Powered by TypePad

« Condi Rice Warned By George Tenet | Main | NY Times Delivers Front Page Murtha-Basher »

October 01, 2006



I'm not worried about it. Run with it! Follow the money.



Why aren't we all celebrating the timing of this? Anytime a child sexual predator is exposed, that's a GOOD THING? Right?

This guy was almost about to be re-elected again for chrissakes. I, for one, don't CARE if it was a "dirty trick." And neither does ANY OTHER PARENT.

Let's remember what Foley's INITIAL claims were: These were just innocent conversations, nothing sexual about them, etc., etc. This is just a smear campaign. My Democratic opponent is stooping to dirty tricks. Blah, blah, blah.

If you've never been indoctrinated by a child predator, well, you'd almost think this was just innocent chit-chat.

So, ABC published Foley's denials.

Well, next thing you know, some OTHER Pages pull their "get out of jail free" cards out of their pockets, and produce the copies of all their IM sessions with the Honorable Foley.

Two seconds later, Foley resigns, and not only resigns, he runs. He leaves Washington, D.C. and is now being hidden, aided and abetted as it were, by his sister in an undisclosed location. The mainstream press sure know where he is, but they ain't telling us.

If Mr. Foley is truly guiltless, why is he hiding?

Why hasn't anyone called the PROPER AUTHORITIES? Who are the proper authorities when someone is suspected of sexually harrassing young boys?

The police, that's who.

End this madness. Arrest this sicko.

Efforts to make this look like a political smear, even if it was, will SURELY BACKFIRE on anyone who tries.

Hastert, et.al., had better understand this and start ACTING like they care about the welfare of the Pages, the political fallout be damned.

The Democrats will make hay out of this. So what? There's plenty of reason for them to the way the House leadership has acted in this whole affair.

A 16-year-old BOY was being indoctrinated by a gay Congressman, and nobody called the cops? WTF?


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

Why? We are better off in what way-- and who is judging us?

Something happened involving a politician. Politics are involved, and we're discussing the politics. Why is that so out of line? To me it seems like.....politics!


BTW, Bush is creeping up in the polls.RCP average is over 41%, not great by any means, but better.hmmmmmmmm. One more reason to question the timing. This conspiracy thing is catching. It is kind of like when the lefties accuse Bush of being behind 9/11 so that he can steal oil from that nice Saddam Hussein. It is amazing that anyone can be that crazy, but that is what partisan politics does to people.


I'm not worried about it.

Oh yes you are, because if the blogsphere can link the name "Soros" to an unjust attempt to bring down Hasert, it will be SOOOOO OVER.


Seems to me things like this happen when Vince Lombardi is your life compass. Karl must be having a fit - cruising into the eighth inning after all that work to keep "security" on the front burner and he gets hit with
- an NIE that reports that the Iraq war is fueling terrorism (a single to left) highlighted today by Fox news reporter Shepard Smith (Yep Fox news!) having a conniption in arguing with Bill Kristol

That the terrorism is getting worse? That they are feeding off it? Today, one side is talking about secession if they don't get over it, that the sectarian violence is spreading, that we're clearing out one area and not able to hold it and the insurgents ... that stay the course isn't working? Any more than, maybe, cut and run would work? And that everyone seems to know, but won't say the answer is to add troops not take them away? Where are the people who are looking out for our best interests?
That's a disgusting and repulsive reality Bill you have to admit that. That we can't do anything about something that is not working and where people are dying until after our elections are over...

Bob Woodward writing a third book about the Bush admininstation - this one with some actual criticism contained therein

and now we have

- the House leadership apparently enabling what appears to be a sexual predator who, unlike the supposed parallels, appears to have broken an anti-soliciting law (at least a two run error).

And some of you are pushing the idea that its just a dirty trick?

If it is a dirty trick (which I doubt) its a darn good one. It hits right in Rove sweet spot of a perceived strength - Republicans as the party of "values". You folks must be thinking that because Karl has such a long history of dirty tricks, that nothing happens just because it happens. CREW apparently sat on their e-mails until the story broke elsewhere and had sent a letter to the FBI about them months ago. How does that jive with somebody pushing an agenda?

How I wish we were winning this damned war. How I wish we were instead arguing about simple things like tax policy instead of whether or not waterboarding is torture.


Suit yourself, May. Just trying to help.


Now, exactly how does one arthenicate an IM ?

