GOP Imploding As More and More Details Emerge

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[R.R.]

“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.”

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.

[R.R.]

“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."”

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?

[Lanya]

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.
[]

[R.R.]

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.

[Lanya]

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

[Michael Tee]

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.

[R.R.]

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.

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[R.R.]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.