|
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Another interesting comment. Just who DID leak this story 40 days before the next election?
|
Here is an article from a Harpers repoter who tried to publish the story back in June. A Democrat operative gave the information to them in May and at that point had tried giving the information to several other media outlets for months before that.
Quote:
Republicans Want to Turn Over a New Page
The Foley scandal is no “October Surprise”
Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006. By Ken Silverstein.
Sources
Leading Republicans, with the support of conservative media outlets, are charging that the Mark Foley scandal was a plot orchestrated by Democrats to damage the G.O.P.'s electoral prospects this November. According to the Washington Post, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert appeared on Rush Limbaugh's radio show and “agreed when the host said the Foley story was driven by Democrats ‘in some sort of cooperation with some in the media’ to suppress turnout of conservative voters” before the midterm elections.
Conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt has said that Hastert had become the “target right now of the left-wing media machine,” and House Majority Leader John Boehner has charged that the release of the Foley documents so close to the elections “is concerning, at a minimum.” Meanwhile, accounts I've heard about the FBI's initial inquiries suggest the bureau is as interested in uncovering how the story came to public attention as it is in investigating Foley's actions.
The Republican leadership is lying when they claim that Democrats have engineered an “October Surprise”; there was never a plan to undermine the G.O.P. or to destroy Hastert personally, as the speaker has vaingloriously suggested. I know this with absolute certainty because Harper’s was offered the story almost five months ago and decided, after much debate, not to run it here on Washington Babylon.
In May, a source put me in touch with a Democratic operative who provided me with the now-infamous emails that Foley had sent in 2004 to a sixteen-year-old page. He also provided several emails that the page sent to the office of Congressman Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican who had sponsored him when he worked on Capitol Hill. “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously, This freaked me out,” the page wrote in one email. In the fall of 2005, my source had provided the same material to the St. Petersburg Times—and I presume to the Miami Herald—both of which decided against publishing stories.
It was a Democrat who brought me the emails, but comments he made and common sense strongly suggest they were originally leaked by a Republican office. And while it's entirely possible that Democratic officials became aware of the accusations against Foley, the source was not working in concert with the national Democratic Party. This person was genuinely disgusted by Foley's behavior, amazed that other publications had declined to publish stories about the emails, and concerned that Foley might still be seeking contact with pages.
Though the emails were not explicitly sexual, I felt strongly that Foley's behavior was inappropriate and that his intentions were clear. Why would a middle-aged man ask a teenager he barely knew for his photograph, or what he wanted for his birthday? I contacted Foley and he strongly denied any ill intent. He told me there was “nothing suggestive or inappropriate” about his emails to the page, adding that if the page “was intimidated, that's regrettable.”
My theory about the emails was that Foley was throwing out bait to see if the teen would bite. I spoke to a Foley staffer who violently rejected that interpretation of the emails and who blamed the whole problem on the page, saying it was all a misunderstanding due to the young boy's overactive imagination. The staffer also said that Foley's motive in asking the page for a picture was entirely innocent: he merely wanted an image of the boy so he could remember him more clearly in the event that he needed to write a job recommendation down the road. Needless to say, none of this sounded even remotely convincing.
I tried to contact the page who received Foley's emails and the boy’s parents, but got no reply to my inquiries. However, I did speak with another former page who'd had an unsettling encounter with Foley. “He was a lot more friendly than you'd expect a congressman to be,” this page told me. “He acted like he was a kid himself.” The former page said that on one occasion when he was still working on the Hill, Foley asked him and another page if he could accompany them to the gym, an invitation they declined because it made them uncomfortable. When the page mentioned the incident to a congressional intern who worked with the page program, he was told that Foley had a history of being too friendly with the pages, and it was suggested that it would be better to avoid Foley in the future.
Congressman Alexander's office declined to comment on the matter, apart from issuing a brief statement emailed to me on May 31 by press secretary Adam Terry: “When these emails were brought to our attention last year our office reviewed them and decided that it would be best to contact the individual's parents. This decision, on behalf of our office, was based on the sensitivity of the issue. Our office did, in fact, contact the parents, and we feel that they (the juvenile's parents) should decide the best course of action to take concerning the dialogue outlined in the emails.” I had a number of other questions I wanted to ask—for example, although the ex-page's parents were understandably concerned about their son's name coming out in the press, didn't Alexander's office have an obligation to make sure that Foley was not hitting on other kids?—but Terry did not reply to further requests for comment.
The final draft of my story—which did not name the ex-page who received Foley's emails—was set to run on June 2. “Foley's private life should, under most circumstances, be his own business, but in this case there is a clear question about his behavior with a minor and a congressional employee,” went the story’s conclusion. “The possibility that he might have used his personal power or political position in inappropriate ways, as the emails suggest, should be brought to public attention.”
We decided against publishing the story because we didn't have absolute proof that Foley was, as one editor put it, “anything but creepy.” At the time I was disappointed that the story was killed—but I must confess that I was also a bit relieved because there had been the possibility, however unlikely, that I would wrongly accuse Foley of improper conduct.
While Harper’s decided not to publish the story, we weren't entirely comfortable with the decision. A few weeks later I passed along the emails and related materials to several people who were in a position to share them with other media outlets. I subsequently learned that other people had the same information and were also contacting reporters. (By this point, my original source apparently had given up on getting the media to cover the story.)
Among those who received information about the story but declined to pursue it were liberal outlets such as Talkingpointsmemo.com, Americablog.com, and The New Republic (The Hill[1], Roll Call, and Time magazine also had the Foley story, though I'm not certain when it came to their attention.)[Update, October 10, 2006 2:00PM: Talking Points Memo did not have access to the emails—and it's possible that other publications named here did not either—but all, at minimum, were aware of the salient facts of the case.] Ironically, it was ABC—which just weeks ago was being defended by Republicans and attacked by Democrats for airing The Path to 9/11—that finally ran the story. The network obtained the emails from a person who is scrupulously non-partisan.
That was my experience of the Foley affair.
If this was all a plot to hurt the G.O.P.’s chances in the midterm elections, why did the original source for the story begin approaching media outlets a full year ago? If either of the Florida papers had gone to press with the story last year, or if Harper's had published this spring, as the source hoped, the Foley scandal would have died down long ago. A stronger case could be made that the media, including Harper’s, dropped the ball and inadvertently protected Foley and covered up evidence of the congressman’s misconduct.
The source who brought me the story didn't see it as a grand piece of electioneering. He viewed it as a story about one individual, Mark Foley, and his inappropriate and disturbing behavior with teenagers. The G.O.P. and its friends in the media are trying to concoct a conspiracy in order to divert attention from the failure of Republican officials to deal properly with Foley.
It is now absolutely clear that Foley was indeed a menace to kids working on Capitol Hill. In seeking to malign the parties who sought to expose his conduct, top Republicans reveal that they are far more outraged by the possibility that the scandal might harm their party’s prospects in November than they are by Foley's behavior.
|
Regardless of who leaked the info and when it was published, it is BS for the GOP to use that as a means to deflect what actually happened. The facts are that many people in Congress knew what was going on for several years and did nothing. When the story broke, they lied about what they knew as a means of self-protection. The timing of the report does not change the facts.
Here is the Foley timeline:
Quote:
2000 — Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) informed of improper Foley Internet messages that made a page feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley was taking their email relationship. Kolbe claims he never personally confronted Foley, but rather recommended that the complaint be passed along to his office. [Washington Post, 10/9/06; Arizona Republic, 10/11/06]
2001 — A Republican staff member warns pages “to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley.” A former page says that they were told “don’t get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.” [ABC, 10/1/06]
2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has sexually explicit IM exchanges with an underage boy who worked as a Congressional page. [ABC News, 9/29/06]
2003 — Foley’s former aide Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that “when he learned about Foley’s inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had ‘more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene,’ alluding to House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert’s office denied the explosive allegations.” [CBS News, 10/5/06]
APRIL 2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupts a House vote on the 2003 Iraq supplemental to “engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page.” [ABC, 10/3/06]
SUMMER 2005 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sends inappropriate emails to another former Congressional page. [CREW]
SEPTEMBER 2005 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns “of the e-mails from a reporter.” [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]
FALL 2005 — “Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert’s] Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page…[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff.” [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
LATE 2005 — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, “was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page.” Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him “to cease all contact with this former house page.” He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]