Hal 9000

The good news for the GOP is this: Foley is gone, Hastert and the leadership are doing everything they can to make sure this gets dealt with swiftly, and the GOP still has five weeks to remind America of the important facts: National security is still our top priority and the Dems have NOTHING.

The GOP has to get this behind them and go on the issues that will decide this election. National Security, the fact the economy is stronger now with lower unemployment rates than it ever was under Clinton, and the fact you can always count on the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory will mean the right party will still be in power November 8.

New Jersey is looking more and more like a GOP pickup in the Senate and that means the Dems would have to somehow run the table to capture it. Not going to happen.

And even if Foley's seat does go to the Dems, they still have to come up with 14 and not lose any. Turnout favors the Republicans, and turnout will stop the Dems.

It will be close, but like 2000, 2002, and 2004 turnout will still win it for the GOP.



Arrest him for what? The age of consent is 16. I am not sure a crime has been committed.

Hastert has called for a criminal probe so we shall see what we see.

I am glad Foley is gone and he deserved to lose his seat. Whether criminal or not his behavior was unethical and just plain creepy.

clarice feldman

Funny, isn't it? The trolls are so sure they've got a winner so they have to come here and tell us we're wasting our time.


Oh yes you are, because if the blogsphere can link the name "Soros" to an unjust attempt to bring down Hasert, it will be SOOOOO OVER.

I agree. The issue isn't me, it's the Soros CREW.


"The GOP has to get this behind them ... "

You might want to be careful about how you talk about this; no point in lobbing fat pitches like that over the Democrats' plate.


I meant the issue isn't Foley, it's the Soros CREW.


here is Seixon's...PJFblogspot/puppet post



A Justice Department investigation will hopefully have the answers to all questions right in time for the election. If dems are engaged in a plan to increase their chances for taking the House by holding back information this is going to prove to be a big loser for them. Foley resigned and that should end the matter. Jefferson and Mollohan still don't see the handwriting on the wall and have not received any censure by the House or ethics committee. It seems the ethics committee acted quickly on DeLay.
Looks like dems have stooped to stealing seats in order to get the majority.

Funny, isn't it? The trolls are so sure they've got a winner so they have to come here and tell us we're wasting our time.

No kidding! I wonder if any of these commentators are from CREW or Media Matters. Maybe the IPs can be traced back to them.

I think we need to get behind legislation to get ISPs to keep detailed internet records of email and IMs as well as sites visited so we can verify this kind of thing in the future.


Texas Toast

No one is saying this is all just a dirty trick.

And when it comes to national security the Democrats remind me of that Sybil movie, they have multiple personality disorder.


I meant the issue isn't Foley, it's the Soros CREW.

Look, if you think it's a stupid thing to discuss, go elsewhere.

There are several issues here. Yes, Foley is a huge issue. The GOP reaction to the emails is an issue. The timing of the release of the story is an issue. The source is an issue. Layers. Celebrate! Maybe the Dems have a Rove!

If dems are engaged in a plan to increase their chances for taking the House by holding back information this is going to prove to be a big loser for them.

The dimocraps should be forced to release all the info they're holding back. All their oppo research must be released to prevent this kind of "October Surprise." What are they hiding?


Drudge - Hassert letter

...Unlike the first communication, the second communication was a set of instant messages that contained sexually explicit statements and were reportedly generated three years ago. Last week, ABC News first reported these sexually explicit instant messages which led to Representative Foley’s resignation. These sexually explicit communications warrant a criminal referral in two respects. Initially, since the communications involve interstate communications, there should be a complete investigation and prosecution of any federal laws that have been violated. In addition, since the communications appear to have existed for three years, there should be an investigation into the extent there are persons who knew or had possession of these messages but did not report them to the appropriate authorities. It is important to know who may have had the communications and why they were not given to prosecutors before now.

Therefore, I also request that the Department undertake an investigation into who had specific knowledge of the content of any sexually explicit communications between Mr. Foley and any former or current House pages and what actions such individuals took, if any, to provide them to law enforcement. I request that the scope of your investigation include any and all individuals who may have been aware of this matter—be they Members of Congress, employees of the House of Representatives, or anyone outside the Congress.

Your attention to this serious matter is appreciated. I am also sending to the Department of Law Enforcement for the State of Florida a request to investigate whether or not any state laws were violated by Mr. Foley or anyone else with respect to this matter.


J. Dennis Hastert


I tried to imagine myself in Foley's media position, but at the same time believing I did nothing, except perhaps be friendly.

