NY Times:Repub Leaders Hastert & Boehner Cover Up Closeted Foley's emails to boys. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-01-2006, 03:30 AM

Apparently, there is a new scandal brewing that involves dysfunctional, hypocritical closeted gay republican politicians, in the House of Representatives, and the resignation of Mark Foley (R-FL), is turning out to be just the tip of the iceberg:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/wa...n/01foley.html
October 1, 2006
G.O.P. Aides Knew in Late ’05 of E-Mail
By CARL HULSE and RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.

The exchanges began with what Republicans now describe as an “overfriendly” e-mail message from Mr. Foley to the unidentified teenager.

But news reports about the exchanges led to the disclosure of e-mail correspondence with other former pages in which the discussions became more and more sexually explicit. Shortly after he was confronted by ABC News on Friday about the subject, Mr. Foley, who represented a south Florida district, resigned from the House.

The revelations set off a political upheaval, with Democrats and some Republicans calling for a full investigation of Mr. Foley’s conduct and whether House leaders did enough to look into it. Members of the Republican leadership sought Saturday to detail how they had handled the case in an effort to defuse the situation, even as it was emerging as an issue in Congressional races.

Among those who became aware earlier this year of the fall 2005 communications between Mr. Foley and the 16-year-old page, who worked for Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, were Representative John A. Boehner, the majority leader, and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Mr. Reynolds said in a statement Saturday that he had also personally raised the issue with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

“Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn’t want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me,” Mr. Reynolds said.

In a chronology of the episode released later on Saturday, the speaker’s office said Mr. Hastert did not recall any such discussion and had no previous knowledge of the matter. “While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds’ recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution,” the statement said.

<h3>The statement, issued after senior aides, the House clerk and legal advisers huddled for much of Saturday in the Capitol</h3>, said senior staff members in the speaker’s office first learned of the e-mail messages from Mr. Alexander’s office in the fall of 2005 and took steps to investigate.

Aides to the speaker and other Congressional Republican leaders said the messages, which an Alexander aide described to them as “overfriendly,” were much less explicit than the others that came to light after ABC News first disclosed the e-mail correspondence with Mr. Alexander’s page. The aides said Mr. Alexander’s office, at the request of the page’s family, did not show them copies of the messages. In those messages, sent after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Foley asked about the well-being of the boy, a Monroe, La., resident. He wrote: “How are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me a pic of you as well.” The page sent the note to a former colleague, describing it as “sick.”

In another message, Mr. Foley wrote, “What do you want for your birthday coming up. . .what stuff do you like to do.”

The e-mail exchanges that came to light after the first news reports were far more graphic. When he was confronted about them on Friday, Mr. Foley resigned. Republican leaders said they had not known about the other e-mail correspondence.

“No one in the speaker’s office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the Internet this week,” the statement from Mr. Hastert’s office said.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers said Saturday that Congress and the public deserved a full report on Mr. Foley’s dealings with the pages, who are high school students who serve as runners and perform other duties. The lawmakers said there should also be an inquiry into the leadership’s knowledge of his activities and its response.

“Anyone who was involved in the chain of information should come forward and tell when they were told, what they were told and what they did with the information when they got it,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. Mr. King called it a “dark day” for Congress and said, “We need a full investigation.”

<h3>Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, said any leader who had been aware of Mr. Foley’s behavior and failed to take action should step down.</h3> “If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership,” Mr. Shays said.

On Saturday night, the House Republican leadership issued a statement that characterized the communications between Mr. Foley and the former House pages as “unacceptable and abhorrent.”

“It is an obscene breach of trust,” the statement said. “His immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system.”

The statement, from Mr. Hastert, Mr. Boehner and the majority whip, Roy Blunt, asked the board that oversees pages “to undertake a full review of the incident and propose additional safeguard measures.”

The leaders also said they had asked for specific rules governing the communications and contacts between pages and lawmakers and called for creation of a toll-free number for pages and their parents to report concerns.

Besides the leaders, other lawmakers and Congressional officers who served on the board that oversaw the page program were aware of the e-mail messages, though the Democratic lawmaker who serves on the board, Representative Dale E. Kildee of Michigan, said Saturday that he had never been informed.

According to lawmakers and the speaker’s office, the page who received the e-mail forwarded the one in which Mr. Foley, 52, asked for his picture, to a colleague in Mr. Alexander’s office, repeatedly calling it “sick” and saying it “freaked me out.”

Mr. Alexander called the boy’s parents, who, Republican leaders said Saturday, told him they did not want to pursue the matter but wanted Mr. Foley to stop.

Mr. Alexander’s office also contacted staff members in Mr. Hastert’s office for guidance on what to do and, according to the speaker’s account, his aides put Mr. Alexander’s staff in contact with the clerk of the House, who oversees the page program. The clerk, who at the time was Jeff Trandahl, referred the matter to Representative John Shimkus, the Illinois Republican who is the chairman of the House Page Board, in late 2005, a spokesman for Mr. Shimkus said.

Mr. Trandahl and Mr. Shimkus confronted Mr. Foley, who insisted he was simply acting as a mentor to the former page, officials said. He assured them nothing inappropriate had occurred.

“They asked Foley about the e-mail,” the speaker’s statement said. “Congressman Shimkus and the clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.”

The leadership had other possible avenues for investigating the e-mail messages beyond questioning Mr. Foley, including an inquiry by the ethics committee or even the Capitol police. But aides said that while the contents of the messages are disturbing in hindsight, they did not set off alarms initially.

On Saturday, Mr. Shimkus’ spokesman, Steve Tomaszewski, said, “Obviously Foley lied about the other e-mails.”

Mr. Tomaszewski said Mr. Shimkus would not comment on any other conversations he had with House leaders about the matter because it was referred to the ethics committee by a vote of the House on Friday. A spokesman for Mr. Alexander did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said Saturday that Mr. Boehner had had a “brief, nonspecific” conversation about the subject with Mr. Alexander in the spring but that he could not recall with certainty whether he had discussed it with other leaders.

Democrats moved quickly to criticize Mr. Reynolds, who while overseeing House campaigns nationally is facing the potential of a serious challenge from Jack Davis, a wealthy businessman who has vowed to spend at least $2 million of his own money in the contest. “Tom Reynolds had a moral obligation to protect our children,” said Curtis Ellis, a spokesman for Mr. Davis.

Carl Forti, a spokesman for Mr. Reynolds, said the congressman became aware of contact between Mr. Foley and the young page this past spring, when Mr. Alexander brought it to his attention. Mr. Forti said that Mr. Alexander had told Mr. Reynolds of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley and the page, but that he did not show Mr. Reynolds the e-mail messages and their contents...

.......“It’s now clear from all the reports coming in from across the country that the Republican leadership team has been well aware of this problem with the pages for well over a year,” Mr. Mahoney said at a campaign stop at Palm Beach International Airport. “It looks to me that it was more important to hold onto a seat and to hold onto power than to take care of our children.”

At the Justice Department, an official said that no investigation was under way but that the agency had “real interest” in examining the circumstances to see if any crimes were committed......

Here is a report on the contents and circumstances of Mark Foley's emails:

Quote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...ive_the_s.html
Exclusive: The Sexually Explicit Internet Messages That Led to Fla. Rep. Foley's Resignation

September 29, 2006 5:59 PM

Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz & Maddy Sauer Report:

Mark_foley_email3_nrFlorida Rep. Mark Foley's resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age.

In Congress, Rep. Foley (R-FL) was part of the Republican leadership and the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children.

He crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for sexual exploitation of children.

Quote:

THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf">* Read an instant message exchange a former page says he had with Rep. Foley in 2003. Warning: sexually explicit language, reader discretion advised.</a>
<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html">* Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman</a>
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/">* Check out the World News Report on Foley on the Brian Ross Home Page</a>

"They're sick people; they need mental health counseling," Foley said.

But, according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges.

They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley's prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.

"Adds up to soliciting underage children for sex," said Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and now an ABC News consultant. "And what it amounts to is serious both state and federal violations that could potentially get you a number of years."

Foley's resignation letter was submitted late this afternoon, and he left Capitol Hill without speaking to reporters.

In a statement, he said he was "deeply sorry" and apologized for letting down his family and the people of Florida.

But he made no mention of the Internet messages or the pages.

One former page tells ABC News that his class was warned about Foley by people involved in the program.

Other pages told ABC News they were hesitant to report Foley because of his power in Congress.

This all came to a head in the last 24 hours. Yesterday, we asked the congressman about some much tamer e-mails from one page, and he said he was just being overly friendly. After we posted that story online, we began to hear from a number of other pages who sent these much more explicit, instant messages. When the congressman realized we had them, he resigned.

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf">Click here to read an exclusive 2003 Internet exchange between Congressman Foley and a former congressional page, according to the young man. Warning: sexually explicit language, reader discretion advised.</a>

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/foley_excerpts4.pdf">Click here to read more Internet exchanges between Foley and former congressional pages.</a>

Now....here's the background. It helps to answer the question of why the NY Times report at the beginning of this OP states that "The statement, issued after senior aides, the House clerk and legal advisers huddled for much of Saturday in the Capitol, said senior staff members in the speaker’s office first learned of the e-mail messages from Mr. Alexander’s office in the fall of 2005 and took steps to investigate."
....apparently, Hastert and Boehner couldn't get their "stories" straight, to hide the details of their "cover up" of Foley's behavior, which allowed Foley to continue his perversion, for nearly another year. If it's true, the combination of republican hypocrisy and dysfunction in the collective party attitude towards gays, and the evidence of more "asshole" leadership by Hastert, and first, Tom Delay, and now....his replacement, John Boehner, is amazing and tragic. No ethics....no accountability, no rule of law, and they're still lying !

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/...essman_e_mails
Foley resigns from Congress over e-mails
By DAVID ESPO and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers Fri Sep 29, 7:44 PM ET

......Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times, but had said there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at the time of the e-mail correspondence.

The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen's parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, "We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem," a reference to the House's Republican leaders.

House Speaker
Dennis Hastert said Friday he had asked the chairman of the House's page board, Rep. John Shimkus (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., to investigate the page system. "We want to make sure that all our pages are safe and the page system is safe," Hastert said.

He said Foley submitted the letter of resignation to Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush and submitted a copy to him. A House clerk read Foley's resignation on the House floor.

"He's done the right thing," Hastert said. Asked if the chain of events was disturbing, he said, "None of us are very happy about it."......

Then....hours later, the "story" changed a bit. Instead of reporting the 16 year old page's complaint about Foley to the house ethics committee, Rep. Alexander "reported" it to "Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization":

Quote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/4225891.html
Sept. 29, 2006, 10:42PM
Foley resigns from Congress over e-mails
By DAVID ESPO and JIM KUHNHENN Associated Press Writers

........Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times but had said there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at the time.

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who sponsored the page from his district, told reporters that he learned of the e-mails from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization.

Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because "his parents said they didn't want me to do anything."

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP campaign organization, said Reynolds learned from Alexander that the parents did not want to pursue the matter. Forti said, however, that the matter did go before the House Page Board _ the three lawmakers and two House officials who oversee the pages.

Shimkus, who avoided reporters for hours, worked out his statement with Speaker Dennis Hastert's office. He said he promptly investigated what he thought were non-explicit message exchanges.

"It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct," Shimkus said.

Shimkus said that in late 2005 he learned _ through information passed along by Alexander's office _ about an e-mail exchange that August in which Foley asked about the youngster's well-being after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday and requested a photograph.

"Congressman Foley told the (House) clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor ... and that nothing inappropriate had occurred," Shimkus said.........

Then, it was reported that Rep. Alexander said that he told John Boehner:

Quote:

http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs...tes01/60929030
Congressman resigns because of e-mail to Monroe teen
By Greg Hilburn
ghilburn@thenewsstar.com

....."My first action was to call his parents and make sure they were aware of the situation,” Alexander said. “They said they were and that they would handle it.”

Efforts by The News-Star to reach the page and his parents were unsuccessful Friday.

Alexander said he also notified majority leader John Boehner of Ohio.

“I don’t know what action (the House leadership) took,” Alexander said.

Alexander said he believed the e-mails were inappropriate.
“It certainly wasn’t something I would say to a young man or woman,” Alexander said. “Obviously (the teenager) thought there was something wrong with it.

Rollcall reported the following:

Quote:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/b...s/15259-1.html
Foley Interviewed About Page Last Year; Democrats Not Told
Ethics Inquiry Ordered

By John Bresnahan and Susan Davis
Roll Call
Friday, Sept. 29; 10:58 pm

At least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page. They include: Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.), as well as a senior aide to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl.

<h3>Boehner strongly denied media reports late Friday night that he had informed Hastert of the allegations, saying "That is not true."</h3>

Reynolds refused to comment......

....According to a senior House GOP leadership aide, Hastert’s office was informed of the interview shortly after it occurred, but Hastert himself was not told.

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), who serves on the page board, was never told of the interview with Foley.

"I became aware of it this afternoon when [Shimkus] came by my office. I think we should have had a page meeting right away," Kildee said, referring to last year's discovery of Foley's e-mails.

When asked if was upset about being excluded, Kildee said yes, adding, "I've been on the page board for 20 years."

"I'm the chairman of the page board," Shimkus said when asked why he didn't include Kildee. "The Clerk and I addressed this issue.".....

.......“As chairman of the bipartisan House Page Board in late 2005, I was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page. I took immediate action to investigate the matter......

.........Following is the full statement issued by Shimkus.:

“In that email exchange, Congressman Foley asked about the former Page’s well-being after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph. When asked about the email exchange, Congressman Foley said he expressed concern about the Page’s well-being and wanted a photo to see that the former Page was alright.

“Congressman Foley told the Clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor to this former House Page and that nothing inappropriate had occurred. Nevertheless, we ordered Congressman Foley to cease all contact with this former House Page to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We also advised him to be especially mindful of his conduct with respect to current and former House Pages, and he assured us he would do so. I received no subsequent complaints about his behavior nor was I ever made aware of any additional emails.

“It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct.

“As Chairman of the House Page Board, I am working with the Clerk to fully review this incident and determine what actions need to be taken.

“The House Page Program has been an integral part of the House of Representatives for many decades. Preserving the integrity of the House Page Program is of utmost importance to me and to the House of Representatives, and we intend to uphold and protect its values and traditions.”......

Quote:

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs....309290002/1075
Congressman resigns
Foley quits as e-mails to boy raise questions

By LARRY WHEELER
news-press.com Washington bureau
Originally posted on September 29, 2006

......Another Florida congressman, Jeff Miller, who represents a conservative district in the far western Panhandle, said House leaders demanded Foley's resignation after learning there was apparently more to the allegations.

"I understand there are 35 pages of e-mails," Miller said, citing information from members with direct knowledge of the documents. "I do not feel that our leadership would have acted so quickly had they in any way thought there was a chance of this not being true."......

Tom Delay's replacement, John Boehner said:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092901574.html
Rep. Foley Quits In Page Scandal
Explicit Online Notes Sent to Boy, 16

By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 30, 2006; Page A01

........House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."

It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.........

Then....Boehner's "story" changed, but Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) backed Boehner's identical, earlier claim, that Hastert, himself, knew:

Quote:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/b...s/15260-1.html
Reynolds Informed Hastert of Allegations Against Foley

Saturday, Sept. 30; 4:39 pm

......GOP sources said Reynolds told Hastert earlier in 2006, shortly after the February GOP leadership elections. Hastert's response to Reynolds' warning remains unclear.

Hastert's staff insisted Friday night that he was not told of the Foley allegations and are scrambling to respond to Reynolds' statement.

Following is the text of that statement.

"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. [Rodney Alexander's [R-La.]. Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the Speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me.

"Mr. Alexander has also said he took the matter to the Clerk of the House. An investigation was then conducted by the Clerk and [Illinois GOP Rep.] John Shimkus on behalf of the House Page Board.

"Mark Foley betrayed the integrity of this institution as well as the trust of his colleagues and constituents. There is no excuse, and he needs to be held accountable."

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...093001265.html
GOP Leader Rebuts Hastert on Foley
Reynolds: Speaker Knew of E-Mails in Spring

By Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 1, 2006; Page A01

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday -- contradicting the speaker's assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.

Hastert did not dispute the claims of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and his office confirmed that some of Hastert's top aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the boy and to treat all pages respectfully.

Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, became the second senior House Republican to say that Hastert has known of Foley's contacts for months, prompting Democratic attacks about the GOP leadership's inaction. Foley abruptly resigned his seat Friday.

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post on Friday that he had learned in late spring of inappropriate e-mails Foley sent to the page, a boy from Louisiana, and that he promptly told Hastert, who appeared to know already of the concerns. Hours later, Boehner contacted The Post to say he could not be sure he had spoken with Hastert......

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010073.php

(September 30, 2006 -- 08:41 PM EDT)

Reading the press release tonight from Speaker Hastert's office is interesting on a number of levels. Here's what jumps out at me. The entire discussion of the 'internal review' the Speaker's office conducted seems intended to drive home the point that while pretty much the entire GOP House leadership knew about the Foley 'matter', no one beside backbencher Rodney Alexander (R-LA) actually saw the emails.

Alexander's Chief of Staff calls Hastert's office about emails "he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it." But he doesn't tell the guy in Hastert's office what the emails say. The two staffs meet again later. But somehow what the emails actually say? Still not discussed.

They send Alexander's Chief of Staff to the Clerk's Office. The Clerk asks to see the emails. But "Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop."

When asked by the Clerk whether the emails are "of a sexual nature", Alexander's Chief of Staff tells him they're not but calls them "over-friendly."

Now, here's the problem as far as I can see this. Supposedly, no one in a position of authority ever lays eyes on these emails, presumably because they're relatively innocuous. But at the same time they can't be seen by anyone else because "family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible." Those two points don't really square in my mind.

So the Clerk and Rep. Shimkus meet with Foley having never seen the emails in question -- either because they're basically innocuous or because of concern for the family's privacy. Take your pick.

So they give Foley a clean bill of health having never reviewed the emails that raised the concerns.

And Hastert's staffers?

"Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities [the three members of Hastert's office] did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office."

Basically, everyone's so mindful of the sensitivity of the matter they manage never to investigate what actually happened. Isn't that what they're saying?

And also, as luck would have it, the extreme sensitivity to the parent's feelings helps keep the entire matter hermetically sealed from Speaker Hastert.

So everyone's very mindful of the privacy of the family. But somehow Rep. Boehner and Rep. Reynolds found out about it from Rep. Alexander. And Reynolds mentioned it to Hastert. But Hastert doesn't remember. And Boehner told Hastert about it too. And Hastert said it was being taken care of. Only Hastert never heard about it ...

-- Josh Marshall

Quote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...l=chi-news-hed
Press Release from Speaker Hastert's Office

INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTER

On Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.

Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander

In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker'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. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.

Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke 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. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk's Office to discuss the matter.

The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.

The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.

The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.

Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office.

Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.

Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript

No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001265_pf.html
Reynolds: Speaker Knew of E-Mails in Spring

By Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 1, 2006; A01

....Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, questioned yesterday why Alexander had gone to the House Republicans' chief political operative, rather than to other party leaders. "That's to protect a member, not to protect a child," Emanuel said.

With his statement, Reynolds, who is locked in a difficult reelection campaign, signaled he was unwilling to take the fall alone amid partisan attacks that were becoming increasingly vituperative. The Democratic National Committee yesterday issued a statement asking "Why Did Tom Reynolds Cover Up Congressman's Sex Crimes?" It continued: "While the shocking [online] exchanges produced an immediate uproar that cost Congressman Foley his job, at least one member of the House Republican leadership had known about the situation for months and did nothing about it: . . . Reynolds."

<h3>Republican insiders said Reynolds spoke out because he was angry that Hastert appeared willing to let him take the blame for the party leadership's silence.</h3>

A House GOP leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that Reynolds realizes he has taken a shot at his leader but that it is understandable.

"This is what happens when one member tries to throw another member under a bus," the aide said......

The preceding excerpt seems to be an example of how the house "leadership" treats "it's own". Can the rest of us expect anything less, as far as maltreatment, from them in the future?

My hope is that there are no more than one hundred...or so....possible successors to the "Delays", "Blunts", "Hasterts", and "Boehners", who are similarly corrupt and waiting in the wings, to replace these thugs if we are fortunate enough to see Hastert and Boehner forced to resign over this "cover up".

David Dreier (R-CA), would have been a breath of fresh air, in Boehner's majority leader position. He was passed over, though, because too many of his fellow republicans in congress were aware that he, too, was a closeted gay man, living for 25 years with his male chief of staff, of his own (Dreier's) congressional office.

These congressional republicans, in addition to the closeted gays having to worry about suddently being outed because of their hypocrisy, and others concerned because Jack Abramoff is reported to be wading through 500,000 emails to find evidence of their complicity in his schemes, because it will help him get better treatment in the federal pen, from the DOJ, now have "did you know that Foley was a gay child molester, and when did you know it?", question hanging over the heads of their leaders....

Elphaba · 10-01-2006, 05:16 PM

This late discovery by news media and the prompt resignation of Foley serves as a reminder to the public of the corruption issues that have plagued the party in power. Recent polls indicated that the whole Abramoff scandal was not an issue of major importance with the voters. I believe that this issue with Foley, and the subsequent lack of action by the leadership will not be taken as lightly by the conservative base.

I can fully understand why a Republican member of congress must remain in the closet concerning his or her sexuality. What is not acceptable is a closeted gay that champions youth preditor legislation, while behaving inappropriately with minors. Foley's dialogue with the minor is that of a pedophile, but I am unclear as to the legal status of "talking dirty" to a kid.
No evidence has been suggested that Foley ever seduced a minor, and I am not willing to hang him for the mere possibility.

Clearly, the "party of values" should have rid themselves of this ticking time bomb long ago. The failure to do that has left a Florida congressional seat wide open for a Democrat to take.

I expect the party leadership to be challenged by it's members for this incredible lack of foresight.

seretogis · 10-01-2006, 11:25 PM

It's unfortunate that pederasts are still confused with homosexuals, even on this board.

host · 10-02-2006, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

It's unfortunate that pederasts are still confused with homosexuals, even on this board.

If, by your reference to "this board"....you mean "this thread"....I know that you cannot be posting about me or about Elphaba....so, what is it that you are talking about?

I've been through the "confusion" accusation before. I assure you, it is misplaced....before....in the following example with the BSA hypocrisy story, and certainly, if it is your point....now, too.

This thread is about hypocrisy in congress, in the republican party, and in any "walk of life" where homosexuals, based solely on their perceived sexual orientation, are discriminated against, harrassed, or judged.

If ex-congressman Foley had been affiliated with a different political party, one that permitted him to have a political career, and be open about who he is, there would not be anything worthy of discussion here, except the irony that Foley sponsored the legislation that made his activities on the internet with three former house pages, criminal acts.

I predict that the "big" story here, will be the confirmation of the lack of truthfulness, ethics, of congressional leaders, and their inability to put political priorities aside...the risk of losing a "safe seat", in November, 2006, vs. the protection of young house pages from Foley's advances. The hypocrisy of a party political platform that attracts votes by targeting homosexuals is also supported and advanced as an agenda, by speaker Hastert, et al, in addition to their other "shortcomings".

It is also about the irony that the "leaders" in congress....of the political party that "keeps us safe from terror", cannot even put political priorities aside, to protect it's own teenage pages !, from a fellow republican member who received at the least, complaints from the parents of a 16 year old male page, that the "member's" contacts with their son were inappropriate. We know from reporting, and from the failure of house leaders to even get their "stories" straight, that there is much more to this controversy, than that.

.....but it is not about anyone who posted on this thread, being "confused":
I've invited discussion about what I just described, in past threads:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88552
Spokane Mayor, Another Republican Foe of Gay Rights is Outed

When will closeted Republican politicians stop their hypocrisy?
They continue their attack on gays and gay rights, and the press continues to out them. Is it dysfunction, self loathing, or denial that makes these guys tick?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ACLU = Bad -- BSA policy of exclusion of homosexual scoutmasters = Good
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=86269
MSNBC Sez; 61 yrs. old High Ranking BSA Official Guilty of Having Male Child Porn

So many posts on this thread avoid the obvious hypocrisy of pornographer Smith, The BSA policy makers, ACLU bashers who use the ACLU v. BSA as a
hot button issue, the Christian Evangelicals who have politicized this, and of the posters here who try to persuade us of "what this isn't about" ( TFP members who volunteer their time to lead the praiseworthy boys who participate in the BSA, are explicity excluded from my focus here !).

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/national/30scout.html

.....As of February 2003, Mr. Smith said, scout leaders, parents and other volunteers could go to the Internet for a training course on protecting scouts while out on tours and trips. He expressed confidence that the Web site would prove helpful "in providing the most wholesome possible environment for young people."

When five boy scouts were among 17 young people honored with Congressional Award Gold Medals in 1999, Mr. Smith accompanied the group to Washington and posed with them for a photo in Statuary Hall.

Mr. Smith also responded on behalf of the Boy Scouts in September 2004 when a lawyer and onetime Eagle Scout, Bruce D. Collins, wrote a letter taking issue with the Boy Scouts' dismissal of an assistant scoutmaster, James Dale, because he was gay. The case reached the Supreme Court and established the Boy Scouts' right to bar gays under the organization's own First Amendment right of expressive association.

Mr. Smith replied that "some intolerant elements in our society want to force scouting to abandon its values and become fundamentally different." He said that Mr. Collins "would do well to communicate his displeasure to those directing their discriminatory assault against his beloved Boy Scouts - the A.C.L.U.".......

Is it a coincidence, or more BSA Executive level hypocrisy that pornagrapher Smith's "letter to the editor" on the bsalegal.org website, displays as a search result on Google, but is not available at the web address. Luckily, Smith's "ACLU as scapegoat" letter is available on Google's cache....

Quote:

http://www.washblade.com/2005/12-2/v...cunningham.cfm
Duke’s House of cards (Gay)
The resignation and guilty plea of Duke Cunningham is the latest morality tale played out among closeted congressional Republicans, with a familiar moral.
Friday, December 02, 2005

.....What you won’t read about in these mainstream press accounts is the other double life led by the closet case, Duke, the anti-gay conservative.

Cunningham, who is married with grown children, has admitted to romantic, loving relationships with men, both during his Vietnam military service and as a civilian. That was the remarkable story that this publication reported two years ago, when Elizabeth Birch, the former Human Rights Campaign leader, inadvertently outed Cunningham at a gay rights forum.

Birch never mentioned Cunningham’s name, but she talked about a rabidly anti-gay congressman who asked to meet privately with her in the midst of a controversy over his use in a speech on the floor of the House the term “homos” to describe gays who have served in the military.

Alone with Birch and an HRC staffer, the unnamed congressman shared that he had loved men during his life. In telling the story, Birch offered up a few too many details about the closeted congressman.

A few Google searches later, the Blade reported that it had to be Cunningham, whose career was pockmarked with bizarre gay pronouncements, including a reference to the rectal treatment he received for prostate cancer, something he told an audience “was just not natural, unless maybe you’re Barney Frank.”

There’s every reason to believe Birch’s inadvertent outing, even as Cunningham denied it through a spokesperson.

This is, after all, a man without principles, who could “love men” in private, all the while condemning gays in speeches and in congressional votes. Little surprise that he could live a second double life, in which he sold those unprincipled votes to the highest bidder.

THE SAD STORY of Cunningham’s double lives was destined to come to an ugly end, just as it did for Ed Schrock, another anti-gay Congressman who was outed, if not so inadvertently. Caught last year leaving explicit voice messages on a gay phone hookup line, the married Virginia Republican abruptly announced he would not seek re-election.

Things went differently for two gay Republicans in Congress who showed the courage to come out, albeit under pressure. Jim Kolbe, who announced his retirement this week, and Steve Gunderson, who quit in 1996, both came out because they believed they were about to be outed involuntarily.

Neither had been particularly friendly to gay rights while still in the closet. Kolbe had scored a 43 and a 67 on HRC’s report card, while Gunderson managed a mediocre 57. Once they no longer were living their own double-life lies, their voting records followed suit. They both scored a perfect 100 in the term after they came out, and Kolbe went on to score perfect or near-perfect scores every term since.

The same could be said for Mark Foley, a Florida Republican who traveled openly within gay circles with his long-term partner until he went back into the closet for a U.S. Senate run in 2004.

Like the others, the closeted Foley scored a dismal 44 on HRC’s scorecard, but during his 1996 re-election bid he was outed by local activists in his South Florida district. Since then, he’s scored in the 80s or higher on HRC’s report card and played an active role on several important pieces of gay rights legislation.

WITH THE RETIREMENT of Gunderson and now Kolbe, and the forced departures of Cunningham and Schrock, Foley is one of just two closeted Republicans left in Congress. And “closeted” is the only fair term because Foley has not denied being gay, he has simply refused to answer the question.

David Dreier, a member of the GOP House leadership, is also openly closeted, refusing to deny long-standing rumors that he is gay. The rumors only came to a head in the last year, and their only visible impact so far was to take Dreier out of the running for House majority leader after Tom DeLay was forced to resign.

But Dreier’s voting record looks very much like that of his pre-outed colleagues, ranging between 0 and 25 in the last decade.

In each case, the closer a closeted member of Congress comes to grips with being gay, with or without a nudge, the better their voting record on gay rights issues. The deeper the hole they dig with their lives, the more their voting records reflect their own self-loathing, and the sadder the end they come to........

Quote:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/expo...ng/051105.html
May 11, 2005
Foley's metamorphosis
By Betsy Rothstein

....In September 2003, Foley dropped out of the race, triggering a media frenzy. The skeptics smelled a scandal. They wondered if Foley had dropped out because he realized he couldn’t win. They wondered if his decision in had anything to do with the news conference he held in May 2003 to declare that he would not discuss his sexual orientation after a few publications tried to out him as gay.....

Quote:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/01/Pe...cause_Ma.shtml
Don't ask, because Mark Foley won't tell
By ADAM C. SMITH
Published June 1, 2003

It's a basic political premise: Get in front of a potentially damaging story before it overwhelms you. That's certainly what Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Foley had in mind when the five-term congressman called an unusual press conference recently.

Reports that he's gay are about to spread from alternative and gay media outlets to major Florida newspapers, Foley said. He blamed Democratic activists for spreading the rumor and decried the "repulsive" campaign tactic.

He wanted reporters to know that he won't answer questions about his sexuality; it has nothing to do with his candidacy.

Don't ask, won't tell.

It's an awkward issue not only for the 48-year-old Foley, who is running for Bob Graham's Senate seat in 2004. Journalists covering his campaign are wrestling with the relevancy of the gay question. So is the Republican Party, increasingly struggling to balance a desire for tolerance and inclusiveness with conservative views of family values.

This is new and uncomfortable political ground, and a lot of Republican activists acknowledge they have no idea how it will play out.

"Is it relevant? I'm not sure I have the answer," said Paul Bedinghaus, chairman of the Pinellas GOP. "If I were hiring someone for a job, absolutely not. But there's something about public service and public policy that makes this different somehow. We have not as a party in Florida had to face this question yet, and we may have to shortly."

The national party is grappling too. When Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania made an analogy between homosexuality and incest and bestiality, some Republicans complained the party didn't repudiate him strongly enough. Others complained the party didn't defend him adequately.

And Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot infuriated some conservative groups by meeting in March with the Human Rights Campaign, a group that lobbies for legal protections for gays and which has contributed $20,000 to Foley's political action committee since 2000.

In Florida Foley did succeed in getting control of the budding story, sort of. He rounded up prominent conservatives, from Gov. Jeb Bush to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, to tout his strong Republican record.

But his damage control effort pushed whispers that most media had ignored for months into newspapers across the state (his hometown paper, the Palm Beach Post, opted not to report on his news conference). It made CNN and the Bill O'Reilly show.

He also managed to infuriate some gay activists for his denunciation of people trying to "slur me" with the gay rumor.

Norm Kent, publisher of Florida's largest gay newspaper, the Express in Broward County, is a longtime liberal activist. But he had expected to endorse Foley, who has generally had a strong voting record on anti-discrimination and hate crime bills protecting gays and lesbians. That changed when he read about Foley's conference call with Florida reporters.

"If homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, what's "repulsive' about discussing one's sexuality?" asked Kent. "It's obvious he's trying to placate part of his party by selectively choosing his words in a way that's harmful and denigrating to the gay community."

Kent asked another question: Would Tom DeLay, an evangelical Christian, rally to the defense of an openly gay Republican candidate?

Many conservative voters will only accept a gay politician "as long as he appears to not be happy about it," U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told Slate.com after Foley's news conference.

Frank, who steered clear of addressing the question of Foley's sexuality, is one of three openly gay members of Congress (along with U.S. Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz). All acknowledged their homosexuality after winning congressional seats and have been re-elected. No openly gay nonincumbent has successfully run for Congress.

Indeed, many Republicans in Florida last week were speculating about whether even questions about Foley's sexuality will kill his chances in the Republican primary. Christian conservatives are not a huge force in Florida politics, but they are a force nonetheless and many Christian conservatives see homosexuality as immoral.

State Sen. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, seemed to sum up the Florida GOP comfort zone on the gay question last week. He's not buying into the reports about Foley. "Just because you're single doesn't mean you have a different lifestyle."

At the same time, Wise is confident that an openly gay candidate could never win a statewide Republican primary in Florida.

"I think the standards of family values are pretty strong in the Republican Party," Wise said. "The issue is we're looking for candidates who have good family values and care about the family."

Foley's only announced primary challenger, former U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum (whose media adviser is openly gay) said he sees no issue. Likewise, Gov. Bush dismissed potential damage to Foley, citing his strong conservative voting record.

"People vote for people - not private issues," Bush said. "Sexual preference is not a defining character issue."

Still, the Florida GOP is finding that a big tent philosophy makes some party faithful uneasy. While Foley blamed Democrats for spreading rumors about him, virtually everybody mentioning the issue to this newspaper before his news conference was Republican.

Last year, Patrick Howell, an openly gay self-described Reagan conservative, ran for an Orlando-area state legislative seat being vacated by Republican Allen Trovillion. Trovillion, a social conservative, endorsed the Democrat who wound up winning.

Even news that state GOP chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan planned to meet this week with a gay Republican organization, the Broward Log Cabin Republican Club, upset some activists.

"What is this," Sandi Trusso of Ocala asked in an e-mail to Gov. Bush about the Log Cabin meeting. "Is it time for a recall on the state chairman's office? I thought we were Republicans!"

Exit polls in 2000 found that 4 percent of voters nationally identified themselves as gay, and one in four of those voters - 1.1-million people - backed George W. Bush over Al Gore. In a race as close as 2000, that's a group of voters who may have decided the election.

How appreciative are Republicans? Today, it seems even a rumor could be enough to derail the sort of fiscally conservative, socially moderate candidate well suited to win statewide elections.

"I hope Mark can overcome it," said former state party chairman Tom Slade. "But I have my doubts."

- Political Editor Adam C. S

So, what we have is a closeted gay republican congressman, with a prior house voting record that was not supportive of gay issues, who, in addition to that dysfunction and hypocrisy, sponsored the very legislation that made what the messages that he sent to teenage boys, via the internet, criminal acts, and this adds to his level of hypocrisy, and makes the curious spectacle of folks who rise politically in an anti-gay party, and vote against gay rights legislation, even as they, themselves, hide their own sexual orientation, even more curious. The lies from the house leadership, and the reaction to the complaints from parents of a house page....the decision by Rep. Alexander to take the complaints to the house republican re-election committee chairman, Rep. Reynolds, instead of to the house ethics committee, and to exclude the democratic house member of the house page board from knowledge of the complaints about Foley, adds to the hypocrisy, selfishness, and incompetence of these "leaders".

highthief · 10-02-2006, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

It's unfortunate that pederasts are still confused with homosexuals, even on this board.

Yup. Ten characters.

The_Jazz · 10-02-2006, 05:38 AM

Here's the transcript of the text messages sent. It's disturbing stuff, and I'm actually surprised that it took as long as it did to make it's way into the public domain.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=2509586

Drudge is reporting Foly's gone into rehab, claiming an alcohol addiction. Sure, it was the booze that made him do that. That was never an acceptable excuse anywhere that I know of.

Finally, am I the only one that saw "pederast" and immediately thought of "that pederast Hanrahan" from Fletch?

In all seriousness, I think that charge is pretty much completely baseless in this thread since there are multiple lies being covered up here.

dc_dux · 10-02-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

.... Foly's gone into rehab, claiming an alcohol addiction. Sure, it was the booze that made him do that. That was never an acceptable excuse anywhere that I know of....

Has alcohol addiction become the confession du jour for members of Congress with criminal, ethical and/or behavioral problems?

Last week, it was Bob Ney, who pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the Abramoff scandal.(link)

I have gone through a great deal of soul searching recently, and I have come to recognize that a dependence on alcohol has been a problem for me. I am not making any excuses, and I take full responsibility for my actions

I applaued anyone who recognizes, accepts and takes appropriate steps to respond to an alcohol addiction, but they shouldnt expect sympathy for their actions.

The White House reaction is equally appalling:

Tony Snow this morning: "I hate to tell but it's not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill and there have been other scandals as you know that have been more than simply naughty emails."

simply naughy emails....WTF?

This ranks right up there with other White House spin to deny reality.

The_Jazz · 10-02-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

simply naughy emails....WTF?

This ranks right up there with other White House spin to deny reality.

Obviously, "naughty" doesn't quite cover what happened, but I don't see Snow is actually wrong on this. Nothing that I've seen alleges anything other than email and text correspondence. No mention has been made of physical relationships consenual or otherwise. Remember the page scandal of 1983? That was much worse than this in terms of inappropriate behavior.

dc_dux · 10-02-2006, 08:41 AM

Jazz...you're right.

I will withold further judgement until it is determined if laws were broken, however disturbing it is that the Repub leaders knew for months of "friendly" e-mail exchanges between a 50+year old Member and 16 yr old Page.

And I remember the '83 scandal vividly and the fact that the two Congressmen got off with a "censure" rather than being expelled and tried for sexual assault or statutory rape was a travesty.

flstf · 10-02-2006, 08:42 AM

I think many people will not differentiate this guy's actions as Republican or Democrat but will just cause more negative opinions of our polititians in general. I see lots of discussions on the news about how low the President's poll numbers are with hardly a mention that approval of congress is much lower. Cases like this will probably drive those numbers even lower.

The_Jazz · 10-02-2006, 08:57 AM

Fist - well said.

Rekna · 10-02-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Here's the transcript of the text messages sent. It's disturbing stuff, and I'm actually surprised that it took as long as it did to make it's way into the public domain.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=2509586

I couldn't even finish reading that. This is a lot more than just a few naughty emails....... isn't it a crime to chat like this to underage people? Or is it only a crime if they meet up in an attempt to have sex?

pan6467 · 10-02-2006, 09:20 AM

When a person is "forced" to do something they don't like or feel morally wrong, they start to act out and do other, self destructive things and more often than not they do these things hoping (subconciously) to get caught, that added "thrill and excitement".

In politics, what happens is you want to help people, you are good at communicating and you are somewhat good at finding solutions. The problem for some is in order to get elected and to do what they feel needs to be done they find they have to sell their soul to their party.

What ends up happening because of partisan politics and the pressure put on the officials to perfom certain ways, they end up voting for things they know are wrong.

They may try to brush it off as a "necessary evil" or a compromise with other members of the party so that they can get something done at home.

But in the end, when you have to be something you are not or stand for something you don't believe in, eventually, you crumble. You turn to alcohol, drugs, deviant lifestyles etc.

Is this to say these people wouldn't have anyway? Perhaps, they wouldn't have, perhaps had they done something they believed in and stayed true to themselves, they wouldn't have gone down those roads. Or perhaps, because of the nature of the business and knowing that the bright lights may surface your lifestyle you choose it to get caught.

And it's not just in politics. The same goes for anyone who is unhappy in who they "have to be".

I feel sorry for Foley, I wish him the best, I hope he gets the help he needs but I also expect and demand that he gets treated and punished for what he did the same as anyone else would. If those "teens" were minors, then I hope he gets the punishment that any pedophile would get. (Not to say I agree or disagree with the punishment, but I am saying I hope because of who he is, he doesn't get leniency or get a worse than normal punishment.

Paq · 10-02-2006, 10:39 AM

ya know..

"simply naughty emails"....sounds like a government version of the whole Catholic priest debacle of recent times..

The_Jazz · 10-02-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

"simply naughty emails"....sounds like a government version of the whole Catholic priest debacle of recent times..

Agreed, but technically it's an accurate description. It's a naughty email to a kid, and I'm not entirely sure it's a crime. It's by all means distasteful, creepy and possible sign of things to come, but I don't think that it's a crime to talk dirty to a teenager. It might be, but I'm not aware of it. Regardless, Foley's career is over.

host · 10-02-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I think many people will not differentiate this guy's actions as Republican or Democrat but will just cause more negative opinions of our polititians in general. I see lots of discussions on the news about how low the President's poll numbers are with hardly a mention that approval of congress is much lower. Cases like this will probably drive those numbers even lower.

That's not gonna work, flstf. I might agree with your points if this scandal took place in a multi party political environment.

This is a two party system, and there is an election....all members of the house of rep. will be on the ballot....five weeks from tomorrow. Which candidates will be impacted negatively by this "news", republicans or democrats? These are the headlines:

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...cid=1109897215
<h3>Some House Republicans were told last year about Foley's e-mails</h3>
San Jose Mercury News, USA - Sep 30, 2006
... The three top leaders - Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt put out a sharply worded statement late Saturday, calling the contact ...

....and this is the "background":

Quote:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politic...oley_0930.html
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politic...oley_0930.html

.... Kirk Fordham, who worked as Foley's chief of staff for 10 years, returned to Foley's side to advise him during the past couple of days.

"He has the ability to look forward and see how things play out," Fordham said. "He wanted to do what was right for his family and for his district."....

Please consider that Rep. Alexander received a complaint, "a year ago", from parents of a 16 year old male house page who was receiving emails from Foley, including a request by Foley, for a "photo" of the teen.

Rep. Alexander took the complaint to the Chairman, Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds,
http://www.nrcc.org/about/chairmanbio.aspx
of the republican NRCC, a political re-election committee, not an ethics
investigation committee, or a law enforcement agency.
<h3>Consider who Thomas M. Reynolds current Chief of Staff is:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlined...=congressmerge
Information on
Representative Thomas M. Reynolds
of Congressional District number 26 of New York

Office Staff
Chief of Staff: Kirk Fordham

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010118.php
(October 02, 2006 -- 02:03 PM EDT // link)

Just watching Hastert's press conference here. It's great how he's trying to shift this all of this off the House leadership and to unnamed people outside the House. The Hastert line seems to be: Hey, We Ignored it. So We're Off the Hook.

Late Update: Seems they may be trying to shift this over to Rep. Alexander and former Clerk Trandahl.

Later Update: Needless to say, Hastert and Shimkus refused to take questions. And keep an eye on their new line, trying to dodge blame by saying that Foley waited for the pages to leave the program before he pounced.
-- Josh Marshall

Quote:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...t_wants_f.html
Originally posted: October 2, 2006
Hastert: Media had same Foley e-mails we had

Posted by Frank James at 7:04 am CDT

........The office of Rep. Dennis Hastert, House Speaker, issued copies of letters calling for federal and state probes of former Rep. Mark Foley, who abruptly resigned from Congress Friday after disclosures that he had Internet communications, some quite sordid, with teenage congressional pages and former pages.

Hastert wrote both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. The letters are essentially the same aside from some minor tweaking....

.......
The letters are interesting because they seem to reveal an emerging damage-control strategy that Hastert may use to defend House Republicans in their handling of the Foley matter. It boils down to saying House Republicans did more than the media did when faced with the same Foley emails.

The following paragraph contains the damage-control strategy.

According to an Editor's Note that appeared on the St. Petersburg Times' website yesterday, the Times was given a set of emails from Mr. Foley to Representative Alexander's former page in November of 2005. (See "A Note From the Editors" located at http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/, visited on September 30, 2006). The editors state that they viewed this exchange as "friendly chit chat" and decided not to publish it after hearing an explanation from Representative Foley. Acting on this same communication, the Chairman of the House Page Board and the then Clerk of the House confronted Mr. Foley, demanded he cease all contact with the former page as his parents had requested, and believed they had privately resolved the situation as the parents had requested.

So the usually snapping watchdogs of the Times essentially did nothing with the emails after apparently buying Foley's explanation while Rep. John Shimkus (R-Il.) who heads the House Page Board and the former House clerk "confronted" Foley demanding he cease all contact with the teenager.

Usually, lawmakers complain about the press being overzealous. This is one case where Hastert seems to welcome and get some benefit that we in the media weren't zealous enough.

It was Shimkus and the former clerk who acted with force if not zeal on information the Times took a pass on, or so the letter seems to say.

When you think about it, that paragraph isn't really necessary in a letter asking for criminal investigations of Foley. The allegedly criminal activity actually centers on the salacious instant messages that are mentioned later in the letter.

The paragraph is really meant for the public and the media. For the media, it's a brush back pitch to get our attention.

A media organization had the same information that House Republicans had. The media organization did nothing with it while those in the House responsible for the pages gave Foley a stern talking to. So back off, seems to be the letter's message to the media.

The other interesting thing about the letter is <h3>Hastert's call for an investigation into who had copies of the sexually charged IMs which forced Foley's resignation. ABC News reported the existence of those IMs and got them from somewhere.

Hastert appears to be suggesting that whoever had those IMs and didn't go to law enforcement first may have committed a crime.</h3> Who knows, maybe it was some Democrat dirty trick meant to embarass House Republicans before the mid-term elections?

In any event, Hastert clearly wants to erase any notion that House Republicans were trying coverup anything with the line: "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."

While Hastert is trying to banish any thought someone might have that House Republicans were guilty of a coverup, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is doing what she can to keep that notion alive. In a statement she released today, she actually accuses House Republicans of a coverup:

Sunday, October 1, 2006

Pelosi Statement on Preliminary FBI Investigation of Mark Foley

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on news reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is opening a preliminary investigation of the sexually explicit e-mails Congressman Mark Foley sent an underage former House Page.

“The FBI is rightly investigating former Republican Congressman Mark Foley’s reported internet stalking of an underage former House Page. Mr. Foley is outside the reach of the House Ethics Committee, however the required investigation into the cover up of Mr. Foley’s behavior by the Republican Leadership must quickly move forward.

“The children who work as Pages in the Congress are Members’ special trust. Statements by the Republican Leadership indicate that they violated this trust when they were made aware of the internet stalking of an underage Page by Mr. Foley and covered it up for six months to a year.

“Congress must not pass the buck on investigating this cover up. The children, their parents, the public, and our colleagues must be assured that such abhorrent behavior is not tolerated and will never happen again.”

