Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Walking the walk
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, September 30, 2006

John Aravosis is upset (perhaps correctly) that Republicans leaders did not notify authorities as soon as they heard about Rep. Foley's email conversations:
"Next time someone tells you one of your friends is soliciting sex with a minor, do something about it."
Yes. Somebody should definitely ask why people who heard about this months ago did not report it:
"I received copies of these emails several months ago, but couldn't confirm their veracity so I did not report on them." — John Aravosis, Americablog
Did Aravosis turn this over to the FBI or local law enforcement?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Bait and switch. The emails did not contain any sex solicitations. By themselves, they were one of those things that could be read one way or could be read another.

The IM discussions, on the other hand, are obviously an adult man coming on to a young boy.

I have not seen any indication that they had any prior knowledge of the IM discussions, only of the emails.

Not to say I think they handled it well. Not at all. I wish they had looked at this sooner, and I wish we had all looked at Foley sooner (although that is hard to do in the culture of don’t ask don’t tell in which we live). I am glad that he got nailed, and I hope that those who provided cover for him get nailed as well.

But let’s not jump to conclusions about who knew what. They said they were aware of the emails. There is no indication they were aware of the IMs.

If they were aware of those, I hope they end up in jail, not just out of office.
 
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://redstate.com
OH,OH,oh
First, I learn that there are lapses of ethics in
Congress, and now you tell me even bloggers are susceptible!!
Before I faint, one question: Isn’t there something a bit awry in a culture where even something like this is discussed in potlitical terms?
Do we really need to concentrate on 1) the politcal fallout and 2) which party is more ethically challenged in its response - even before it’s widely known what exactly happened?

-Okay, that was two questions.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Two good questions, Laime.

Let’s wait to slap on the tracking-collar until we know the full story. Heck. The kid might have come on to him.

I was pretty randy when I was 17.
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Let’s wait to slap on the tracking-collar until we know the full story. Heck. The kid might have come on to him.
Uh, so what???

If a 15 year old girl came on to me it would not make it okay for me to reciprocate... jeez

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Another red herring, McQ?

Without conceding any point you attempt to make, what your point seems to be here is that whatever Arovosis did is comparable to what the House leadership did.

As if Arovosis is some kind of public offical a few steps away from the presidency.

And yet, just this week, when I pointed out that whatever Keith Olberman said, it was minor compared to what right wing pundits have said, you cried red herring. B*tch*d and moaned if I recall.

Hre is what you said:
Ah you’re back with the old "but the right did it" defense.

How freakin’ predictable. What, is this red herring 1,340 or 1,341 that MK’s thrown out here? They’ve been coming so fast and furious lately I may have lost count.
So your back with the old "but Arovosis did it" defense.

And then, in this post, you have the audacity to suggest that Arovosis is unprincipled.

Did you cut the page out of your dictionary that defines "irony"?

How freakin’ predictable.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Without conceding any point you attempt to make, what your point seems to be here is that whatever Arovosis did is comparable to what the House leadership did.
"Irony" is just not a word found in your vocabulary, is it MK?

Heh ... so you throw out another red herring about red herrings. A twofer.
How freakin’ predictable.
But it is nice to see I got to you. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s a telling sign of your lack of a moral compass, McQ, that you what you apparently find most noteworthhy item about this story to be whether some obscure blogger received copies of emails in connection with this case. Putting aside the blogger’s inability to confirm their provenance, how in the world is this even worth note at this point?

Read Captain Ed. He at least seems to have a conscience.

So this is what it comes down to in the end. A right wing so desperate to hang on to power that it will protect a pedophile to do so. And bloggers who, rather than calling out the public officials who protected and concealed a pedophiliac, will instead go after a liberal blogger who had absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Wow. The mind reels.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The age of consent in DC is sixteen. While Foley’s actions are disgusting, they comprise something of a Lewinsky situation without the perjury (misuse of a subordinate) rather than a crime. Contrast Foley’s treatment to how Democrats leapt to the defense of Gerry Studds, who had non-internet sex with House pages. The Democrats defended him, let him keep his committee chairmanship, and he stayed in Congress until he retired.

chsw10605
 
Written By: chsw10605
URL: http://
It’s a telling sign of your lack of a moral compass, McQ, that you what you apparently find most noteworthhy item about this story to be whether some obscure blogger received copies of emails in connection with this case.
Nope. Blogged about Foley’s resignation yesterday.