EARLY 2006 — Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) talks Foley into running for another term. Bob Novak reported, “A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running.” [New York Post, 10/4/06]
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose office first received the complaint from the page, told Boehner about Foley’s inappropriate e-mails, and Boehner sent him to Tom Reynolds. Alexander tells Reynolds about “the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander’s.” Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06; Chicago Tribune, 10/3/06]
SPRING 2006 — House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of “inappropriate ‘contact’ between Foley and a 16-year-old page” from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA). After learning about Foley’s conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would “take care of it.” Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn’t remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]
SPRING 2006 — Reynolds says he told Hastert about the e-mails after he learned about them. “He said he alerted the Republican speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, to the issue, but Mr. Hastert said he had no recollection of the contact.” [The Sun, 10/3/06]
MAY 10, 2006 — Reynold’s personal PAC, TOMPAC, donates $5,000 to Foley’s campaign. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]
JULY 21, 2006 — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington forwarded the messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on July 21 and requested an investigation. [CREW, 10/5/06]
JULY 27, 2006 — Foley writes a $100,000 check to the NRCC, chaired by Reynolds. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]
JULY 27, 2006 — Foley, still co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, attends a signing ceremony at the White House for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. [White House, 9/27/06; Talkingpointsmemo, 9/30/06; Washington Post, 10/1/06]
AUGUST 7, 2006 — The NRCC accepted a $100,000 contribution from Foley’s campaign committee. [FEC]
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 — ABC publishes emails between Foley and former page. [ABC, 9/28/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 3:00 PM — Foley resigns. [ABC, 9/29/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 6:00 PM — ABC publishes sexually explict Instant Messages between Foley and several former pages. [ABC, 9/29/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — “Aides to the speaker [Hastert] say he was not aware until last week of inappropriate behavior by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned on Friday after portions of racy e-mail exchanges between him and current and former underage congressional pages became public.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/30/06]
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 — Hastert admits he was told about the emails by Reynolds in the spring. [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
OCTOBER 1, 2006 — FBI opens “preliminary investigation” of Foley. “Officials say the FBI and Department of Justice lawyers are trying to determine how many such e-mails were sent, how many different computers were used and whether any of the teenage victims will cooperate in the investigation.” [ABC, 10/1/06]
OCTOBER 1, 2006 — Hastert urges Gov. Jeb Bush to initiate an investigation. “As Speaker of the House, I hereby request that you direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct an investigation of Mr. Foley’s conduct with current and former House pages to determine to what extent any of his actions violated Florida law.” [Hastert letter, 10/1/06]
OCTOBER 4, 2006 — Former Foley aide and Reynolds’ chief of staff Kirk Fordham is fired. “People familiar with Fordham’s side of the story…said Fordham was being used as a scapegoat by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. They said Fordham had repeatedly warned Hastert’s staff about Foley’s ‘problem’ with pages, but little was done.” [ABC, 10/4/06]
OCTOBER 4, 2006 — House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) criticizes Hastert’s mishandling of Foley scandal, saying that “he would have handled [the Foley scandal] differently if he’d known about it.” “I think I could have given some good advice here, which is you have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of,” Blunt said. “You absolutely can’t decide not to look into activities because one individual’s parents don’t want you to.” [AP, 10/4/06]
OCTOBER 4, 2006 — Right-wing blogger Wild Bill outs a former congressional page. Roger L. Simon of Pajamas Media and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit link to the post. [ThinkProgress, 10/5/06]
OCTOBER 5, 2006 — The Hill reports that the source who gave Foley’s emails to news media says the documents came from a congressional aide “who has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote.” [The Hill, 10/5/06]
OCTOBER 8, 2006 — Former page says he and Foley engaged in sex. The LAT reports, “A former House page says he had sex with then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.).” The ex-page said his correspondence with Foley began after he finished the page program for high school juniors, but the sexual encounter occurred when he was 21 years old. “The former page’s exchanges with Foley offer a glimpse of possible predatory behavior by the congressman as he assessed male teenagers assigned as House errand-runners.” [LA Times, 10/8/06]
OCTOBER 9, 2006 — “Moving with unusual speed,” the House Ethics Committee start interviews in its probe of the Mark Foley scandal. Longtime Foley aide and former Reynolds chief of staff and Foley aide Kirk Fordham will be testifying. [WSJ, 10/9/06]
|
xxSquirtxx:
Go ahead and live in a fantasy word where Hasart knew nothing. His staff admitted the next day that the issue had been discussed with Alexander's staff. |