I would be guilty in the court of public opinion. It doesn't matter what kind of proof I could come up with to show my innocence. Even if I did, it would be "old news" by the time it was properly assembled. Shoot, I think I would have I resigned. Who needs this kind of shit.

No wonder the best and the brightest are obviously elsewhere and we are left wondering why most candidates for public office are .. less than.



I'll tell you what Mr. Foley should be arrested for:

1) criminal solicitation of a minor
2) wire fraud
3) any of the other laws Foley helped pass to keep child sexual predators off the internet.

What Foley did is illegal. I'm guessing that he knows this, and that is why he is being hidden by his sister.

And it's probably just the beginning. I bet dollars to doughnuts that we're about to find out there are a whole line of Pages waiting to tell their stories, and it won't just be about instant messages.

My guess is that there are a few Pages' out there with larger stories to tell. I hope they are reading this and come forward, even though it will probably be embarassing for them and their families.

ABC News is currently reporting that the FBI has launched an investigation.

I'd suggest that Donna Foley give them a call and let them know where her brother is, lest she subject herself to accessory after the fact charges.

Dale in Atlanta

You know, the more I hear about this, the MORE I'm CONVINCED that Foley HAD to be a DEMOCRAT!

It's absolutely inconceivable that he was actually a Republican!

I mean, c'mon he is:

a) Gay (Barney Frank)
b) a predator (Bill Clinton)
c) a liar (take your pick of ALL the Democratic leadership!)
d) a hypocrite (ah, AGAIN take your pick of any Democrat!)

I mean, based upon that alone, he's the PERFECT Democrat!

Somebody please tell me, he was just a Democrat masquerading as a Republican?

Has to be; I no longer believe he was Republican; the whole thing was a setup; he was a Dem who fooled everybody by claiming to be a Rep? Has to be...

I strongly suspect, now that he's resigned, he'll come "out of the Closet", annouce that he was a "Closeted Democrat); he'll be IMMEDIATELY elected to the DEMOCRATIC HALL OF FAME, and get his seat in Congress back an out of the closet Democrat; he'll get a movie made of his life, he'll write a book and bee on Oprah, and he'll be hailed by Democrats as a Hero and a champion of gay rights, just like Gary Studds?

Anyone think that's wrong?

Charlie (Colorado)


(1) Not to be difficult, Terrye, but I *am* defending Foley: it appears at this point that he was engaging in legal and consensual sexual behavior with someone over the age of consent in his jurisdiction. His major offense appears to be being queer and Republican, and frankly I'm a litle unhappy --- not surprised, but unhappy --- that he doesn't get at least a little defense on that basis.

(2) as I noted previously, the whole "age of consent" thing is really screwed up. For the people who want to make Foley's 16-18 year old paramours or fantasies into "child abuse', I'd note that a 16 year old can drive, a 17 year old can join the army, an 18 year old can vote, and this girl is under the age of consent in California. However she can marry. The notion that she's a "child" seems a bit labored.



You're more right than you know. Foley began his career as a Democrat. Switched during the Reagan Revolution.

I tried to imagine myself in Foley's media position, but at the same time believing I did nothing, except perhaps be friendly.

Exactly. It's a smear job. The question is who is behind it. I think the answers are becoming clearer but not yet clear. It's obvious that this was made an issue now for political reasons. It cannot be a coincidence.

Cecil Turner

>>I meant the issue isn't Foley, it's the Soros CREW.

>Look, if you think it's a stupid thing to discuss, go elsewhere.

It's an attempt at humor, using Foley's screen name (and it was funny, once).

Dale in Atlanta

rightnumberone: I KNEW IT!

The whole thing was a SETUP, started back during the Reagan years, by.....KARL ROVE!

Yes, that's it, it's all an evil plot hatched by Karl Rove, back in the 80's, to earn the gay vote for the Republicans in the midterm elections via the gay "backlash" against the Democrats, for outting Foley; yeah, that's the ticket.....



I am pissed at him because he has responsibilities to other people. And he blew it.

If it was just about him being gay and being Republicans I don't think it would be this big a deal.

But I do wonder if the reaction would have been the same had he been a Democrat.

I have to admire you for bucking the trend though, brave man.


-- a "chickenhawk," preying on teenagers.--

Yes, it's soooo much better to be leched, groped, cigared, bitten, raped and/or drowned by a peaceful dove!

JM Hanes

Shoot. Should have checked for a new thread before posting my Very Brief History of STOP THE SEX PREDATORS in the last one.


"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]



Now that you mention it I too have wondered about the age thing.

I mentioned on another thread that my mother was 17 when she married my Dad. And we let 16 year olds drive cars. If they can handle a car, they should be able to handle instant messaging. It is not really a consistent attitude.


Yes, it's soooo much better to be leched, groped, cigared, bitten, raped and/or drowned by a peaceful dove!

Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 01, 2006 at 05:30 PM

You know what Bill O'Reilly (the King of Fox News) always says:
you can't excuse the bad things you do by pointing to the misdeeds of others.


Maybe we should do it the way they do in Afghanistan: no age of consent at all. Then middle-aged men could buy child brides, and politicians could stop worrying about sex scandals.

A sort of "screw 'em all" approach.



So why do keep doing it?

clarice feldman

What does Bill say about glass houses and a party with a record like the Dems suggesting that their opponents willfully endangered innocent children?
LOL with that one.

Hey, is the entire DU crowd here tonight?
Who announced we had an open bar here ?


Translation please?


that should be "why do you keep doing it".

preview is for the faint of heart.



Aren't they cute when they are self righteous?

Cecil Turner

. . . you can't excuse the bad things you do by pointing to the misdeeds of others.

Dude, we is mos'ly edjamicated enuff to unnerstan' a tu quoque fallacy, so you can use the technical term if you like. But the problem with that particular point, when discussing a choice between political parties, is that if your bubbas aren't any better, then there really isn't a reason to vote for one of them over a 'pub. And I don't recall the GOP plank proclaiming perfect personal propriety . . . the position is rather that they're a bit better at policing their own. (And a quick comparison between the careers of Studds and Foley would seem to bear that out.)


Clarice, perhaps you might want to consult with Terrye on the 'age of consent' matter. If I follow T. correctly, Miss Lewinsky (who you seem to be alluding to) would have been well past ripe, and the apple of Mr. Foley's eye just ripe enough.


Why does who keep doing what, Terrye?

clarice feldman

She can speak quite well for herself, anonymous, but if you are asking me I'd say as a matter of fact that there is not a shred of evidence that Foley engaged in improper sexual contact with a single minor anywhere ever.

The emails are not sexual and involve someone not considered a minor in this jurisdiction (nor probably in his home jurisdiction, Louisians).

The IM's are correspondence with someone who appears to be of college age and while they are sexual they do not appear to involve a minor, not even under the recently passed Walsh Act as the correspondence is years old.

Now, why is this blurred by the coverage?
You can speculate as well as I, but I see it as a way of trying to peel off social conservatices among whom the Dems have standing lower than whale shi_t in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean or at least to keep them from voting.

I insist on the facts being accurate because otherwise we are playing on emotion , not reason, and I find the former an idiotic guide to voting.


Charlie (Co)- well, you know I think you are raising some really interesting points about our society. Legally, of course, an age has to be chosen when consent can be given but it is crazy to imagine that a birthday makes a difference emotionally.

There is nothing about our current popular culture that supports an age of 18 for consent. Especially when it comes to verbal content. I wish there were.

Count the number of times Chris Matthews slobbered over an under-age Britney Spears on Hardball.
Post that picture of the 17-year old on any website and ask if that's a nip slip. See how many chastise you for sexualizing a 17-year old. I doubt even the people that are jumping all over Foley for chatting with a 17-year old would do that.

So yeah, we're very schizophrenic (I don't feel like checking the spelling on that right now) about this issue.

I do think Foley's emails were creepy because they were creepy. Count me out as someone that wants to get IMs from an acquaintance wanting to discuss my personal measurements. He showed exceedingly bad judgement.

For the record, I'm not one of those "teenagers are sexual beings!" advocates. I don't want my teen to have sex and I didn't when I was a teen. I just think the lines drawn for criminality are not in keeping with reality.


Clarice, the lastest I've read is that some of the IMs are from 2002--even earlier than first reported.

Pelosi fell into a trap of her own making. Now the JD is checking it out alright. And whoever has kept the lid on those IMs all of these years may be in big trouble--assuming they are evidence of a crime, which is highly debatable.

clarice feldman

She's too stupid to know that, but ABC and CREW aren't. Great.

Someone suggested the IMs were faked using the ISP from the innocuous emails. That might be a crime.


Leopold is definitely involved in the Foley stuff. I don't know if he owns the website but someone gave him the tip about the text messages and he leaked it to a bigger news source. This is exactly what Leopold did to Gray Davis which he discusses in his book. He gets a bigger media to cover a story by leaking it if he is unable to write it


Back to Toms post-

I want to emphasize that the "Dirty Little Secret" comment by Foley's opponent was reported August 21. Of course, he said the secret was that Foley wasn't bi-partisan.


I know there are several lawyers here. Anyone know what the law has to say about exchanging salacious IM's with people in the 16-and up age range? Nobody seems to know whether its a crime or not.



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

Hadn't Foley promised no more contact to Hastert? I imagine he was extremely embarrassed and Hastert was rather Perterbed when the IM's came out. However, now we find out that the IM's are 3 years old? And he was told to cease and desist in 05? So, what's this about, really? It's about a smear, that's what it's about. And a particularly vile one. Politics of personal destruction, as Newt likes to call it.


I know there are several lawyers here. Anyone know what the law has to say about exchanging salacious IM's with people in the 16-and up age range? Nobody seems to know whether its a crime or not.


Posted by: anon | October 01, 2006 at 06:24 PM

Well, anon (if that's your real name) the expert on that subject would be Republican Representative from Florida, the good and honorable Mr. Mark Foley. Perhaps you should contact his office.

JM Hanes

You guys must really be on the right track here, considering how many folks have suddenly shown up to offer friendly advice about knocking it off! In contrast to the more traditional forms of derailing discussion, it's a novel approach isn't it?


Nobody seems to know whether its a crime or not.

A lawyer's opinion is better than nothing (like my opinion) but it might be that nobody's gonna know that for sure until something like this is successfully prosecuted.


Before you get too gleeful,you should,perhaps,think about all those Democratic supporters in Hollywood.

BTW,Why so bitter,did you not enjoy being a page?


Ooops, blogs are full of surprises...

2 → Kelly – (Sep 16 2004, 9:41 PM)

I got fully groped and felt up by a very drunken Patrick Kennedy (yes, the US Congressman) at at Hootie and the Blowfish concert last month. What is more disturbing - that I got groped by a Kennedy? that Hootie is still touring? or that I was actually in attendance at a Hootie concert in 2004?


also Leopold's book is selling pretty well according to amazon because of the andrew fastow thing he has in there and that there now making his book into a movie.

clarice feldman

Yes, I'm awaiting with bated breath the Dems falling back to Hastert was wrong for failing to acknowledge that a reputedly gay man should have been kicked out of Congress because he might exchange emails with ex-pages.


Hmmmm...July 21, 2006 was the passage of the Adam Walsh Act in the Senate. I remember John Walsh on Larry King live talking about really having to pull some teeth to get this law passed.
Kennedy was someone who didn't want to pass it.

Could this all be political retaliation for that law? (I'm not pointing fingers at Kennedy, btw. just saying what I remember).
Within a month of the passage, the "dirty little secret" was a campaign issue.


Thanks, anonymous. (If thats your real name.) But Foley would seem to be an interested party in the case, so I'm not sure his opinion could be trusted. But why don't you give him a ring and let me know what you find out?


May 2, 2006 LKL transcript-

KING: The key, John Walsh, was what, Senator Kennedy let up on the hold right?

JOHN WALSH, "AMERICA'S MOST WANTED": Well, I got to give you some credit, Larry. I was on the show last week and you and I talked about Senator Kennedy and taking the high road and I think he did.

You asked him the next night when he was on the show why he was holding up this bill. I think he had good intentions. He had a big piece of legislation he wanted to get passed. But, I think that pressure meant a lot.

I know Senator Orrin Hatch, who is a friend of the Smarts, talked to Senator Kennedy and said "Let's not hold this important piece of legislation up" and it got passed today.

I talked to Bill Frist and he said "I'm going out on the Senate floor in ten minutes and that legislation is going to get passed and it's going to change the way this country deals with sexual predators."

KING: Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy are good friends. Do you expect it to breeze through the House?

ED SMART: I am hoping that it's really going to move. They've really been talking trying to get the Senate to move on it. The Senate has moved on it now and our focus is really to hit May 25th, National Missing Children's Day to have that. I mean so many people have been working to push this forward. It's just a wonderful step.


It's not Mr. Foley's opinion, anon ... he was the Congressional point-man and committee chair on the legislation you're interested in.


If Jason Leopold is up to his neck in this, can Larry Johnson be far behind? And where exactly were the Wilsons when all this was happening? (Food for thought and grounds for further research.)

But whatever you uncover, keep it under your tinfoil hat; we don't want George Soros to find out we're wise to his little scheme.


Sorry, that probably wanders far afield.


Do you mean, these Wilson's represented by the very same CREW who turned over those three year old IMs to the FBI?

Now, why would anyone see any conections?

Leopold? Scary Larry? Nah, they wouldn't have anything to do with this kind of stuff.

For Immediate Release:
August 15, 2006
Naomi Seligman Steiner - 202-408-5565

Washington D.C. - Former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband former Ambassador Joseph Wilson announced today that they have engaged the non-profit, public interest organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) as successor counsel and Joseph Cotchett and Frank Pitre with the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy as trial counsel in their case against Vice President Dick Cheney, his former Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, top Presidential advisor Karl Rove and other unnamed current and former administration officials. Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor at Duke University School Of Law, will continue to serve in the case as co-counsel.



What legislation are you referring to? Was it in effect back in 2001 -2003, when these IM's were sent?

Thanks for your reply.


I suppose we are distant relatives.

Carol Johnson


"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?"


Yeah, I do think they thought of that. Did they think before going after Tom Delay? And it was also a CREW job I hear btw. Look where Delay is after he resigned from the House. Is the case even any closer to being finished? No...not as long as it serves the Democrats' purposes. The chances that this case will see the light of day is also extremely remote until long after the election for sure and maybe even after Bush is out of office. In the meantime, Dems get to use it and Delay, and Plame for the huge propaganda war they've got going on. Fitz is still hanging on because he's being allowed to keep up this $2 million charade on the court, Libby, and most of all US!!! The same with Ronny Earle and his song and dance that doesn't quite fly in court or elsewhere but well enough to keep Delay from ever again holding office. Don't you think that's what they were aiming for all along?

I really don't expect this case will be any different. One of the reasons why this scandal is coming out now is the fact that the DOJ will probably investigate this thing but take months if not years to do it. The damage is done! Meanwhile we have an investigation into people leaking vital national security secrets to the press which is going nowhere because no one will hold the press accountable for its sources who COMMITTED A CRIME. While they are trying to find a way of discovering leakers, the leakers keep on destroying our national security.

This case should be low on their priorities, as callous as that sounds. On the other hand we have a looming crisis of incaluable proportions in that we still don't know who is selling us out to the enemy by leaking our secrets. When are we going to make time to investigate politicians whose only job seems to be making the other guy out to be more corrupt? Like politicians and corruption don't go hand in hand.


Oh Hell, how could I have missed this!

Seligman, second in command at CREW worked at MEDIA MATTERS before she came on board with Ms. Melanie (aid to Conyers) Stone.

We're getting closer...

From their web site:

Naomi Seligman Steiner, Deputy Director and Communications Director
Naomi Seligman Steiner serves as CREW's Deputy Director and Communications Director. She has worked extensively as a communications professional, developing and managing media strategies for campaigns, elected officials, and nonprofit organizations. Prior to joining CREW, Ms. Seligman Steiner was the communications director for the nonprofit, media watchdog group, Media Matters for America. She also has served as the communications director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun control organization, press secretary in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and director of outreach on the Small Business Committee. Ms. Seligman Steiner received her B.A. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.


If Mr. Foley is truly guiltless, why is he hiding?

Conjuring up visions of Clinton, who was truly guilty and didn't hide for a second.

Perhaps representative Foley is embarrassed and mortified. Unlike our former president some perverts actually have a shame threshold.

clarice feldman

Rick Moran sent me this comment from a poster on his site. It seems there is evidence that one of the emails was altered:

Here's something odd. I've copied several portions of the same email
from the sites of CREW and SSP. Guess what? Someone has href="http://justbarkingmad.com/?p=1154" rel="nofollow">Altered them!

You can see all comments on this post here:

Check it out and see what you think.


Are Joseph and Valerie Wilson the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg of our time?


--Ms. Seligman Steiner was the communications director for the nonprofit, media watchdog group, Media Matters for America. --

Birds of a feather....

Sources with knowledge of the situation identified the employees involved as Katie Barge, the committee's former research director, and Lauren Weiner, who began researching Steele even before he formed an exploratory committee in June for a Senate campaign. Both are in their twenties, co-workers said.

•Barge quit a job overseeing a research staff of six at David Brock's liberal watchdog organization Media Matters to take the DSCC job. She is highly regarded in the tight-knit community of Democratic researchers, friends and associates say....

