What Did They Know And When Did They Know It?
The Media Needs To Answer Some Questions Too
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (63) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
To be sure, the GOP has some explaining to do on how it handled the Mark Foley allegations. To be doubly sure, the media also has some explaining to do -- is the media trying to do a favor for the Democrats in the timing of this story? Did ABC News make an internal decision to run this now as an apology to Democrats for the 9/11 miniseries? There are a lot of troubling questions, but I think it is worth asking about the media.
According to the editors at the St. Petersburg Times:
Read on . . .
In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange Foley had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later got them too.
We have ascertained that the list of media organizations that knew of this information as early as November of 2005 include:
- Washington Post
- Roll Call
- ABC News
- St. Petersburg Times
- Palm Beach Post
More from the St. Pete Times:
The Louisiana boy's emails broke into the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them online. Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley's Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy's emails and was calling for an investigation. That's when we wrote our first story, for Friday's papers.
After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC and provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other page that was far different from what we had seen before.
So, let's put some perspective on this. The Republicans should have run Mark Foley out of Congress last year. Some who we can reasonably presume are faithful to the party opposite, also knew about this information and had piles of information about it. Instead of also working to drive Mark Foley out of Congress a year ago, they held on to the information and waited until a month from the election.
In the process, a year went by without anything substantively being done and a man with a known predilection for young boys stayed in Congress. How those faithful to the party opposite handled this is as much an indicator of how they operate as how the GOP operates. The GOP operated as the party faithful to the institution, much as Speaker Hastert did in the William Jefferson matter -- putting Members of Congress first. The Democrats operated just as they are operating with the war -- play politics with smears, but offer nothing substantive to make any of us, including House pages, safer.
To be sure, the blame for the mishandling of this matter rests with the House Republican Leadership. But I'm struck by a letter released this weekend by Nancy Pelosi. In it, she wrote:
The fact that Mr. Foley was engaging in this behavior with underage children, that the Republican Leadership knew about it for six months to a year and has characterized the inappropriate behavior as "overly friendly" and "acting as a mentor" and that apparently no action was taken to protect these underage children is abhorrent.
Shouldn't we also call on the media to tell us what exactly they knew and when they knew it. And shouldn't we also ask the leakers of the information, who were undoubtedly Democrats, what they knew and when they knew it and why they waited almost a full year to leak the information instead of taking immediate action to stop Mr. Foley.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Saturday Night Open Thread — Comments (93) »
What Did They Know And When Did They Know It? 63 Comments (0 topical, 63 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Boehner and Hastert should have done some ill-defined "something", based on some ill-defined "something else".
If you think there is a case to be made that they behaved in a questionable fashion, why don't you try to make it?
I'll admit if they also admit it. Seems the Dems , the media and CREW have been in on it for years
http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2006/09/30/foley-setup/
Foley Set-up
As I’m a constituent of Rep. Mark Foley, I’ve been keeping up on this story about his alleged computer sex with a sixteen year old male page. In light of the fact that he resigned it’s obvious that the incidents took place. But there are many, many questions about this that need to be looked at.
First, I don’t condone these kinds of actions in anyway. I’m former law enforcement and even worked to help capture child predators on the internet before people even knew what that was, so I’m not defending Foley. However watching the news coverage today I have to wonder about a few things, and got to checking around.
Although not confirmed, it’s being thrown around that ABC’s primary source for the computer chats and emails is the liberal watch dog group CREW.
Significant, because while there is a story about how the GOP leadership knew of Foley’s actions for at least a year, after which he was ordered to stop contact with the teen, there reports that CREW also knew of the allegations months ago. In fact according to reports, CREW had contacted the FBI, and were waiting to go public when ABC posted the story. So the obvious question is “Why wait”? I think it’s obvious they were waiting to have the greatest effect.
It is interesting that CREW now is calling for an independent counsel to look into - not Foley - but the GOP leadership. This less than fourty-eight hours after his resignation. Pretty darn quick I would say, since the facts are still coming out. It’s almost like they had it all ….like, planned.
It’s also interesting to note that for the chat transcripts to be available for us to read they had to have been purposely logged, or in the case of text messages, saved. Again, ordinarily this is done in criminal investigations to obtain and preserve evidence. However, it’s not something one would necessarily do otherwise. Just from my observation reading one of the chats from one of the pages indicates responses that “knowleable, graphic and leading. In other words, not the “normal responses of someone who is being approached”. This is the kind of tactic we used in law enforcement when you are trying to corale these kinds of people.
So the point-blank question I have is was at some point the teen in the more graphic posted chats “coached” by someone? If so, by whom?
Again, while I do not condone his behavior - as there is no defense for it, something just doesn’t seem right about all this. Make no mistake, entrapped or not Foley should be prosecuted for his actions espeically in light of his end of the conversation, and in light of his position. Yet it does seem that there is much, much more here than meets the eye to this story and much more to come to light.
UPDATE: A DOJ friend of mine throws this wrench into the mix. He notes that in DC the age of consent is 16, which at least the cases such in the transcript where it looked consensual, legally there wouldn’t be anything to charge him with.
He’s right.
UPDATE: In light of hysterical conservatives calling for Denny’s head, Say Anything gives them a chill pill for now.
UPDATE II: I’m not alone in my suspicions. Rick Moran writes:
“My good friend and fellow American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman left a comment that deserves to be elevated for greater readability. It is, something of an eye popper:
Reportedly the St Pete Times had the same information in August 2005 and wrote nothing about it either, apparently because the emails do not constitute illegal conduct, they are just creepy, and the boy’s parents did not wish to pursue this.
The far more damaging IM messages were released by CREW , the same “public interest” group which is representing the Wilson/Plames in their laughable suit against Cheney, et al.
When did they get the IM’s? Why did they wait until now to release them? Is there any indication the Republicans who looked into THIS MATTER had any knowledge of their(the IM’s) existence.
Pardon an old lady’s suspicions. I’ve seen this dance too many times before.
I read this morning that a Monroe, LA newspaper also had the story and didn’t run with it because there appeared to be no impropriety.
And one more point that our dimwitted lefty friends can’t seem to wrap their miniscule brains around; the incident that was brought to the attention of the Page Board is unconnected to any of the raunchy, sick emails ABC news got from, as Clarice informs us, CREW.”
Seems CREW has some explaining to do.
UPDATE III: CREW is a George Soros funded organization, but there is more:
“From 1995 to 1998, CREW’s Melanie Sloan served as minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Before that, Sloan served as the nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).
According to GOP research, Mark Penn, who had been a pollster for President Clinton, and Daniel Berger, a major Democratic donor, are on CREW’s board. Spokeswoman Naomi Seligman declined several requests to reveal the membership of CREW’s board, although she confirmed that Penn and Berger are members. Last year, Berger made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group that was dedicated to defeating Bush in the presidential election, according to politicalmoneyline.com, a website that tracks fundraising.”
So we have a person who served under Clinton, and Rep. “Inpeachment” Conyers, who just “happened” to obtain emails and chats and “holding them” to just six weeks out of a midterm election where IF Democrats gain control of Congress, said Rep. Conyers has promised to impeach President Bush. More here.
Right. CREW was also instrumental behind the “get Delay” effort. More on CREW here. By Sloan’s admission, when she came on board at CREW her “mission” (before anything was known) was to “get Tom Delay”.
However, if CREW did indeed withhold evidence against Rep. Foley, for any length of time, they may have stepped over the line. In any case, I think they are going to have some explaining to do.
Politics News elections mark foley
...If we accept the premise that the public wants to vote for Republicans for being stronger on defense and WOT (as I believe they do), then they can't let there be a chink in their armor by failing to deal with one of their own.
True or not, the perception is that they did slow-play the Foley "affair." They had better atone for this fast. Not with shallow excuses but with fall-on-their swords contrition.
If Repub leadership doesn't take responsibility- real or not- then they'll be perceived as incapable of the greater responsibilities of defense and WOT.
True or not, the perception is that they did slow-play the Foley "affair."
The only people working hard to give them that perception are people like you. And the only thing likely to cement that perception in the public mind is for them to "fall on their swords", which will be seen as an admission of guilt.
Perhaps there is some advantage to be gained by us pretending to believe that the House leadership was involved in a coverup, but I guess I'm a little slow today and I need someone to explain it to me.
Perhaps there is some advantage to be gained by us pretending to believe that the House leadership was involved in a coverup, but I guess I'm a little slow today and I need someone to explain it to me.
Without proof that there was talk of a coverup, why are we talking as if there WAS one?
You may not think much of Denny Hastert as Speaker, but that's not grounds to openly speculate that he knowingly enabled a pedophile. I'd hope we'd wait for some solid proof before tagging that label, even casually, on anyone.
And, if you think he screwed up this situation--OK, but is it worth losing the House ? May I remind everyone that we...are...at...war. Is it worth blogswarming Hastert out of his Speakership, so that Pelosi can have it?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Hastert has called for an FBI probe of Foley. This means that all kinds of emails will be looked at, not just Foley's. My guess is that there are a number of Congressmen, including Dems, who are frantically searching through their email out boxes looking for "overly friendly" email messages they themselves have sent.
"People who live in glass houses shouldn't walk around naked."
anyone's hands at a given time does matter in regards to what was done when.
The initial emails were on the weird and creepy side, but they weren't exactly sexual in nature-just weird. I am not sure that a news organization would be acting wisely going with the story, if that is all they had.
I also don't think there is much leadership could have done, if that one email was all there was.
The question is who had the IMs and when, and if the recent publishing of them was the first time they were revealed, or if somebody was aware of them. The IMs are where the sexual stuff was going on.
The fact that Mr. Foley was engaging in this behavior with underage children
Unless there is more to this story than we have learned so far, there were no "underage children" involved.
I think in most places 16 is underage... I'm sure I read that in one of the reports.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats: when a Democrat has this sort of stuff come out against them, they continue acting like nothing has happened. However, Hastert and the rest of the GOP House leadership, barring some information that we don't know, appears to have botched the handling of this debacle pretty badly.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
Read smagar's post below (which was about the same time)... that seems to be a satisfactory answer to me.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
with whom Foley exchanged IMs, after Foley spoke of his anatomy, asked him to slow down as he was not yet 18. Foley said that he knows this, but he still wanted to fantasize.
One child had to break off the IM session because, if I recall, his mother wanted him to study for his AP History exam.
If Foley had been communicating with an undercover agent who allowed him to think something might happen, he might be in prison right now.
But saying the word "child" repeatedly does not make it any more true. It has a specific legal meaning and the people involved here do not meet it.
It's perfectly legal for a severteen year old to engage in actual sex, let alone in sexual chat online.
Jon is saying that to be 'underage' you have to under a specific age. That is hardly the evasive Clintonian claptrap you are citing.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Perhaps if you stopped contorting to defend this guy you would notice that the law in Florida is 18, unless the adult is under 24 years of age.
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm
He committed a crime, assuming he did indeed have sex with a 16 year old.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
(and I don't mean you, Erick), look at this from this morning's National Review Corner:
Some points the Speaker's office emphasized on the Foley matter:
* No one in Leadership knew about these Instant Messages. They did not surface until Friday. They were not part of any of this concern expressed from Rep. Alexander's office and the instant messages are apparently with an entirely different person. (People generally do not understand the difference between emails and instant messages — there is not a permanent record of an instant message unless someone prints it out.)
* Also, the family who contacted Rep. Alexander did not want the emails shared but said they were not sexual.
* The Leadership very quickly did [an] internal review once they learned of these instant messages on Friday and have responded very quickly on this entirely new, unknown and entirely indefensible information in the instant messages.
And, double emphasis on: "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."
From what I see, Hastert is claiming that he didn't fully comprehend the true nature of what Foley was doing, nor did anyone warn him.
Hastert is a busy man. The buck stops with him, but no one waved a red flag in his face, indicating there was real trouble.
If Hastert really knew about the true nature of Foley's activities, then why wouldn't he have arranged for the GOP to run a candidate against him in the primary? Why leave Foley, with this ticking time bomb sitting in his closet, sitting around, just waiting for a Dem/MSMer to punch the detonation switch. If he really knew, it doesn't make sense.
Before we start a blogswarm that the Dems and MSM will gleefully feed, consider the consequences. If Hastert is forced from his leadership position so close to the election, the resulting stink can then easily give the Dems the edge they need to take the House.
THAT means a Speaker Pelosi, and Ways&Means Chairman Rangel (who will sneakily starve the GWOT of funding), and Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers and his impeachment extravaganza.
If Speaker Hastert really knew how bad Foley was, and knowingly covered it up so the GOP could keep the House, I'd be inclined to believe that he should go, even if the GOP lost the House. But the evidence doesn't point to that. It points to a Speaker who didn't see any red flags, and unfortunately failed to follow up as aggressively as he should have.
That is NOT the same as a lie.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
If Hastert really knew about the true nature of Foley's activities, then why wouldn't he have arranged for the GOP to run a candidate against him in the primary?
What has never added up is if the leadership knew these details months ago, and knew the Democrats had the details as well, they would have never let it come to this. They would have known there was no way the Dems would sit on this and not spring it after it was too late to remove Foley's name from the ballot.
They never would have had to threaten a primary candidate. They would have told him to step down so the party can get a new candidate or they would really hang him out to dry.
"So, let's put some perspective on this. The Republicans should have run Mark Foley out of Congress last year. Some who we can reasonably presume are faithful to the party opposite, also knew about this information and had piles of information about it. Instead of also working to drive Mark Foley out of Congress a year ago, they held on to the information and waited until a month from the election.
In the process, a year went by without anything substantively being done and a man with a known predilection for young boys stayed in Congress. How those faithful to the party opposite handled this is as much an indicator of how they operate as how the GOP operates. The GOP operated as the party faithful to the institution, much as Speaker Hastert did in the William Jefferson matter -- putting Members of Congress first. The Democrats operated just as they are operating with the war -- play politics with smears, but offer nothing substantive to make any of us, including House pages, safer."
Thank you Erick.
Since the typical Red State commenter seemingly gets all his news from Democratic Underground and the NYT, let me suggest some other sources that should be considered in the interests of balance.
Tom Maguire, not normally considered a shill for the GOP.
Clarice Feldman, at the American Thinker.
Hasterts statement, which would seemingly be the most significant piece of information in all this.
Let his doubters read the statement, point out the areas which they think are lies, and then stand up, go on record, and call the Speaker a liar.
Don't insinuate it. SAY IT! The Speaker has gone on record. Those who think he is LYING to us should do so as well.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I’ve been reading the arguments here about the entire sorry affair related to indefensible actions of Congressman Foley. They seem to fall neatly into what can only be assumed are Quisling arguments.
Argument #1
Well the page was of legal consent age in Washington, so no law was broken. It may have been slimy, and creepy, but no crime was committed.
To those that hold this point of view, I would ask that if you have 16 year old or 14 year old in some states living in your house, please post the personal email of these children here on RS. I’m sure using your standard you would welcome any future communications from Congressman Foley, now that his supply of pages has dried up.
Of course a snark and I am not serious.
Argument #2
Variations on the theme of, well if this was a Democrat, or this was a RINO, or some other variation on the idea that because this sort of thing has happened in the past, it’s not that big a deal.
This is the same argument that Rapist, Wife Beaters, and other abusers use.
They asked for it, or she provoked me, or I had a bad day. No means No, hitting your wife or child is wrong full stop. A person in power hitting on a lower ranking person in an organization is not only wrong, it may qualify as Sexual Harassment. There is no mainstream Conservative or Liberal position that I am aware of that thinks otherwise.
Argument #3
Well this is bad, but the media is all to blame for exposing it. They waited until an election before exposing the scandal and its all part of Liberal Media plan to sweep Republicans from power.
Heck yes the media is mostly Liberal, and a politician who does something that can be exposed in a sensational splashy news release, resulting in the sale of more of your product, and by the way advance a political position you believe in, you will go for it every time, Liberal or Conservative. This is the nature of the 24/7 news spin cycle and is never going to change. Outside interest groups on both side of the ditch are always looking for a club to hit the other side over the head with, and there are always news agencies willing to help, on either side of the ditch.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I guess that's the favored term of the extremists in our party.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
If so, why don't you try to make it.
The quislings, or course, were a Norwegian fifth column which assisted the Nazis aganst the Norwegians, by spreading lies and disinformation. Hmm, which people here are engaging in that sort of activity?
Still waiting on your posting of some of those email addresses, it's not such a big deal according to you. No law will have been broken, which is the important thing....right?
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
seem like a serious commenter.
Lets recap. You are on record as hoping that the GOP is defeated in the November election. You are also on record as longing for the day when the religious right is defeated and the "moderates" take back theur party. It's impossible not to see your attacks on the party as simply more of the same.
I'd ask you for some evidence that Foley was in touch with some fourteen year old as you slyly insinuate above, but we both know I'd get nothing but evasion in response. In typical troll fashion, your mission is to spread false information. Once its out there you don't even try to back it up - thats really not neccessary from your standpoint.
The 14 year old comment was in regards to the age of consent in some states.
Hey are you here representing MBLA by the way? Seems you think this is no big deal.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Show off the intellect you think you have. Make a case for what exactly you think happened and what should have happened differently.
A very reasonable request, let me try to respond in kind.
Step 1
When a report of potentially improper behavior is received by any member of the leadership of ether party, ether ethical conduct or other conduct, the matter is formally reported under seal to the leadership of both parties of the House.
Step 2
The matter is formally, in writing referred to the House standing ethics committee for investigation and hearings if needed, behind closed door if they need to be. Even Congress Critters should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Step 3
A report on the matter is prepared for both parties leadership on the matter, the findings of fact and recommendation for action.
Step 4
An annual report to the public, with or without names of the referrals, reports and recommendations of the House Ethics committee.
We all know this would never work, as both parties are loath to follow the rules they impose on the humble citizen of this country, and are even more loathe to let the rubes back home know how corrupt they can be.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
What is a "report of potentially improper behavior"? You are simply saying that each party must tell the other of everything it knows about its own members. Leaving aside the question of whether this is a good idea on the merits, how could it be enforced? Would each member of party A be assigned a member of party B to follow him around 24/7?
We all know this would never work, as both parties are loath to follow the rules they impose on the humble citizen of this country
The humble citizens of this country are not subject to having their every action looked into by an ethics committee to determine whether those actions meet some ill-defined ethics standards, so I'm at a loss as to what you are trying to say here.
There was once a Nuclear strategy called Mutually Assured Destruction.
We could blow the USSR to the next dimension with our Nukes, they could do likewise. After a while everyone realized that MAD assured that we could kill each other, and that was about it. Our missle force is now as we speak not targeted on the former USSR, along with not having our bomber force on constant alert, SSBN's are still out there however.
I'd tend to think that Democrats and Republican leadership would see to it that MAD was not practiced using the power of ethics reporting, some would say it's gone there now as matter of fact.
Combined with a policy that if you wanted to cast stones, fine you can, but you have to put your name to it the stone would tend to make those throwing stones think hard before doing so.
But I tend to be idealistic about such things...silly me.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I have as much success in getting a response to a question from you as from poopyfacefromheck.
But I'll still ask them simply to illustrate the point.
I want Foley hung out to dry, and I want Hastert to start explaining himself, because so far I'm unimpressed - so understand my position in this debate before I say this: you will not use this forum to make even the suggestion that another poster is formally involved with a pedophilia advocacy group.
Have I made myself clear?
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I don't think that Hastert knew about the IMs. I do think that he let the matter drop prematurely; and that if he hadn't, he would have known about the IMs. And I think that he's trying to get past his error in judgement just a little too quickly.
Perhaps unfair, but he wanted the job.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Ask any supervisor in today's work place what they do if someone comes to them with a sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker, or worse yet a supervisor. Major minefield!
Even in the real workplace world, it's one heck of a challenge to do things right and not trample on the rights of the accused or the accuser, just think what it like in the parallel universe known as the House of Representatives.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I'm sorry if I'm misreading you, but I'm just wondering if you believe Hastert only knew about the "overfrienly" e-mail, or if you believe Hastert knew the more explicit material as well? What I mean is, is it your understanding that Hastert dropped the ball by not further investigating the initial claim, or do you think there is something more sinister (i.e. he knew or at least had heard something more explicit may have been taking place, yet still did nothing?)
I really don't know, and I don't know who does.
There's two potential lines here
1) Hastert knew about the emails for some time, discussed it with Foley, who stonewalled the extent of his perversion, and for a lot of reasons chalked the whole matter up to "Yuck" but not enough to create a problem in the caucus. There is concept of innocent until proven guilty, and don't go on a witch hunt with your homies and some political sensitivity about Foley's sexuality.
2) Hastert knew about the emails, found out more about the more purulent IM's for some substantial period of time, but did little (sin of omission), or actively worked to suppress the issue which would be the kiss of death for him.
Right now, I think #1 is the most likely scenario, but there's a high potential for a perception problem.
It's up to Hastert to take the offensive on the PR front on the issue, and it might take throwing Foley futher under the bus for the level of Clintonism obfuscation, and perhaps an admission of some degree of nativity on Hasterts part. In my book, it's OK to admit you were snookered by someone and because you think people are good by nature. I'd rather think my fellow man is moral most of the time than the opposite, makes life easier to live for me.
By PR offensive, I mean a full and open press conference by Hassert; have at me, ask me any question and I'll answer it no matter what the level of discomfort. Gonna sting a bit, but that might close the matter.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
#1 seems to be the most likely scenario. Certainly not something that instills confidence in the competency of leadership, but still much better than the alternative (e.g. if they had known of the more explicit comments but still did nothing).
Hastert needs to be open about everything he may have known beforehand. He could very easily hold a press conference, say something to the effect of, "Hey, we knew about the "overfriendly" e-mail. We told Foley to cut it out, and he lied to us when he said he had. In retrospect, we should have looked into the matter further, and will now work towards ways to make sure this never happens again, ...etc." Such a conference certainly couldn't hurt anything.
How would he have known about the IM's? Are you saying he should have ontained a warrant and gone through Foleys private correspondence? Because other than that I don't see how he could have found out. And on what grounds could he have obtained such a warrant? (Ignoring for now that the Speaker cannot get a warrant anyway.)
In other words, it's the same question as for Steve. What specifically do you think Hastert should have done, and on what specific grounds could and should he have done it?
...that Hastert let the matter drop too early. Assuming that the IMs in question are true - and the fact that Foley folded like a cheap ironing board when confronted with them is a powerful argument that they are - there was a history of bad behavior out there for people to find.
If you're looking for specifics: the assistant who first heard of the problem should have personally taken this to Hastert. Hastert should then have personally gone through the emails (keeping track of the behavior of his caucus is, as a practical matter, part of Hastert's job), and never mind what Congressman Alexander thought. Hastert's the Speaker and the head of the House GOP. After reading the emails, Hastert then should have contacted the page for the full details, and never mind what his family wanted (being responsible for the well-being of Congressional pages is part of Hastert's job). He then should have discreetly checked around and found out whether this was part of a larger pattern of questionable behavior - and I'm happy to bet that if he had, he would have found something. If, after all of this, Hastert then decided that it was nothing, he and we would be in a lot better shape today.
Instead, the matter was dropped. Bad call. Now we get a statement which does its best to shift any and all blame away from the Speaker in particular (and the GOP where convenient). Worse one.
look, a simple "I screwed this one up" from Hastert would go a long way to satisfy me, Jon. Because he did, and he needs to say so.
Moe
quickly, but Hastert had and has no right to subject their child to any sort of questioning in this matter without the parents knowledge or permission.
Now Hastert may have been in a position to call the cops and get them involved, but even then the parents could have stonewalled them, if they didn't want their son involved. There is a teacher who was having actual sex with an underage child/teen in I think Florida who walked, because the parents decided their child wasn't going to participate in the investigation and trial.
Now maybe there was some other avenue Hastert could have taken, but the emails were creepy, but not sexual, and I am not totally convinced they had enough to even move further at this point other than to maybe put more pressure on Foley, who it is clear was lying about what he was doing, in order to get him to come clean.
Let's do an analogy. Hastert's the principal, Foley's a teacher, the page is a kid that joined a student group that Foley's an advisor for. Another teacher tells the principal's secretary that there's some indication that the first teacher had sent the kid an overly familar email. The parents, however, don't want to make a scene.
What happens then?
This is the part where I look for an actual lawyer, because I don't know what the formal obligations are of Congress (and its officials) are towards those entering into the page program. But if it's anything like the above...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
That's a great analogy, but it seems to be more like a Texas town's football coach who got reported to the principle (apologies to all Texans in advance). The coach is one heck of a winning coach and the team is on a roll.
HS Football being the big deal it is in Texas, the Principle has one heck of a dilemma, that might just cost own job.
Do the right thing, some would say the moral thing, and he's going to get a whole bunch of folks mad, because they would rather win football games than worry about high minded principles, at least with the big game coming up.
And right now, the Principle is not talking a whole heck of a lot about what he did solve the problem.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
returned home and was no longer a Page, but an former one.
Also, I am not sure exactly what is legally done, with regards to guardianship for Pages, I am not really familiar with the program, but I suspect in matters of possible crimes, that actual parents would still be notified before any questioning was done at least on the part of the police.
I think where leadership may have failed here is more in why they don't appear to have interviewed any current Pages, although they may have, and just interviewed the wrong ones, or the Pages didn't want to admit they were participating in these conversations (because while Foley was quite out of line in his line of conversation, the IMs I read the kids weren't saying "shut up" but were conversing) out of fear of getting in trouble themselves-kids can and often do close ranks in cases like this-sometimes out of fear of getting in trouble, and in the case also because they were scared of the publicity.
Now with the story broken, one person doesn't have to feel so much like the whistle blower, and I actually suspect more Pages will come out of the woodwork on this issue, and I also wonder if at some point the former congressman's actions went beyond just emails.
And with regards to your question in a school situation, I imagine the teacher doesn't get fired without the cooperation of the child and the parents-especially if the teacher through the union threatened suit. The school, if the teacher didn't hold tenure, might opt to just not renew the contract at the end of the year, but I don't see a successful firing.
keeping track of the behavior of his caucus is, as a practical matter, part of Hastert's job
So you are now taking the position that keeping tabs on GOP House members sex lives is Hasterts job? I can't agree.
The revelation that Foley is gay might have been enough to sink him in a Republican district, and that may have been all the media was hoping to gain here. Would you be comfortable with Hastert drumming all secretly gay GOP House members out of the party? After all, they are a potential source of lost seats. Suppose we expand it to include all House members who engage in any sexual activity which might be deemed embarrassing to the party?
I think if Hastert engaged in the activity which many here are calling for, he would be slammed for being overly moral, having a disgusting interest in other peoples sex lives, and not being sensitive to other peoples privacy.
But if Rep. Hastert doesn't want the headaches that come with being Speaker of the House, he doesn't actually have to keep the job. And I'm the RiNO, remember? It's 'high school student' that's got me ticked on this sorry mess, not 'same-sex'. Foley wanted to truck around Key West in chaps, a Segway and a whipped cream gun... that's his business, as long as he was checking IDs. He's not in trouble for being gay; he's in trouble for allegedly discussing his desire to masturbate a high school student.
Again, a simple "I screwed this up" would do wonders for me wrt Hastert right now.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
What do you base this "desire to mastubate a high school student" on? Do you know the age of the person on the other end of the IM's? (Who seems to be going along with Foley)
'Here' being the alleged text. Page 4/5 for the masturbation part; Page 6 for the bit where the kid goes off to do AP History (that would be the High School part). In other words, I think that it's safe to assume that Foley wasn't allegedly cybering a college student. Partciularly since the guy's already, you know, gone from Congress and all that.
We're going round in circles, here. That's no doubt all my fault, but I'm seeing no real point in discussing this further.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
of the Pages involved (it is my understanding that the IMs were from a different Page than the emails, but I may be wrong).
I think Foley should resign, and I think he should be prosecuted if a crime has been committed (and it looks like at least a Federal crime has been, although the FBI and state authorities will have to work that out).
I also think an "I wish we had done more" type statement from Hastert would be nice, but what I am not convinced of at this point is that they were actively trying to hide something-from what I have seen to date, it looks like Hastert didn't even see the more inocuous, but weird email that was sent, but had them described to him.
I think at this point there are still a lot of questions, and it is too soon to be tossing Hastert under the bus for this (although I admit here that Hastert has left me less than impressed with his leadership, and I wouldn't mind seeing a change in leadership, I just am not convinced this is the reason to do it). If more evidence comes out, and it turns out he knew much more than we thought, then we can entertain the resignation thoughts again, but I think we are expecting Hastert to either be Columbo or psychic, and I don't think he was either.
I also wonder just how much power he has to investigate here.
Seems to me where the ball was dropped the most wasn't in Hastert's lap, but in the Page boards. While Hastert may not have had much authority to look into the problems, the Page board certainly should have had some authority to do so. Also, I am bothered by the fact that there have been some statements made that incoming Pages were warned off from Foley-if this was the case, why wasn't the Page board putting a stop to it? And this isn't a GOP problem, but a congressional one, if this is the case.
that if, as John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes it, "Hastert's office 'referred the matter to the authorities last fall,'", then this is much ado about nothing. Let's just get the quoted "authorities" to give us the lowdown on the Speaker's referral. Then all these lefty trolls, blogs, C.R.E.W., ABC News, Slate, etc. etc. can try wiping all that egg off their faces.
The rhetoric was indeed to much...
Sorry
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Foley knew everything and he let the GOP down big time. I have a hard time with the idea that Hastert and Boehner were using the first 3 arguments in the decision making processes.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I tend to think if Hastert and Boehner dropped the ball at all on this, it was not as much from trying to protect one of their own but from being ill prepared to deal with this sort of situation and a bit of the yuck factor.
After all, what would sort of training would a Congressman have to know what the proper way to handle this sort of allegation is? Ask any supervisor what they do if they have an allegation of sexual harassment at work and you'll find it entails many trips to HR, and to the lawyers. Combine that with what appears to be Congressman Foley's stonewalling and you got one heck of a trap there.
For Hastert and Co to survive, they have to come out publicly, tell what they know, what the did and if in hindsight realize that they may have made a mistake, say so.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I really do put the blame for this on Foley. I understand what you are saying about Hastert and Boehner needing to prove their roles with respect to digging. I also think Foley and his staff were stonewalling and spinning everything about this sordid episode to the max. It is not a slam dunk to always ferret out the truth about these things.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Your position is actually very simple when analysed, and seems to be this:
1. The law doesn't matter because SteveLA thinks the law should be different. The fact that Congress doesn't is irrelevant. What does it have to do with them?
2. It is Denny Hastert's responsibility to know everything about the private life of all Congressmen, and he is responsible if any of them offend against the law, as defined by SteveLA.
By the way, have you actually let him know what the age of consent ought to be? It is a bit unfair to expect him to implement the law, as defined by you, if you haven't told him what it is.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Let's change the subject.
Let's talk about how what the Media did was just as bad, if not worse.
Let's talk about what the Democrats are likely to do if they get in power.
Let's talk about how, tactically, this isn't that bad to lose him because he didn't consistently vote the way we'd like.
Doctor Dobson will probably be no help on this issue, his "because of you" page has a letter that begins "A few days ago, I called your 800 number to order information on pornography, specifically resources that would help our teenage son who is struggling with material on the Internet." Goodness only knows whether this is a veiled attack on the House Republicans who may have been cybering their child (who, if he was sixteen, is really more of a "young man" and should be able to make his own decisions regarding his sexual habits).
Am I right folks? Let's get on message:
It's not "What Foley did was bad."
It's "What Foley did was bad, but"
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
If we sit for a week and mutter about how bad Foley was, it's not as though the Democrats will join us and have a moratorium on that whole federal election coming.
So that's just how it works. There are more pressing issues at hand than a single weirdo EX-congressman.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
1. "Perfectly legal" is incorrect. Age of consent in FL is 18, and at least one of the E-mails was sent from Palm Beach, FL. Now, the argument could be whether what appeared in those emails constituted a crime, solicitation for sex. Some things point in that direction, for example the reference about "what great shape he is in." But, consent age in FL is definitely 18 (since the other party in this is well over 23.) The fact that the page in question wrote "Sick, sick, sick...." 13 times under one of the emails does not make an imaginary red flag appear above any of YOUR heads????
2. It appears that pages were warned to not associate with Foley as early as 2001. I am sorry, but that is a huge red flag right there. You don't WARN 16-year old pages about associating with a Congressman without there being a very good reason to do so. That email we are all talking about here was from last November. The IMs in question were from 2003. Something else occured in 2001 to prompt those warnings in 2001. Something severe enough to make the warnings happen. What? And who knew about it?
3. Hastert first claimed he knew nothing about anything. The next thing you read two days ago was that only a staffer in Hastert's office heard about the email matter, it never reached Hastert. Then yesterday Reynolds contradicted Hastert and claims that he directly told Hastert. To that Hastert's office replied that he neither admits nor denies knowledge of it, but that he has no reason to not believe what Reynolds was saying. The story changed too much, depending on what was said, for my taste.
Conclusion:
I am not buying that the over-friendly email was all there was to this story for Hastert. The fact that the kid who received the emails considered them extremely sick and also that word about Foley being a predator was going around in Page circles for a very long time makes the tepid reaction to the email in hand seem ridiculous. You don't just let someone else deal with this and rely on the suspected person himself to tell you that there was nothing to it. At the very least rethink the chairmanship for the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus, for cripes sakes.
1. This is correct, but Florida's law against solicitation would only apply if either the sender or the recipient of the message was in Florida at the time. So far, it seems like neither would be the case. But we really don't know yet.
2. The person who claimed there was a "warning" changed his story when talking to the NYT, saying no warning was ever given.
3. I agree that it seems very odd that Hastert wouldn't remember having seen e-mails like this and talking to Foley about them. I can't imagine forgetting having seen those emails, even the innocuous ones, no matter how busy I was.
"Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank
I don't believe we serve the cause, or ourselves, by lashing out at the media as a response to Mark Foley and to the failure of our leadership to deal with him. What happened is bad. It's bad enough that a Republican congressman was a pervert, and an idiot to boot, but the reactions of Mssrs. Boehner and Hastert were very questionable and we have to admit it.