats in the midterms. And sorry, I seriously doubt he was working in a vaccum. He had the IMs ready to go.

And as I've said a dozen times before--the e-mails by themselves are absolutely nothing. And the IMs are not much, considering the ages and the "feelings mutual" nature of the exchange. But put them together, and you get an automatic impression that Foley was hitting on 16 year olds under congressional care--something that has not been proven in any way at all. The release of the two was obviously co-ordinated--and not by republicans.

Neo

Mark Warner says .. I have decided not to run for President.

maryrose

Ranger:
Your comments are absolutely correct and right on target. Anyone not acknowledging that this waspolitically timed doen't know partisan politics. Rahm's parsing of what he knew and saw{of course he never saw the IM's} is very telling. Pelosi and Rahm don't want to touch that hot potato with a ten foot pole. Of course both of them knew. Just like they both spoke to Ronnie Earle in Texas when he was having trouble getting a GJ to indict DeLay. All these partisan tactics will be for nought. Pelosi will have to return in disgrace to her minority seat. All her partisan hits will be in vain. For failing to deliver, hoyer will be voted in as leader, for next Congress.

Appalled Moderate

The length of time over which the e-mails were shopped around (since last year) argues against a carefully timed political hit scheduled for October. Whether Brian Ross had timing in mind is an easier question to raise, since his story did come just after the ballot change deadline in Florida.

But while you guys search for a political hit, it may escape your notice that Haster's own story -- that all he knew happened in 2005 -- becomes less creditable. There are plausible explanations that he did not know. But imagine yourself in the position of the House clerk.

You know that Foley has made a specticle of himself lurching (and lurking) around the pages dormatory. A number of people were witnesses, and it's your program. Wouldn't you want to let your superiors know what was going on to cover your behind? because you, as page, do not have any authority over Foley. Only the House leadership might...

My speculation would tend to be that Hastert was told by somebody, because that is how people under the situation would be most likely to behave.

verner

Boris:Image concerns don't get voiced to straight leadership, they get whispered about behind the scenes.

Yep, sure looks that way. And that would make it look like Trandahl is nothing but a very well placed Benedict Arnold--who has now joined forces with the democrats and the Rodgers types. Really really slimy when HE was the one who caused the problem in the first place--he's no whistleblower.

He's trying to destroy any gay presence in the GOP, even though many gay staffers have served the party, and the nation honorably--and in return have risen to positions of power and authority. And what really makes me mad, is that there appear to be some extreme social conservatives who are cheering him on.

Pretty disgusting.

PeterUK

Washington is a tight,close knit community,as are all political elites,there is no doudt that the affairs and peccadillos of everyone are known by all.How could it be otherwise? This is a group of people who watch each other like hawks looking for a weakness ready to take advantage.
One thing keep mouth shut on both sides,they can match each other vice for vice,after all,are they not human?
Now the Democrats have unleashed the doomsday weapon which will, if consume them all.Governance,as does all of human society,requires tolerance ,give and take,when you start a wichhunt you will find witches.
Let us hope that this is not the beginning of a sexual McCarthyism.

cboldt

-- Let us hope that this is not the beginning of a sexual McCarthyism. --


I think a sexual McCartyism is the only way to prevent sexual and pre-sexual advances on page & intern chillens.


Sexual McCarthyism, it's for the children!


I'm willing to concede the "carefully timed" aspect being undeveloped a year ago. These pikers have a had time planning and executing anything.

cboldt

... have a hard time planning and executing.

anon

But imagine yourself in the position of the House clerk.

The gay House clerk seems to have covered for his gay colleague, in concert with Foleys gay chief of staff, Fordham. And perhaps with gay Congressman Kolbe. To the extent that any coverup may have occured here it looks to have occured among the gay community in Washington.

verner

AM:My speculation would tend to be that Hastert was told by somebody, because that is how people under the situation would be most likely to behave.

I hardly think so. You are assuming that Foley's behavior was serious enough to bring it to the attention of the Speaker of the House. And where's the proof? The most serious charge is that he showed up drunk at the page dorm, but I have yet to read any credible reports about that--or any evidence that anyone told Hastert about it.

One ex-page handed over some e-mails to Kolbe in 2000--what did they say? How old was the ex-page? Was he gay? Was he above the age of consent? Did he egg Foley on like Jordan? I mean--a big so what. Kolbe certainly didn't indicate that he brought it to Hastert.

Seriously, other than the LA pages e-mails, that even his parents said were innocuous, what else to we have to indicate that Hastert knew anything, much less should have done anything. What would he have done anyway--based on the sketchy innuendo that a lot of people are now using as some sort of smoking gun?

cboldt

-- To the extent that any coverup may have occured here it looks to have occured among the gay community in Washington. --


Also among the participating ex-pages, after they left Washington. Although some may have returned for house visits after they reached the age of 18. The lurid IMs which are taken as objectionable were "covered up" for years.


And there was a coverup of illegal underage drinking too - including coverup of illegal false identification, used to facilitate illegal underage drinking. Foley was aware of the illegal false identification and illegal underage drinking, and did not turn in the perpetrators.

windansea

The most serious charge is that he showed up drunk at the page dorm

for the record we can also stipulate that in the long distant past I have been spotted drunk outside dorms, not dorm rooms mind you, and there are witnesses....

this is why I have retired in shame and humiliation to Mexico

Julian Miller

Wow,
Conservative trolls are ranting incoherently on blogactive -- Mike must have a lot of "you folks" worried -- you ignorant, homophobic, gullible, supposedly "Christian," but haven't a clue about the Sermon on the Mount white folks.

windansea

Foley was aware of the illegal false identification and illegal underage drinking, and did not turn in the perpetrators

the horror...the horror

Tanya

Verner -- when did the parents say that the emails were innocuous? Not in their published statement.

PeterUK

Julian Miller,

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Julian Miller

I bet I can hit your glass house from here.

verner

lot of "you folks" worried -- you ignorant, homophobic, gullible, supposedly "Christian," but haven't a clue about the Sermon on the Mount white folks.


Actually Julian, I'm none of the above. Mike is gettin hit for the simple reason that he is a pathetic piece of human garbage who needs very powerful medicines and a whole lot of time in a peaceful setting far away from his fellow creatures.

If you are a friend of his, why don't you suggest it. After his debacle on the O'Reilly factor, where the Irish one made him look like a hypocrite and a fool, I don't think many people are paying much attention to Mike nowadays anyway.

And with the FBI hot on the scent, doubt he'll be getting too many calls from the DCCC anymore either.

Gabriel Sutherland

Breaking: I have proof of the conspiracy between CREW and John Aravosis coordinating and misleading the public.

:)

SlimGuy

Verner

I pretty much agree with your assessment of Trandahl, especially after all I read to put the pieces together and connect the dots on him.

His low key leaving of Clerk suggests a couple of reasons.

He was caught repeatedly covering for Foley without informing the page board and others he properly should have.

He was not ensuring that current pages were not better schooled on reporting improper behavior or contact even if it should occur after they have left the page program

Since either or both of these led to his dismissal from a powerful position, he may consider himself a scapegoat and now is pushing back.

PeterUK

Julian Hitler,

"Mike must have a lot of "you folks" worried"

You know of course,it doesn't affect heterosexuals in the least,it is you gays who "Mike" has thrown under the bus.

SlimGuy

Gabriel

Great catch there , nice info

cathyf

So, Gabriel, how long did it take you to dummy up the screenshots and html?

;-)

not your standard poodle

From TPMmuckraker:

"Yet Hastert’s future may now rest on the actions of Palmer, specifically on a meeting that Palmer either did or did not have in 2002 or 2003 with Kirk Fordham, Foley’s then-chief of staff who now says he warned Palmer that Foley had a problem with Congressional pages....

"Palmer has what one friend called 'quite eclectic pursuits.' He gardens, reads constantly, enjoys opera and is an avid art enthusiast and shopper." (Roll Call, sub. req.)

Tanya

Verner -- The parents' statement called the emails "ambiguous", not "innocuous". Big difference. Their statement went on to say:

"If we had any other knowledge or evidence of potential impropriety, we would have asked for the matter to be treated differently. For instance, we were not aware of the instant messages that have come to light in the past few days."


Wilson's a Liar

If I did not know any better, I might conclude that Jeff Trandahl left his position as House clerk quite unceremoniously, perhaps because he was found using the page program - of which he was the top staff supervisor - as his own personal playground as well. This could turn out to be a very large coverup of a lot of misbehavior by a lot of high ranking gay House staff, not just Mark Foley. I'm afraid Cliff Kincaid has come very close to the mark in his article. There have been "gay mafias" in every Republican administration going back to Reagan. It stands to reason there is one in the House as well, and probably one in the Senate.

PeterUK

""If we had any other knowledge or evidence of potential impropriety, we would have asked for the matter to be treated differently."

Which means that the emails did not provide these.

verner

For instance, we were not aware of the instant messages that have come to light in the past few days."


Yeah, Big Important fact, whouldn't you say?

And As I've written before, until the public is supplied with the entire text of the email exchange between the page and Foley--it is absolutely impossible to judge how "ambiguous" those e-mails are.

And it should give you a clue that the kid sent them to Danielle Savoy ALL ON HIS OWN. If the parents were informed, I seriously doubt that would have happened.

My guess, he was overreacting because they came from FFF, not that Foley talked to him dirty.

Gabriel Sutherland

cathyf: I worked on this story all night. I drove all the way from Chicago to Royal Oak, MI and drilled a hole in the same building that of our good friend from the LGF sting. Then I captured all data in secret. Then I hacked into CREW's blog and changed everything so my story would sound interesting.

They'll never catch me, unless they have some meddling kids and a Mystery Machine.

verner

Palmer has what one friend called 'quite eclectic pursuits.' He gardens, reads constantly, enjoys opera and is an avid art enthusiast and shopper." (Roll Call, sub. req.)


Excuse me, but that sounds exactly like my profile--and my husbands. We have a huge perrenial garden, a 3,000+ vol. library, love art, and are going to Aida tonight.

Excuse me, does that make us gay? LOL.

Tanya

Verner -- The kid's e-mail to Danielle Savoy also mentioned that he had heard "that there was a congressman that did hit on pages". Maybe that contributed to his "overreaction", as you put it?

verner

Tanya, He "heard" that there was a congressman who hit on pages. He was also a teenager. Go to a group of teenaged boys and ask them what they think of gay men.

As I've said, we've all heard rumors that Foley hit on pages, but as of today, over a week after this story broke, there is still not one single account of Foley ever hitting on a page while they were in the program. He seems to have limited his contact to those who had left, and returned his attention.

The kid was back home in LA. How was the big bad Foley going to hurt him?

Jane

Excuse me, does that make us gay?

It makes him gay. You need to raise cats, enjoy home improvement and wear boots to qualify.

Tanya

Verner -- I guess you are right. A kid who thinks he is being hit on by an adult should just go to his parents, and they should tell the kid he is overreacting and to forget about it.

verner

Oh Lord Jane! I have a closet full of cowboy boots and just finished a major home renovation--am I in denial!!!

No cats though, just dogs.

Jane

No cats though, just dogs.

That only qualifies you if you treat the dogs like children, not pets.

cathyf

Gabriel Sutherland But are you the real Gabriel Sutherland, or are you a dog? Or are the previous posts by "Gabriel Sutherland" by a dog, and only those last 2 are authentic?

Maybe I'm the one that's the dog? (Actually, I'm a cat!)

Hmmmm...

verner

That only qualifies you if you treat the dogs like children, not pets.

Nope, can't say that I do--and I think the dogs like me better for it. They actually get to act like dogs (run around, chase rabbits, eat roadkill when I'm not wathcing)

verner

Fordham is getting ready to talk to the press after his EC testimony.

Gabriel Sutherland

I'm a gay lion. rawr

I might be confused for a dog.

ed

Hmmm.

Seriously. Why should I give a rat's ass about a bunch of people IM'ing each other with sexual innuendos?

1. Clinton getting a blowjob from an intern in the Oval Office = not sex.

2. Foley trading sexually explicit IMs = sex?

Democrats can continue pushing this crap but if the Republicans were smart they'd judo this nonsense and show ads of Democrats claiming that oral sex isn't sex. And then show the same Democrats claiming this IM nonsense is somehow more than that.

boris

they should tell the kid he is overreacting

It certainly appears that Foley's interest in the "how are you, send me a picture" emails was more than conversational. That's not being challanged, but later developments do not retroactively increase the significance of early clues. They were what they were, non-sexual, non-criminal, non-harassment, non-actionable. As to investigating further ... who Hastert? not an investigator. FBI ? they didn't see anything to investigate. How about the ethics committee? Ok, find an example of the ethics committee investigating "evidence" comparable to "how are you, send me a picture". Seriously doubt this is the very first time something that "suspicious" has ever occurred.

SlimGuy

BREAKING

Whizbang has news (scroll down for the youtube) that the plane crash in NYC may have occurred due to avoiding a mid-air collision

http://wizbangblog.com/2006/10/12/cory-lidle-crash-mystery-solved.php

Cecil Turner

Seriously. Why should I give a rat's ass about a bunch of people IM'ing each other with sexual innuendos?

Man, no kidding. I long ago decided I had no real interest in what happens in Barney Frank's apartment (or on Gerry Studds's junkets). Why this should be more of a concern is a bit hard to feature.

topsecretk9

Gabriel

Since I often require the "for Dummies" version....that of the few unpartisan blogs CREW links to (;;grin::) ...some really link to America blog???

Daily KOS and Buzzflash go to America Blog?

Hilarious...OUTSTANDING catch!

Gabriel Sutherland

TS: The Blogroll at CREW's blog is ridiculous to begin with. Max Cleland can count the number of 'right leaning' blogs in their blogroll with his legs.

sad

Seriously doubt this is the very first time something that "suspicious" has ever occurred.

Imagine trying to make a case, in Washington, DC, that someone is behaving badly...drunk...lewd...likes 'em young. Who ya gonna call?

JM Hanes

Appalled:

"The length of time over which the e-mails were shopped around (since last year) argues against a carefully timed political hit scheduled for October."

Only if you ignore the fact that the damning IM's weren't shopped around at all. At most, they appear to have been circulated among putative friends. The incredibly compressed ABC timeline more than suggests that by the time the story broke, the IM's were already prepped and good to go. Why is it unreasonable to wonder when and how the transition from fodder for jokes to fodder for news occured?

What we do know, or at least have heard from multiple sources, is that the emails were shopped around in the fall of '05 and then again in May, to no avail both times. I'm not sure why you think it so utterly implausible that a "democratic operative," might have recognized the oppo research potential they represented. Is it really that hard to imagine a Chris Lehane type saying bring me something juicier, and I guarantee you I can get this story into print (just in time for the elections)? Given when the IM's did, in fact, surface for the very first time, I'm not sure why you're so convinced that suspicion is so unwarranted.

Until those IM's were revealed, the only folks who had reason to suspect there might be more going on that met the eye could easily have felt they had a vested interest (both personal and/or political) in trying to handle a potential problem discreetly on their own. That said, however, it's worth reemphasizing that there's zero evidence that even the Republicans most likely to connect the dots were aware of the IM's either. Those were sprung all of us simultaneously by someone else. Since they were, quite literally, a mega-ton surprise, why, precisely, is it fatuous to ask if they were intended to be?

JM Hanes

Meaning a literal surprise, of course, not a literal megaton. :)

topsecretk9

Imagine trying to make a case, in Washington, DC, that someone is behaving badly...drunk...lewd...likes 'em young. Who ya gonna call?

Ghostbusters?

sad

And the political liability since Foley immediately resigned and the Dems framed the debate around "republican leadership failed to protect the children" is who knew about the IMs and when did they know it? If Dems knew and sat on them for any period of time at all instead of immediatly springing to action and protecting the childrene, they have once again shot themselves in the foot.

Rick Ballard

topsecretk9

Crap. I larwyned the thread.

sad

Ghostbusters?

Exactly!!!

paulv

I'm confused< Havem't we all been assured that Foley did not have drinking problem and that going into rehab is a fraud

topsecretk9

--If Dems knew and sat on them for any period of time at all instead of immediatly springing to action and protecting the childrene, they have once again shot themselves in the foot.--

Rahm: I did not SEE the IM's.

sad

I'm confused< Havem't we all been assured that Foley did not have drinking problem and that going into rehab is a fraud

Try proving someone doesn't have a drinking problem

JM Hanes

Gabriel (Gingerbread Man) Sutherland ... LOL!

Sara (Squiggler)

A dear friend of mine who is the blog operator of Barking Moonbat Early Warning System is under attack by someone billing themselves as "Anonymous" and who sounds about as inane as our very own Anonymous. The subject of the post under attack is one on Treason about Adam Gadahn.

Please go post a comment and give him support. BMEWS is our #1 favorite blog along with JOM and the Skipper is a great guy.

Treason Comment Section

Skipper’s Note: I have decided to move this post to the top of today’s list because I think I’ve hooked a live one. Liberal troll, that is. He is using the Anonymous account that we put out as bait. We are having quite a discussion in the comments. Join in the fun if you wish. This one is really putting up a good fight (actually there are three of them and I am being gang-tackled) ....
Cecil Turner

Try proving someone doesn't have a drinking problem . . .

Well, I don't have a drinking problem.

[Hah! Denial! See, that proves it!]

Crap.

sad

Well, I don't have a drinking problem.

[Hah! Denial! See, that proves it!]

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

sad

OT but Drudge has a headline that Cindy Sheehan is a finalist for the Nobel Peace Prize. I hope she wins, proving once and for all that it is an enourmous joke category.

PeterUK

Ah Dear Cindy Sheehan,in there with Yasser Arafat,shame she never got French Kiss him.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame