DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on September 30, 2006, 03:07:27 PM
-
The GOP is looking more and more punchy as new details emerge.
I'm not a historian but I can't help believe that this GOP controlled government for the last few years has to be the most corrupt organization to ever take over a government.
And all you Bush/Iraq war/War of Terror supporters can only feel duped and used. Here they have been using your morals (not ethics) as a guide to keep you in line. They pass themselves off as "just like you" and they turn out to be liars, thieves and sexual deviants. I feel sorry for you and hope you will hold them accountable.
Now, that we know that Hastert and Boehner have been covering for Foley, how can any one of you not want to call for you representatives to support a total and complete ethics investigation into the whole situation?
Rove and his gang lied about their ties with Abramoff and you helped spread his bullshit. Now the facts are tumbling out that they met repeatedly and he enjoyed gifts from Abramoff.
Rice has been implicated in the whole "terrorism was a Clinton thing" way of thinking during the runup to 9.11. She brushed off a report that was a glaring warning. They are either morons or complicit.
William Kristol got into it with Shepard on FOX when he said brazenly and aloud that the president should be sending in more troops (which is wrong) but the president can't "until after the elections in November". Good lord, people. These are the ones who run your party.
Most Corrupt.
Most Non ethical.
Most murderous.
Most greedy.
Most nefarious.
And you went along.
-
From NY Times:
'Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, called late Friday for an investigation into who knew of the messages, and when. After Republicans criticized her move on the floor, the House referred the request to the ethics committee.'
Republicans criticized her move on the floor???
WHO THE HELL IS THINKING OF THOSE KIDS?
Did Hastert know, and not say anything? Did Boehner? Too worried about balance of power in the House to give a damn about the pages?
From CNN:
' Boehner blocked a vote on a resolution offered by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that asked the House Ethics Committee to begin a preliminary investigation into Foley’s conduct and the GOP leadership’s “response†to it.
The California Democrat’s resolution would have called for an investigation of “when the Republican leadership was notified and what corrective action was taken.â€
Instead, Boehner made a motion that the Foley matter be sent to the House Ethics Committee, which passed 409-0.
Pelosi said her resolution forced the GOP leadership to send the matter to the Ethics Committee for a bipartisan investigation.'
Pelosi's resolution here: http://democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=1844
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/30/foley.quits/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30foley.html?hp&ex=1159675200&en=bde4e6c357e3c006&ei=5094&partner=homepage
-
Hastert was told months ago about all this, and still did nothing?
WASHINGTON - Rep. Thomas Reynolds (news, bio, voting record), head of the House Republican election effort, said he told Speaker
Dennis Hastert after learning a fellow GOP lawmaker sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060930/ap_on_go_co/foley_reynolds_2
-
Did the Democratic Party implode when simular facts were found out about Barney Frank or Bill Clinton ?
Oh well then why didn't it?
-
Perhaps someone can explain to me what law was broken.
Perhaps someone can also show me where Foley sent any other "inappropriate" emails after he was told not to communicate with former pages by Rep. Shimkus, who was in charge of the page program.
-
Only you would split hairs like this.
Is that Koolaid grape or cherry?
Foley was engaging in cybersex with underage boys. Are you really going to shrug your shoulders and say, "Hey, no harm done..."?
-
Did the Democratic Party implode when simular facts were found out about Barney Frank or Bill Clinton ?
Ummmm, were Barney Frank or Bill Clinton involved with underage boys?
God damn, you people have lost your minds.
-
The GOP is like a brand of cereal that has been discovered to have been using old razor blades in their ingredients. Sure, some day it could be re-furbed by the right NUTJOB but for now, no one will want to be known as a murderous, conspiring, cultish, bigoted pedophile.
I mean, look at todays Think Progress page. Story after story of the lies, the coverups, the continual bullshit.
In a month, you guys are going to be saying that you were never a Bush-supporter and referring to yourselfs at "leaning Libertarian".
http://thinkprogress.org/
-
Foley was engaging in cybersex with underage boys. Are you really going to shrug your shoulders and say, "Hey, no harm done..."?
I saw the Im's . I saw inappropriate comments. I didn't see cyber-sex.
Perhaps you can post something to back up your latest claim.
On the other hand, perhaps Florida will pass a civil sexual deviants registry law so that folks like this are better known to the public. Apparently full court press reporting laden with political undertones like when CREW gets involved isn't sufficient.
Also can you explain why this is just coming out now when the offences took place a full year ago?
-
And what is with this coverup nonsense.
Looking at the timeline provided by thinkprogress, as GOP leadership became knowledeable of the transgressions, they handled it.
-
And what is with this coverup nonsense.
Looking at the timeline provided by thinkprogress, as GOP leadership became knowledeable of the transgressions, they handled it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
September 30, 2006
Hastert Knew While Foley Flew
Well, well, well. It appears the Republicans actually can make the Foley controversy worse. As if it wasn't bad enough that John Boehner knew about Foley's track record of sexual harassment of his underage pages, now it turns out that Speaker Denny Hastert lied about what he knew and when he knew it. Roll Call reports that Thomas Reynolds (R-NY), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told Hastert about Foley's predatory actions in late winter or early spring of this year:
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) issued a statement Saturday in which he said that he had informed Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) of allegations of improper contacts between then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and at least one former male page, contradicting earlier statements from Hastert.'
GOP sources said Reynolds told Hastert earlier in 2006, shortly after the February GOP leadership elections. Hastert's response to Reynolds' warning remains unclear.
Hastert's staff insisted Friday night that he was not told of the Foley allegations and are scrambling to respond to Reynolds' statement.
I cannot tell CQ readers how disgusted I am with Speaker Hastert. Reynolds is no fringe nutcase; he's the man Hastert trusted to run the midterm re-elections of the Republican caucus. He has no reason to lie, but Hastert apparently did. This also calls into question Boehner's earlier reversal, when he denied saying that he informed Hastert after Hastert denied knowing of Foley's activities.
Hastert should have been a man from the beginning and admit that he knew about Foley. Now he has destroyed any credibility left in his Speakership, and he has only compounded the embarrassment for the GOP caucus. Foley's actions reflect on Foley alone, but thanks to Hastert and perhaps Boehner, the aftermath will reflect on all Republicans in the House.
Republicans have to act swiftly to remove the stench of Foleygate from the party. They need to demand the resignation of Hastert as Speaker, as well as Boehner as Majority Leader if he lied to protect Hastert. Allowing Foley off the hook was a mistake in judgment, but this is a betrayal of those who trusted Hastert to lead the House with dignity, honesty, and integrity.
[]
Posted by Captain Ed at September 30, 2006 07:20 PM
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008180.php
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01foley.html?hp&ex=1159761600&en=72f54d420adcb9e2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
' At the Justice Department, an official said that no investigation was under way but that the agency had “real interest†in examining the circumstances to see if any crimes were committed.
Several of Mr. Foley’s former colleagues demanded a criminal inquiry.
Representative Robert E. Cramer, an Alabama Democrat who was co-chairman with Mr. Foley of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, condemned Mr. Foley’s actions as “shocking and disturbing.â€
“Anyone, including Foley, involved in this type of behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,†Mr. Cramer said.'
-
Right. "Hey, no kids got fucked. [That we know of, anyway.] What's the big deal?" Great Republican values.
-
Lanya speaks out: Right. "Hey, no kids got fucked. [That we know of, anyway.] What's the big deal?" Great Republican values
Speaking of Values.
When did CREW get a copy of the IM's and why did they hold onto them for so long without forwarding to the appropriate authorities?
We know CREW is the progressive counterpart to Judicial Watch.
We know they are funded by George Soros.
We know they are the ones suing Cheney et al on the behalf of Valerie Plame.
We don't know if they are the ones who gave the story a little push to the AP, but who would be surprised if they did.
We don't know if Hastert, Reynolds or Shimkus were aware of the IM's.
We don't know if the IM's have been authenticated. We do know the exchange was edited.
We do know that the dems are trying to portray this as a coverup.
And we do know that CREW, by some means unknown, had critical evidence that they are just now releasing.
So if there was a cover-up, would not CREW be responsible.
And does that mean Democrat values are more about partisan bloodsport than protecting adolescents?
-
Right. "Hey, no kids got fucked. [That we know of, anyway.] What's the big deal?" Great Republican values.
The empty pretense that Democrats are virtuous in any respect above Republicans convinces few.
As long as we have to use human beings as Congressmen we will find some number of them demonstrateing human failings.
Note that though neither party has a monoply on scandal the means of dealing withthe scandal is diffrent , Democrats that have sex with a Page tend to be re-elected , Republicans that talk dirty to a page tend to resign.
REP. DAN CRANE (R-Ill.) and REP. GERRY STUDDS (D-Mass.):
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages -- Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.
REP. ERNIE KONNYU (R-Calif.):
In August 1987, two former Konnyu aides complained to the San Jose Mercury News that the freshman Republican had sexually harassed them. GOP leaders were unhappy with Konnyu's temperament to begin with, so it took little effort to find candidates who would take him on in the primary. Stanford professor Tom Campbell ousted Konnyu the following June.
http://www.comedyontap.com/features/congress.html
And replaceing the bad with worse
REP. JIM BATES (D-Calif.):
Roll Call quoted former Bates aides in October 1988 saying that the San Diego Democrat made sexual advances toward female staffers. Bates called it a GOP-inspired smear campaign, but also apologized for anything he did that might have seemed inappropriate. The story came too close to Election Day to damage Bates, who won easily. However, the following October the ethics committee sent Bates a "letter of reproval" directing him to make a formal apology to the women who filed the complaint. Although the district was not thought to be hospitable to the GOP, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a former Navy pilot who was once shot down over North Vietnam, ousted Bates in 1990 by fewer than 2,000 votes.
-
ABC News
GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001
By MADDY SAUER and ANNA SCHECTER
Oct. 1, 2006 — - A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to "watch out" for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.
Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor.
Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."
Staff members at the House clerk's office did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Some of the sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's abrupt resignation Friday were sent to pages in Loraditch's class.
Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominated them for the page program.
Several pages for members of Congress tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley, R-Fla.
Loraditch says the some of pages who "interacted" with Foley were hesitant to report his behavior because "members of Congress, they've got the power." Many of the pages were hoping for careers in politics and feared Foley might seek retribution.
Loraditch runs the alumni association for the US House Page Program and he is deeply concerned about the future effects this scandal could have on a program that he sees as a valuable educational experience for teens.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2514259
-
And yet the only coverup we see so far is at the hands of CREW, who conveniently decided to release the smoking gun IM's 45 days before the election.
Meanwhile house pages were advised to be cautious with Foley in 2001, by GOP leadership.
Foley was told to can the emails by GOP leadership.
And Foley was asked to resign by GOP Leadership when the IM's came out.
I still don't see a coverup on the GOP's part.
Can't say the same for CREW, with their smoking gun information that they just held onto until an opportune time.
Certainly they were not highly motivated to protect the children.
-
September 30, 2006
A Note From the Editors
There still seems to be some confusion about the order of events related to our coverage of Rep. Mark Foley and his email exchanges with teenagers he met through the congressional page program. Let me try to clear this up.
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. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat. Foley asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about the boy's upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked the teen to send him a "pic" of himself. Also among those emails was the page's exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander, who had been the teen's sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his exchange he'd had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley was out of bounds.
There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him. He told us Foley's request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy's family didn't want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.
So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn't go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we said in today's paper, our policy is that we don't make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn't meet our standard for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.
Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position. 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. This was overtly sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted friendliness. That's what drove Foley to resign on Friday.
I hope this helps clarify a bit about what we knew and when we knew it.
Scott Montgomery
Government & Politics Editor
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/
-
The GOP damage-control tactics are interesting. From this group, you can get a good idea what they are going to be:
1. That Democrats were also caught in long-ago sex scandals (as if the issue were the human frailty of individual politicians instead of cover-up at the upper levels of GOP power)
2. That CREW (a non-governmental organization, or NGO) somehow was the real party covering up (as if CREW and not Hastert and his office had the responsibility to maintain ethical standards in the House)
Both nice efforts at distraction, and IMHO bound to fail. Voters just aren't that stupid or easily distracted. Or maybe they are. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. To me, it's just one more example of moral rot in the Party of Family Values. Why does this cut more against the Republicans than the Democrats? Because it is the Republicans who are constantly appealing to "Christian values" and soliciting the votes of Christian fundamentalists on "moral grounds" and so if they are shown to be corrupt and venal, and they respond by tarring the Democrats with the same brush, they still lose - - the Democrats never made such a big deal of their morals. The Republicans went all ballistic over a Presidential BJ, remember?
-
CREW stands for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
Of course they should have come forward. To do otherwise goes counter to their purpose.
-
Lanya you are covering old ground. The issue is not the emails it is the IM's and the over-reaching accusation that GOP leadership was involved in a coverup.
Far as i can see the only coverup was done by CREW.
-
Why does this cut more against the Republicans than the Democrats?
You seem to think that attending church implies moral perfection.
Which is ludicrous on the face of it. The idea is to seek moral perfection, not have it before you start attending.
Else why have the Sacrament of Confession as they do in the Catholic Church. or Pastoral guidance in many others?
-
<<CREW stands for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
<<Of course they should have come forward. To do otherwise goes counter to their purpose. >>
Yes of course they should. Maybe their membership will vote out their executive too. But do you really think that the voters, once apprised of CREW's shocking dereliction of duty, will be so exercized about it that they will give Hastert and the Republican leadership in the House a pass?
CREW, the last time I checked, had not asked the public for its trust as a public legislator. Did not ask to be elected to any law-making body. Hastert did.
To put it another way, are you as shocked by CREW's failure to come forward as you are by Hastert's?
-
"It'll be interesting to see how this plays out."
Republicans will probably hold the seat. Bush got 55% of the vote there in '04. Joe Negron, who has $1 million on hand from his run for AG, could win the seat.
-
"Hastert and the Republican leadership in the House a pass"
Hastert didn't know about the x-rated IM's. Once he found out, Foley resigned and the matter was forwarded to the Justice Department for prosecution.
As you probably know, Bill Clinton stayed in office and refused to resign.
-
Mikey begs the question:To put it another way, are you as shocked by CREW's failure to come forward as you are by Hastert's?
There is no evidense that the GOP Leadership was aware of the IM's . Perhaps because CREW held that information close to its vest, for whatever purposes.
They were aware of the emails and handled it. So where exactly was Hastert derelict in his duties?
-
How The Foley Story Broke - I Find This Puzzling
Apparently the Mark Foley story first broke on this new blog, StopSexPredartors.blogspot.com, which started in July and brought down the Congressional leadership with its sixth, seventh and eighth posts.
Color me skeptical. Maybe the blog author was an unwitting catspaw, but I would want some assurance that this was not simply a successful attempt to promote a story that wasn't quite ready for the Mainstream Media by laundering it through some blogs (and wasn't that Matt Drudge's ecological niche, back in the day?). And part of my suspicion arises because the blog posted emails about gay Congressmen in repsonse to a post about "skinterns", scantily clad young women. Where were the emails about Dirty Old Men and Sweet Young Things of the female persuasion?
The River City Mud Bugle has even more backstory:
Two hours later [following the first posting of the former page's emails], someone writing under the name “WHInternNow†published a diary on Daily Kos linking to Stop Sex Predators. The diary was met with skepticism from Daily Kos users, and received only a few largely critical comments. “This diary makes an accusation,†one commenter wrote, “a serious accusation, but provides no evidence to back it up.â€
In a previous Daily Kos diary about Foley, “WHInternNow†made an early attempt to draw attention to Foley’s peccadilloes.
The Real Problem With Foley (0 / 0)
It’s not that he’s gay. It’s that he constantly hits on underage interns on The Hill. You guys talk about an “open secret†well Foley’s eye for the young boys in the White House and around the Capitol is what has the Republican bosses scared to death. It’s just wrong that this guy can hit on young boys and still be in the leadership.
by WHInternNow on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 07:48:09 PM CDT
The story was evidently not quite good enough for the D Kos, but ABC found enough to run with it.
This Editor's Note from the St. Petersburg Times explaining their handling of the story raises more questions:
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. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat.
Foley asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about the boy's upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked the teen to send him a "pic" of himself. Also among those emails was the page's exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander, who had been the teen's sponsor in the page program.
The teen shared his exchange he'd had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley was out of bounds.
There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him. He told us Foley's request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story.
We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy's family didn't want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.
So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn't go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we said in today's paper, our policy is that we don't make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn't meet our standard for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.
Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position. 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. This was overtly sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted friendliness.
That's what drove Foley to resign on Friday.
Fine, but - why was Foley's opponent so sure that he had a solid accusation? Or was it a lucky shot in the dark?
And how did ABC round up the follow-up emails and IMs so quickly?
And was it the page in Louisiana who sent his Foley emails to an unknown web-site after declining to push this story with the St. Petersburg Times? Maybe - the St. Petersburg Times would not let him make an anonymous accusation. OTOH, if the former page was so determined to get Foley, why didn't he try another news organization - ABC, for example, didn't seem to have a problem with anonymously sourcing this.
And if it was *not* the page from Louisiana who sent the emails to StopSexPredators, who did?
Baffling.
KEEPING HOPE ALIVE: I welcome some help in sorting out the dates of the second wave of lurid emails and IMs. For example, one of them - "strip down and get relaxed" - was from 2003. If none of them are from 2006, then one might hope that the leadership intervention was effective.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/10/i_smell_a_rat.html
-
<<So where exactly was Hastert derelict in his duties?>>
Inappropriate messages were sent to a 16-YEAR-OLD. Hastert knew. This alone is enough to open the investigation. Inappropriate? How inappropriate? What messages? e-mails? IM's? Ever send any IM's to the kid, Mr. Foley? Ever get any IM's, kid?
This isn't rocket science. If Hastert gave a shit about the protection of kids in very vulnerable situations (politically ambitious, eager to get ahead, young, inexperienced, reluctant to tangle with powerful individuals, scandal-averse) then he would investigate energetically. Who knows how many kids this fucking Republican pervert could have preyed upon? If he doesn't give a shit about the kids, but wants to cover up any unseemly occurrences, he'll do what he did - - nothing, and hope it'll stay quiet at least till after the elections. Well, shit, how could I know how inappropriate it really was?
OBVIOUSLY he knew nothing about the IMs. That's cuz he didn't do his job. He didn't know because he didn't want to know, didn't want to get to the bottom of the problem when it surfaced. He had larger concerns.
-
"Inappropriate messages were sent to a 16-YEAR-OLD. Hastert knew. This alone is enough to open the investigation. Inappropriate? How inappropriate? What messages? e-mails? IM's? Ever send any IM's to the kid, Mr. Foley? Ever get any IM's, kid?"
There was an investigation, and Foley lied his ass off. The kid's parents also didn't want to punish Foley, as I understand it.
The point is, Hastert only knew about the 5 emails, not the x-rated IM's. Once he found out he told Foley to leave congress.
-
I don't think Lanya cares about the facts RR. Bush is evil, and by connection so is the GOP. They can do no right, unless they resign or impeach Bush :(
-
And what exactly was Hastert supposed to investigate. That one of his members was Gay? That one of his members emailed while Gay? That being Gay is tantamount to being a pedophle?
What law was broken with those emails?
None that i am aware of.
But Foley was told to stop emailing in 2005. The iM's by the way appear to be from 2003 if and when they are authenticated. And IM's are easy to edit an forge.
Methinks the dems would have been better off just bashing Foley for being a Gay Republican. They have vast experience in that field.
-
<<And what exactly was Hastert supposed to investigate. That one of his members was Gay? >>
No.
<<That one of his members emailed while Gay>>
No again
<<That being Gay is tantamount to being a pedophle?>>
Again - - No
I can see you are having some trouble understanding the basic concepts here. Good thing that nobody has given you the responsibility of protecting the vulnerable members of society from predators, but here - - let's see if I can at least guide you in the right direction:
Here's a radical concept for you to try out - - That he sent sexually explicit messages to AN UNDERAGE teenager who HAPPENED TO WORK FOR HIM.
It's kind of like the horrible crime of receiving a blow-job from Monica Lewinsky, except that (1) Monica was NOT underage, (2) it was MONICA who provoked the encounter and (3) it was normal, consensual sex between two consenting heterosexual adults. and (4) Monica did not consider the contact sick and dirty, as the page apparently did.
-
<<There was an investigation, and Foley lied his ass off. >>
You mean, there was a half-assed investigation, which allowed Foley to get away with lying his ass off. No oaths were administered, as far as I'm aware no investigators were put on the case, and the "investigation" such as it was, shut down as soon as Foley assured them that nothing had "happened."
<<The kid's parents also didn't want to punish Foley, as I understand it. >>
Sure, no harm to their kid, so who cares what Foley can get away with on others? Suits Hastert equally well, cuz he doesn't give a shit either.
-
Mikey falsely states:Here's a radical concept for you to try out - - That he sent sexually explicit messages to AN UNDERAGE teenager who HAPPENED TO WORK FOR HIM.
Who did he IM and what proof do you have that this particular page was assigned to him.
And how was Hastert to know of the IM's . It was the emails that were reported to him, and he handled that situation, discretely.
Furthermore the IM's were not to the same person as the emails. And the former page was no longer in DC. So even a far fetched sexual harassment angle won't work.
-
“Here's a radical concept for you to try out - - That he sent sexually explicit messages to AN UNDERAGE teenager who HAPPENED TO WORK FOR HIM.â€
The 5 emails were not sexually explicit. Though the boy was a teenager, he was sponsered by Rodney Alexander, not Foley. Who's feeding you this erroneous info?
Let's face it, the Dems here are guilty of gay bashing. If Bill Clinton had sent a 16 year old boy an email asking him how he was doing after Katrina, the Dems would have said how compassionate he was. But since Foley sent the email and he happens to be gay, the Dems wanted to go after him criminally for it.
All Hastert had to work with were the emails, not the x-rated IM's. Those weren't revealed until after ABC broke the story about the emails. You're overplaying your hand, just like Dems always do.
-
“You mean, there was a half-assed investigation, which allowed Foley to get away with lying his ass off. No oaths were administered, as far as I'm aware no investigators were put on the case, and the "investigation" such as it was, shut down as soon as Foley assured them that nothing had "happened."â€
You're simply making it up that it was half assed. Different members of congress were brought in on different levels. And Foley lied. Although there was nothing sexually explicit in the emails, Foley was still told not to contact the boy ever again. And there is no evidence that he did. So the investigation seems to have been effective in that respect. The boy's parents even said they didn't want to punish Foley for the emails. Once the x-rated IM's (to another boy) were discovered just a couple days ago, Foley was out of there, and now he faces criminal prosecution. Hastert did not have this evidence before. All he had were the 5 emails, and the action he took with respect to them was very effective.
What is half assed is the fact that Dems wanted to go after somebody simply becuase they are gay, based on some friendly emails after a natural disaster. Emails that any member of congress could have sent. Not very tolerant is it?
-
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/gop-rep-john-shimkus-r-il-let-foley.html
GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend "a lot of time" with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem
by John in DC - 10/01/2006 08:41:00 PM
Shimkus is toast. There's even video of Shimkus letting Foley talk to the pages AFTER the GOP knew Foley had page-issues.
You'll recall that he is the Republican member of Congress who runs the Page Board, the group in charge of the pages. You'll also recall that tonight we learned on ABC News that GOP House staff warned the page class of 2001-2002 to stay away from ex-Rep. Mark Foley.
Then why is it that on June 6, 2002, well after the kids were warned to stay away from Foley, Shimkus notes approvingly that Foley has spent a lot of time with the Page Class of 2001-2002? This is Shimkus speaking at the page's goodbye ceremony,
MR. SHIMKUS: I thank my colleague. Now someone who spends a lot of time with you also, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), would like to say a thank you.
(Note: We've confirmed in the Congressional Record that this is the exact transcript of the proceedings that day.)
The GOP staff knew Foley was a problem the year before, they warned the pages in 2001. Yet Shimkus, the next year is acknowledging that Foley was still permitted to spend "a lot of time" with the pages. In the name of God, why?
Oh, but it gets worse.
Foley then gets up in front of Shimkus and tells a special little story of how he took one male page to a private dinner in downtown Washington, DC. Put the page in his BMW and "cruised" - Foley's word - to dinner.
And now for the kicker.
Foley told the kid he had to get permission from his mom and he had to notify the Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, the Republican staffer who works for Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-IL). You'll also recall that Trandahl is the Clerk who joined Shimkus in 2005 to talk to Foley about the creepy email exchange with the first child who got this scandal started.
Why did Shimkus let Foley spend so much time with the pages after GOP staff already knew Foley had a "page problem"? Did the Clerk of the House approve of this dinner? Did Shimkus? Clearly Foley had no fear in the kid going to Clerk and asking for permission - so Foley seemed to think the Clerk wouldn't mind. And clearly Foley had no fear in telling the story in front of Shimkus, so he obviously didn't think Shimkus would mind either.
Shimkus then introduces Foley. Read what Foley has to say to the pages of the 2001-2002 class in his speech wishing them goodbye.
FOLEY: John [one of the pages] was the highest bidder on lunch with Mark Foley. Maybe you all do not know this story, but John had paid considerable sums to dine with me. I had offered to take the winning bidder to lunch in the Members' dining room. Then I heard how much John Eunice paid. And I said, ``John, there is no way in the world after you committed so much money to have lunch with me that I would dare take you downstairs to eat in the Members' dining room.'' I said, ``Where do you want to go?'' He says, without reservation, ``Morton's.'' I said, ``Morton's? Like in Morton's Steakhouse?'' He said, ``Oh, would that be too much?'' I said, ``Oh, no, we'll go.'' I said, ``Call your mother, get permission, make sure she notifies the Clerk and we will go to Morton's.'' And so we proceeded to cruise down in my BMW to Morton's.
Putting aside the creepy notion of children bidding on dinner with an already-suspected child sex predator, what in God's name were Shimkus and the Clerk doing approving of Foley taking a kid in his BMW to a private dinner in downtown Washington? The GOP staff already knew that Foley was trouble. They had already warned the kids. Yet Shimkus let Foley spend lots of time with the kids, by Shimkus' own admission. And then they let Foley cruise the kid to dinner in his beamer.
[]
-
Shimkus is toast.
This is a wild prediction from a left wing blog with no credibilty.
Shimkus got 69% of the vote in '04.
Thanks for the laugh.
-
CREW stands for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
Of course they should have come forward. To do otherwise goes counter to their purpose.
________________________________________
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.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/john-hinderakers-defense-of-denny.html
-
Well, I gotta admit, I thought the IMs were available at the same time as the e-mail and would have been disclosed if the e-mail was investigated properly at the time. Also, wasn't aware that the IM recipient may not have been the same guy that the inappropriate e-mails were sent to. Also that Foley didn't employ the kid who got the inappropriate e-mail (but might have employed as a page the kid who got the IMs.)
Might be a more complex issue than the one I first saw. What's the legal effect of an "inappropriate' e-mail and how much of a witch-hunt mentality do we want to foster? If the original e-mails were merely "inappropriate," then no laws were broken, and what was Hastert expected to do at that point?
Could be I went out too far on that limb. God knows the Republicans as presently constituted are a curse and a plague upon the land (upon the whole earth for that matter) and the old adage, "Any stick to beat a dog" had powerful force, but still and all, it could be that THIS particular stick may not be the right one. Besides which it may be taking the pressure off real bad guys, like Senator Macacawitz.
-
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.
If they thought them serious enough to report to the FBI, why didn't they post them on their website at the time? This doesn't pass the smell test.
-
Other people had copies of the emails.
Only CREW thus far had the smoking gun IM"S. They were derelict in their ethical duty. The chose to save their trump card for the elections.
-
Other people had copies of the emails. Only CREW thus far had the smoking gun IM"S. They were derelict in their ethical duty. The chose to save their trump card for the elections.
I do think Bt wins the award for head nailing
-
Besides which it may be taking the pressure off real bad guys, like Senator Macacawitz.
Allen's not a bad guy. I just think liberals want to feel better about themselves by calling Allen a racist without any proof and without knowing what's in his heart. There's a better argument that can be made that Bill Clinton is a racist. He's the one who took off campaigning in 1992 to execute a mentally retarded black man in Arkansas, and he was an apprentice to J. William Fulbright, a noted segregationist. He's never apologized for either action.
Isn't it anti-Semitic and insensitive to call him "Macacawitz" as well? Since when is it funny or appropriate to use a Jewish surname in a pathetic attempt to slur somebody? Liberals have shown a nasty side when going after Allen, and it's not pretty. Allen brings out the worst in liberals.
-
<<If they thought them serious enough to report to the FBI, why didn't they post them on their website at the time? This doesn't pass the smell test. >>
Get serious. The FBI would conduct an investigation and report to the appropriate prosecutorial authority. If the report justified further proceedings, it would be up to the prosecutors. If the FBI correctly assessed a threat to pages before the investigation was completed, they would presumably do whatever their mandate enables them to do to protect the threatened pages.
If before the completion of the FBI investigation, CREW posted the e-mails or warnings based upon them on its website, irreparable damage could be done to Foley. Apart from the moral dimension of unjustly doing irreparable harm to someone who might be innocent, they could get their asses sued off by Foley if, for example, the IMs were fake.
It doesn't seem clear at this point when the IMs were sent and who they were sent to. Also, whether any communications from Foley other than IM's also crossed the line into sexual predation. I don't think Hastert's out of the woods on this, simply because I don't think it's likely that Foley became a sexual predator somewhere between the time of the "inappropriate e-mails" and the time that the first clearly criminal predatory IMs were sent. This creep was probably already preying upon minors at the time when the "inappropriate e-mails" first came to Hastert's attention, and if and when that can be demonstrated, then Hastert's ass will be in a sling because a proper investigation would have led to material available at the time, then his failure to conduct one would mean that he had left minors at risk.
-
You've made a compelling case for why CREW sat on the emails and x-rated IM's until the election. NOT.
I don't believe CREW reported these emails to the FBI over the summer, simply because they didn't post them to their website at the time. I believe they are in CYA mode now because they were caught sitting on explosive documents and releasing them right before the election. They were playing politics, not trying to safeguard children.
If they thought these emails were suspicious (note: the St. Pete Times dismissed them as friendly chit chat at the time) they would have posted them to their website and blew the whistle on Foley. But they didn't and were derelict in their duty. They wanted to play politics with them instead. And as you know, as a public figure, Foley would have had very narrow grounds in which to sue the website, and he vouched for the emails' authenticity anyway.
As a side note, I'm very happy that Foley is gone. It now gives the chance for a conservative to take over the seat in the marginally safe Republican district.
-
<< I just think liberals want to feel better about themselves by calling Allen a racist without any proof and without knowing what's in his heart. >>
Without any proof? We all saw the video of him calling the dark-skinned young man "Macaca" and "welcoming" him to America. You gotta be kidding. We have FIVE former team-mates or persons who knew him back in the 70s come forward to say he called black people "niggers." We have the evidence that he kept a Confederate flag on his vehicle and a NOOSE in his office. We have a member of his hunting party testify how he stuffed a severed deer's head into a black family's mailbox and we have independent corroboration of that story from a man who was told the same story (except that it wasn't mentioned to him that the mailbox was in the black part of town) by the third member of the hunting party, now deceased.
Without any proof? I beg to differ. We have, if anything, a surfeit of proof.
<<Since when is it funny or appropriate to use a Jewish surname in a pathetic attempt to slur somebody? >>
Well, IMHO, it's both funny AND appropriate when the schmuck in question goes to elaborate lengths to deny his Jewish origins, including putting forth the lie that his mother was raised as a Christian, and reacts to the imputation of Jewish blood in his veins as if it were a deadly insult.
-
<<You've made a compelling case for why CREW sat on the emails and x-rated IM's until the election. NOT.>>
I made a very compelling and easily understandable case for not posting prior to the completion of the FBI investigation. CREW had no way of knowing if the e-mails or IMs were fake or not, let alone whether Foley would vouch for them or not.
I'm not an expert in the law of libel and slander, but I'd be very surprised if there were an absolute bar on any public figure being allowed to sue - - most likely, they could sue for damages if publication were malicious, i.e. false and either known to be false at the time of publication or rushed into publication without reasonable measures being taken to determine their truth or falsity. Even if I'm wrong on Foley's ability to sue, they could easily have refrained from publication on moral grounds - - doing irreparable damage to an innocent man; or on practical grounds - - ruining their own credibility by rushing to denounce an ultimately innocent man.
IMHO, CREW is not qualified to conduct an analysis of the e-mails or IMs to determine their authenticity, and so, pending the results of the FBI investigation, it would have been extremely irresponsible for CREW to publish them as the real thing.
-
We all saw the video of him calling the dark-skinned young man "Macaca" and "welcoming" him to America.
He was welcoming Webb to real America (Virginia) because he was out in Hollywood that day raising money.
Allen has said that macacca was simply something he made up.
We have FIVE former team-mates or persons who knew him back in the 70s come forward to say he called black people "niggers."
One former teammate and two anonymous ones have charged that, and they were soundly discredited by scores of other people who knew Allen at the time. The one guy making the false accusation is a committed Democrat who runs an anti-tobacco PAC.
We have the evidence that he kept a Confederate flag on his vehicle and a NOOSE in his office.
The confederate flag does not equal racism. And that was not a noose, it was a lasso.
We have a member of his hunting party testify how he stuffed a severed deer's head into a black family's mailbox and we have independent corroboration of that story from a man who was told the same story (except that it wasn't mentioned to him that the mailbox was in the black part of town) by the third member of the hunting party, now deceased.
Except it wasn’t hunting season in that county at the time, there were no reports about it in the newspaper at the time, and there were no police reports about it at the time. In other words, there’s no evidence it ever took place.
Without any proof? I beg to differ. We have, if anything, a surfeit of proof.
You have no proof. All you have are unsubstantiated allegations without merit. It’s funny that the guy has run for the state assembly, congress, governor, and senator without these allegations ever being made before now. The liberals are trying to smear a guy to make themselves feel better about their own racism. Robert Byrd, a former KKK member, was the senate majority leader for the Democrats for many years.
Well, IMHO, it's both funny AND appropriate when the schmuck in question goes to elaborate lengths to deny his Jewish origins, including putting forth the lie that his mother was raised as a Christian, and reacts to the imputation of Jewish blood in his veins as if it were a deadly insult.
Why is it so important to liberals to prove that Allen is partially Jewish? Why do they care so much? Isn’t this a form of McCarthyism to ask if somebody has ever been Jewish? This seems to be anti-Semitic. I noticed the libs are also attacking Joe Lieberman because he’s Jewish. It’s nasty.
-
I made a very compelling and easily understandable case for not posting prior to the completion of the FBI investigation.
There was no FBI investigation.
The FBI has just started their preliminary investigation now.
Your "case" was not compelling nor particularly understandable. It was bogus on all counts.
If CREW was serious about exposing Foley for "friendly chit chat," as the St. Pete Times has called the 5 emails, they should have posted them on their site when they got them. Not wait until the election to use them in an obvious partisan way. CREW is guilty of partisan politics, not protecting the welfare of children.
-
<<Allen has said that macacca was simply something he made up. >>
Bullshit.
<<He was welcoming Webb to real America (Virginia) because he was out in Hollywood that day raising money.>>
That's absolutely ludicrous. How would he know simply from looking at a man he's never met before whether or not he's at home in "the real America" or not?
<<One former teammate and two anonymous ones have charged that . . . >>
I said FIVE former team-mates OR PERSONS WHO KNEW HIM. One of the persons who knew him being a friend of his wife's who came up to their home and heard him say, speaking of the turtles in a nearby pond, "Only the niggers round here eat them." There's a fifth person as well (as of last count) who also corroborated his racist talk.
<<soundly discredited by scores of other people who knew Allen >>
Soundly discredited, my ass. All they can say is that Allen never said anything racist in their presence. As you yourself would say, (and did) how could they know what was in his heart?
<<The one guy making the false accusation is a committed Democrat who runs an anti-tobacco PAC.>>
Oh. So what discredits him - - that he's a committed Democrat or that he runs an anti-tobacco PAC?
<<The confederate flag does not equal racism.>>
Bullshit.
<<And that was not a noose, it was a lasso. >>
Sez who?
<<Except it wasn’t hunting season in that county at the time>>
Right. Like a drunk who stuffs deer heads into people's mailboxes is gonna give a shit when the season starts. Especially if he's as well-connected and as wealthy as Allen was.
<< there were no reports about it in the newspaper at the time, and there were no police reports about it at the time. >>
Right. Like that's the first thing a black guy living in terror in some racist Southern hell-hole of a town is gonna do when someone stuffs a deer's head in his mailbox - - go to the police (they coulda been the guys who put it there) or the newspaper (as if the newspaper gives a shit) You oughtta try living in the real world some time. It sounds from the "reasoning" in your arguments that you have very little acquaintance with it.
<<In other words, there’s no evidence it ever took place>>
Yeah. Because some poor terrorized black guy didn't go to the papers or the police when he found a severed head in his mailbox, there's no evidence it ever took place. The word of one of Allen's hunting partners who was there when it happened is not evidence. The corroboration of someone who says he heard virtually the same story from the third member of the hunting party is not evidence. Man, WHAT are you smoking?
<< It’s funny that the guy has run for the state assembly, congress, governor, and senator without these allegations ever being made before now. >>
As one of your fellow conservatives pointed out, they're ALL racists in Virginia; his rival, Webb, is also called a racist. The charges surfaced, for the VERY obvious reason, that Allen was either drunk enough or stupid enough, to call that dark-skinned young man "macaca" on videotape. His absurd denials of racism ("It's just a made up word, honest!!!) fooled nobody, and the more he denied, the angrier people became. Nobody likes it when politicians lie openly to their face, and some folks watching this bullshit, who had kept their mouths shut for a long time, finally decided they had had enough.
<<Why is it so important to liberals to prove that Allen is partially Jewish? >>
It isn't.
<<Why do they care so much?>>
They don't. You are missing the point.
<< Isn’t this a form of McCarthyism to ask if somebody has ever been Jewish?>>
No, I think people have a healthy interest or curiosity in who other people are, what is their background. What were his parents like, what did they do, where did they come from? Everybody has a background, Scots-Irish, Polish, Jewish, whatever, and they're always interested in who the other guy is, if they have some cultural bond or not. Somebody found out that Allen's mum was Jewish. This isn't in itself of great interest, but people would like to know. Is he Jewish or not? You can pretend it's of no interest whatever, but most people will find it mildly interesting.
The big deal wasn't that Allen was or wasn't Jewish. The big deal was his reaction to the question. THAT'S what you don't seem to understand.
<< This seems to be anti-Semitic. >>
It's just human nature to want to know who somebody is, and part of that is his or her ethnic background. It's the most natural thing in the world, Again I have to remark on the total unworldliness and unreality of your take on life. I went to a Toronto public school that was about evenly divided between Jews and WASPS, with a few Italians and Ukrainians thrown into the mix. Whenever a new kid showed up at school, he was ALWAYS asked, "Hey what are you kid, Jewish or English?" Everyone wanted to know. It was about as common as "Where ya from?"
<<I noticed the libs are also attacking Joe Lieberman because he’s Jewish.>>
You got that wrong too. Lieberman's attacked, first on the merits of his positions, and second because he's a disgrace to the Jews. He's like a Jewish Clarence Thomas. If there could be a Jewish Uncle Tom, that would be Lieberman.
-
<<There was no FBI investigation.
<<The FBI has just started their preliminary investigation now.>>
When they brought the material to the FBI, they must have felt the FBI was going to investigate. After all, the FBI did not hand the stuff back to them and tell them there was nothing to it.
Until they had a final word from the FBI, they were not going to put this stuff on their website. This must be the third or fourth time that I am explaining this to you, and it is not getting through. Why? It really is not all that complicated. They were not competent to evaluate the material. The FBI was. It was not up to them to publish material that could be highly detrimental to Foley and could get their asses sued off, or ruin their credibility, if it had not been authenticated and evaluated by experts.
<<Your "case" was not compelling nor particularly understandable. >>
I'm sorry, but it you can't understand something as simple and as straightforward as an organization's reluctance to publish material it could not properly evaluate but which would be potentially devastating to a particular individual, then I have to question whether you can understand anything that I or anyone else might be able to post on the subject. I suggest that any intelligent high-school student could understand the case that I presented, and if you can't, then the problem is not with the case.
<<It was bogus on all counts.>>
Bullshit. It is your rejection of it that is bogus on all counts.
-
You’ve offered no evidence that Allen is a racist. However, I’ve offered firm proof that Robert Byrd is. And as recently as several years ago, Byrd used the “N†word on national tv.
And Allen’s opponent, James Webb, was driving around Watts with a toy gun scaring African-Americans by pointing it at them. Is that racist?
As the Washington Post reported: Cragg, 67, who lives in Fairfax County, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.
"They would hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts with these buddies of his," Cragg said Webb told him. "They would take the rifles down there. They would call then [epithets], point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing. One night, some guys caught them and beat . . . them. And that was the end of that."
And you guys are accusing Allen of racism? Look in the mirror.
These smears against Allen by liberals are politically motivated and they are the politics of personal destruction. It reminds me of ads that the NAACP took out on Bush when he was running for president accusing him of the dragging death of James Byrd. These attacks by liberals are not substantive and they are designed to destroy people’s careers without any type of proof. Stick to the issues in the campaign, and don’t resort to these smears that you cannot prove.
-
There was no FBI investigation preventing them from posting the material onto their website. There is no evidence that they even reported the over friendly emails to the FBI. They didn’t post the emails last summer, because they wanted to hold them to drop them on the public before the election, which they have done. There certainly was no FBI investigation completed when they did post them to their website a couple days ago. Your “case†is ridiculous and it seems like it was written by somebody in high school. CREW was more interested in partisan politics than trying to safeguard children.
-
<<You’ve offered no evidence that Allen is a racist.>>
That's a total crock. I've offered a TON of evidence. "Macaca" on video. "Welcome to America" on video. The N-word, by (at last count) FIVE independent witnesses. The deer's head story (TWO independent witnesses) The Confederate Flag. The noose.
<< However, I’ve offered firm proof that Robert Byrd is. And as recently as several years ago, Byrd used the “N†word on national tv. >>
LMFAO. As recently as LAST MONTH, Allen used the M-word on live TV.
<<As the Washington Post reported: Cragg, 67, who lives in Fairfax County, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.>>
Well, what did you expect? It's VIRGINIA, part of the Old South. You really expect to find white candidates, white ANYTHING, who are NOT racists? Wake up, mister.
<<Stick to the issues in the campaign, and don’t resort to these smears that you cannot prove.>>
We got the guy on camera calling a dark-skinned man "macaca" and welcoming him to "the real America." NOT twenty years ago, not 20 months ago, LAST MONTH. "Can't prove," my ass.
-
That's a total crock. I've offered a TON of evidence. "Macaca" on video. "Welcome to America" on video. The N-word, by (at last count) FIVE independent witnesses. The deer's head story (TWO independent witnesses) The Confederate Flag. The noose.
All of this has been discredited.
What hasn't been discredited is the fact that Robert Byrd was in the KKK and he used the "N" word recently.
James Webb used racial epithets and pointed toy guns at African Americans. This may not only be racist, but it could also be a crime.
-
<<All of this has been discredited. >>
That's rich. Discredited how?
The "Macaca" tape was faked with illegal Mexican actors playing Allen?
Discredited because Allen claims he just made up the word for no reason although the word he made up for no reason to direct at a dark-skinned man for no reason just happened to be - - by PURE COINCIDENCE mind you - - a racial insult in his mother's language for dark skinned men just like the one he "made up" the word for?
The FIVE INDEPENDENT witnesses who heard Allen use the N-word are discredited because you say they're discredited?
The TWO INDEPENDENT witnesses to the deer's head story are discredited because you say they're discredited? Or are they discredited because one is a Democrat and/or has an anti-tobacco PAC?
The noose-in-the-law-office is now discredited because Allen now claims it was only a lassoo? I think most people know the difference between a hangman 's noose and a lassoo. A hangman's noose has thirteen loops around the ends of the rope. I don't think there are too many cowboys who rope their cattle with a hangman's noose, and I don't think there are too many people who would mistake the one for the other.
The Confederate flag on his vehicle is discredited because you claim it's not a racist symbol?
I'm LMFAO. The only one "discredited" by all this incredible bullshit is YOU.
-
That's rich. Discredited how?
Read post #48. There's no use going over it all again when the post is right there. The false accusations against Allen have been discredited.
Again, the fact that Robert Byrd is a racist, who belonged to the KKK and said the "N" word recently is beyond dispute. This guy is a leader of the Democrat party.
The fact that James Webb used a toy gun to harass African-Americans hasn't been disputed.
Care to try?
-
Discredited - - from the people who brought you Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
What is this? The Republicans "discredit" any witness who tells a story they don't want to hear.
John Kerry's combat medals are "discredited" - - he didn't earn ONE. Boy, the Army must be pretty stupid to give away medals to folks who don't deserve them. Ever wonder how many other medals are undeserved? What about McCain's? What about Ollie North's? With a bunch of incompetent schmucks handing out the tinsel, how do we know which if any of them are truly deserved?
Now it's the witnesses against Senator Macacawitz' racism and bigotry who are next to be "discredites" - - this has to be a fucking joke, doesn't it? Stand up, tell a truth the Republicans don't want to hear - - and prepare to be "discredited."
Who can take this bullshit any longer? Does ANYBODY sincerely believe a Republican claim that a witness has been "discredited?" Is there any meaning to the term at all when anything and everything that comes out against the Republicans turns out (sometimes as soon as it comes out) to be "discredited?"
-
E-mails Show Foley Sought to Rendezvous with Page
October 02, 2006 12:14 PM
Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer Report:
Apr_mark_foley_061002_nrIn addition to explicit sexual language, former Congressman Mark Foley's Internet messages also include repeated efforts to get the underage recipient to rendezvous with him at night.
"I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you," Foley said in one message obtained by ABC News.
The FBI says it has opened a "preliminary investigation" of Foley's e-mails. Federal law enforcement officials say attempts by Foley to meet in person could constitute the necessary evidence for a federal charge of "soliciting for sex" with a minor on the Internet.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
* FBI Opens "Preliminary Investigation" of Foley
* Video Foley's Behavior No Secret in Washington
* Check Out Video Reports by Brian Ross on Our Home Page
In another message, Foley, using the screen name Maf54, appears to describe having been together with the teen in San Diego.
Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun
The messages also show the teen is, at times, uncomfortable with Foley's aggressive approach.
Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see
Foley resigned Friday after ABC News questioned him about the Internet messages.