What's really sick and Clintonian...Barge, Weiner's boss, told Weiner everything she had to do to steal the credit report and when Weiner was having problems Barge told her what website to use and then threw here younger staffer under the bus.


Clarice...link isn't working

clarice feldman

It isn't much to me--go to justbarkingmad.com

quercus albus

topsecretk9, here is the link from rightwingnuthouse comments...



I see Tom's point. Just look at the list of prior posts:

* WOW!
* Emails from Congressman Foley to 16 Year Old Page!!!!
* Shocking Emails:

Does that sound like someone who wants to stop the problem or make money, or political gain, from it?


Clarice, good catch. Those e-mails are most certainly NOT the same at all.

What on earth is going on?

Wouldn't it be funny if Foley comes out Monday with a McGreevy like presser, and makes clear that he never either solicited, nor touched a page, states that the IMs were initiated by the legal to consent ex-page, and then accuses the democrats of a disgusting smear campaign against a gay man, who engaged in LEGAL activity, and who wanted to keep his sexuality a private matter--as was his right. Then demands an investigation of the IMs--who had them, and when.

If those e-mails are that obviously questionable, then could the IMs be fake? How could they prove that they are not, if they are nothing but a print screen? Foley has a hard drive too ya know. And at this point, what does he have to lose? Are the democrats going to crucify him for having an active gay life-style? That would be real interesting to watch.



It's starting to look like the Dems got egg on their face again. They are so quick to run to the cams to get the latest Scandal Du Jour out that they don't think first. Let's see how this one is playing out.

1. Innocuous emails surface in a suspicious manner. No crime committed. No "sex" references in them.
2. Emails are published through blog sites that have "suspicious" connections to left wing groups.
3. IMs that have been "archived" for 3 or more years show up. IMs are to person who is purportedly an ex-page of college age. No crime committed.
4. Dems conflate the IM and Email issues on purpose. Then call it "child" abuse, although no "children" were abused. Going so far as to call Foley a "pedophile". Sorry - it doesn't fly - except for people who are very, very adept at lying and those not smart enough to see to understand the lies their party leads them into (geee.....like you).
4. Foley resigns (rather than lie about it like some other politicians we know). Even though what he did was probably not illegal - he does the right thing. Again as opposed to "I did not have sex with that woman..." or "I was disoriented so I went home for eight hours before reporting that the car was in the Chappaquidic..." or "So what - I like freezing $100K for a rainy day..." or "I got $68K, but I didn't get any money and I'm not giving it back..." And I could go on and on and on.....
5. Democratic Brain Trust calls for investigation (Howie "AAAAIIIIYEEEE" Dean, Nancy "Upside Down" Pelosi, and Harry "We Defeated the Patriot Act" Reid) - and surprise, surprise - they get it. Let's see what turns up there, shall we? How is it that the Dems knew about this stuff for months and did not ask questions earlier? Where did the IMs reside while they were archived? This is akin to the shameful way the Dems used the NIE leak to try to paint Iraq worse than it is, and then had to eat crow when the President released the whole thing - and wouldn't you know - the Dems had "cherry picked" the intelligence and it blew up in their faces. Just like PlameGate. Just like QuailGate....and on...and on....
6. Now it appears that someone has been altering the IMs. Who did that? How did they have access to files that are years old?

Unfortunately....it is the same thing with you folks over and over again. Rather than try to come up with something new to stand on, you keep trying the same old tactics that haven't worked since before 1994. You know what Einstein (I hope I am not misattributing here) said:

"You can't fix a problem using the same logic that created it."


Does anyone have Representative Foley's address? I see now that the only decent thing to do (on behalf of every Democrat/liberal/Progressive/commie/LeftWingMoonbat in the country) is to send him a sincere apology, and wish him well on his next hunt for teenage boys.



clarice feldman

verner, would you mind posting that to Rick's site? Maybe he'll want to follow up on it.

I can't imagine why there shoudl be two different versions (minor though they may be) of reported copies of the same emails.


Why is it you can't seem to address the questions thrown at you anonymous? Is it that you don't have any answers? Or is it that you haven't been fed the right lines yet? Are you asserting that Foley did something illegal to a teenage boy? Be careful before you answer - you could open yourself up to big liability....So far though it appears nothing illegal was done. If there was....and I know you won't answer this...could you point out what it was? C'mon - it's a simple question. You being all-knowing like you are must have an answer. So?

quercus albus

Look at the dates on this pdf.


Aug of '05, May of '06

Could the Subject: email2, etc. be from forwarding?

Also, the two compared at http://justbarkingmad.com/?p=1154 have different formating and one possible auto-correct(?) of capitalization g in glad as well as different font.


There is no legal liability in expressing an opinion. For example:
O.J. Simpson killed two people. Michael Jackson molested children.
You're not very smart. See? No problem.

And yes, in my opinion, Mr. Foley has broken several laws many times. (Ask any district attorney how many crimes someone has committed as opposed to how many times they've been caught.)

One thing is clear: sexually soliciting / cyber-stalking. Cuff him.

clarice feldman

quercus, to prevent duplication of effort, would you mind emailing that or posting it at rightwing nut house.I'll check out citizens for ethics in the meantimme. Thanks.

clarice feldman

citizensforethics is CREW.

quercus albus

m-kay, Clarice. New to this... Sorry.

clarice feldman

Why the Aug 05 heading? Did CREW have this from that time--i.e., at the same time or before Hastert did?

clarice feldman

Don't be sorry! You did nothing wrong. Three of you have now found anomolies. Rick pointed the thing out to me, and it occurred to me he should blog it and all these comments would be helpful to him.

I appreciate your contribution greatly!


Now...anonymous...that you have made the written accusation (which is called defamation of character if proven untrue, dimwit), please point out where the cyberstalking came from? That Foley asked someone for their picture? Just what was it that in your oh-so-informed position broke the law? C'mon - show us how smart you are.

Bill Arnold

Clarice, imperfect OCR perhaps? The emails and/or IMs may have been printed out at the time, and saved. I haven't seen the two versions so don't know if this is a plausible explanation.

I take exception to the certainty in some peoples minds that these IMs have been sitting in opposition research files for years. An equally likely explanation at this point (if I've been tracking the conspiracy theories closely enough) is that the individuals involved saved IMs, perhaps printed them out, and came out (oops :-) with them after the story initially broke. Pedophile priest stories usually work this way.

In any event, there was plenty of material IMO to warrant an investigation of Foley a year ago. It could have/should have been low key, but should have happened.



Do you know anyone, other than LEA, that logs their IM sessions? I certainly don't. What is the point unless you plan to use them in the future.

The problem here is that the emails are not explicit in any way. Sure, you can read a lot into them if you have that mind set. But at the surface, they are just regular questions. Maybe there was more there. Maybe not. But nothing illegal by any sense of the word.

The IMs could be, but the understanding I have is that they were between Foley and an ex-page that was much older. That is not illegal either. So what type of ivestigation do you think should have happened? Just curious.


Specter, are you saying that I have defamed Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson? (Are you a lawyer? or do you just play one online?)

Now, let me ask you this: if the adolescent page was your daughter, receiving suggestive E-mails and IMs from a male Congressman in his mid-fifties, what would be your reaction?

One more question: if an adolescent page, a young girl, had received suggestive E-mails and IMs from Senator Hillary Clinton, what would be your reaction?

Take your time. I know this is hard for you.


Almost anyone can get Foley's IM messages if they know his IM ID. For instance, I know a guy who used to do art for Yahoo and he can read any IM transcript from anyone he wants. Apparently it's not that hard. Someone from the media at their own or others request who knew about last years email scandal decided to break into Yahoo or some other IM system with Foley's ID to see what else was there, so that they could print dirt for the election. That's probably why the IM's just broke.


I see you dodged the question again anonymous, so let me type slower.

What was suggestive in the emails? Spell that out for me oh bright one. Let's just start with that. We'll get to the IMs later.


It's hard to tell what we were looking at. They were obviously faxed, they have multiple dates on them etc. etc.

And further, none of the e-mails are more than a sentence or two of casual chit chat. Not exactly the stuff of seduction.

So THAT is what Hasert was suppose to hang Foley over? That is insane. As I've said before, they had those IMs long in advance of those little e-mails, because without them, they would have meant nothing at all.

I am really glad the JD is involved. And the first step--find out where CREW got posession of those things.

Purple Avenger

FWIW, http://stopsexualpredators.blogspot.com/
has apparently been sanitized. There isn't anything there.

Why am I not suprised?

//Que the Twilight Zone theme ;->



except for the fact that the IMs seem to be from 2003.

clarice feldman

Define "suggestive" and show where there is anything in the emails that is demonstrably suggestive? "How was your vacation"?

The comments to this entry are closed.