Did you miss that MK?
Wow. The mind reels.
I’ve never seen a time yours didn’t MK. You ought to stay away from a keyboard when that’s going on.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
bloggers who, rather than calling out the public officials who protected and concealed a pedophiliac, will instead go after a liberal blogger who had absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Perhaps you missed the "perhaps correctly" part of the post. It’s still far from clear exactly how much the leadership knew and what they did about that, but that possibility and its implications are acknowledged in the post.

I don’t think anybody disagrees about this: once it was determine that Foley was soliciting sex (in the later-released messages), rather than simply being creepy (in the initially released messages), the only proper course is to notify authorities and imprison Foley.

In any event, you don’t seem to be supporting Aravosis’ failure to take action. Which was the point. If it makes you feel better, I’m quite sure that everybody on this blog would condemn any Republican leader who had the full evidence of what happened and failed to act. If they only had the emails that Aravosis had, then perhaps that wasn’t enough evidence to take concrete steps. Or perhaps it was...but that has implications of its own.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
So your back with the old "but Arovosis did it" defense.
I don’t see anyone defending Foley. He’s obviously a creep, and he’s going away now. What’s to defend?
It’s a telling sign of your lack of a moral compass, McQ, that you what you apparently find most noteworthhy item about this story to be whether some obscure blogger received copies of emails in connection with this case.
It’s a telling sign of your moral compass that you can’t make the connection between Aravosis (who is not an obscure blogger) throwing stones at someone sitting on the very same information that he sat on, likely for the same reason.

Oh, but Aravosis is a lefty, so he’s pure of heart, mind, soul and deed, whereas Republicans are all dirty, nasty and evil. So, even though he’s a rabid gay marriage activist, when he makes the trip to New York to gladhand the guy who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, they both get to wear halos, huh mk?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Jon,
One of the problems is that Congress is supposed to be able to investigate itself. Remember the whole Bill Jefferson thing, where members of both parties raised a stink about the FBI investigated a Congressman for corruption? Whatever Aravosis thinks of the separation of powers argument, clearly the House leadership should know its own responsibilities. The emails were shady. On their own they should have raised suspicions. A follow-up investigation by the House leadership would have led them to the seemier emails. Whether the House leadership saw the seemier emails and failed to act, or simply never bothered to investigate, they are at fault.
 
Written By: Elrod
URL: http://
The age of consent in DC is sixteen. While Foley’s actions are disgusting, they comprise something of a Lewinsky situation without the perjury (misuse of a subordinate) rather than a crime.
Part of the sick irony of this is that it’s only potentially a crime due to legislation that Foley himself pushed through to make it a crime to use the internet to make make sexual advances to those under the age of _18_. Of course, the ridiculousness of the situation where it’s a crime to use the internet to discuss sex but not to actually have sex with a 16 or 17 year old is a topic for another time.

Discussions of criminality aside, the more that comes out, the more clear it is that Foley was at very least a scumbag.
 
Written By: Yorvium
URL: http://
The age of consent in DC is sixteen. While Foley’s actions are disgusting, they comprise something of a Lewinsky situation without the perjury (misuse of a subordinate) rather than a crime.
And of course the Lewinsky situation was a big nothing, no big deal at all to Republicans.

Aren’t Republicans the one’s who accuse liberals of moral relativism?

And by the way, perjury IS a crime, and Clinton did not commit perjury. Unless of course you can show me any evidence that Clinton was found guilty of prejury in a court of law or in a Senate trial. (hint, no charges were brought and the Senate acquitted) If you can’t, then it is NO DIFFERENT than saying that Foley raped little boys than it is saying Clinton committed perjury, both are theorized, neither has been found to be true. The only difference is that the Clinton case is closed, Foley’s is just opening.

Oy vey.





 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Clinton did not commit perjury
You’re right. He was found guilty of contempt of court for his "willful failure" to tell the truth and making "intentionally false" statements in deposition testimony. But he was never legally found guilty of perjury. Split hairs much?

Oy vey, indeed.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And of course the Lewinsky situation was a big nothing, no big deal at all to Republicans.
Yep, Republicans wanted Clinton out of office—like he should have been—and Foley’s gone. Too bad we can’t say that about Clinton.
"Clinton did not commit perjury"
Yes he did. He wasn’t convicted for it, but yes he did.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
You’re right. He was found guilty of contempt of court for his "willful failure" to tell the truth and making "intentionally false" statements in deposition testimony. But he was never legally found guilty of perjury. Split hairs much?
Right, JWG. He also accepted and paid fines, and was disbarred from Arkansas to the SCOTUS for lying in court proceedings. But you can’t prove he did anything! Plus, he’s been out on the golf course, looking for the real perjurers.
If you can’t, then it is NO DIFFERENT than saying that Foley raped little boys than it is saying Clinton committed perjury, both are theorized, neither has been found to be true.
Cap, have you ever tried putting a little bit of Loctite on those screws of yours, and then tightening them up? I think it’s worth a try.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Cap, have you ever tried putting a little bit of Loctite on those screws of yours
The red goop, not the blue goop.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
The real issue isn’t so much Foley, it is the House Republican leadership stood by while knowing that this man was approaching kids working in the Capital!!

Ask yourself, if you knew a colleage at work was coming on to a highschool intern, would you standby?

For the Republicans that court the "family values" theme, this is one more notch on the belt of hypocracy. Foley is sick, which usually happens to men if they stay closeted into their 50’s and 60’s. Sexual behaviour is Washington has always been sleazy and great gossip. This is not just a sexual escapade in the long line of Washington antics.

Foley preyed on teenagers. Clinton cannot be compared to Foley at all. Monica was an adult who knew damn well what she was doing. But what is your answer to the fact that a family values, conservative, Bible thumping Republican leadership allowed Foley to continue?
 
Written By: Mike Tracy
URL: http://
Guys,
Check out Tom Maguire’s September 30th thread on Foley (third post down today).

In the comments, Charlie(Colorado) cleverly weaves a thread through the tangle of differing state-statutes governing sex with minors, marriage of minors, and prowlers on internet chat rooms.

When he wraps a stray loop around online sting-operations (prowling, burly cops posing like sultry 15-year olds on AOL), he winds up with an hilarious knot.
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Nope. Blogged about Foley’s resignation yesterday.

Did you miss that MK?
The story isn’t mainly Foley’s resignation, or did you miss that? Just like Watergate wasn’t really about a burgilary. The story is the coverup. You dedicate two words in parentheses alluding to a possible coverup. You then spend the rest of your post going after Aravosis.

Again, it would seem that you consider this to be the most noteworthy aspect of the coverup. Otherwise, I presume, you would not have blogged about it before blogging about other aspects of the coverup. That was my point, or did you moss that?
In any event, you don’t seem to be supporting Aravosis’ failure to take action. Which was the point. If it makes you feel better, I’m quite sure that everybody on this blog would condemn any Republican leader who had the full evidence of what happened and failed to act. If they only had the emails that Aravosis had, then perhaps that wasn’t enough evidence to take concrete steps. Or perhaps it was...but that has implications of its own.
Again, this is not about some obscure blogger who was forwarded emails that anyone could have created. Aravosis representes .00000000001% of the story. It’s clear that one or more people in the GOP leadership aren’t telling the truth about what happened here because they are saying mutually contradictory things at this point about who knew what when and who was told what when.

If two men say they are Jesus, one of them must be lying.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
They are all hypocrites. This is another case of Republican family values. Republicans tend to prey on minors for sex, while Democrats stick to consensual adults. The religious right continues to support the Republican Party, I’ll never understand why.
 
Written By: Father of three
URL: http://
McQ (and Jon!):

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Aravosis received copies of emails but says he couldn’t confirm their veracity. By that I presume he means he couldn’t determine if they were genuine. He did the responsible thing by not reporting on them.

The Republican leadership, on the other hand, presumably knew that the emails were genuine, and at the very least could have readily determined if they were. They also had the capacity to meaningfully investigate and act on the matter, something Aravosis clearly didn’t.

So this post makes zero sense. Aravosis’ actions and that of the GOP House leadership, to borrow a line from Pulp Fiction, ain’t in the same ballpark, ain’t in the same league, ain’t even the same f—kin’ sport.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
You’re right. He was found guilty of contempt of court for his "willful failure" to tell the truth and making "intentionally false" statements in deposition testimony. But he was never legally found guilty of perjury. Split hairs much?
No one is EVER "found guilty" of Contempt of Court, it is a power that judges have to coerce cooperation, which in this case was used punitively.

Clinton admitted, "I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

So let’s look at the comparison here in which Clinton’s actions were deemed to be WORSE than Foley’s...
The age of consent in DC is sixteen. While Foley’s actions are disgusting, they comprise something of a Lewinsky situation without the perjury (misuse of a subordinate) rather than a crime.
In a civil suit against Clinton by Paula Jones, in which the case was found by this same judge to be without merit, Clinton attmepted to hide a consensual relationship between himself and another adult.

And Foley, who was doing AT LEAST what we already know he was doing.

Yeah, I am the one splitting hairs. (sarcasm)

Sad

Cap


 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
"Clinton did not commit perjury"

Yes he did. He wasn’t convicted for it, but yes he did.
Bush committed the murder of 100,000 Iraqi’s.

He wasn’t convicted of it, but he did it.

You see how that works?

Stick with Contempt of Court, though he was not "Found guilty" he was in fact "held in contempt of court".

Like you people are fond of saying, words mean things.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Bush committed the murder of 100,000 Iraqi’s.

He wasn’t convicted of it, but he did it.

You see how that works?
I see how you think it works.

President Bush, in accordance with the laws of the nation and by the power vested in him by a AUMF passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress, undertakes a fully justified war to remove Saddam Hussein from power. This was prosecuted by several hundred thousand American servicemen. This in one impossible to verify study conducted by people who are are ideologically his opponents supposedly resulted in the deaths of 100,000 civilians—and that is somehow a worse thing than the sanctions which were killing tens of thousands per year, had been in place for over a decade, and which could not be safely lifted until Hussein and company were gone.

And this makes President Bush a murderer to only the warped minds of moonbats.

President Clinton, however, admitted to lying his butt off to a grand jury—which by definition is perjury. This is explcitly a crime, and he did it just to save his own butt.

And it’s no big deal, again, only to moonbats.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
In a civil suit against Clinton by Paula Jones, in which the case was found by this same judge to be without merit, Clinton attmepted to hide a consensual relationship between himself and another adult.
If Clinton hadn’t lied, it might have been found to have merit. We won’t know, because he with his party’s support succeeded in obstructing justice.
"And Foley, who was doing AT LEAST what we already know he was doing."
And knowing what we know he knew, Hastert neither put any child in danger nor attempted to obstruct justice. He did about what he could with the information he had, which was that Foley was sending non-sexual emails to this ex-page and the family wanted him to stop.

So he told Foley to stop.

CREW, the out-of-Soros’-pocket group that sprung the IM’s—this Democratic party front group had evidence of a crime and a danger of molestation to children, and they alerted no-one but the media and that after sitting on the info for months until the release was more advantageous to the Democrats.

Who’s being despicable?

Oh, duh, the Democrats.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
let’s look at the comparison here in which Clinton’s actions were deemed to be WORSE than Foley’s
I don’t think it really matters which is worse. They were both unethical and undeserving of their public positions.

However, I fail to see how you’re going to compare lewd electronic messages with actual physical contact. And when Foley’s actions became public, he resigned. What did Clinton do? Oh yeah, he fought it tooth and nail and lied to the public on national TV and to the courts (but at least he didn’t commit perjury). Yet, Clinton is viewed as a hero to many on the Left.

Is anyone on the Right claiming Foley is being railroaded? As far as I can see, everyone agrees that the guy should not serve in Congress and should possibly be prosecuted.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And it’s no big deal, again, only to moonbats.
It wasn’t the moonbats (I love that word) who brought up a 10 year old case involving an adult man and an adult woman having consensual sex, albeit aldulterous, and then trying to hide it during testimony in a frivolous sexual harassment lawsuit that was found to be without merit (and still would have been without merit if it were known that Clinton were having consensual sex with an adult woman) in comparison to a grown man making sexually explicit conversation over the internet with children.

It’s funny, I have a feeling that 50 years from now if some Republican wrecks his car other Republicans will somehow manage to bring up Clinton.

And you call us moonbats.
And this makes President Bush a murderer to only the warped minds of moonbats
.

I don’t consider Bush a murdered, just an awful, awful President, but the point is that you are reaching, the fact that you are willing to argue that you don’t have to reach as far is entertaining, but one is either guilty in the legal sense or not. Neither Bush nor Clinton are. If you want to state that he is guilty is some other sense, then the Bush accusation would be just as valid.

Have fun with your RNC sexual predator 4 weeks before midterms, good luck trying to make the Clinton comparisons with voters (who like Clinton a LOT more than they do Bush).
CREW, the out-of-Soros’-pocket group that sprung the IM’s—this Democratic party front group had evidence of a crime and a danger of molestation to children, and they alerted no-one but the media and that after sitting on the info for months until the release was more advantageous to the Democrats.
This one is beautiful. Ignore the predator, ignore the party who protected the predator, focus on who released the evidence that there is a predator.

I can’t wait to see Hannity and O’Reilly pushing that one. (and they will)


 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Whoa, Cap’n!

Reef’s below!!

Do you really know enough about Foley to call him a "predator?" The way you’re talkin’ it sounds as if, based on one ABC news story and what some blogger said, you’d shoot him as soon as pass him on the turn-pike.

Just like an Idaho rancher would shoot at, say, a coyote. Just ’cuz, it’s, well, a "predator."

It’s a tad inhuman of ya, Cap’n. I know you’re just being sarcastic, and that’s a groovy schtick for a day or two (a week max!), but please wait until the facts make it past the media-filters before you draw and quarter this guy.

Hoist the jib and unfurl the Bar Maids, Cap’n!
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Do you really know enough about Foley to call him a "predator?"
Let me put it this way...

If he had sent those messages to my son, I would have kicked the living sh*t out of him.

What the courts did to him after that would be in the hands of the justice system.

What we KNOW is BAD... that won’t get better. If it get’s worse, I may reassess what my personal action might have been.

The only defense he could have would be that he didn’t do it, and that’s not what he’s saying.

Sexuality between adults and children is something that I just don’t have much tolerance for.

And by the way, the age of consent in DC may be 16, but if a person more than 4 years older has sexual relations with a person under the age 18, it is rape. But again, we have no idea if there was any physical contact, so on that point, I will consider that it did not happen until or unless we learn otherwise.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
It wasn’t the moonbats (I love that word) who brought up a 10 year old case involving an adult man and an adult woman having consensual sex, albeit aldulterous, and then trying to hide it during testimony in a frivolous sexual harassment lawsuit that was found to be without merit (and still would have been without merit if it were known that Clinton were having consensual sex with an adult woman)
Spoken as a lawyer, no doubt. One that handles sexual harassment cases at that.

Even stipulating that what you say is true, then why did President Clinton lie while under oath?

Or are oaths worthless to the left?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Strawmen flying around here thick and fast. Obviously, Rep. Foley hitting on kids of the same gender is a lot more radioactive than ordinary sexual harrassment, and Clinton’s affair per se wasn’t illegal whereas Foley’s conduct was.

I second Anonymous Liberal - journalists and oppo groups of any kind can’t make allegations based on correspondance alone against a sitting representative, if they are not in a position to find out the truth and not able to get 100% certainty. And they weren’t. Please see Rathergate on the need to be cautious about such things. Dick Hastert, as Rep. Foley’s boss and the boss of everyone around him, was in a position to find out the truth for certain, and at minimum, he displayed a very stupid lack of interest in a very explosive problem. And now it may cost him. And he *was* warned.


 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
CREW, the out-of-Soros’-pocket group that sprung the IM’s—this Democratic party front group had evidence of a crime and a danger of molestation to children, and they alerted no-one but the media and that after sitting on the info for months until the release was more advantageous to the Democrats.

Tom, it was lovely to find you dead wrong.

UPDATE VII: This is an overlooked though critical fact — when the group known as CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics) received copies of the Foley e-mails over the summer, they reported them to the FBI. From the original AP article on this story:


The e-mails were posted Friday on the Web site of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington after ABC News reported their existence.

Naomi Seligman, a spokeswoman for CREW, said the group also sent a letter to the FBI after it received the e-mails. CREW did not post their copies of the e-mail until ABC News reported them, instead waiting for the investigation.


It was shameful of you to push this off on the accusers anyway, but fact-check it next time.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
You know, reading the comments on this thread... I am feeling really bad that I have had comments removed from this internet magazine. Guess one must chalk it up to personal preferences. And that is a good thing.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
"...and then trying to hide it during testimony in a frivolous sexual harassment lawsuit that was found to be without merit..."

So what was the $850,000 settlement for?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

CREW, the out-of-Soros’-pocket group that sprung the IM’s...

Tom, it was lovely to find you dead wrong.

UPDATE VII: This is an overlooked though critical fact — when the group known as CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics) received copies of the Foley e-mails over the summer, they reported them to the FBI. From the original AP article on this story:


The e-mails were posted Friday on the Web site of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington after ABC News reported their existence.

Naomi Seligman, a spokeswoman for CREW, said the group also sent a letter to the FBI after it received the e-mails. CREW did not post their copies of the e-mail until ABC News reported them, instead waiting for the investigation.
Glasnost, do you know the difference between email and IM?
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
Studds, Barney Frank, Clinton, JFK, Foley, maybe we should make these guys be chemically castrated before they can serve office.

Oh, yeah, I’m sure I forgot a few.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
glasnost,
Dick Hastert, as Rep. Foley’s boss and the boss of everyone around him, was in a position
Back to civics class with ye, Laddy!
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
"It wasn’t the moonbats (I love that word) who brought up a 10 year old case...blah, blah, blah...in comparison to a grown man making sexually explicit conversation over the internet with children"
Justice delayed is justice denied. What did CREW know and when did they know it?

Funny how you keep on saying it was consensual, when the laws Clinton was supposed to upholding—not breaking—stated a legal presumption should exist that it is not. Also funny when you don’t know one way or the other.
"I don’t consider Bush a murdered[sic]murderer[/sic], just an awful, awful President, but the point is that you are reaching,"
If you don’t think he’s a murderer, why did you say it? You have a strange, incompetent way of making your points. You see, the thing is, a moonbat claiming Bush is a murderer isn’t satire or hyperbole, it’s just their default state.
good luck trying to make the Clinton comparisons with voters (who like Clinton a LOT more than they do Bush)."
Funny I never made that comparison. But the way the two parties treat sexual misconduct is interesting:

The Republicans throw them out, but respect due process.
The Democrats (repetively) defend the creep and carry water for them, mashers and child molesters alike.
"This one is beautiful. Ignore the predator, ignore the party who protected the predator, focus on who released the evidence that there is a predator."
We know CREW sat on this for months, we know Hastert’s office specifically asked if the emails were sexual and the family said they weren’t and the family asked Hastert to keep it quiet.

Who was protecting who? Hastert was protecting the child, and Deomcratic organ CREW was protecting Foley—until they could do more damage with him.
"Glasnost, do you know the difference between email and IM?"
Don’t trouble him with details, he has his narrative.

And even if CREW did inform the FBI, their release of the emails at the least was timed to create the amximum possible partisan damage, and it may have interfered with what the FBI was doing.

And that’s leaving alone the questions about the IMs.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
while Democrats stick to consensual adults.
HAH, what a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congressional_page_sex_scandal
The 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane’s case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds’s case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, 1983 the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who tearfully apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984. Studds, however, refused to apologize (even calling a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that they were consenting adults at the time of the relationship and that it was therefore not the business of others to censure them for their private relationship), and he continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.
****

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200610/POL20061002b.html
Over the weekend, Hastert sent separate but similar letters to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and U.S. Attorney Alberto Gonzalez, requesting both a state and federal investigation into Foley’s possibly criminal conduct.

But in his letters to Bush and Gonzalez, Hastert made it clear that "there are two different and distinct communications at issue" involving Foley.

Hastert said while House leaders were aware of "overly friendly" messages Foley sent to one teenage boy, they were not aware of sexually explicit message he sent to others.

According to Hastert, Foley sent an email to a former page of Rep. Rodney Alexander (D-La.) in the fall of 2005. "This email was determined to be ’over friendly’ by Representative Alexander’s office but was not sexual in nature," Hastert said.

Hastert said based on press reports that surfaced Friday, Foley also sent a second set of communications — sexually explicit instant messages — to another former page or pages. "These communications, of which no one in the House Leadership was aware to my knowledge, reportedly were sent some time in 2003," Hastert said in his letters to Bush and Gonzalez.

Rep. Foley abruptly resigned from the House of Representatives on Friday, September 29, after reporters began asking questions about some of Foley’s instant messages to teenage pages.

Hastert noted that the St. Petersburg Times had received a set of Foley’s emails to Alexander’s former page in November 2005 — but the editors of the newspaper said they viewed the 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 (the page’s) parents had requested, and believed they had privately resolved the situation as the parents had requested," Hastert explained.

Hastert said Foley’s second set of online communications — unlike the first set - involved sexually explicit instant messages that reportedly were generated three years ago.

Hastert said the first that he or other House leaders heard of the sexually explicit instant messages was late last week, when ABC News first reported that they existed.
*****

Yeah, this is just like Lewinski. Except no cigars or stained dresses are involved, that we know of.

In the end, this will be yet another distraction from the real issues.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
So, Bush can certainly pardon Foley without the Democrats getting in a tizzy...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp
January 2001: Just before leaving office, President Clinton (at the urging of Jesse Jackson, among others) commuted the sentence of former Illinois congressman Mel Reynolds, who had spent 30 months in a state prison for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and was serving a five-year sentence in federal prison for lying to obtain loans and illegally diverting campaign money for personal use.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
I have read that 16 is the age of consent in DC.
Of course, with e-mail and IMs that will get much more complex.

I understand the "suggestive" e-mails went to 17 year old.

The IMs went to a still yet an unidentified person, but apparently there is mention of college, so more than likely the person was over 18.

I expect the FBI to press no charges.

With the halls of Congress filled with duly elected drunks and lechers of the likes of the Kennedys and previously Gerry Studds, I should hope that not just the interns are warned about the possibility of this sort of lewd behaviour.

At least, Foley had the good sense to resign. Something that every drunk and lecher on Capitol Hill should see as their future. The Public will now settle for nothing less.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Just when you think you have a grip on this story, it gets even weirder.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Re: "It’s funny, I have a feeling that 50 years from now if some Republican wrecks his car other Republicans will somehow manage to bring up Clinton. And you call us moonbats."

No, we will bring up ol’ Chapp.. Ted Kennedy and his drunken killing of a young girl - whom he left behind drowned. And is still the toast of the moonbats.

So, yes - to calling you moonbats.
 
Written By: rr
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider