How The Foley Story Broke - I Find This Puzzling

Apparently the Mark Foley story first broke on this new blog, StopSexPredartors.blogspot.com, which started in July and brought down the Congressional leadership with its sixth, seventh and eighth posts.

Color me skeptical.  Maybe the blog author was an unwitting catspaw, but I would want some assurance that this was not simply a successful attempt to promote a story that wasn't quite ready for the Mainstream Media by laundering it through some blogs (and wasn't that Matt Drudge's ecological niche, back in the day?).  And part of my suspicion arises because the blog posted emails about gay Congressmen in repsonse to a post about "skinterns", scantily clad young women.  Where were the emails about Dirty Old Men and Sweet Young Things of the female persuasion?

The River City Mud Bugle has even more backstory:

Two hours later [following the first posting of the former page's emails], someone writing under the name “WHInternNow” published a diary on Daily Kos linking to Stop Sex Predators. The diary was met with skepticism from Daily Kos users, and received only a few largely critical comments. “This diary makes an accusation,” one commenter wrote, “a serious accusation, but provides no evidence to back it up.”

In a previous Daily Kos diary about Foley, “WHInternNow” made an early attempt to draw attention to Foley’s peccadilloes.

The Real Problem With Foley (0 / 0)

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

by WHInternNow on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 07:48:09 PM CDT

The story was evidently not quite good enough for the D Kos, but ABC found enough to run with it.

This Editor's Note from the St. Petersburg Times explaining their handling of the story raises more questions:

In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange Foley had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later got them, too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat.

Foley asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about the boy's upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked the teen to send him a "pic" of himself. Also among those emails was the page's exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander, who had been the teen's sponsor in the page program.

The teen shared his exchange he'd had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley was out of bounds.

There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him.  He told us Foley's request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story.

We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy's family didn't want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.

So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn't go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we said in today's paper, our policy is that we don't make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn't meet our standard for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.

Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position. The Louisiana boy's emails broke into the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them online.

Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley's Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy's emails and was calling for an investigation. That's when we wrote our first story, for Friday's papers.

After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC and provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other page that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted friendliness.

That's what drove Foley to resign on Friday.

Fine, but - why was Foley's opponent so sure that he had a solid accusation?  Or was it a lucky shot in the dark?

And how did ABC round up the follow-up emails and IMs so quickly?

And was it the page in Louisiana who sent his Foley emails to an unknown web-site after declining to push this story with the St. Petersburg Times?  Maybe - the St. Petersburg Times would not let him make an anonymous accusation.  OTOH, if the former page was so determined to get Foley, why didn't he try another news organization - ABC, for example, didn't seem to have a problem with anonymously sourcing this.

And if it was *not* the page from Louisiana who sent the emails to StopSexPredators, who did?

Baffling.

KEEPING HOPE ALIVE:  I welcome some help in sorting out the dates of the second wave of lurid emails and IMs.  For example, one of them - "strip down and get relaxed" - was from 2003.  If none of them are from 2006, then one might hope that the leadership intervention was effective.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING:  Dennis Hastert sends a letter to the Attorney General requesting an investigation, and apparently he and I are on the same page wavelength:

As I am sure you are aware, there are two different and distinct communications at issue here. First, Mr. Foley sent an email to a former page of Representative Alexander in the fall of 2005. This email was determined to be "over friendly" by Representative Alexander's office but was not sexual in nature. Second, based on media reports, there is a different set of communications which were sexually explicit instant messages which Mr. Foley reportedly sent another former page or pages. These communications, of which no one in the House Leadership was aware to my knowledge, reportedly were sent sometime in 2003.

We have a bit more from ABC:

Some of the sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's abrupt resignation Friday were sent to pages in Loraditch's class [of 2001-2002].

And in a different ABC story:

Two sets of sexually explicit instant messages obtained by ABC News were sent to pages beginning in 2002.   

For yet another reason that the timing is critical, consider this from Glenn Greenwald:

One last point: just this year, Republicans drew the line of age of consent at 18 when, with overwhelming support, they enacted the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006," which the President signed into law (with Mark Foley standing behind him). By definition, then, they consider the acts in which Foley apparently engaged to be criminal.

Sure its criminal - now.  But retroactively?  If those IMs were not illegal when Foley sent them in 2002/2003, and *IF* no one comes forward with similar emails from 2006 (after the law was signed and House leaders sort-of-warned Foley), we are looking at a moral/ethical/political problem but not a legal one. [NOT SO, says Adam Liptak of the Times, although there are plenty of constitutional and jurisdictional issues.]

Which will leave us here - when it was legal to do so, Foley flirted (inappropriately and excessively) with young men who were above the age of consent.  If Foley and his target pages had actually done the deed, it would not have been illegal.  At the time Foley was simply communicating by means of the internet, that apparently was not illegal either.

Look, Foley has resigned and his performance was deplorable.  But it may not be illegal, and the House leadership may not be guilty of much more than having been a bit trusting.  Barring a bombshell from 2006, it can also be argued that their mild intervention was successful.

COOLER HEADS MAY PREVAIL:  Via Roll Call, we see this from Nancy Pelosi:

"Speaker Hastert seems more concerned by who revealed the Republican leadership's coverup of Mr. Foley's Internet stalking of an underage child than he was about ensuring the children entrusted to the House were protected," said Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Stalking?  Per this definition or this one, Foley's conduct hardly seems to rise to the level of "stalking".

THE ONLY ONE HE EVER FEARED:  Over at DKos, PollyUSA is also puzzling over the question of how this story percolated.  My familiarity with Ms. USA is on the Plame case, on which she tracked facts like a Terminator: without pity, without fatigue, without remorse, and so on.  We'll see what else she can find, but let me whet your appetite with this - apparently, there are several differences between the various versions of the posted emails.  Here are the emails from CREW (1,2) and from the StopSexPredators site.

Some differences (emphasis added)- "Glad" versus "glad"; "Send me an email pic" versus "send me a pic"; "How are you" versus "how are you".

There may be a logical explanation, and I am certaily not saying Foley didn't write these emails or something like them.  However, it would be interesting to see the trail these emails followed and learn whether they were re-typed, and by whom.

Comments

[clarice feldman]

Like Mikey ABC will (print) anything? Or Not good enough for Kos but we'll buy it?

[Carol Herman]

Clarice Feldman wrote a brilliant piece on this. It's got the smell of "dirty tricks" all over it! In other words, the donks are mounting an effort (plame like?) to shill Foley by trying to get "Hastert and Reynolds."

My guess is that this flops for the donks.

But what does that do for the swamp that's DC politics? Hastert has no powers? Nancy Pelosi's "rag" rocks?

Or will the democraps need a truckload of charmin when the November 7th results come toodling in?

It seems Karl Rove's strong suit is to KNOW how to GET OUT THE VOTES! It can make a difference in swing states.

And, if RatherGate taught anything at all, it taught that it motivated 4-million people to cast votes. Which gave Bush a tremendous BOUNCE in 2004.

While all you could say about Kerry, for refusing to acknowledge defeat on a timely basis, is that he was DELUSIONAL.

Bedlam may well break out on the 2nd Tuesday in November. Hugh Hewitt's already said if people get together and note against this crap, there's nothing the donks can do to move the goal posts. Or to steal elections.

Hardly likely that we're moving to a place where parties will get along in DC.

When the GOPsters were in the minority a lot of blame went to the kakafellers. Who'd threatened to call in loans out west, where the cattle people depended on these money streams. That's all gone now. Corrected by Barry Goldwater, way back in 1964. True. He didn't win the presidency. LBJ got that one. And, then demolished the democraps chances to stay in the majority. There are no corner stones, however, to this folly.

Some day, ahead. Way in the future. Someone writing about this stuff will blame the money of George Soros for really ruining the democrapic party. But I'm not a prophet. I can't foretell events. Only that I don't see a winning streak, here, for the MSM. Or their tawdry tricks.

[clarice feldman]

Thanks.

More from a poster at F.R.

"there was a news guy from Miama(Steve Rothaus, www.rothaus.net: 305-376-3770 or [email protected]) who had posted in the comments section on September 24(the sunday before the story 'broke') seeking information. He writes on Gay Issues for the Miami Herald and has his own blog on Blogspot for South Florida Gays.

[verner]

TM, two points:

1. Mahoney could not have made those claims based on the e-mails to the LA boy alone. Everyone in D.C. knew the "open" secret that Foley was gay, and Mahoney would have looked like a gay baiter of the worst sort (not a flattering portrait for a "gay friendly" democrat) if that's all he had. He had to know that there was something coming down the pike of a damning, and irrefutable nature that outed Foley for a boy cruising perv.

2. This could not have gone to the press without the parents approval, which makes them look rather suspicious. It completely contradicts what they told Alexander--that they just wanted it to stop, and didn't want the text of the messages shared etc. Excuse me for being the cynic, but I smell money, or maybe some real deep and dirty bayou politics at work.

It looks like Hasert was the target, and yes--unless something very damning comes out that we don't know about--his office was set up. He did exactly the right thing based on the information he had. His staff acted immediately, appropriately, and according to the parent's wishes. It is not Hasert's fault that Foley lied, or that other ex-pages did not come forward. When they did, he got rid of Foley immediately.

[clarice feldman]

As to 2. It is possible that the kid gave the correspondence to someone who posted it elsewhere.

Heck, it could even have come from someone on the Hill.

But it is unfair that Hastert should be tagged for not following up when the parents blocked further investigation only to find that correspondence splashed around the world months later.

[Gerry Studds (D-MA)]

Big Time H/T Clarice.

[verner]

Clarice:Heck, it could even have come from someone on the Hill.

The only problem there, however, is that it doesn't seem like anyone outside of Alexander's office ever had access to the e-mails. They didn't share him with Hasert, because the parents didn't want them to.

And this seems just a little too sophisticated an operation without the parent's backing. Some anonymous source passes the actual e-mails on to the press, via a 16 year old, and they look into the story? Why? If you read them, on their face, there is simply no there there. You would have to have the parents backing up the allegations to give them any credibility at all.

[clarice feldman]

Thanks, Gerry.

[verner]

him=them.

[clarice feldman]

You may be right verneer but think there's not enough evidence to assert that as fact.

[sad]

Great article Clarice.

[clarice feldman]

Thanks, sad

[Rick Moran]

Maybe a lefty lurker out there would like to answer a question:

If the Kos Kommunity didn't believe the Foley as Internet Stalker story, how is it you expect the GOP leadership, their most rabid opponents, to believe in it enough to kick him out of Congress?

[Rick Moran]

I meant to put that comment in a time context.

The GOP leadership found out about the emails to the former page last year.

If the Kos Kids were skeptical now, why should the leadership have taken drastic action then?

[SlimGuy]

It will be interesting to see if the real identity, not spectulation however informed, comes out in investigations by congress or a florida da

[SlimGuy]

My Bad

The name of who owns the blog

[Tom Maguire]

"there was a news guy from Miama(Steve Rothaus, www.rothaus.net: 305-376-3770 or [email protected]) who had posted in the comments section on September 24(the sunday before the story 'broke') seeking information.

I saw that in the comments at that blog, but the timestamp has a time but no date - for all I could tell, all the comments piled up after the ABC story broke (power of Google.)

[clarice feldman]

Thanks for that info, TM.(When Woodward interviews me for his next book ,"The Same Plame Game", I will definitely play down the rumor that we called you Mr. 70%.)

[retire05]

Jeeze, can this smell any worse? The blog that posted the goods on Foley is just months old yet it seems that others have known about this for almost a year? Is it just my suspecious mind that wonders why this particular blog started right at the kick off of heaving campaigning season?
We need to know who runs the blog and what thier connection is to CREW and the Democrats that run it.
Would anyone be surprised if the party of tolerance (Democrats) used Foley to get to Hasert?
Last week Clinton explodes with Cris Wallace which energizes the Dhimmicrats far left base and this week we have Foley and CREW demanding a "private" investigation into what the Republicans knew and when they knew it.
Anyone have any doubt that this blood sport know as politics will get really messy by election day?
Look for another bomb shell. The Dems are desparate.

[anonymous]

The Dems are desparate.

Posted by: retire05 | October 01, 2006 at 01:55 PM

Is that two typos in one short sentence? Shouldn't it have been:
'The Repubs are desperate?'

[Yeah but Foley resigned]

Your conspiracy theories don't explain why Foley resigned so suddenly. If he had nothing to hide, why did he run?

[clarice feldman]

Maybe he was forced to once the steamy earlier IMs were disclosed because he hadn't been forthright. Maybe he was embarrassed to be outed. Who knows?

Jumping to conclusions is like bungee jumping, better be sure the rope can hold you.

[Stephen]

I'm sure glad someone cleared up the whole e-mail/IM difference in this case. I couldn't figure out why the kid who found the e-mails, "sick, sick, sick . . ." hadn't told his parents about the IMs. However, it is now apparent that the IMs are not related to this kid. The media is so out-of-whack they are willing to commingle the two as if they are one event. I'm still not sure how we, or, for that part, the media know that the IMs are even true. Perhaps, Foley resigned because the IMs reflect actual Foley behavior. It seems to me that the IM part of this whole situation "fake, but accurate." Great site here. And Clarice, your writing on American Thinker is great. It is one of the first places I go to on my daily hunts of sites.

[Neo]

Two years ago, it was the judicial nomination process and the filibusters that drove me to the voting booth.

This year is the year that the Democrat Dirty Tricks drove me to the voting booth.

[anonymous]

"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

--Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, 1998, talking about Bill Clinton.

[h/t Chris Vosburg]

[Dr. Von Nostrand]

"I'm a retard"

-- anonymous

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/10/i_smell_a_rat.html#comment-23234524

[h/t anonymous]

[verner]

Pelosi and Reid are now calling for a full investigation with special council, and claiming that Hasert is as bad as Foley.

So sloppy, so inept. It is going to bite them in the behind, just like the TANG memos.

It has been less than a day, and the blogsphere is on the verge of showing how this was orchestrated--of how the democrats and their operatives had this info FOR MONTHS--and sat on it, until they could be assured of screwing up the ballot in Foley's district. People think Foley is a sick man, but they are also getting tired of the democrat's crap.

And I can't wait to hear gay activists (besides Andrew Sullivan) denouncing Foley for being "nice" to the boy. That's going to be a real howler! If We now use the Pelosi/Reid standard for full investigation and incriminating evidence, gay men are going to have to really watch their steps with "friendly" e-mail to teenaged boys. Bet they're going to love that!

[LaSteve]

So someone on the Liberal side planted this story, is it wrong in fact? Is Foley not at the very least engaging in Sexual Harassment of Page as defined by a more powerful person in an organization seeking to form a sexual congress with a subordinate?

Hello...right is right, wrong is wrong. Nobody to blame here but Congressman Foley as it is his behavior which created the problem.

Is retaining power so important that the truth of the perversion of Foley must be minimized by looking for who told the truth?

[Kathie]

Is it possible that Foley did not do the IM's? After being spoken to by the house why would he continue with the 16 year old. Surly he had other lovers to go to.

[Jane]

Uh "who told the truth" will go a long way in telling us if it is the truth.

[fisshbane]

Cool. Keep attempting to provide cover for an elected pedophile. Yep. Keep talking about your pedo. He's all the Republican's, that's for sure. Haskert's own child molester.

[jerryk]

You guys would defend Jeffrey Dahmer if he voted your way. I can picture it,,"the donks are just assuming the meat in the frig was human...how do we know Hillary wasn't in on it"

[boris]

Is Foley not at the very least engaging in Sexual Harassment of Page as defined by a more powerful person in an organization seeking to form a sexual congress with a subordinate?

As in what exactly? Were meetings arranged?

Foley the pervert is gone. So far nothing looks illegal compared to the Studds, Franks, Clinton standard.

Yo jerrk ... Studds remained in congress untill he retired. Franks is still there. Clinton served his full term.

Foley is gone.

[Jane]

Now he's a pedophile? Wow. The man corresponds with a man of legal age, and has no contact, but now he's a pedophile?

What does that make Gerry Studds and Bill Clinton? By your (curent) standards both should have gotten the death penalty. I thought anything goes if it is just about sex. I guess that means anything goes if it's a democrat doing the anything.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. But please, overplay your hand.

[verner]

LaSteve:Is Foley not at the very least engaging in Sexual Harassment of Page as defined by a more powerful person in an organization seeking to form a sexual congress with a subordinate?

You know, I read the e-mails, and I did not see one word that suggested sex. Did you? Which ones were they in your estimation?

As for subordinates, there has never been any allegation that he wrote dirty to any acting page--just ex-pages who were no longer under his authority in any way shape or form.

Foley played a very old game. He threw out the net to see what little fishes he could catch. He waited until they were a little bit older, knew them a bit better, made sure what he was doing was legal, and then tried to haul them in. I would guess that Foley knows the law regarding sexual contact with a minor better than most drug addicts know the PDR. He's sick, but not stupid. So far, there is not a single bit of evidence that he laid a finger on a single under-aged page. His behavior is disgusting and immoral to most people, but it happens everyday. And people do not go to jail for it.