He says he has checked into a rehabilitation facility to deal with alcohol and behavioral issues.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html
-
Stand up, tell a truth the Republicans don't want to hear - - and prepare to be "discredited."
That's the problem. There's no evidence that any of these Democrat partisans (and theya are ALL Democrat partisans) are telling the truth. They all have an agenda. There are many people, more than are making these false accusations, who have come forward to say they never heard Allen utter any type of racist comment and that Allen is being smeared. Friends that have known him his entire life.
If you are going to smear somebody and try to destroy his career, you better have solid proof. But you don't. All the false claims that you have, have been discredited.
They guy who said James Webb was using a toy gun scaring African-Amerians hasn't been discredited. You haven't even disputed it.
-
<<Read post #48. There's no use going over it all again when the post is right there. The false accusations against Allen have been discredited.>>
I read post #48 and in reply to it I wrote post #50 which completely demolishes the foolish and pathetic attempts to discredit the witnesses against Allen. One at a time. Each and every attempt to "discredit" a witness against Allen turns out to be pure bullshit. Nothing in the whole of post #48 stood up. It was rebutted point-by-point in post #50. The stories of those witnesses are clear and unmistakeable evidences of racism and viciousness, un-rebutted and un-contradicted. The attempts to discredit them are pathetic and amateurish. Apart from everything else, that one tape doesn't lie, and cannot lie: Allen, on TV, calling a dark-skinned man he singled out of a crowd of whites "macaca" (monkey) and in addition, purporting to "welcome" him to "the real America." You sound more and more like the government flacks of Orwell's 1984, claiming that black is white, that War is Peace, that what you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears just did not happen. Bullshit - - and shame on you.
-
Question to ask my Republican senators:
“Will you be introducing legislation soon to retroactively make on-line sexual solicitation of minors legal?â€
-
I read post #48 and in reply to it I wrote post #50 which completely demolishes the foolish and pathetic attempts to discredit the witnesses against Allen.
Wrong. Your pathetic and false accusations have been demolished. All of your accusers are Democrat hacks, who have an agenda. Many more have come forward to say that the accusations are bullcrap. There is nothing to back up the claims made by these partisans. Nothing.
The fact that James Webb used a toy gun to scare African Americans hasn't been discredited at all. But your claims have been.
-
And the GOP is defending precisely what, how?
Lanya?
Brass?
???
-
Lanya, Democrat Gerry Studds had a gay relationship with an underage page, and not only did he not resign from office, he continued to run for reelection to congress and the Democrats in MA kept sending him back.
-
<<That's the problem. There's no evidence that any of these Democrat partisans (and theya are ALL Democrat partisans) are telling the truth.>>
The fact that the stories resemble each other is evidence of truth. The fact that they are Democratic Party supporters means nothing - - are you saying that supporting the Party means they will lie and sell false accusations? MORE BULLSHIT- - usually if a man comes forward with a story, you can assume he is telling the truth; unless you can show a powerful reason to lie. The fact that the man supports one political party or another does not constitute a reason to make him out to be a liar, much less a false accuser.
<< They all have an agenda. >>
But Macacawitz and his supporters don't? More bullshit.
<<There are many people, more than are making these false accusations, who have come forward to say they never heard Allen utter any type of racist comment . . . >>
Which proves exactly nothing. Unless you believe that all racists suffer from a form of Tourette's Syndrome that causes them to walk around all day, spouting "Nigger, nigger, nigger" to everyone they encounter.
<<. . . and that Allen is being smeared.>>
How could they KNOW he is being smeared unless they can see into his heart and KNOW he is not a racist? Which you yourself have said is not possible.
<< Friends that have known him his entire life. >>
Why would you expect EVERY friend the guy has to be let in on his racist views? If they are NOT racists, he'd keep his views to himself. Why would he risk a friendship with a non-racist guy by coming across as Adolf Hitler reincarnated? His friends - - if they are decent people - - probably wouldn't know of his racist views. And if his friends are racist bastards like him, they'd lie about it to protect him, just like they'd expect him to lie about it to protect them/
You seem to be very easily taken in.
<<The guy who said James Webb was using a toy gun scaring African-Amerians hasn't been discredited. You haven't even disputed it. >>
Why would I dispute it? Webb's from Virginia. I'd EXPECT him to be a racist bastard.
-
Why would I dispute it? Webb's from Virginia. I'd EXPECT him to be a racist bastard.
He just might be. He also wrote a book in which he said the "N" word. Should he be charged with a crime for taunting African Americans with a toy gun?
-
<<Wrong. Your pathetic and false accusations have been demolished. All of your accusers are Democrat hacks, who have an agenda.>>
I don't think you can discredit an accuser by proving that he is a "Democratic hack" whatever that means. You probably can't even prove that he or she IS a "Democratic hack" although you might be able to prove that he/she supports the Democratic Party. As far as I can see, evidence of support for the Democratic Party does NOT translate into proof that the person lies or is a false accuser. Something more is generally required by normal, sane and intelligent people.
<<Many more have come forward to say that the accusations are bullcrap.>>
That's to be expected. There are always more people who DIDN'T hear a racist prick like Macacawitz spout his racist garbage simply because even most racists know enough to keep that shit to themselves. It's the ones who DID hear him spout who are the important witnesses. And there are just too many of them. They can't ALL be lying.
The one problem you have that you can't bullshit away is the tape: Macacawitz DID call the young man "macaca" and he DID "welcome" him to "the real America." All of your bullshit spin (including the laughable and pathetic "I just made the word up") won't get you out of that and the rest is mere confirmation.
-
Lanya, Democrat Gerry Studds had a gay relationship with an underage page, and not only did he not resign from office, he continued to run for reelection to congress and the Democrats in MA kept sending him back.
_______________________________
Yeah, I read about that. That's really surprising they'd vote him back in. I had never heard of him before this weekend. That was in 1973---a sign of how morals have changed since then? I don't know.
Here's what it says in Wikipedia about it:
''''Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The relationship was consensual, but violated age of consent laws and presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.
During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay."
As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.''''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
-
Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page. The relationship was consensual, but violated age of consent laws and presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.
It took the Democrats 10 years to get around to punishing Studds for his "relationship"?
And, interestingly enough, it took Republicans in both scandals to bring the issues to light - Democrats originally wanted to sweep them under the carpet.
Just as it was a Republican that recommended a criminal investigation in the Foley scandal...
-
It took the Democrats 10 years to get around to punishing Studds for his "relationship"? And, interestingly enough, it took Republicans in both scandals to bring the issues to light - Democrats originally wanted to sweep them under the carpet. Just as it was a Republican that recommended a criminal investigation in the Foley scandal...
I'm still waiting for Lanya or Brass, or Tee for that matter, to demonstrate what the hell the GOP is "circling" or defending regarding Foley's acts
Bueller?, Buellor?
-
Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54:
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun
These are Im's , edited at that. The headline is misleading. Why would that be?