# # #

Notice, Pelosi doesn't say alleged coverup. She states it as though it is a fact, plain and simple. The truth, of course, is messier. Republicans insist there was no coverup.

True, they didn't tell the Democrat on the page board about the Foley emails, an omission which may be partly fueling Pelosi's allegation and which may be proof enough for some that there was a coverup.

One thing that would be good to find out and that would suggest that Republicans weren't trying to minimize Foley's actions when they first learned about them would be if they put the warning to Foley in writing.

If they didn't, why not? At the very least, did Shimkus document the conversation with a memo to his file or a memo to the House clerk? If not, why not? Isn't that standard practice nowadays in cases of sexual harassment or other unwelcome contact in order to later prove that the person who received the report really took it seriously?

If that warning wasn't documented, that would seem rather odd in this day and age.

The problem for Hastert, and certainly for Shimkus, is it doesn't end with the scenario described above:
This NY Times article, concerning former house page, Loraditch, contradicts ABC's quote of the former page's description about a 2001 "warning" about Mark Foley, from a house page supervisor:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/wa...n/02pages.html
October 2, 2006
Former Pages Describe Foley as Caring Ally
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — In the hierarchy of Congress, the high school students who serve as Congressional pages fall somewhere near the bottom, seemingly invisible as they scurry through the hallways of the Capitol ferrying messages to powerful lawmakers who often fail to give them a second glance.

In that rarefied world, Representative Mark Foley, the silver-haired Republican from Florida, stood out.

He took pains to befriend the 16- and 17-year-old aides, several former pages said in interviews on Sunday. He chatted with them on the House floor, they said, sent handwritten notes and urged them to keep in touch when they left Washington for their hometowns.

In 2002, he even stood up on the floor of the House, his eyes welling with tears, and commended the young men and women for their year of service. In his speech, Mr. Foley mentioned several of the high school students by name, describing a handwritten note to celebrate one young man’s graduation and a lunch with another at Morton’s steak house.

Ashley Gallo, a 21-year-old former page who is now a senior at Western Michigan University, said on Sunday that many of her friends had viewed Mr. Foley as one of the few lawmakers who made a real effort to reach out to young people.

“You didn’t have a lot of interaction with the members because most of them treated you like a kid, but he was pretty friendly,” said Ms. Gallo, who served as a page in 2001. “He would talk to people,” she said.

“He would say, ‘Here’s my e-mail address if you want to keep in touch.’ I don’t think anyone thought anything of it. They saw him as a mentor or a reference.”

Mr. Foley’s resignation on Friday, following the disclosure of his sexually explicit Internet and cellphone messages to pages, left many former pages shaken. And on Sunday, they burned up the phone lines and sent e-mail messages flying as they reached out to their old friends who remain tight-knit years after leaving Capitol Hill.

Patrick McDonald, 21, a senior at Ohio State University, said he took Mr. Foley up on his invitation to keep in touch and sent him an e-mail message asking about internship opportunities two years after he completed his work as a page in 2002. He said that he kept up a casual e-mail conversation — chatting about the 2004 presidential election, among other things — with Mr. Foley for several months and that it never became inappropriate.

“If a congressman was talking to you, it was the best thing in the world,” Mr. McDonald said. “And he made himself known to the pages in the first couple of weeks, befriending us, asking us how we were doing. He was one of the cool congressmen. He was willing to chill out with us.”

But despite Mr. Foley’s warm demeanor, Mr. McDonald and another former page said they later became aware that the lawmaker might have a darker side. Mr. McDonald said he learned that Mr. Foley had sexually explicit Internet conversations with several pages who had left the program. “I was disgusted, but I was not surprised when these revelations started circulating,” he said.

Congressional pages come to Washington from across the country, sponsored by their local senator or representative, in a highly competitive program that attracts thousands of applicants each year.

Many describe it as one of the most formative experiences of their lives, giving them a rare, insider’s view of the inner workings of power. Former pages have set up alumni associations and message boards, and exchange e-mail messages and attend reunions to keep the memories of their days in Congress alive.

They describe living in an intensely supervised and sheltered world during their time in Washington. The 72 pages who serve in the House of Representatives are paid a stipend. They share rooms in a two-story, red brick dormitory just blocks from the Capitol and have a 10 p.m. curfew on weeknights and a midnight curfew on weekends.

Pages start classes at 6:45 a.m, and work in the House of Representatives later, answering telephones, delivering documents and running errands for lawmakers. Every night, the former pages said, the dormitory supervisors checked to make sure every page was there on time.

James Kotecki, 20, who was a page in the spring semester of 2003, said his orientation included a video on sexual harassment. He said he did not remember any formal rules against fraternization, however, and added that the young pages enjoyed the rare opportunities to socialize with the lawmakers. He said he met Mr. Foley only in passing, but remembered him as “a nice guy.”

“Pages are kind of very, very low on the totem pole on the Hill,” said Mr. Kotecki, now a senior at Georgetown University. “Anytime a member is nice it’s fantastic because often members don’t give pages the time of day.”

Raymond Schillinger, 20, also a Georgetown student, echoed those thoughts. He worked for Mr. Foley this spring as an intern and said the congressman treated the young staff very well.

“He was very affable, always friendly with the staff, but never over friendly, nothing suggestive,” Mr. Schillinger said.

Matthew Loraditch, who worked as a page with Ms. Gallo and Mr. McDonald in 2001 and 2002, said a supervisor had once casually mentioned that Mr. Foley “was odd” and that he later saw sexually explicit text messages that Mr. Foley had sent to two former pages after they left the program.

But Mr. Loraditch said he was never warned by program supervisors to stay away from him. “He was friendly,” said Mr. Loraditch, who maintains a Web site for alumni and attends Towson University in Maryland. “He would talk to us more than some other members would.”

To this day, Mr. Loraditch still remembers the speech Mr. Foley gave to the pages in 2002. The genial lawmaker stood on the floor of the House and noted that several pages were weeping as he spoke.

“You all have proven without a doubt that you are not only courageous Americans but wonderful young people,” Mr. Foley said on June 6, 2002. “I salute you and I thank you, and I hope you will join me, too, in saluting everyone in the page program that has made this year a resounding, phenomenal learning experience and success for you. God bless you all.”

Quote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...aff_warne.html
GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001

October 01, 2006 4:00 PM

Maddy Sauer and Anna Schecter Report:

Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."

Staff members at the House Clerk's office did not return calls seeking comment.

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

If Shimkus knew about Foley's "special interest" in 2001, and allowed him continued close association with house pages, I believe that Shimkus will be the first, after Foley, to resign from congress, in disgrace:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/en...06jn02-89.html
[Congressional Record: June 6, 2002 (House)]
[Page H3278-H3283]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr06jn02-89]

FAREWELL TO DEPARTING 2001-2002 PAGE CLASS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H3279]]

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to ask the Page
Class of 2001 and 2002 to come down and take the seats in this first
and second row, and try to congregate in the middle, if they can, and,
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this I will include for the Record
the names of the entire graduating class that will be graduating
tomorrow.
Tomorrow is the end of a long year of working together, and it is an
honor to stand up, as chairman of the Page Board, along with a lot of
my colleagues, to do that hard part of saying good-bye. For me, this is
my first time chairing the Page Board, and so you are a very special
class, one that I will remember forever, and hopefully you all will
remember this experience.
As chairman of the House Page Board, it is my privilege to
acknowledge and thank you, an outstanding group of young people, but it
is difficult to let this group of pages go. This year's class has faced
challenges and struggles unlike any other class in history.....

............Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. Now someone who spends a lot of
time with you also, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), would like
to say a thank you.
Mr. FOLEY. I warn all of you not to cry in front of me, please, so I
can get through this very important day with you without shedding tears
as well.
First, I want all of you to salute two people that I know at times
were tough on you. They are taskmasters, they are disciplinarians; but
they love you in an incredibly personal way. I would like all of the
pages to clap for Ms. Sampson and Ms. Ivester, your supervisors.
Ms. Sampson is on the back rail. She does not like to come too close
here because she may cry, too; and she does not want any of the kids
before you depart on Saturday to see her being a vulnerable person. It
is true.
I hear so much laughter here and I am glad that there is laughter,
because this is a wonderful time of your life. Every time we celebrate
the departure of a page class, we remember your first day here and, of
course, we are here at your last. You came in very shy and meek and
very polite and for the most part you have remained polite, but no
longer shy and meek. You have taken on your respective roles as junior
Members of Congress and oftentimes I get a kick when I walk by the back
row, Mr. Foley, please mention the pages so our parents will hear us on
C-SPAN. The nice thing about today is you are on C-SPAN. And this is
recorded. And you will get to see this replayed. And you will get to
see your faces now assembling as if you were Members of Congress.
Some probably cannot wait to leave and get back and see your best
friends and loved ones and some are anguishing about your departure.
Mary Kate Leonard was on the back row crying. I asked why. She said,
``I'm losing my best friend, Rachel.''

[[Page H3281]]

I said, ``Really? Where's Rachel?"
``Oh, Rachel is a Republican page.''
I said, ``Oh, you are all bipartisan, too, huh?'' Because Mary Kate
is a Democrat, which shows how friendships can cross an aisle and cross
ideological divide. So I asked Rachel to come from the cloakroom, and
she thought I was kidding, to join her friend who was crying and I
said, ``I can't let her cry alone. You have to be out here to be part
of this.'' Now I have got you both crying and I am starting to well up.
I have got a lot of other stories. Of course, Christopher made sure I
came out of the cloakroom to see that his mother and family were
sitting up in the gallery this morning as I quietly mentioned to him,
``Remember, we're not allowed to gesture to the gallery.'' He said,
``Oh, just wave to her, so she knows I'm important.'' He is important
and she is above us now.
Of course we have got several Jasons, a few Laurens. Adam, thank you
for the graduation announcement. I sent you a handwritten note, and I
was actually going to put some money in it as a graduation present.
Then I realized he would tell all of you, and then I would get hundreds
of graduation announcements. So I chose not to. I hope the handwritten
note will suffice for your scrapbook.

