DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on October 02, 2006, 12:00:38 PM
-
Proof positive of morally corrupt, koolaid-drinking morons.
Everyone else is to blame except the child predator and his higher ups who covered for him.
Technicalities, nonsensical Clinton associations and moral relativisms. This is the Catholic Church all over again.
Your shame should be overwhelming.
But then we know it never will.
Ego is your driving force.
-
And your blatant egregious distortion of the issue should be your overwhelming shame.
Who's defending "child predators"?
Please define inappropriate conduct vs predatory conduct
How is the GOP trying to protect Foley? Last time I checked Hastert got his immediate resignation, and even wants a criminal investigation to start
-
Wrong Bucko.
please provide proof that the IM's, which are the only smoking gun in this whole thing, are genuine.
Not like forging documents is beyond the pall for certain agenda driven folk. See Rathergate for more info.
And changing the contents of an IM is childs play. And as the name of the young guy on the recieving end of the IM's name was changed we know that the IM's were edited at least once.
The best information we have right now is that Foley was a "snappy dresser" and that in and of itself is no reason to drum someone out of the caucus. Even his "sick,sick,sick" emails aren't enough, though they are enough for some strongly worded counselling. Which was provided, BTW, at the behest of GOP leadership.
Once again the tin foil brigade overplays its hand, reminiscent of the way you overplayed Katrina (see Brousard of Jefferson County or Giiliards dead nigger gator bait remarks) , by trying to make this look like a coverup.
What it really is, is an example of GOP tolerance for "snappy dressers".
You on the other hand want to mount a witch hunt for closet gays. And who am i to stand in your way.
-
Keep circling the wagons, you koolaid kowboys.
-
Brilliant rebuttal.
You know you have nothing.
It's the same big noise machine we saw with Katrina. Fast and furious and when the facts come in you slink back under your rocks.
Look at the headline from Lanya's last post.
And then look at the content.
There is a huge difference between emails and Im's.
-
You on the other hand want to mount a witch hunt for closet gays. And who am i to stand in your way.
I quess i shouldn't be surprised that you confuse closet guys with closet child molesters. They are all the same to you sexual bigots.But I am certainly not surprised that you try to cover up for the Foley cover-up which is extremely well documented.
October 1, 2006
G.O.P. Aides Knew in Late ’05 of E-Mail
By CARL HULSE and RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.
The exchanges began with what Republicans now describe as an “overfriendly†e-mail message from Mr. Foley to the unidentified teenager.
But news reports about the exchanges led to the disclosure of e-mail correspondence with other former pages in which the discussions became more and more sexually explicit. Shortly after he was confronted by ABC News on Friday about the subject, Mr. Foley, who represented a south Florida district, resigned from the House.
The revelations set off a political upheaval, with Democrats and some Republicans calling for a full investigation of Mr. Foley’s conduct and whether House leaders did enough to look into it. Members of the Republican leadership sought Saturday to detail how they had handled the case in an effort to defuse the situation, even as it was emerging as an issue in Congressional races.
Among those who became aware earlier this year of the fall 2005 communications between Mr. Foley and the 16-year-old page, who worked for Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, were Representative John A. Boehner, the majority leader, and Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Mr. Reynolds said in a statement Saturday that he had also personally raised the issue with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.
“Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn’t want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me,†Mr. Reynolds said.
In a chronology of the episode released later on Saturday, the speaker’s office said Mr. Hastert did not recall any such discussion and had no previous knowledge of the matter. “While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds’ recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution,†the statement said.
The statement, issued after senior aides, the House clerk and legal advisers huddled for much of Saturday in the Capitol, said senior staff members in the speaker’s office first learned of the e-mail messages from Mr. Alexander’s office in the fall of 2005 and took steps to investigate.
Aides to the speaker and other Congressional Republican leaders said the messages, which an Alexander aide described to them as “overfriendly,†were much less explicit than the others that came to light after ABC News first disclosed the e-mail correspondence with Mr. Alexander’s page. The aides said Mr. Alexander’s office, at the request of the page’s family, did not show them copies of the messages. In those messages, sent after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Foley asked about the well-being of the boy, a Monroe, La., resident. He wrote: “How are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me a pic of you as well.†The page sent the note to a former colleague, describing it as “sick.â€
In another message, Mr. Foley wrote, “What do you want for your birthday coming up. . .what stuff do you like to do.â€
The e-mail exchanges that came to light after the first news reports were far more graphic. When he was confronted about them on Friday, Mr. Foley resigned. Republican leaders said they had not known about the other e-mail correspondence.
“No one in the speaker’s office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the Internet this week,†the statement from Mr. Hastert’s office said.
Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers said Saturday that Congress and the public deserved a full report on Mr. Foley’s dealings with the pages, who are high school students who serve as runners and perform other duties. The lawmakers said there should also be an inquiry into the leadership’s knowledge of his activities and its response.
“Anyone who was involved in the chain of information should come forward and tell when they were told, what they were told and what they did with the information when they got it,†said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. Mr. King called it a “dark day†for Congress and said, “We need a full investigation.â€
Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, said any leader who had been aware of Mr. Foley’s behavior and failed to take action should step down. “If they knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership,†Mr. Shays said.
On Saturday night, the House Republican leadership issued a statement that characterized the communications between Mr. Foley and the former House pages as “unacceptable and abhorrent.â€
“It is an obscene breach of trust,†the statement said. “His immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system.â€
The statement, from Mr. Hastert, Mr. Boehner and the majority whip, Roy Blunt, asked the board that oversees pages “to undertake a full review of the incident and propose additional safeguard measures.â€
The leaders also said they had asked for specific rules governing the communications and contacts between pages and lawmakers and called for creation of a toll-free number for pages and their parents to report concerns.
Besides the leaders, other lawmakers and Congressional officers who served on the board that oversaw the page program were aware of the e-mail messages, though the Democratic lawmaker who serves on the board, Representative Dale E. Kildee of Michigan, said Saturday that he had never been informed.
According to lawmakers and the speaker’s office, the page who received the e-mail forwarded the one in which Mr. Foley, 52, asked for his picture, to a colleague in Mr. Alexander’s office, repeatedly calling it “sick†and saying it “freaked me out.â€
Mr. Alexander called the boy’s parents, who, Republican leaders said Saturday, told him they did not want to pursue the matter but wanted Mr. Foley to stop.
Mr. Alexander’s office also contacted staff members in Mr. Hastert’s office for guidance on what to do and, according to the speaker’s account, his aides put Mr. Alexander’s staff in contact with the clerk of the House, who oversees the page program. The clerk, who at the time was Jeff Trandahl, referred the matter to Representative John Shimkus, the Illinois Republican who is the chairman of the House Page Board, in late 2005, a spokesman for Mr. Shimkus said.
Mr. Trandahl and Mr. Shimkus confronted Mr. Foley, who insisted he was simply acting as a mentor to the former page, officials said. He assured them nothing inappropriate had occurred.
“They asked Foley about the e-mail,†the speaker’s statement said. “Congressman Shimkus and the clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.â€
The leadership had other possible avenues for investigating the e-mail messages beyond questioning Mr. Foley, including an inquiry by the ethics committee or even the Capitol police. But aides said that while the contents of the messages are disturbing in hindsight, they did not set off alarms initially.
On Saturday, Mr. Shimkus’ spokesman, Steve Tomaszewski, said, “Obviously Foley lied about the other e-mails.â€
Mr. Tomaszewski said Mr. Shimkus would not comment on any other conversations he had with House leaders about the matter because it was referred to the ethics committee by a vote of the House on Friday. A spokesman for Mr. Alexander did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages.
Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said Saturday that Mr. Boehner had had a “brief, nonspecific†conversation about the subject with Mr. Alexander in the spring but that he could not recall with certainty whether he had discussed it with other leaders.
Democrats moved quickly to criticize Mr. Reynolds, who while overseeing House campaigns nationally is facing the potential of a serious challenge from Jack Davis, a wealthy businessman who has vowed to spend at least $2 million of his own money in the contest. “Tom Reynolds had a moral obligation to protect our children,†said Curtis Ellis, a spokesman for Mr. Davis.
Carl Forti, a spokesman for Mr. Reynolds, said the congressman became aware of contact between Mr. Foley and the young page this past spring, when Mr. Alexander brought it to his attention. Mr. Forti said that Mr. Alexander had told Mr. Reynolds of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley and the page, but that he did not show Mr. Reynolds the e-mail messages and their contents.
Strategists for both parties said it was too early to tell what impact the episode might have on Congressional elections now five weeks away but said at a minimum it could lower the already dismal public view of incumbents and discourage conservative voters.
It directly affected the race for the seat of Mr. Foley — the third Republican to resign this year under a cloud. Tim Mahoney, the Democrat who had been running an uphill and barely watched race against Mr. Foley, used the new attention to his campaign on Saturday to accuse the Republican leadership of covering up for him.
“It’s now clear from all the reports coming in from across the country that the Republican leadership team has been well aware of this problem with the pages for well over a year,†Mr. Mahoney said at a campaign stop at Palm Beach International Airport. “It looks to me that it was more important to hold onto a seat and to hold onto power than to take care of our children.â€
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.
Kate Zernike contributed reporting from New York, David Johnston from Washington and Abby Goodnough from West Palm Beach, Fla.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01foley.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
-
“It’s now clear from all the reports coming in from across the country that the Republican leadership team has been well aware of this problem with the pages for well over a year,â€
not about republicans,but about pedophilia in general.
virtually ever case the community knows this is happening for years
wa da fu(% is going on?
-
Proof positive of morally corrupt, koolaid-drinking morons.
Everyone else is to blame except the child predator and his higher ups who covered for him.
Technicalities, nonsensical Clinton associations and moral relativisms. This is the Catholic Church all over again.
Your shame should be overwhelming.
But then we know it never will.
Ego is your driving force.
Rep. Gerry E. Studds (Dem. Mass),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_E._Studds
-
I quess i shouldn't be surprised that you confuse closet guys with closet child molesters.
I would presume a child molestor is one who molests children. So when did Foley molest anyone? When was he even in the same room wth these guys to molest them?
Once again you overplay your hand.
-
As Rep Studds demonstrated a Democrats sex life ins no one eleses business , even if it is demonstrable that laws were broken.
But it is good that Rep Foley is retireing , getting drunkand talking dirty to teens may not tecnicly be illeagal but it is hardly conduct that brings honor to his office or to Congress.
He had to go , he knew it , Studds could stay, he knew that , so what was the diffrence?
-
I quess i shouldn't be surprised that you confuse closet guys with closet child molesters.
I would presume a child molestor is one who molests children. So when did Foley molest anyone? When was he even in the same room wth these guys to molest them?
I am sure all that will come out in the goodness of time. This aint goin away for a looooong time.
Once again you overplay your hand.
And you are again underplaying your hand when it comes to protecting your beloved tax-cutting perverts,
-
As Rep Studds demonstrated a Democrats sex life ins no one eleses business , even if it is demonstrable that laws were broken.
But it is good that Rep Foley is retireing , getting drunkand talking dirty to teens may not tecnicly be illeagal but it is hardly conduct that brings honor to his office or to Congress.
He had to go , he knew it , Studds could stay, he knew that , so what was the diffrence?
Ill be damned there really IS a Rep Studds. Personal sex is no one elses business when it is between consenting adults, not when children are exploited by someone in power like you Repubs always like to do.
I have always thought that it is because you guys are not comfortable with your sexuality which is why when it does come out ( sot to speak) it comes out perverted. I know you all would prefer to do tax cuts anyway!
-
Knute let me explain this like you are a six year old. Hope I'm not giving you too much credit.
No one is defending Foley.
What is in dispute is you and other tin foil wearing lunatics charge that the GOP leadership is involved in a cover up.
You haven't made that case.
All evidence points to the fact that you don't have a case, and this is nothing more than the big noise machine trying to score some points before the facts come out and your charges are once again discredited.
You would think you would learn from your mistakes, but the trend says you won't.
-
Ill be damned there really IS a Rep Studds. Personal sex is no one elses business when it is between consenting adults, not when children are exploited by someone in power like you Repubs always like to do.
I have always thought that it is because you guys are not comfortable with your sexuality which is why when it does come out ( sot to speak) it comes out perverted. I know you all would prefer to do tax cuts anyway!
Studds dated a page that was 17. Foley sent emails to a page that was 16. The age of consent in DC is 16, so both were adult relationships.
Either that or neither were.
Your choice.
-
There is a huge difference between emails and Im's.
Suuuuuure, there is.
Keep thinking whatever you need to think to spin, buddy. The GOP leadership shielded this guy. Like cardinals protecting priests.
Split all the hairs you want.
-
No need to split hairs if the facts are on your side.
But you wouldn't know about that, would you?
The smoking gun is the IM's. You haven't shown that the GOP Leadership knew about them.
They did know about the emails to the kid in Louisanna. And that was nipped in the bud.
Like isaid. You have nothing but false bravado.
-
No need to split hairs if the facts are on your side.
But you wouldn't know about that, would you?
The smoking gun is the IM's. You haven't shown that the GOP Leadership knew about them.
They did know about the emails to the kid in Louisanna. And that was nipped in the bud.
Like isaid. You have nothing but false bravado.
It of course is the only defense you have to define this in the narrowest way possible. The larger fact is that you who claim to be the great moral paragons are actually the biggest perverts. It is your hypocracy that stinks up the nation.
-
Republicans tend to leave when we learn of their scandals , even if they are President.
Democrats get away with more Rep. Studds did more than just talk to a page but was re-elected afterwards.
So is dimished expectations the problem?
And what exactly is Rep. Foley getting away with?
-
It is endlessly distressing to me how you guys will go out of your way to throw mud and whine about what others have done when your own are caught with their hands in the cookie jars over and over and over again.
Most. Corrupt. Government. Ever.
Pedophiles and thieves and murderers. All Republican.
-
Republicans tend to leave when we learn of their scandals , even if they are President.
Democrats get away with more Rep. Studds did more than just talk to a page but was re-elected afterwards.
So is dimished expectations the problem?
And what exactly is Rep. Foley getting away with?
Not even you who is probly the most intelligent and humane of the RW nuts in herej, ust doesnt get it either. It isnt the crime, although Foley's pedophilia is beyond the normal scandal scope,. It is the hypocracy. You guys purport a moral superiority which I suppose is a cover for your craven greed , lust and sins.Foley was Chairman of the Committee that was to protect children like the ones he accosted. Even you would vomit at the meeting of pages at which Foley cried .
He might have a career in Hollywood now with his lack of morals and great acting ability.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2517754
-
If we're to apply knute's "deductive reasoning" :D his claim is that the GOP are hypocrites becauase they dare espouse and advocate moral behavior, and when one of them strays from such and is condemned by all the GOP, they're still hypocrites because, hey, they're all supposed to be perfectly moral. Which also apparently means, since Dems have no such a moral compass they advocate, it's perfectly ok for them to act as perverts, pedophiles, sexual harassers, drug pushers, perjerors, racists, and dare I say rapists, and its perfectly ok. One can even can be re-elected, because .... well, because they don't advocate such moral behavior, so when they get caught doing such, it's no biggie. Right? ;)
-
Ill be damned there really IS a Rep Studds. Personal sex is no one elses business when it is between consenting adults, not when children are exploited by someone in power like you Repubs always like to do.
I have always thought that it is because you guys are not comfortable with your sexuality which is why when it does come out ( sot to speak) it comes out perverted. I know you all would prefer to do tax cuts anyway!
Studds dated a page that was 17. Foley sent emails to a page that was 16. The age of consent in DC is 16, so both were adult relationships.
Either that or neither were.
Your choice.
via Glenn Greenwald:
[...]
For now, I will just note what seems to be the bizarre and incoherent contradiction in the law, noted by Atrios yesterday, that in-person, actual sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page would be perfectly legal in D.C. and in most places in the U.S. (see UPDATE below), but it seems that it is a criminal act for Foley to discuss or solicit sexual acts with the same page over the Internet. Despite all the irritatingly righteous (and overheated) "pedophile" language being tossed around, in the overwhelming majority of states, and in Washington DC, the legal age of consent for sex is 16 years old. That means that actual, in-person sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page in D.C. would not be criminal at all (though it likely could have other legal implications).
But under the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) ("MINOR.--The term 'minor' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years") and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“'minor' means any person under the age of eighteen years").
[.....]
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-house-leadership-and-mark-foley.html
-
The IM's took place in 2003. The Adam Walsh ACT was passd in 2006 and is not retroactive.
Greenwald is either an idiot or is being deliberately misleading.
Take your pick.
-
Right before the old 3DHS crashed, there was a discussion about a bill in OHIO to create a civil registry of sex offenders. There was much wringing of hands about how reputations would be destroyed by creation of same. I mentioned that reputations are just as easily destroyed by the wolfpack mentality of the press and partisans when a story breaks to their advantage. I believe i was hooted at derisively. And then comes this.
No proof that the smoking gun IM's are real. No proof of child molestation at the hands of Foley. No proof that GOP leadership was aware of the alledged IM's and there is not a dem in the house that doesn't have blood dripping down their chins from this feeding frenzy.
Hat tip to UP for being consistent. The rest of you should be very proud of yourselves.
-
I think he was speaking in the present tense. "Is" and "would be"....would be , what's that, pluperfect?
-
I think he was speaking in the present tense.
So why did you post it as a response to my post? Mine was addressing the specifics of the case, not a hypothetical, current-day situation.
-
"The IM's took place in 2003. The Adam Walsh ACT was passd in 2006 and is not retroactive.
Greenwald is either an idiot or is being deliberately misleading.
Take your pick."
Amianthus: that's the post I was responding to. BT's post. I tell you again, I have trouble navigating this forum. I make a point, and if it is not in exactly the right spot...well, that's the way it is.
-
Amianthus: that's the post I was responding to. BT's post. I tell you again, I have trouble navigating this forum. I make a point, and if it is not in exactly the right spot...well, that's the way it is.
Your post quotes my post. Visit it here to see: http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=181.msg1408#msg1408 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=181.msg1408#msg1408) And besides, BT's post was after your's, so that can't be true.
-
Re: GOP Losers Circle Wagons For Child Predator
« Reply #22 on: Today at 02:54:43 PM »
Reply with quote
The IM's took place in 2003. The Adam Walsh ACT was passd in 2006 and is not retroactive.
Greenwald is either an idiot or is being deliberately misleading.
Take your pick.
Posted by: Lanya
Insert Quote
I think he was speaking in the present tense. "Is" and "would be"....would be , what's that, pluperfect?
Posted on: Today at 03:02:34 PM
My post is after BT's.
-
My post is after BT's.
Well, duh, that one was a response. I asked about your original post, to which BT responded. Did you bother to click on the link?