[Brad R.]

As I’m sure you all know by now, Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley has resigned in disgrace after the press got hold of several sexually suggestive e-mails he’d sent to a 16-year-old page. While this development is shocking in its own right, sources close to Sadly, No! have sent us a series of even more shocking e-mail exchanges. Apparently, Foley was also in frequent contact with a 12-year-old Netvocates named Gary Ruppert.

[The e-mails are reprinted at sadlyno.com]

[LaSteve]

Verner

You make a valid point, Foley in the emails did not break any law, and in the recent IM's he most likely did not violate sexual harassment rules as the pages were no longer employed by the House.

But does that make it right, is it moral in any-one's outside of fringe groups point of view?

I think not, and I don't get the defense of his behavior on technicalities by people. There is no defense.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

LaSteve -- get your facts straight. There was no inappropriate language in the email to the page. The IMs were to someone unknown who is reported to be a FORMER page but older now and out of Washington at the time of the exchanges. There is no one in a position of authority trying to do anything. We don't know anything else that would tell us Foley did anything illegal or even inappropriate when you consider that all parties were beyond the age of consent, no physical contact ever took place, and apparently the original innocuous emails were initiated by the page and not by Foley. It may creep you out that Foley was engaging in IM sex, but there is nothing illegal in him doing it based on all the facts we know now. Everyone needs to take a step back and realize there is not really much there there.

[boris]

But does that make it right

Not the point. Foley's gone.

Not a single poster on this thread argues that he should be anything but gone.

If you can't figure out what the thread is actually about, why not read it again and think.of Foley.

[verner]

Let's get this straight. No one is defending Foley's behavior. He is a sick sick man and should not be in congress. And he no longer is.

What really makes me mad though, is the implication that Hasert should have acted sooner, deserves to be investigated by a special council, and, as Harry Reid stated, is as bad as Foley. That is crap.

Who are you kidding?If Hasert has sent the dogs after Foley for those emails, the GLAAD crowd would have labeled him a rabid homophobe who violated the civil rights of a gay man who was just trying to be nice.

Hasert had no idea that those IMs to ex-pages existed. But the democrats sure did! So who is to blame for letting Foley stay a few months longer than he should have--the speaker who did not know, or the democrat operatives who did?

And you also have to ask, what responsibility do the ex-pages have for their contact with Foley? Ever hear of a "block" list? Did they tell their parents what was going on? What harm did Foley cause them?

[Cecil Turner]

Whoa, too funny. I think he missed an opportunity for "Do you like gladiator movies?" but hey. (And treats this issue with the level of seriousness it deserves.)

[clarice feldman]

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/does-anybody-in-our-media-remember-gerry-studds

Here's some reading material LaSteve.

[clarice feldman]

Thanks, Stephen, but almost everything I write is informed by the other posters here.(At keast the good stuff is. The bad stuff I credit to Old Timers.)

[anonymous]

Foley's dead! Long live Foley!

[MayBee]

So what gets picked up by google?
Would the Stop Sex Predator site have been included in a google search on something like congress + Page + sex?

I'm no Buckhead, but the copies of those emails look pretty bad. They do not look like printed emails to me, but faxes. Which makes me believe they didn't come directly from the kid. Also, that would mean the blogger was in contact with the source in a manner other than email.

[T Miller]

This thread is so much more interesting than the last Foley one. There is nothing like a suspected Democrat conspiracy to get the old juices flowing (as if the Dems could actually pull off something like this.)

In the previous thread, too many people were trying to rationalize Foley's actions, or comparing them to some previous Dem scandal. And some posters actually accused Dems of being political!

And now Hastert is calling in Justice to investigate. That should keep these threads alive for another 3 or 4 years.

[Terrye]

La Steve:

Spare me the sanctimony.

No one is defending Foley here. I have not heard one single Republican defend Foley or his actions. The question is how this broke and why it broke now and whether or not there is more to it than we know.

If anyone broke a law, lock them up. I don't care, it won't bother me. But I do not want to go through another costly, pointless, politically motivated investigation that has more to do with aiding Democrats than it does with getting to the truth. Thus far the track record of these kind of investigations suck. To say the least.

[Rick Ballard]

The second email from Tom's links above refer to Kolbe and Franks as being known chickenhawks - Hastert better add Kolbe to the DoJ list and I'm absolutely positive that Pelosi will want Franks examined thoroughly. Franks won't mind as long as he can pick the interrogator.

Let's make it a bipartisan effort to roost out all chickenhawks.

Then lie detector tests can be administered to all the female pages to make sure there haven't been any untoward advances by hetero males (come to think of it, maybe we better have them quizzed about the Congresswomen, too - the ones that wear lumberjack shirts anyway).

It's the only way to make sure that all the predators are nailed.

[anonymous]

Sounds good, Rick. Nothing like a good old-fashioned American witch-hunt.

I assume you won't object to being investigated first.

[Jerryk]

Hassert better be ready for the coming storm. Everyone should remember he was a high school wrestling coach. The reporters are calling the kids as we speak. It's sort of what you deserve when your party is the party of fear. Stranger Danger!Stranger Danger!

[Jane]

I'm no Buckhead, but the copies of those emails look pretty bad. They do not look like printed emails to me, but faxes. Which makes me believe they didn't come directly from the kid.

Where was Mary Mapes over the weekend?

The sexpervert website looks just like the desk of PatrickjFitzgerald website - right down to the color scheme and the font.

I smell a rat.

[verner]

What a great idea Rick! A chickenhawk hunt, to expose the sex lives of gay congress-persons, with POLYGRAPHS, brought to you by Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). LOVE IT!

[verner]

By the way, I just hope everyone noted the extreme sarcasm in my last post. There are so many of the literal minded around here--one never knows.

[verner]

"I assume you won't object to being investigated first."

See what I mean about the literal minded!

[clarice feldman]

Jane, TS pointed out the similarities to me last night, but I was reluctant to make much of it. That site, BTW did link to the obscure stopsexpredators so it certainly is likely sock puppets are wearing sock puppets.

[anonymous]

Yes, Verner, I see what you mean; but it's not what you think you mean ...

[Terrye]

Well you know having Harry Reid get all worked up about it and outraged and stuff kind of makes me wonder what he knew and when he knew it. They remind me of vultures on road kill.

These are the same people who looked the other way [for how long] while Clinton groped and grabbed his way through his term in office. And everyone knew he was a womanizer. They just pretended it was not a big deal. The pages probably knew that something was not right about Foley too but that does not mean an old fart like Hastert did. But I bet he knew the man was gay. Kind of a rock and hard place.

Meanwhile the Democrats are acting like oppurtunistic hypocrites. Yep, while they are investigating Foley and Hastert why not ask if Pelosi has every gotten a little too friendly with the pages herself. Shame to waste all that plastic surgery.

[Rick Ballard]

The cabana boys from Brazil are going after Franks? What did he do to offend them?

[MayBee]

Yeah, there is this whole series of websites like the Patrick J Fitzgerald website. Here is one I found the other day, when I was looking for something about Jake Tapper. It seems to have a connection to the Patrick J Fitzgerald website (they comment back and forth to each other). He also says something about an ABC news crew, although I can't tell if that means he has some connection to ABC news.

----

http://originalcpmc.blogspot.com/

I will forget about how J.B. accused the entire Catholic faith of criminal intent in front of a large portion of the ABC News crew to me one night. No, I am moving on. Turning the other cheek. For, I have asked myself, "WWJD?"
----

[anonymous]

Harry Reid ... Nancy Pelosi ... Bill Clinton ... ?

Why don't you want to talk about Republican Representative Foley?

[clarice feldman]

Man the media assistance has made these guys so sloppy..have you ever seen a more amateurish beginning to a big smear.

And in the end, if we do our work this will only remind voters of what they hated about Clinton and explode in their faces.

Happy NEw Year!

[Bill]

OK, checklist to lose an election:

1) Focus on the war on terror even though your party is considered, rightfully so, to be losers in the area.

2) Have no new ideas so talk about semi gay dude and his page even though your party is abusive to actual children.

3) Fight for terrorist rights!!!

[Gullspirit]

I've yet to hear anyone defend Foley's behavior. We are all assuming that he actually wrote the emails AND IM's. But who the heck saves IM's unless they have an ulterior motive???? Regardless -- Foley's resignation comments indicate he acknowledges a role in this inappropriate scenario.

I want to know what role dem operatives played in the "timely" release of the email/IM's .... We know MSM's position. I'm now wondering if this is what Clinton was referencing during his Fox meltdown.

Thanks, Clarice for your reporting.

[anonymous]

So, the Republican Party plan will be to explain to the voters that the evil Democrats have conspired to "smear" the good and honorable Mr. Foley?

I say, Go for it.

[Terrye]

anon:

Former Republican Representative Foley.

Tell me, has Pelosi demanded the resignation of Rep. Jefferson yet?

[verner]

Ah Rick, you know they just threw Barney in there to look bi-partisan. Barney is probably enjoying the free publicity.

[topsecretk9]

--Yeah, there is this whole series of websites like the Patrick J Fitzgerald website. --

A while back Seixon got into a back and forth with a "commenter" on truthout and talk left named "PatrickJFitzgerald" that linked back to that PJF blogspot and the comments were the same as the ones Jason Leopold had actually emaild Seixon...I think Seixon did a blog post about it. Seixon emailed TalkLeft if she would check the IP and she declined but said whoever was using the alias was really distracting and serving no favors.

There is another one too, I think citizenspook.blogspot.com

[Terrye]

Anonymous:

No.... the Republicans ask for and got the resignation of the naughty bad Congressman and have asked for a criminal probe from what I hear.

[anonymous]

" ... has Pelosi demanded the resignation of Rep. Jefferson yet?"

No one will care. Just not as "sexy" as the misadventures of Foley, Hastert, and Boehner.

[Terrye]

Ever notice how excited the left gets about anything remotely to do with homosexuals? I wonder if they are really as tolerant as they say they are.

I know I have never heard any real outrage about the fact that the Iranians publicly execute gays, so maybe they are projecting.

[anonymous]

Perhaps Representative Foley won't mind being probed, Terrye.

[Terrye]

Well I guess Bill was just all the sexy they could come up with for awhile. But then there is always Barney Franks.

[anonymous]

And isn't it interesting how often Republicans talk about fundamentalist Muslim nations executing homosexuals? Is it jealousy? ... wishful thinking?

[Terrye]

anonymous:

I know Barney wouldn't.

[Terrye]

anonymous:

And isn't it interesting how often socalled liberals pander to homophobic dictators and then preach to other people?

[verner]

"But who the heck saves IM's unless they have an ulterior motive????"

And let's add, holds the e-mails for THREE YEARS. And picks NOW to expose them.

And where have they been for three years? Who's hands have they touched? Gee Whiz, if Hasert brings in the JD, we may just find out!!

Oh, the joys of getting what you ask for Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid.

TS. If this goes to JD, I would guess that one of the first things they will check out is who first made those e-mails public, and that would be the folks at stopsexualpredator.blogspot.com. Do you think the fools thought of that?

[anonymous]

But, we must remind ourselves, this "scandal" is not about homosexuality; it is about a sexual predator, a "chickenhawk," preying on teenagers.

And, whatever we do, let's not forget the role of the Republican Congressional leadership in trying to hide it.

[topsecretk9]

Here's another one

http://nomorefraud.blogspot.com/

[Von Trapp]

anonymouse lives up to her name. boo hoo hoo. ;)

[verner]

"And isn't it interesting how often Republicans talk about fundamentalist Muslim nations executing homosexuals? Is it jealousy? ... wishful thinking?"

You are way out of line, throwing mess around to people who you know nothing about.

Besides, if it was up to you and your anti-war buddies, the taliban and Saddam would still be murdering homosexuals. So you deal with it.

[Terrye]

anonymous:

The point my dear is that Foley did a bad thing and now he is out of there. There is no reason to believe there was a cover up but if there was then the people responsible can go too, I really don't care.

The Democrats on the other hand have a history of wagging their fingers at the camera and lying to us and expecting everyone to say, No big deal it is just sex.

I used to be a Democrat and I defended Bill Clinton and he lied to me. What I like about the Republicans is that I do not have to defend this kind of behavior because when one of them act badly, they are gone.

[anonymous]

No tears on the Left tonight, Von.

[anonymous]

Well, we don't know yet if "there is no reason to believe there was a cover up." And I'm sure you want to find out as much as I do.

Justice must be done. Don't you agree?

(And Mr. Foley may be "gone," but he will not be forgotten.)

[Terrye]

anon:

Probably not, but they are still in the minority. So if that does not bring a tear or two nothing will, since power is all they care about.

[anonymous]

Would the Republicans prefer not to have political power?

It seems to me that a political party exists for the purpose of gaining political power in order to effectively represent the members of the party in government.

Don't you agree?

[Terrye]

anon:

Hastert went to the Clerk and the Page Review board when this first came to his attention, he also talked to the parents. They could have gone to the press anytime they wanted, they had the emails. There was nothing Hastert could have done to stop them so there was no way to cover anything up.

But it is interesting how these old IM's showed up from 2003 at the most oppurtune moment.

I wonder if the Republicans will return the favor and bring the boom down on one of Pelosi's pets?

[anonymous]

Democrats, like Republicans, care about all sorts of things. But, without political power, caring about things won't get them done.

[MayBee]

http://originalcpmc.blogspot.com/

This one (the one mentioned above) Calls itself the Cleveland Park (DC) Men's Club. One of the guys in it is Mike Grass, web editor of Washington Post Express, and of course the Patrick Fitzgerald guy.

Just interesting.

[verner]

"Democrats, like Republicans, care about all sorts of things. But, without political power, caring about things won't get them done."

And here we have the little sophmoric justification for all democrat bad behavior--likely installed in this pimple faced kid by some marxist professor who he smokes dope with.

[anonymous]

I've made a few sarcastic remarks about this, but, in all seriousness: please, don't try to make this a complicated "conspiracy" story. The voters' eyes will glaze over the minute you try to explain all the ins and outs, and all your speculations.

What the voters will respond to is the tabloid tale.

You're better off sticking with a straightforward condemnation of Mr. Foley. And leave it at that.

[Terrye]

anon:

The parties are also supposed to stand for something. I was a Democrat for many years. Bush was the first Republican I ever voted for. It seems to me that when a party has people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan speaking for it they need to spend less time trying to trip up the majority and more time trying to be a little less weak and wacko.

They are unserious, inconsistent, and dishonest and that is why I don't vote for them anymore. So rather than treating people they disagree with like criminals maybe they should try to understand why people like me voted for the other party.

[Maf54]

Thanks, Clarice for your reporting.

Yes, she's just like FBI Special Agent Clarice Starling in Silence of the Donks! Go get 'em girl. It's not what Foley allegedly did, it's that it was reported, and the timing!

[Terrye]

I kind of thought the same sort of thing about the Clintons but they are still doing their vast right wing conspiracy shtick.

[verner]

Maybee, I think the investigation into interlinking blogs will prove a goldmine. This whole thing has the stench of a Soros sponsored web-op. Put it into the food chain so that Mahoney and ABC (Is Mark Halperin still there?) have an excuse to go forward.

This crap has been sitting in the vault for a long long time.

[anonymous]

Well, Terrye, you are certainly welcome to your opinion about one party or the other, and which you will choose to support. But tens of millions of voters disagree with you. And, currently, 61% of the citizenry are done with the current administration.

And, Verner? Let me know if you think of a relevant response to my remark about ALL political parties.

[Terrye]

Maf54:

If there is nothing to it, why worry about it? It would not be the first time that someone used someone else's weakness against him.

Foley brought this on himself, no doubt about it, but it would be interesting to know if he had a little help along the way. Why not?

[Terrye]

anon:

Done with it? Is Bush going somewhere? Tha tis the point my dear, I keep hearing about how bad Bush and the Republicans are, but so far they keep winning. What does that say about your side?

[anonymous]

"... the Clintons but they are still doing their vast right wing conspiracy shtick."

Posted by: Terrye | October 01, 2006 at 04:52 PM

And isn't this 'the vast left-wing conspiracy schtick' we're seeing here?

[Cecil Turner]

(And Mr. Foley may be "gone," but he will not be forgotten.)

Dude, if you're hangin' your political hopes on this incident (other than possibly garnering an otherwise safe seat), I predict disappointment in the relatively near future.

But, without political power, caring about things won't get them done.

Without some connection to reality, pursuit of political power proves problematic.

And, currently, 61% of the citizenry are done with the current administration.

Hopefully you're not under the impression they're running for office in the upcoming. (But one can never be sure . . .)

[anonymous]

The Republicans have a narrow majority in the House (and they've already lost 4 seats before the election has happened;) they have a better hold on the Senate which looks like it will at least be reduced.

And Mr. Bush certainly can warm his seat for two more years, but it won't be much fun for him with a Democrat-controlled House.