Patty Mack, of course, also known as Patrick McDonald, when he said,
``Mr. Foley, who made you say that?'' I said, ``I made it up myself.
I'm Irish. I get it.'' Fabulous young man. This is not made to make fun
of him or anyone else.
The tag team of Dominic and Hilary. Who will forget their exuberance
coming in the room? Bubbly, excited, cheerful. Of course Jordan and
Eddie. Eddie's mother I met today. They are from Florida. He is a
constituent and hopefully a future voter of mine if I choose to run
statewide, so Eddie will be my next best friend.
And, of course, Melanie, and finally John Eunice. John was the
highest bidder on lunch with Mark Foley. Maybe you all do not know this
story, but John had paid considerable sums to dine with me. I had
offered to take the winning bidder to lunch in the Members' dining
room. Then I heard how much John Eunice paid. And I said, ``John, there
is no way in the world after you committed so much money to have lunch
with me that I would dare take you downstairs to eat in the Members'
dining room.'' I said, ``Where do you want to go?'' He says, without
reservation, ``Morton's.'' I said, ``Morton's? Like in Morton's
Steakhouse?'' He said, ``Oh, would that be too much?'' I said, ``Oh,
no, we'll go.'' I said, ``Call your mother, get permission, make sure
she notifies the Clerk and we will go to Morton's.'' And so we
proceeded to cruise down in my BMW to Morton's. And all of this story
is meant to make you all feel jealous that you were not the high
bidders. So we went to Morton's, and I do not know where you all went.
I have a lot of other names here, but I do not want to go through the
litany of lists, Nickie and Tim sitting in front and others.....

..........Mr. SHIMKUS. Now I would like to ask my colleague and friend, the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), to say a few words.
Mrs. MORELLA. You can see how we love you. I was thinking that this
is really like a graduation; it really is, for you. You have had a year
here. And it is really like a commencement, because now you are
beginning another stage of your lives. It has just been a wonderful
opportunity for us to have you, to know that you could tell us who was
speaking at any one time. I think your identification was superb....

.....You note from the wonderful, moving
passion that you heard from Mark Foley and what you have heard from
others, Jim Kolbe and others who have spoken here, too, Juanita
Millender-McDonald who spoke and others who have spoken here, too, and
the person who has been in charge, John Shimkus, you know how much we
appreciate what you have done.....

flstf, your post seems closer to wishful spin, because it doesn't align with what we already know....and for Hastert, Boehner, Alexander, Reynolds, and Shimkus this story smells.

flstf · 10-02-2006, 11:01 AM

Host, I respectfully disagree and think these kinds of stories will smear the whole lot, the same as the guy with a hundred grand in his freezer.

That being said, I think the Republicans have a lot more to be concerned about in the upcomming elections because they have more incumbants to unelect.

host · 10-02-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Host, I respectfully disagree and think these kinds of stories will smear the whole lot, the same as the guy with a hundred grand in his freezer.

That being said, I think the Republicans have a lot more to be concerned about in the upcomming elections because they have more incumbants to unelect.

...so, it is your opinion that a New Orleans house democrat, William Jefferson, who is investigated in an FBI sting for selling his political influence to some Nigerian politicians and a US company hoping to do business with them, but was discovered to have kept the FBI "sting money", for himself, instead,
is on the same par as the republicans who took money from Jack Abramoff or the president and his staff who insisted that there was barely any contact between Abramoff and the white house, but it is now reported that there were 485 contacts, and of the three Abramoff associates "suggested" for appointment to white house jobs in 2001, one Safavian, is convicted of taking favors from Abramoff in exchange for helping Abramoff attempt to buy GAO property, and then lying about the conflict of interest to government investigators, and another, Susan Ralston, was in charge of tracking and approving the illegal gifts and perks to Rove and to congressmen and their staffers, but sits in an office down the hall from Bush and Rove, is a "special assistant to both of them, received a $25k pay raise from them in 2005, upping her salary to $92k, and was so important a staffer of "team Abramoff", that she followed him from Preston Gates to Traurig.

....the William Jefferson investigation is as signifigant as Rep. Alexander becoming informed a year ago, of Foley's "inappropriate emails" to a 16 year old house page, with a background of statements by a former page that he was "warned" by a page supervisor about Foley....in 2001....

...and Alexander reacting by taking "the matter" to Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, a chairman of a house republican politcal committee....who did nothing....but did happen to employ, as his chief of staff....Foley's former chief of staff...of ten years....Kirk Fordham, who...when this story "blew up" last week, went to be "by Foley's side". Add the spectacle of house leader's Hastert and Boehner lying about what they knew and when they knew it, and then of Hastert, claiming credit today, for knowing about it, but doing nothing!

Place all of this in the context of the firing of the house ethics committee chariman, by former majority leader Tom Delay, for censuring Delay for ethics breaches, and by Delay staying on, in an influential congressional role, after he was indicted for three felony charges, as long as he felt like staying on.

We have not even touched on the deception of an administration launching an illegal war of aggression, after terrorizing the American people with false WMD claims in a pre-war propaganda blitz, or the failure of the republican congress to investigate anything that the executive branch has done, including the destruction of the CIA covert intel section, the management of the CIA, and the outing, by the administration, of a CIA covert employee, for political revenge.

I don't see that an obscure news story of FBI sting money, found in the freezer of an unknown, powerless, congressman from the political party that is out of power, with no investigative or subpoena power and no authority to direct appropriations or actual federal agency spending, is on a par with the details that I've just outlined......do you?

flstf · 10-02-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I don't see that an obscure news story of FBI sting money, found in the freezer of an unknown, powerless, congressman from the political party that is out of power, with no investigative or subpoena power and no authority to direct appropriations or actual federal agency spending, is on a par with the details that I've just outlined......do you?

Yes, I do. But it makes little difference what I think, I have a low regard for most polititians and assume this stuff goes on all the time and what we see is just the tip of the iceberg. What really matters is what most of the voters think and I believe more and more of them feel the same way.

IMHO, you are very partisan and follow these things very closely uncovering all the sordid details and keep score to show one party is worse than the other while much of the public just sees another bad polititian.

The_Jazz · 10-02-2006, 12:05 PM

host, I think that you're letting your partisan viewpoint blind you from the bigger picture, at least at this point in the story. Right now, I think that Foley is being viewed as a Congressman first and a Republican second. It's pretty well established fact that the American people believe that most members of Congress are crooked but that their own representatives are less tainted. It's one of the reasons that incumbents enjoy such success at re-election time.

I think that it's entirely possible that this scandal will taint the entire Republican party very quickly if it comes out that the House party leadership knew about the problem and covered it up. However, we don't have anything other than some allegations at this point, and no one is going to find crucifying "Coach" Hastert very easy.

Speaking of who knew what and when they knew it, the St. Petersburg papers are already playing defense. http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/..._from_the.html

Yeah, I know it's a blatant ripoff of Fark material, but it's relavent.

seretogis · 10-02-2006, 03:16 PM

No amount of copy/pasting of unrelated articles will change the fact that Foley is a 52 year old man who was slobbering all over a 16(?) year old boy. Boy. 52 year old man. Boy. 52. 16. Man. Boy. The distinction between a homosexual man (a man who likes other men) and a pederast (a man who likes boys) is very clear, especially in the case of a 52 year old and a 16 year old. As a man who likes other men, I don't appreciate being grouped together with a man who very poorly attempted to pick up a clearly uninterested boy, just as I am sure you wouldn't appreciate being equated with Klan Democrats.

Elphaba · 10-02-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

No amount of copy/pasting of unrelated articles will change the fact that Foley is a 52 year old man who was slobbering all over a 16(?) year old boy. Boy. 52 year old man. Boy. 52. 16. Man. Boy. The distinction between a homosexual man (a man who likes other men) and a pederast (a man who likes boys) is very clear, especially in the case of a 52 year old and a 16 year old. As a man who likes other men, I don't appreciate being grouped together with a man who very poorly attempted to pick up a clearly uninterested boy, just as I am sure you wouldn't appreciate being equated with Klan Democrats.

Seretogis, I assure you that I have never made the assumption that "gay equals pedophile." If my initial post didn't make my position clear in that regard, then I apologize for being a poor communicator. I would be interested in knowing what statement I made that causes you to think otherwise.

seretogis · 10-02-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Seretogis, I assure you that I have never made the assumption that "gay equals pedophile." If my initial post didn't make my position clear in that regard, then I apologize for being a poor communicator. I would be interested in knowing what statement I made that causes you to think otherwise.

Specifically:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I can fully understand why a Republican member of congress must remain in the closet concerning his or her sexuality.

I would not compare a gay Republican's sexuality with the sick predatory urgings of a criminally deranged man who happens to have been accused of being a gay Republican.

I understand that there was not as much information available about his conversations with the page when you made your initial post, but once a minor boy was known to be the victim, the proper term of pederast should have been used instead of any direct or indirect reference to a non-child-drooling homosexual male. It may seem like a minor thing to most, but it is a very important distinction to make.

host · 10-02-2006, 10:01 PM

seretogis, I've posted tirelessly on this forum, in attempts to defend same sex orientation, and to educate, if it is possible, as I did on this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=86477
, in this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=38

I see the circumstances of Mark Foley being similar to the story of the Boy Scouts executive who back a policy prohibiting gay scoutmasters. The issue is not about me. It is about ignorance about homsexuality, combined with religious influenced prejudices, that combine to link homosexuality with "deviance", including a mistaken belief....a prejudice, that links homosexuality with sexual attraction and sexual abuse of children.

Indeed, this ignorant prejudice is a cornerstone in some of the conservative christian "argument" against the acceptance of the fact that homosexuality is normal, not a disease or a pathology, to be "treated" or to be "rehabed" away from. This "influence" of conservative religious prejudice has become entrenched in the politcal platform and the legislative agenda of the republican party, to the point that it has driven republican homosexuals "underground".

IMO the republican political agenda breeds a hypocrisy driven suppression of what, in many other areas of society, is a routine (normal) attitude about sexual identity and orientation that is at the root of the failure of republican house leaders to confront Foley and report his behavior with house pages, to investigative authorities, years ago.

I believe that, these house "leaders" believe their own bullshit....that homosexuality is deviant, a disease....sinful.....and they cannot discern normal, same sex orientation, from the perversion that is Foley's sexual attraction to teenaged boys. They absurdly lump homosexuality with deviant sexual behavior, and ironically, dismissed Foley's abnormal interest in boys, as an extension of his closeted homosexuality, which they were all aware of. The flawed demonizing of homosexuals as a political tactic, resulted in ignorant dismissal....by Hastert and Boehner, of Foley's actual signs of sexual deviancy.....they overplayed and wrongly reacted to homosexuality, "lumped it in" with deviant sex, and underreacted to Foley's deviant behavior with the pages, because their own religiously tainted political bullshit, renders them unable to tell the difference !

This ignorance and prejudice of the WSJ is a fine example of what I just tried to explain. I am surprised that they don't begin their ignorant bullshit with, "everbody knows that your shouldn't allow homos near young boys."

(This thread is about trying to stampout the ignorant prejudice in this WSJ article, and not about supporting it.....)

Quote:

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/...l?id=110009033

Paging Mr. Hastert
Could a gay Congressman be quarantined?

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

.....the GOP House leadership is also being assailed for not having come down more strongly on a gay Congressman for showing a more than friendly interest in underage boys. That's a different issue altogether.

At least this seems to be the essence of the Democratic and media charge against Speaker Dennis Hastert, who admits his office was told months ago about a friendly, non-explicit 2005 email exchange between Mr. Foley and another page. In that exchange, Mr. Foley had asked the teenager "how old are you now" and requested "an email pic."

In our admittedly traditional view, this was odd and suspect behavior, especially because Mr. Foley was well known as a homosexual even if he declined to publicly acknowledge it.......

.....But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?...

.........The_Jazz and flstf, I don't think that my posts on this thread are good examples to use to point out that I am "too" partisan....

Michelle Malkin and I, for once.....seem to post about this, very similarly:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006033.htm

and the Bush and republican aligned newspaper published this:

Quote:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...2008-9058r.htm
Resign, Mr. Speaker

TODAY'S EDITORIAL
October 3, 2006

The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.
Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat........

and...earlier, when he was "for it"..... before he was against it, Bill Frist embraced the Taliban:

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/...hanistan_frist
Frist: Taliban should be in Afghan gov't

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 2, 7:56 PM ET

QALAT, Afghanistan - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government. ......

The_Jazz · 10-03-2006, 05:34 AM

host - I meant no offense by my earlier point. I was simply trying point out that I think that you're missing the bigger picture because of your usual partisan focus. However, from what I've read this morning, it looks like I was wrong and you are right. The national organization is being forced to go off-message to deal with the scandal, and that could potentially cost votes.

dc_dux · 10-03-2006, 11:01 AM

I dont know if cyber sex with a minor makes it more of a crime; it certainly makes it more disgusting:

Quote:

Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18.

This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp.

I wont post the IM exchange (link)

Rekna · 10-03-2006, 02:27 PM

Now Foley is claiming that he was molested by clergy when he was young. This does not excuse his behavior. Why does he keep making excuses? Just fess up that you were wrong, that you are sick, and let it be. An apology should never contain an excuse.

dc_dux · 10-03-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

I would not compare a gay Republican's sexuality with the sick predatory urgings of a criminally deranged man who happens to have been accused of being a gay Republican.

I didnt see any such comparison made here.

But that is exactly what you see from some conservatives pundits:
Ben Stein, American Spectator:

On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys… I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

Linda Harvey, WorldNetDaily:

Open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected. The problem with homosexuals is that they frequently don’t have common sense and don’t acknowledge appropriate boundaries. Weird sex, public displays of “affection” and nudity, and sex with youth are built into the “gay” sub-culture.

Tammy Bruce, political analyst, Fox News:

All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive. I mean, is that too much to ask for?

Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy In Meda:

In fact, the entire scandal might have been avoided if Foley’s homosexuality had been exposed and confronted, rather than protected, over the last several years

This kind if ignorance is appalling. Yet I can just imagine many loyals readers nodding their heads in agreement. And rarely do you see such ignorance condemned.

pan6467 · 10-03-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Now Foley is claiming that he was molested by clergy when he was young. This does not excuse his behavior. Why does he keep making excuses? Just fess up that you were wrong, that you are sick, and let it be. An apology should never contain an excuse.

I love how the GOP talk about how the Dems whine and how if an actor goes on Oprah and cries he is forgiven. They consider this a weakness and claim people need to take personal responsibility.

Hmmmmmmm like Foley is right now? I'm an addict...... I was molested.... others in congress and my own party knew but they didn't do anything to stop me...... blah blah blah......

Earlier I posted how I could understand the psyche of the wrong doing and addiction. I can, it's my profession. But when someone who for years preached self responsibility and control, then gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and tries to do what he claimed we needed less of........

Other GOP who have shown they refuse personal responsibility and that they refuse to accept they broke laws:

Let's see, with Limbaugh it was "a political witch hunt", yet he himself said all addicts should be shipped off to their own island and were worthless. When the ACLU (whom he fried every chance he got) offered to help him, he took it.

Limbaugh spends hours upon hours hitting Clinton about being unfaithful, then gets a divorce because he has a hottie on the side..... Gingrich had to leave political office because he cheated on his wife..... But with Clinton and everyone else it is a vile unresponsible, act that shows we are a moralless society.

O'Reilly gets sued for sexual harrassment..... boohoo they are picking on me.... I'm innocent but Fox News and I will pay millions to shut the lady up before anymore details get out.

Sounds to me like the GOP has not only accepted the Religious Right's platforms and prejudices but their leaders have learnt and are taking lessons on scandals from the Religious Rights leaders.

All Hail Jim and Tammy Faye, Raise a toast to Jimmy Swaggert and Pat Robertson..... for you taught Foley, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Gingrich, Ney, and so on how to skirt scandals and make it look like it is all someone else's fault, while telling everyone else they need to take responsibility for their actions.

_God_ · 10-03-2006, 09:35 PM

I am not making this up--I wore out my scroll wheel on this thread.

In spite of that, a few factors have not been discussed here.

1. There is no way in hell that some Democratic members of Congress did not know about this situation. Pages talk.

2. Among the media sources who seem to have withheld the story are the New York Times and the LA Times. It wasn't just Fox News.

Conclusion: Republicans tried to hide it; Democrats wanted to save it until a month before the election. I don't see either as having the higher moral ground.

3. The parents of the page asked that it not be made public.

4. Foley was known to be gay. It doesn't go over well these days to imply that a gay person has ever done anything wrong. If you doubt the aggression that is increasingly emitted from the gay community, scroll back in this thread.

It is not inconceivable that "persecution" charges would be tossed around in regard to Foley's homosexuality. Barney Frank was able to play the victim when a prostitution ring was being run out of his basement--why wouldn't Foley's playing the victim (which he is doing, but in a different way) work equally well?

While I don't agree with it, I can certainly see why the Republicans weren't calling press conferences, particularly since there was no evidence of any actual sexual contact.

It's also easy to see why the Democrats waited until now to break the story. What's hard to decide is which side I respect the least in this matter.

dc_dux · 10-04-2006, 05:28 AM

Quote:

1. There is no way in hell that some Democratic members of Congress did not know about this situation. Pages talk.

This is the Hastert defense and there is no evidence to support it. There is evidence that the Repub chairman of the House Page Board was told last year by a fellow Republican (that same Repup did not tell the Dem co-chair of the Page Board) that Foley was exchanging "friendly" e-mails with a minor.

Quote:

2. Among the media sources who seem to have withheld the story are the New York Times and the LA Times. It wasn't just Fox News.

So ABC took a more aggressive approach. I dont see where this is an issue at all.

ABC’s Brian Ross “dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley,” the New York Times reports. “I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.

Was it just a "slip-up" that Fox News labeled Foley a Democrat on O’Reilly's show last night?

Quote:

3. The parents of the page asked that it not be made public.

Congress has a responsibility to ensure the safety of all the Pages which overrides the wishes of any one page's parents.

Quote:

4. Foley was known to be gay. It doesn't go over well these days to imply that a gay person has ever done anything wrong. If you doubt the aggression that is increasingly emitted from the gay community, scroll back in this thread.

Have you read the gay bashing from the anti-gay community? #28.

The_Jazz · 10-04-2006, 05:43 AM

Quote: