Congressman quits after messages to teens found
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Thursday, October 5, 2006 05:35
VIEWED: 11429
PAGE 5 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
It's already been posted how Hastert and other republicans knew about this scandal and said nothing.
I honestly don't think even you believe the shit you spew, and I'm really not sure why you expect anyone else to, when your posts never last more than five minutes before somebody has to correct your rhetoric, by pointing out nasty little facts...facts that you could even get by watching our shitty news networks, and that's saying something.
All quotes lifted from the article which I have linked from a shitty news network.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/03/foley.scandal/index.html
Quote:
Hastert insisted that top Republican leaders did not know about sexually explicit instant messages Foley allegedly sent former male pages in 2003. The messages surfaced Friday in an ABC News report shortly after Foley resigned.
Quote:
Two Republican Congressmen -- Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee -- have acknowledged knowing about an "overly friendly" exchange between Foley and a former male page.
The e-mails, which occurred in 2005 between Foley and a page from Louisiana, were not sexually explicit.
Shimkus, of Illinois, has said Foley assured him nothing inappropriate had taken place with the page, and Foley was then told not to have any further contact with the teen and to watch his conduct around pages.
Quote:
The FBI, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the House Ethics Committee are investigating Foley's conduct -- and whether there was any attempt to cover it up.
Cut the righteousness and try to remember that like enemy combatants, Hastert, Shimkus, Reynolds et al are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you should wait to see what the investigation turns up before calling for anyones head.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You actually took pains to remove the Rice part of my post BigDamnednobody?
Funny
And one thing is certain. Hastert originally said he only heard about the case a couple days ago...then he admitted to knowing about it for a year(and yes he said he notified the head of the page program at that time) -- why the original lie? That's the accountability that HERO is talking about?
Whoops, I guess it is. His argument was they are accountable when they are caught.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
You actually took pains to remove the Rice part of my post BigDamnednobody?
Funny
Why funny? Did not see the relevance to the Thread's topic or to the point which I was making. I left out your opening 'pithy' remark to Hero as well, would you like to comment on that?
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Cut the righteousness and try to remember that like enemy combatants, Hastert, Shimkus, Reynolds et al are innocent until proven guilty.
And what rock have you been living under?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Editorial from The Washington Times:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061002-102008-9058r.htm
"Resign, Mr. Speaker"
Quote:
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...
... House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.
For those of you who don't know, The Washington Times is the ANTI-NYT/ANTI-POST. It is a conservative paper that supports conservative candidates and conservative postitions. So, perhaps we should stop claiming that the liberals are sniping the Republican leadership unfairly.
And in this case, the Washington Times is right. Speaker Hastert may not have known about the salacious IMs, as he has claimed, but his assertion that the emails that he was aware of were innocent and simply "overly friendly" does not hold water.
If the emails were innocuous, why would he forbid further contact between Rep. Foley and the teen? Wouldn't that be unnecessary if there was nothing indecent about them and there was no cause for concern?
One further addendum. There has been no evidence that Rep. Foley is a pedophile (that I am aware of). A pedophile is attracted to pre-pubescent children. A 16 year old boy, surely, would have hit puberty. There is another word for those who are attracted to post-pubescent teens, but I can't think of it... (and sure as Hell ain't gonna' google to find out) And isn't 16 the age of consent throughout much of the western world? I'm pretty sure that it's even legal in several states in the US. The guy certainly seems like a louse and likes 'em real young, but calling him a child molester might be a little over the top...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Sending a few suggestive e-mails to a teenager is not the same as being a pedophile. There is no evidence he had sexual relations with a minor. No evidence he had sexual relations with a Congressional Page. Such evidence may be forthcoming, but as yet it simply isn't there.
I did not have sexual relations with that page. That's the new defense? Very Clintonian. You might want to take your cue on exact wording from Foley's lawyer, "Mark Foley has never, ever had inappropriate sexual contact with a minor in his life." It's the classic moving-of-the-goal-posts defense strategy. Someone is being accused of crime A. Their lawyer and supporters yell to the roof-tops that they didn't commit crime B. I'm guessing you've probably even prosecuted someone who tried that defense.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There is evidence that he had inappropriate e-mail exchanges with a Page. This is a rules violation and when discovered it was referred to the disciplinary committee, the head of the Page Program, and the FBI for criminal investigation. The FBI concluded that while inappropriate, the e-mails provided at the time were not illegal.
This is pretty important. And it's the first I've heard that there was an FBI investigation ten or eleven months ago. Could you please provide a source for that? Moving on, let's unpack just one of your claims here: the one about the head of the Page Program. There are three Congressmen (well, one's a Congresswoman) in charge of oversight of the Page Program. Two of them, one Republican and one Democrat, had never heard of the e-mail. In other words, there was no investigation by the group charged with oversight. Hence, the outrage. Because, as you've led us to believe, Republicans are stalwarts when it comes to digging deep for the truth, especially when our children are in danger. Not.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There is now evidence of additional instant messages that were sent to the Page from the Congressman. These IMs are sexually explicit and likely illegal. The FBI will review this NEW evidence and determine if Federal law was broken, if it was then he will be arrested, rehab or not. Why does the FBI need to review them when they are clearly sexually explicit? I'd say the most pressing concern for the FBI is the need to make sure they are authentic and to make sure they can prove where they came from. Without that sort of evidence, they cannot hope to sustain the case much less secure a conviction.
Yes. And it took the reporter one day to get from the e-mail to the instant messages. A reporter - and we all know how lame most of them are. In other words, a small amount of investigating yielded a lot of information. A small amount of investigating that the Republican House leadership never even attempted. Here's their version of how to deal with exchanges between a Congressman and a page that might be inappropriate: they asked Foley, he told them there was nothing to worry about, they told him to stop doing whatever it was there was nothing to worry about. The extent of their investigation was ASKING FOLEY. It wasn't the start of the investigation. That was it.
Should a suspicious exchange between a Congressman and a sixteen year old spark an investigation into all of that Congressman's exchanges with minors? Your two options are: Always, Only if that Congressman is not Republican. I see you firmly in the latter camp.
* edited to add
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
One further addendum. There has been no evidence that Rep. Foley is a pedophile (that I am aware of). A pedophile is attracted to pre-pubescent children. A 16 year old boy, surely, would have hit puberty. There is another word for those who are attracted to post-pubescent teens, but I can't think of it... (and sure as Hell ain't gonna' google to find out) And isn't 16 the age of consent throughout much of the western world? I'm pretty sure that it's even legal in seveNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm just waiting for "It was the kid's fault". I'm sure it won't be long in coming (so to speak).
And in the meantime, rumor is that someone tried to bribe ABC not to go public with this story. Waiting to see what happens to that.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Cut the righteousness and try to remember that like enemy combatants, Hastert, Shimkus, Reynolds et al are innocent until proven guilty.
And what rock have you been living under?
A sarcastic rock.
Righteous9 spoke out regarding the current Administration's guilty until proven innocent stance regarding enemy combatants in another thread. I got a faint whiff of hypocrisy and thought I'd call him/her on it. My apologies for not using a clarifying emoticon, I knew Righteous9 would get it though.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The FBI concluded that while inappropriate, the e-mails provided at the time were not illegal.
This is pretty important. And it's the first I've heard that there was an FBI investigation ten or eleven months ago. Could you please provide a source for that?
Okay. I found it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006
100200333_pf.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
erm anyone read this yet?
http://www.alternet.org/wire/42490
shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME