TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- I really hope you GOPers don't support protecting a sexual predator
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

I really hope you GOPers don't support protecting a sexual predator

quote:

FBI to Examine Foley's E-Mails Hastert Calls For Independent Probe By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, October 2, 2006; Page A01 The FBI announced last night that it is looking into whether former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) broke federal law by sending inappropriate e-mails and instant messages to teenage House pages. The announcement came hours after House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert asked for a Justice Department investigation into not only Foley's actions but also Congress's handling of the matter once it learned of the contacts. In his letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Hastert (R-Ill.) acknowledged that some of Foley's most sexually explicit instant messages were sent to former House pages in 2003. That was two years before lawmakers say they learned of a more ambiguous 2005 e-mail that led only to a quiet warning to Foley to leave pages alone. Foley, 52, abruptly resigned Friday, and Democrats have since been hammering Hastert and other GOP leaders. They have accused Republicans of covering up the matter and allowing Foley to remain as co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus instead of launching an inquiry and possibly uncovering the raunchier communications. As the scandal broke, Hastert contended he learned of concerns about Foley only last week. But after Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) said Saturday that he had notified Hastert months ago of Foley's e-mails to a 16-year-old boy, the speaker did not dispute his colleague, and Hastert's office acknowledged that some aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the youth. Republican leaders continued to insist yesterday that it was understandable that the "over-friendly" Internet e-mails they had seen did not set off alarm bells. But one House GOP leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, conceded that Republicans had erred in not notifying the three-member, bipartisan panel that oversees the page system. Instead, they left it to the panel chairman, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), to confront Foley. Also yesterday, a former House page said that at a 2003 page reunion, he saw sexually suggestive e-mails Foley had sent to another former page. Patrick McDonald, 21, now a senior at Ohio State University, said he eventually learned of "three or four" pages from his 2001-2002 class who were sent such messages. He said he remembered saying at the reunion, "If this gets out, it will destroy him."..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6100100644.html

There are so many fucking disturbing events that are slowly transpiring here about this it's difficult to know where exactly to start. But let me again emphasize a critical piece of info:

quote:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday -- contradicting the speaker's assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.... Yesterday's developments revealed a rift at the highest echelons of House Republican ranks a month before the Nov. 7 elections, and they threatened to expand the scandal to a full-blown party dilemma. Only after Reynolds's definitive statement did Hastert concede yesterday that he may have been notified of some of the questionable activities of Foley.... Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, questioned yesterday why Alexander had gone to the House Republicans' chief political operative, rather than to other party leaders. "That's to protect a member, not to protect a child," Emanuel said. With his statement, Reynolds, who is locked in a difficult reelection campaign, signaled he was unwilling to take the fall alone amid partisan attacks that were becoming increasingly vituperative.... Republican insiders said Reynolds spoke out because he was angry that Hastert appeared willing to let him take the blame for the party leadership's silence. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...93001265_2.html

That does not look good for Hastert one bit.

It gets worse. Rep. Shimcus (R) from Illinois knew and allowed Foley to spend "a lot of time" with pages AFTER he knew of Foley's predatory habits:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/200...-let-foley.html

Shimcus had said that he had seen those emails about Foley:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...2F?OpenDocument

Yet according to Hastert's office and Shimcus' office, Shimcus DIDN'T see them:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010070.php

Oops.

Oh, but don't let that stop the GOP from taking Foley's campaign contributions for other GOP candidates, though:

quote:

Mr. Foley, who served on the House Ways and Means Committee, was a prolific fund-raiser. His campaign account had a balance of $2.7 million at the end of August, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Carl Forti, the communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Sunday that the committee would gladly accept Mr. Foley�s money or a portion of it to devote to House races. Mr. Foley already gave $100,000 to the committee in July, campaign records show, as part of the party�s Battleground Program, to which members are asked to contribute. �The money is in the control of Mr. Foley,� Mr. Forti said. �Whatever he decides to do with it is up to him.� http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/w...artner=homepage

Yeah, truly shocking, ain't it?

I will say that it is nice to see some conservative bloggers step up and separate themselves from the shills:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com...ives/008180.php

As for others, well, to the very bitter end they fall right in lockstep I guess:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015429.php

Inexcusable.

Now we are led to believe that Hastert has notified the DOJ to start an investigation going. But something doesn't smell quite right about Hastert here, considering he's pretty much deep in the muck himself.

It doesn't take too long to realize Hastert's dodging his involvement pretty damn good. If anything, his letter itself to the DOJ is more incriminating than anything else out there. Here's Hastert's letter:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/...ws/15264-1.html

Now read through that closely, someone, anyone for fuck's sake and tell me exactly where Hastert is asking the DOJ to examine whether the GOP leaders failed to take action against Foley despite knowing his illegal sexual predatory behavior. Found it yet?

Funny, neither did I.

Greenwald has the analysis here for more reading on the issue:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...nces-cover.html

In short, this stinks bad. Hastert is in a serious fucking bind here, and any Republican who blindly supports this behavior given this pretty seriously damning evidence so far is nothing shy of insane. I know you guys who carry the morals torch so high don't need a scandal like this a few weeks out before the election, but all I can say is you brought it upon yourselves and made it worse by attempting a cover-up.

Then again, I suppose we could always talk about Iraq........

No defense from me, Opus. But hey, it's not like he killed anybody...cough cough...Teddy Kennedy..cough cough. Wanna compare embarassing incidents from the political world? What is it with politicians and those damn interns?!?!


Seriously though--I read an IM conversation from the guy. Wow. Pretty blatant. Get him the fuck outa there.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss...=2509586&page=1

wow that guys busted

that has to loose them florida



Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California after pleading guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes.



Majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, indicted on state campaign finance violations.




Bob Ney of Ohio, guilty of corruption.



Mark Foley, child predator.


Under investigation:

Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) Corruption
Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Insider Trading
Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Corruption
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), Corruption
Republicans sure know how to pick the winners!

(check out the wiki for Dennis Hastert, the bulk of the article are listed controversies hes had apart in)

THIS STORY IS A DIVERSIONARY TACTIC TO TAKE THE MEDIA AWAY FROM THE EVIL BILL THAT PASSED FRIDAY.

mmm caps.

You'd think we'd know by now when the government is trying to bullshit us... soon they will not need to.

As a matter of fact, most of us on this forum who live in America can now be legally arrested and tortured and sent to the detention camps at the whim of the federal government. Yay!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby THIS STORY IS A DIVERSIONARY TACTIC TO TAKE THE MEDIA AWAY FROM THE EVIL BILL THAT PASSED FRIDAY. mmm caps. You'd think we'd know by now when the government is trying to bullshit us... soon they will not need to. As a matter of fact, most of us on this forum who live in America can now be legally arrested and tortured and sent to the detention camps at the whim of the federal government. Yay!

I dunno about it being a diversionary tactic. I think this is going to fuck them more than the detention camp legislation when the elections roll around.

TBH, half of this country doesn't care about the legislation because they've been brainwashed into thinking it's for their own protection, but everyone cares about a sex scandal. Kind of sad, but that seems to be how it works here.

Anybody remember Gerry Studds? He was a Democrat congressman from Massachusetts. In 1983 Studds, and a Republican named Dan Crane were both caught having sexual relations with pages. Crane a 17-year-old female, Studds a 17-year-old male. Both admitted their wrongdoing ... and the House Ethics Committee decided to do nothing more than issue a reprimand to both.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Anybody remember Gerry Studds? He was a Democrat congressman from Massachusetts. In 1983 Studds, and a Republican named Dan Crane were both caught having sexual relations with pages. Crane a 17-year-old female, Studds a 17-year-old male. Both admitted their wrongdoing ... and the House Ethics Committee decided to do nothing more than issue a reprimand to both.

I actually first heard of these two yesterday, since I was 3 when this happened. At 17, both of them were over the age of consent. The interesting aspect of these cases is summed up below

quote:

Greenfield: Could Foley's follies hurt the GOP? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Well, it's October, so -- surprise! The most politically explosive writing to hit Washington last week wasn't what's in Bob Woodward's pages. It was those alleged e-mails between Mark Foley and at least a couple of congressional pages and what the House Republican leadership did or didn't do back last fall. If you want one clue about the political fallout from all this, you can look back more than 20 years ago. In 1983, the House Ethics Committee revealed that two House members had been sexually involved with pages: liberal Massachusetts Democrat Gerry Studds and conservative Illinois Republican Daniel Crane. Crane was involved with a female, Studds a male; both pages were over the legal age of consent. Both Studds and Crane were censured by the House, but their responses -- and their political fates -- were very different. Crane was repentant; tearfully apologized to his wife and family, asked for forgiveness. As the rules require, he stood in the well of the House to receive his censure and faced his colleagues. By contrast, Studds was unrepentant. He said the relationship was legal and consensual, talked about the difficulties of being a gay man in America, and when the House censured him, he turned his back on his colleagues, as if to reject their censure. The next year, Crane, who had been an outspoken advocate of "family values," was soundly defeated by voters in his conservative district. Studds was re-elected handily, and served in the House for more than a dozen years, until his retirement. What's the relevance? Well, consider the role of social conservatives, like those who attended the recent Family Research Council gathering in Washington. They fill the ranks of GOP turnout operations at election time. Some, like James Dobson of "Focus on the Family," have already expressed disappointment in how Republicans have treated their priorities, like gay marriage and abortion. As the earlier scandal shows, such conservatives are particularly likely to punish sexual misbehavior. And if they conclude that top Republican leaders did not pursue such behavior when they learned of it, the political consequences -- diminished enthusiasm, lower turnouts -- could be severe. The specifics of this issue are entangled in dispute: Were the earlier, alleged sexually explicit communications leaked with a political agenda in mind? Did the leadership see only the less explicit communications? But the campaign season does not deal well with subtleties. If this story ends up convincing social conservatives that the Republican Party has let them down, a lot of the calculations about what will happen in November go right out the window Source

Why the hell are sexual predators being elected into office. Where are the background checks, and psychological exams? If we did that, I don't think half of our elected officials would be in office.

quote:

Originally posted by Temperate Why the hell are sexual predators being elected into office. Where are the background checks, and psychological exams? If we did that, I don't think half of our elected officials would be in office.

Are you joking? Of all the places to start having background checks and pysch exams, politicians aren't near the top of my list. These people have less private exposure to children than most Americans.

Some things you just can't prevent because people have no prior record of this sort of behavior. The only way you'd even come close to dealing with this behavior with more certainty is if we lived in 1984.

BTW, these guys have pretty thorough background checks already. It's called their opponents, which is a lot more scrutiny than teachers or doctors receive.

I'm NOT defending Foley.

quote:

Paging Mr. Hastert October 3, 2006; Page A26 Florida Republican Mark Foley's sexually explicit emails to a Congressional page certainly warranted his resignation from the House, and they may well merit prosecution. But this being five weeks from an election, the GOP House leadership is also being assailed for not having come down more strongly on a gay Congressman for showing a more than friendly interest in underage boys. That's a different issue altogether. At least this seems to be the essence of the Democratic and media charge against Speaker Dennis Hastert, who admits his office was told months ago about a friendly, non-explicit 2005 email exchange between Mr. Foley and another page. In that exchange, Mr. Foley had asked the teenager "how old are you now" and requested "an email pic." In our admittedly traditional view, this was odd and suspect behavior, especially because Mr. Foley was well known as a homosexual even if he declined to publicly acknowledge it. And Mr. Hastert was informed that fellow Illinois Republican John Shimkus -- who oversees the page program as part of a six-member board -- spoke privately with Mr. Foley, who explained that the email was innocent. What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise. But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one? Mr. Foley's explicit emails -- which were sent to a former page who had returned home -- clearly crossed the line into "vile and repulsive," as Mr. Hastert put it yesterday. And the Floridian has now resigned in disgrace and is being criminally investigated. This is harsher treatment than was meted out in the past to some Members of Congress who crossed another line and actually had sexual relations with underage pages. Democrat Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was censured in 1983 for seducing a male teenage page, but remained in the House for another 13 years and retired, according to the Boston Globe, with a rich pension. Mr. Foley lied to many people over the years, most notably to himself. It's one of those human mysteries that someone so prominent, and so active as a spokesman against sexual predators, would send emails that he knew would destroy his career if they became public. That kind of psychoanalysis is above our pay grade. Yes, Mr. Hastert and his staff should have done more to quarantine Mr. Foley from male pages after the first email came to light. But if that's the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm NOT defending Foley.

The reason they're attacking him is because it shows the Republicans as hypocrites, not because they have an issue with his orientation.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy The reason they're attacking him is because it shows the Republicans as hypocrites, not because they have an issue with his orientation.

With 5 weeks left to the election, it's no surprise. I certainly take issue with what he did, though the article makes an interesting point with this line:

quote:

Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

Politicians are a crooked breed.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka With 5 weeks left to the election, it's no surprise. I certainly take issue with what he did, though the article makes an interesting point with this line: Politicians are a crooked breed.

Not all gays are pedophiles, though, which no matter what his attorney would like to say, he is under the definition. I think the line that they're not drawing in that article is in between just being gay and being gay and hitting on the youths. Under their logic, women shouldn't be allowed to be Cub Scout/Boy Scout leaders, either, which half of mine were when I was a member because the fathers were too busy.

In my opinion, that's a very different thing and the authors of that piece are just trying to erase that line to make the Dems look bad for being critical.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy In my opinion, that's a very different thing and the authors of that piece are just trying to erase that line to make the Dems look bad for being critical.

You mean playing politics?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You mean playing politics?

Yep, no argument there. I'm just saying that's where their logic is vulnerable.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Not all gays are pedophiles, though, which no matter what his attorney would like to say, he is under the definition. I think the line that they're not drawing in that article is in between just being gay and being gay and hitting on the youths. Under their logic, women shouldn't be allowed to be Cub Scout/Boy Scout leaders, either, which half of mine were when I was a member because the fathers were too busy. In my opinion, that's a very different thing and the authors of that piece are just trying to erase that line to make the Dems look bad for being critical.

He's not a pedophile just by this one situation... the kid is 16 years old, which is pretty much an adult.

Pedophilia is someone interested in children.

The problem in this particular case is the age of consent laws.

In Florida, it is LEGAL to have sex with a 16 year old, as long as you are 24 years or younger. This actually makes pretty good sense; it protects the "kids" (their hormones are running wild, afterall) without creating problems (18 year old dating a 16 year old/etc).

However, in Florida it is ILLEGAL to have sex with anyone under 18 if you are older than 24. And Foley is like 34252345, so he's in deep water. Especially since he's a politician... good riddence.

I don't really care either way about the whole situation; if it's a catalyst to enact some change in this country, then great.

But yeah... he *may* be a pedophile (as in.. interested in 10 year olds), but it's ridiculous to call him a pedophile for being interested in a 16 year old. We also can't really say that the guy is necessarily gay... sexuality is often shades of grey. I know that if you saw a hot girl in the mall and didn't know her age you wouldn't care, and you might even hit on her if you had the balls (and i'm sure you'd back off once you knew she was 16).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby He's not a pedophile just by this one situation... the kid is 16 years old, which is pretty much an adult.

From my understanding his "overly friendly" messages apparently aren't isolated to this one page, but the IMs are what they are focusing on because they're the most sexually explicit.

I agree with not necessarily deeming those interested in 16 year-olds as pedophiles, but under our laws as they're written, I believe that's an accurate term. I guess I deem people as pedophiles if they want pre-pubescent individuals, but the law brings in the age factor.

I think they call them "Sexual Predators".

Teehee, Boehner just threw Hastert under the bus:

quote:

Boehner Says Foley Was Hastert's `Responsibility' (Update1) By Jay Newton-Small and Nadine Elsibai Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- House Majority Leader John Boehner said House Speaker Dennis Hastert was responsible for how Mark Foley's sending of inappropriate e-mails was handled, creating a public split among the two top Republican leaders. ``I believe I had talked to the speaker and he told me it had been taken care of,'' Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told Cincinnati 700 WLW Radio this morning. ``In my position, it's in his corner, it's his responsibility.'' The Congressional Page Board and others overseeing the program, ``all report to the speaker,'' Boehner said. Hastert's spokesman dismissed any suggestion he would resign. ``The speaker has and will lead the Republican conference to another majority in the 110th Congress,'' said Ron Bonjean. Republicans have fractured in the wake of Foley's resignation Sept. 29 after being questioned by ABC News about sexually explicit messages he sent to male teenage pages. The pro-Republican Washington Times called on Hastert to resign in an editorial in today's edition. Hastert said over the weekend that he and at least two other Republican members knew months ago about ``overly friendly'' e- mails that Foley, a Florida Republican, had sent to a former House male page. Republican Representatives Rodney Alexander and John Shimkus asked Foley not to contact the page again; Shimkus oversaw the page program and the page was from Alexander's district. Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said yesterday the ``Republican leaders of the House did not have'' the sexual explicit messages reported by ABC News Friday. And that the 2005 e-mails were not sexually explicit in nature, he said. A Breach The breach between Hastert and Boehner is not the only division hampering the House leadership. Representative Tom Reynolds, who heads the House Republican campaign organization, said he alerted Hastert in 2005 that Foley's messages had given a Louisiana page ``some discomfort.'' Hastert said yesterday he didn't remember the conversation. Democrats have questioned whether Reynolds helped cover-up the messages, noting that Reynolds' chief-of-staff, Kirk Fordham, previously served as an aide to Foley. Reynolds told reporters in New York yesterday that he and Fordham have never discussed Foley's reputation, according to the Buffalo News. With less than 40 days to the midterm elections, vulnerable candidates have distanced themselves from the leadership, with several of them calling for any leader involved in a cover-up to step down. ``The goal for Republicans in the waning hours of the congressional year was to be able to go out with a flourish,'' said Amy Walter, an analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington. ``Instead they spent all weekend talking about Mark Foley.'' To contact the reporters on this story: Jay Newton-Small in Washington at [email protected]

Oh man! This just keeps getting better!

quote:

Attorney: Clergyman molested Foley as teen Story Highlights �Attorney says Foley was molested as a teen and is gay �Foley never had sexual contact with a minor, is not a pedophile, lawyer says �Report: Congressman had cybersex with teen before 2003 House vote �Attorney: Foley will elaborate when he is released from treatment center WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- Former Rep. Mark Foley was molested by a clergyman when he was between the ages of 13 and 15, his attorney said Tuesday amid allegations that the congressman exchanged inappropriate e-mails and instant messages with teen congressional pages. Foley, a Florida Republican, resigned Friday amid questions over e-mails he allegedly wrote to a former page, asking the boy what he liked to do and requesting a photograph. The scandal has been troublesome for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has been criticized over his handling of the matter. (Full story) Foley's attorney, David Roth, said Foley had never had sexual contact with a minor and said any assertion that Foley is a pedophile is "categorically false." Roth would not release details of Foley's alleged molestation, saying only that making it public "is part of Mark's recovery" and that Foley would discuss it further when he is released from a center where he's being treated for alcoholism and mental issues. It will be at least 30 days before he is discharged, Roth said. (Watch the attorney explain that Foley is not a pedophile -- 2:07Video) Roth added that "Mark Foley wants you to know he is a gay man." Though the attorney would not provide the religious affiliation of the clergyman who allegedly molested Foley, Foley lists his religion as Catholic, according to a congressional directory. "He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct," said Roth, who spoke to Foley on Tuesday. "This was a life decision, not a tactical one made by others." Asked why Foley waited to divulge the alleged molestation, Roth replied, "Shame." Roth's announcement came shortly after ABC News published correspondences it said indicated Foley had Internet sex with a former page before going to a vote on the House floor in 2003. The network published a partial transcript of the instant messages on its Web site but did not quote the exchanges in which it said the congressman and the high school student apparently had orgasms. Former pages gave ABC News the transcripts, which were dated 2003, the network reported. ABC also published the e-mails that triggered the controversy last week. Roth said Tuesday that Foley was under the influence of alcohol when he wrote the messages. The teen who received the e-mails forwarded the messages to a congressional colleague, calling the correspondences "sick, sick, sick." (Watch a former page say she never got a "creepy feeling" from Foley -- 1:36Video) Soon after, instant messages surfaced in which Foley reportedly engaged in sexually explicit exchanges with a teenage male page. In one exchange, Foley allegedly asked the boy, "Do I make you a little horny?" President Bush said Tuesday he was "disgusted" by the accusations surrounding Foley. "I was dismayed and shocked to learn about Congressman Foley's unacceptable behavior," he said while visiting George W. Bush ElementarySchool in Stockton, California. "I was disgusted by the revelations and disappointed that he would violate the trust of the citizens who placed him in office." Bush said that he supported the call by Hastert for a full investigation. Top GOP leaders also have spoken out against Foley. Hastert, House Majority Leader John Boehner and House Majority Whip Roy Blount issued a joint statement over the weekend calling Foley's alleged actions "an obscene breach of trust." "[Foley's] immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system," the congressmen said. Boehner, whose daughter was once a congressional page, added Tuesday that if he had known earlier of the allegations against Foley, "I'd have drug him out of there by his shirtsleeves." Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board, has acknowledged knowing about an "overly friendly" exchange between Foley and a former male page. The e-mails, which occurred in 2005 between Foley and a page from Louisiana, were not sexually explicit. (Watch a timeline of how the scandal unfolded -- 2:05Video) Foley assured Shimkus that nothing inappropriate had occurred, and Foley was warned not to have contact with the teen and to watch his conduct around pages, Shimkus said. The conservative Washington Times newspaper wrote in an editorial that Hastert should step down because of his handling of the incident, saying he was either negligent or "deliberately looked the other way." Bush and Boehner came to Hastert's defense. Boehner wrote a letter to The Washington Times editor, saying, "No one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages that were revealed by ABC News last Friday." The FBI, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the House Ethics Committee are investigating Foley's conduct -- and whether there was any attempt to cover it up. CNN's Susan Candiotti, Andrea Koppel, John Zarrella and Dana Bash contributed to this report. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10...ndal/index.html

heres what abc got

quote:

Instant Messages Obtained by ABC News Cast Doubt on Claims from Foley's Lawyer October 03, 2006 8:07 PM Brian Ross Reports: Mark Foley was sexually molested by a clergyman when Foley was between the ages of 13 and 15 and "wants you to know he is a gay man," his lawyer, David Roth, said late Tuesday. Mr. Roth said the disclosure was part of his client's "recovery." Asked why the former congressman did not reveal this information sooner, Roth said, "Shame, shame." "As is so often the case with victims of abuse, Mark advises that he kept his shame to himself for almost 40 years," Roth said. Foley, who checked into an alcohol rehabilitation facility in Florida, also "reiterates unequivocally that he has never had sexual contact with a minor," Roth said. But instant messages obtained by ABC News do reveal that Congressman Foley met with an underage page in San Diego, a meeting which they spoke about in an instant message exchange from April, 2003. Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego. Roth said he knew but could not reveal the name and denomination of the clergyman who molested him. According to Foley's biography on his Web site, he was raised as a Roman Catholic in the West Palm Beach area. Foley's lawyer said Foley takes responsibility for sending sexually graphic instant messages over the Internet and was under the influence of alcohol when he sent many of the messages. He denied, however, that Foley ever offered to provide alcohol for teens at his Capitol Hill apartment. But according to an instant message provided to ABC News by a former page, Foley did make such an offer to a former page in April, 2003. Maf54: then we can have a few drinks Maf54: lol Teen: yes yes ;-) Maf54: your not old enough to drink Teen: shhh.... Maf54: ok Teen: thats not what my ID says Teen: lol Maf54: ok Teen: i probably shouldnt be telling you that huh Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we dont get busted

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy The reason they're attacking him is because it shows the Republicans as hypocrites, not because they have an issue with his orientation.

That's funny considering more Republicans supporters are lamb-basting him too..

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's funny considering more Republicans supporters are lamb-basting him too..

Yea well any retard can understand that any kind of implication of a hypocritical coverup to keep news of a pedophelia scandal underwraps is a losing party platform, no matter how rabid their republicans supporters are. Somebody should have told Hastert this.

im presuming Maf54 stands for male arse-fvcker 54 years of age?

Mark Foley 54

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.