Patterico's Pontifications

10/1/2006

Stop the Myth That Hastert Knew Foley Was Sexually Interested in Boys

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:28 am



Without any evidence, lefty bloggers are saying that the Republican leadership knew that Foley was sexually interested in young boys.

Oliver Willis:

Apparently several members of the Republican leadership knew there was a man interested sexually in boys in their midst and they kept quiet about it.

John Aravosis:

1. Roll call reports that Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who chairs the House page board, met with Foley in 2005 to investigate the creepy email exchange with the 16 year old page.

2. What was the extent of Shimkus’ investigation of whether a member of Congress was soliciting sex with a minor, or at the very least bordering on sexually harassing a minor?

But the Roll Call story Aravosis links clearly says:

House sources said that Foley denied any improper sexual activity when confronted by Shimkus and Trandahl. Their information only included some August 2005 e-mails that contained no references to sex or other improper behavior, and not the other messages that have been reported by ABC News.

The content of the e-mails the leadership knew about has been summarized by ABC News as follows:

In the series of e-mails, obtained by ABC News, from Rep. Foley (R-FL) to the former page, Foley asks the young man how old he is, what he wants for his birthday and requests a photo of him.

Overly friendly, but not sexual.

That’s not stopping the lefty bloggers from pretending otherwise.

Kevin Drum:

Our story so far: Republican congressman Mark Foley has resigned after a 16-year-old former House page complained that he had received repeated emails from Foley that he described as “sick sick sick sick sick…..” You can see Foley’s emails here, and the New York Times reports that there were more:

By Friday, other pages had come forward with more blatant instant messages. “What ya wearing?” Mr. Foley wrote to one, according to the network. “Tshirt and shorts,” the teenager responded. “Love to slip them off of you,” Mr. Foley replied.

This is bad enough. But Foley resigned very abruptly after the emails came to light, and it turns out this was probably because the Republican House leadership had known about Foley’s behavior for some time and had simply been hoping nobody would find out about it. The Republican chairman of the House Page Board learned of Foley’s behavior last year and House Majority leader John Boehner learned of it sometime this spring.

Now, maybe the lefty bloggers are making an honest mistake. I mistakenly believed that Hastert had been told about the worst of the messages, and posted something to that effect. But I corrected the error within 19 minutes. I’m ashamed I was taken in for 19 minutes; I’m usually less prone to jumping to conclusions based on limited information. But it happens to all of us sometimes. That’s why entries can be updated.

When will these lefties correct their error?

Or is it an “error” at all?

And when will they ask how long a Democrat operative was sitting on the evidence? I guess it makes a better splash closer to an election — and if that means that Foley gets to continue his harassing messages for a few more months, well, you just gotta look at the greater good. Electing Democrats is more important than stopping harassment of children.

UPDATE: Slate has the entire set of instant messages here. They are truly disgusting, and indeed possibly criminal. Foley discusses how he masturbates and how the teen masturbates. Foley says that he has an erection, and then talks about how he would like to slip off the teen’s clothing and grab his penis. It is revolting.

There is no evidence Hastert knew about that.

248 Responses to “Stop the Myth That Hastert Knew Foley Was Sexually Interested in Boys”

  1. And when will they ask how long a Democrat operative was sitting on the evidence?

    Given that they kept their concerns from the Dem member of the Page Program, that’s unlikely to happen. The emails they knew about weren’t bad enough to give rise to the conclusion that Foley was a pedophile, but they certainly should’ve given rise to the conclusion that Foley should’ve been investigated. I know that if I had a suspicion that a colleague was partial to boys, and had ready access to boys, I probably wouldn’t have just shrugged and said, “yeah, but he probably won’t do anything.”

    jpe (eaa0e9)

  2. Pardon me, but I smell something very peculiar in the way we have learned of the disgrace of Rep. Mark Foley.

    The email scandal which led to the resignation of the Republican Congressman is reverberating throughout the capital and the nation, as Democrats attempt to capitalize on bad news for Republicans. The seamiest of the released emails, which Foley has not denied, are right up there with Rhodes Scholar and Illinois Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds’ taped phone conversations lusting for 15 year old Catholic school girls in their uniforms(excerpt) of article pointing out fishy genesis of this story.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5907

    clarice (c49871)

  3. And when will they ask how long a Democrat operative was sitting on the evidence?

    Or why the democrats were kept from the evidence.

    actus (10527e)

  4. Foley has sexually harassed underage House employees.

    Hastert has known about it for at least a year.

    And, Republicans are trying to act as if this is the Democrats’ fault.

    This is a sick strategy to protect the numerous pedophiles in the GOP.

    http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

    Republicans just can’t stop protecting pedophiles.

    libhomo (610ca0)

  5. This is a sick strategy to protect the numerous pedophiles in the GOP

    Whaaa…?

    Darleen (03346c)

  6. Thank you, Patterico. That’s the post I wanted to write myself this morning, instead of the mediocre post which was all I had time for at Stubborn Facts, as I have guests coming over after lunch today.

    By the way libhomo, on what, exactly, do you base your claim that Hastert has known that “Foley has sexually harassed underage House employees” for at least a year? The e-mails with the Louisiana page do NOT constitute “sexual harassment” of any sort. They give a possible indication that Foley may have some problems, but that’s it. There’s nothing in it sufficient to warrant in-depth investigation after the boy’s parent said they didn’t want to pursue anything, and Foley said he was just trying to be a mentor to the boy.

    Had the Republican conservative leadership done much more against Foley based on that e-mail, all the people now screaming how awful Hastert is would instead be saying how the party who doesn’t want gays in the Boy Scouts doesn’t believe that a gay man should mentor young teenagers.

    PatHMV (0e077d)

  7. How do you get copies of IMs?

    If Foley was under some sort of surveillance, this might have actually indicated prior intent to get that information. To what end? Why now?

    How did these IMs get to an organization with strong ties to George Soros and the Democratic Party namely CREW, and what was their intent/motive to NOT report them to the appropriate authorities but instead to ABC?

    …..

    This smells of entrapment by someone who was not authorized to investigate anything!

    Carol

    Carol Johnson (314081)

  8. I really do not get this. Even if everything leftists are saying were true (which it is not), they championed Studds, Frank, and McGreevey, e.g., for far more serious misconduct.

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  9. Foley is gone, and possibly may be subjected to some law (good!).

    HOWEVER, I’ll point out that ‘age of consent’ in DC is 16.

    So for all those “keep your laws out of our bedrooms” leftists out there…

    Explain how a 16 y/o is a “child” when they can legally consent to sex with anyone of any age? AND no actual sexual contact is being charged here?

    I’m sensing just a whiff or two of hypocrisy. Hmmmmmm?

    Darleen (03346c)

  10. […] Patterico’s Pontifications Democrat Emails Foley Messages Page republican Filed in: Politics | 2 Comments » Dem hypocrisy (gasp!) in Mark Foley case…. […]

    Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Latest Democratic Hitjob (986d71)

  11. I agree completely with your post, Patterico.

    One doesn’t have to think Hastert is the best leader the Republicans have (and it’s obvious you don’t) to be offended that he’s smeared as somehow supporting this awful behaviour of Mark Foley, when he clearly opposes it and is angry about it.

    Thanks for the clarity and for helping to get the word out that the attack on Dennis Hastert is a leftist hit job, pure and simple.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  12. I think the question of where the IMs came from is interesting. Were these transmitted from a government system or did Foley have some sort of personal assistant he employed to transmit them? If the former, surely he was under and ivestigation in which the proper forms were followed, right? Otherwise there would be laws broken there. If the latter there are even greater issues.

    I’m not defending Foley’s actions in any way. I’m just wondering if some other “problems” exist in this whole mess. Considering the timing and and the various recent example of computer invasions by operatives on the progressive side, I’d put money on it.

    It all seems rather… orchestrated, doesn’t it?

    Dan S (8e10ae)

  13. I’m sensing just a whiff or two of hypocrisy. Hmmmmmm?

    I think there’s a difference between thinking someone makes a good congressman and someone should be in jail.

    actus (10527e)

  14. actus

    The 16 y/o page in question could be carrying on a torrid sexual affair with any adult in DC (outside of Congress) and no one could legally object.

    Yet, if someone did object on moral grounds, you know that the cited libs above would be screaming that the objector was a “prude” and “busybody”.

    After all, it would be “just sex”? Right? Wasn’t that what we heard about the Clinton/Monica relationship?

    Darleen (03346c)

  15. I’d like to know since when have Dems cared one iota about pedophelia or homosexual exploitation of boys. We never hear a squawk from them unless the perp is Catholic or Republican. Certainly none of the repugnant and criminal activities on the part of numerous U.N. peacekeepers have discomfited a single Democrat as far as I’ve been following that story.

    I’m no fan of Hastert and to me he represents much of what’s wrong with my party (McCain and his terrorist-loving wing represents most of the rest), but hypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT. We dismiss in disgrace the sociopaths and miscreants on our side; they applaud and reward theirs.

    Peg C. (836973)

  16. To anyone who hasn’t yet read Clarice Fedman’s “The American Thinker: Foley and the Blame Game” post, you must stop and read the entire thing.

    It’s the best post on that I’ve seen and it includes a devastating timeline and raises some vital questions.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  17. After all, it would be “just sex”? Right? Wasn’t that what we heard about the Clinton/Monica relationship?

    What we also heard was that monica liked and initiated the relationship. I don’t think this is the case with this congressman. Nothing prudish in disliking non-consensual sexual relationships (or talk) between people of different power.

    actus (10527e)

  18. disliking non-consensual

    How is IM chat anything other than “consensual”.

    The closest you might get is unsolicited.

    boris (e173ce)

  19. You guys are off on tangents here.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  20. How is IM chat anything other than “consensual”.

    The part where the teens complained and thought it was ‘sick.’

    But something could be non-consensual due to the power relationship between them. A 16 year old can decide quite well to have sex. But that same 16 year old can also be manipulated quite well.

    actus (10527e)

  21. actus, I believe 16-year-olds can be manipulated. But if this were an adult, anyone would say it is fully consensual. Have you read the IMs? See the update above.

    Patterico (de0616)

  22. Patterico, everyone seems to say that the age of consent here is 16. Do you know if that’s so?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  23. But something could be non-consensual due to the power relationship between them

    You mean like a President and an intern?

    Darleen (03346c)

  24. Thanks, Darlene.

    Involving solicitations over the Internet, does the age of consent include where the adult is, where the young person is, or both?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  25. actus is being disingenuous with the word consensual. There’s no such thing as non-consensual IM chat. Alleged “power relationship” is bunk.

    That doesn’t make Foley any less wrong, it’s just that trying to turn this into “chat-rape” is ludicrous.

    boris (e173ce)

  26. In Canada, our laws take into consideration whether one person is in a position of “trust and authority” and, if so, it raises the age of consent to 18.

    I don’t think it’s “bunk”, boris.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  27. Thanks, Christoph. Anyone who’s considering a comment on this topic is well advised to read Patterico’s entire post first, and read Feldman’s article, twice.

    Foley’s misbehavior is indefensible, but it sure looks like he’s been set-up, and it’s pretty clear Hastert is being played like a cheap tambourine.

    Black Jack (63943a)

  28. person is in a position of “trust and authority” and, if so, it raises the age of consent to 18

    Age of consent for sex or to use the word “penis” in an online chat?

    boris (e173ce)

  29. – the Dhimmi’s are so desperate for talking points, at this juncture ANYTHING will do… what a pack of losers…

    – As Darleen pointed out, let the gov. try to take ANY steps toward citizen legalization,( very pointedly just look at whats happening with the voter ID bill in congress right now), and the Libturds scream bloody murder. But not, of course, if it gives them the slightest chance to practice their faux outrage meme’s.

    Pure political bullshit/hypochracy, from the party (cult) of intoleraance.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  30. And just so you know, Darlene, that link you sent me to about the age of consent with the “Toys for Lovers” banner ad that says, “BUT YOU WON’T FIND A MORE ACCURATE GUIDE ON THE WEB,” lists the age of consent for “Male-Male Sex” in Canada as 18.

    That was struck down years ago because the Supreme Court of Canada, in its wisdom, ruled that young people have the same rights to “freedom of expression” through anal sex as anyone else.

    I wouldn’t trust that site to be accurate.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  31. Chris

    I believe it’s where the young person is.

    Age of consent in CA is 18. There have been numerous arrests of people who fly to CA to followup on their solicitations with what they thought were underage partners via the ‘net.

    Oh..and that’s for the American Thinker link… what an eye-opener that was.

    The MSM had the story since last November, too, and never published it because they could find no “sex” solitication or collaboration of such themselves.

    And the ABC/CREW/George Soros connection is particularly enlightening.

    Darleen (03346c)

  32. This brings up the bigger question everyone is avoiding. Can any homosexual of either sex be trusted around children? Recent events and a long list (provided by a liberal on Whizbang)of sexual abuse of children by homosexuals seem to indicate, NO. This was not the intent of the liberal’s post (really trying to convict republicans) but it is the effect of his post. Someone can and will come up with a list, as long of longer, than his listing well know democratic child abusers. Tit for Tat instead of the truth gets us nowhere.

    Scrapiron (71415b)

  33. Darleen: the age of consent for purposes of the bill co-sponsored by Foley and signed by the President is 18.

    So, I’m to assume from the lack of comment that most of the commenters think it was fine that Foley wasn’t investigated by the House leadership and his contact wasn’t forwarded to the members of the Page Committee?

    jpe (182338)

  34. Here’s the relevant Canadian law, Boris:


    151 Sexual Interference
    – Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of fourteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    152 Invitation to Sexual Touching – Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    153(1) Sexual Exploitation
    – Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person or is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency and who

    (a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person, or

    (b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person,

    is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    So from section 152 and 153(1)(b), it’s quite obvious that it doesn’t include just sex… it can clearly include communication for the purpose of initiating sexual contact where the offender is asking the victim to initiate or perform some action.

    I haven’t read the complete transcript, but from what I’ve read, the “tamer” parts, Foley asked one of his victims to remove his clothing.

    Does that answer your question?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  35. – Screapiron – it use’s up the time, and avoids debate on the issues, which is what the Dem’s are all about right now. Eat up the clock, so they don’t have to talk to the real issues, which they get their ass’s beat on at the voting booth every time.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  36. Let a complete cynic log in: The abuse/whatever of pages is an old problem in the Congress, and its’ solution is entirely dependent on the moral standing of the Members (not a good thing to rely on today).

    Perhaps the page system needs to be staffed by persons who would not be susceptible to manipulation by the Members?

    I would sugest using, in the House, Hell’s Angels; and in the Senate, The Mongols.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  37. Or, Another Drew, when there are suspicions of abuse, there should be an investigation.

    Just a thought.

    jpe (182338)

  38. Does that answer your question?

    The word “consent” does not appear in that excerpt.

    If you wish to claim that a 16 yr old young man is incapable of “consenting” to an IM chat you’re going to need more than that.

    boris (e173ce)

  39. there should be an investigation

    An non sexual email exchange apparently initiated by the ex page was investigated. The boy’s family wanted it dropped. End of story until the IMs appear.

    Should they have suspected more based on the suspicion that Foley was gay?

    boris (e173ce)

  40. Darlene, age of consent in Canada is 14.

    In theory, Parliament (Liberal Party of Canada) allegedly in its discussions left open the possibility that a huge age gap could itself place a person in a position of “trust and authority” over a very young teenager, but in practice, Canadian courts haven’t interpreted it that way.

    Convictions where a person from your country came to Canada to have sex with someone they met over the Internet who was between the ages of 15-17 inclusive result, I believe, from the activities being prosecuted under American law — where the offender is based (with the enthusiastic cooperation of Canadian police agencies, I’m sure).

    However, this is only my impression based on reading news articles, online discussions, etc.

    That’s why I’m trying to get real clear on what the law is in the Foley case, counting jurisdictions, etc.

    What he did may be a crime in Canada under section 153(1)(b) of our Criminal Code. I’m curious whether it is there too.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  41. – Actually maybe Drew’s onto something. Looking at the dismal performance of both sides of the aisle, we might be better off with Angels/Mongols IN Congressional seats. Hell, at least they’d know how TF to fight a war.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  42. Chris

    Well, this newspaper reports DC age of consent as 16 (as of 2000)

    Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia provided criminal penalties for having sex with teen-agers under age 16

    Boris, if a minor cannot consent to sex, an adult who “talks dirty” to them can be charged with “annoying a minor”.

    Foley was rightfully forced to resign — which seems to have occured immediately when it became known that his IM exchange was sexually explicity. The IM exchange was never part of the original incident with the emails that only made the unnamed page uncomfortable when Foley asked for a picture.

    So, for the Left, this isn’t about Foley at all.

    Rank hypocrisy.

    Darleen (03346c)

  43. good lord… please excuse my typos

    more coffee

    sheesh

    Darleen (03346c)

  44. To clarify, Darlene, the website link you sent me to (with the wholly inappropriate sex toy banner ad) lists the age of consent in Canada as 14 for male-female and female-female sex… it lists the age of consent for male-male sex as 18.

    That’s based on an old law that made anal sex illegal for anyone under 18. It was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada for being prejudicial to young male homosexuals’ “freedom of expression” rights.

    So, yes, that website is wrong and has been for years.

    As far as Foley goes, can anyone cite the actual federal or relevant state law(s) he may have broken?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  45. So, for the Left, this isn’t about Foley at all.

    At this point, Foley’s fate is sealed: he’ll head to jail per the very bill he cosponsored.

    Right now, the question is why on earth the republican leadership decided against investigating their colleague.

    To reiterate: I know that if I had a suspicion that a colleague was partial to boys, and had ready access to boys, I probably wouldn’t have just shrugged and said, “yeah, but he probably won’t do anything.”

    jpe (182338)

  46. So it’s a federal bill, not a state bill, JPE?

    I admit I’m completely ignorant. Will you tell me when it was signed into law, what its name is, and if you know what the law says on this subject?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  47. actus is being disingenuous with the word consensual. There’s no such thing as non-consensual IM chat. Alleged “power relationship” is bunk.

    Sorry. Thats how I decide whether things creep me out or not. And yes, I do think there is such a thing as a non-consensual chat. People can feel pressure and unease over enganging in lots of activity.

    So, for the Left, this isn’t about Foley at all.

    Its also why this was kept quiet within republican circles.

    actus (10527e)

  48. Boris, if a minor cannot consent to sex

    Consent to sex is not the same as consent to IM.

    Sure, legally one can not solicit sex using online chat if the subject is under the age of consent, but the word applies to sex not chat.

    The argument that the IM chat was non-consensual is absurd.

    boris (e173ce)

  49. Actus, Boris:

    One can argue that a child could have a non-consensual chat with someone who they viewed as effectively their boss, i.e., a congressman they’re working for as a page.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  50. One can argue that a child could have a non-consensual chat

    Oh please …

    “Look there a message from creepy Foley ! Should I respond ??? Oh my, he’ll be mad if I don’t !!!”

    Give me a frakken break.

    boris (e173ce)

  51. jpe

    Check “expo facto”

    The IM’s are from 2003 and while disgusting and worthy of Foley being run out of DC on a rail, did he do something illegal?

    The IM’s are NOT the same as the email. What in the emails would force anyone to go beyond what it did? It certainly didn’t even rise to the standard of being published in a major newspaper.

    As stated previously, just what would the reaction be if an investigation were launched based solely on the emails because Foley is gay?

    :::cough::: McGreevy :::cough:::Barney Frank:::cough::: Rethugs are homophobic! :::cough:::

    Darleen (03346c)

  52. Members of Congress (that includes Senators) are elected from the populace at large. Why then, are we surprised and/or hurt when they display the very social pathologies that run rampant through that society?

    The only solution to these problems lies within our own hearts.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  53. There’s the issue of corruption of the morals of a child by statutory definition. This guy will go to jail. Any question of timing is moot, because when someone of your party does something this scummy, you should expect the opposition to wield it as advantageously as possible.

    That said, it doesn’t excuse lying. The truth is important, and Patterico’s right to insist on it.

    Didn’t MacCauley Culkin star in The Pagemaster?

    Dan Collins (c386c7)

  54. So, to recap: Darleen is fine with a Representative trying to have sex with a 16 year old.

    Interesting take. At least someone is intellectually honest to admit that cybersex with teens shouldn’t be investigated during election season.

    jpe (182338)

  55. The only solution to these problems lies within our own hearts.

    Uh, another solution might be investigating creepy behavior when you learn about it, not when the electorate is about to find out.

    jpe (182338)

  56. “The argument that the IM chat was non-consensual is absurd.”

    If you’re a 16-year old in Washington working for a Congressman as their page, do you really “consent” to communicating with the Congressman when he wants to communicate with you?

    Or is it the responsibility of the Congressman to make sure that all communication is appropriate?

    That’s the question, Boris, and you’re entitled to your opinion. Most people believe the onus is on the Congressman in a case like this.

    My question, still unanswered, is what is the exact law on this?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  57. do you really “consent” to communicating with the Congressman when he wants to communicate with you?

    Any other interpretation would mean they are too young to be away from their mommies.

    Sheesh. I enlisted at 17 in 1965. You’re being foolish.

    boris (e173ce)

  58. Patterico, when does a boy stop being a “young” boy? I would say at 16+ you are no longer a young boy. In any case, if we are talking about 16-20 old boys, it is not surprising that a male homosexual like Foley is sexually interested in them as such attraction is normal (as it normal for a heterosexual male to be sexually attracted to 16-20 old girls). What is not normal is for this attraction to be so strong or exclusive that the holder is unable to avoid acting on it in socially unacceptable ways.

    So the issue is not whether Hastert knew of Foley’s interest but whether Haster knew this interest was a problem for Foley. It appears Hastert (or others in the leadership) had reason to suspect Foley might have a problem. So morality aside it would appear to have been prudent for the leadership to investigated the possibility that Foley had a problem which they do not appear to have done.

    James B. Shearer (767266)

  59. ARGH

    “ex post facto”

    I have to stop trying to type with a cat on my lap!!

    Darleen (03346c)

  60. prudent for the leadership to investigated ..

    … a suspected gay man for a non sexual email exchange with an ex-page? Wouldn’t that be blatant profiling?

    boris (e173ce)

  61. Christoph

    Age of consent is regardless of “positions of power.” It then becomes either a civil matter (ie sexual harassment in the workplace statutes) or an internal discipline one (firing a teacher or professor for an affair with an adult student).

    No matter how disgusting the IM’s, at the time they were made and if the age of the participants were 16 and older, than nothing illegal took place.

    Unethical and immoral, yes. Illegal, no. (unless there is some statute I’m unaware of)

    Darleen (03346c)

  62. In Defense of Foley…

    The guy doesn’t seem to have many defenders so here goes….

    More Than Loans (59ce3a)

  63. JPE

    Try again, reprobate. Where the ef do I say I’m “fine” with Foley’s behavior?

    Darleen (03346c)

  64. I certainly don’t see you noting that Hastert etal should’ve looked into this.

    jpe (182338)

  65. That’s what I’m trying to clarify, Darlene, in Canada, age of consent very definitely takes into effect positions of trust and authority.

    If it doesn’t in your country and the age of consent is 16, then everyone can stop with this “Foley is going to jail,” talk because obviously he isn’t.

    Patterico, who is a professional prosecutor, told me that it may well have been a crime to sexually solicit a minor (using the Internet?).

    I assume that this may be a federal law and that the state of consent laws may not be an issue here.

    I am also curious whether any jurisdiction in the USA has similar law to Canada where a young person who ordinarily would be above the age of consent, but is placed under the responsibility of an adult in a position of “trust and authority”, is deemed to be below the age of consent as a result of this power imbalance and that this may impact the young person’s ability to consent in a non-coerced way.

    I appreciate all the helpful tips and the link to the bizarre website with age of consent laws (including one error for Canada) and the bizarre sex toy banner ad, but I don’t see you as an expert in this area, which you freely acknowledge.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  66. Good God that website is so disgusting. It advertises Viagra and something called “Cool Teen Sites”. Obviously that website isn’t designed for serious discussions on this issue, it is designed for paedophiles and quasi-paedophiles to stay out of jail by planning their sexual escapades by state and foreign country.

    I realize you probably didn’t observe this, Darleen, but I’m pointing it out for that very reason. I wouldn’t use that site as a reference.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  67. Christoph, there are some state laws that prisoners of any age can not legally consent to sex with guards. Since each state’s laws are different it is difficult to make general statements.

    James B. Shearer (767266)

  68. That’s my general understanding too, James.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  69. Patterico Catches Lefty Blogs Lying About What Hastert Knew About Foley…

    I’m shocked…….

    The Political Pit Bull (64479c)

  70. JPE

    What was Hasert supposed to “look into”? Non sexual emails from a page whose parents said “enough”? A newspaper with two reporters assigned the story couldn’t find anything else.

    Were hearings to be held on Foley’s sexual orientation? Gay guys in the closet MUST be investigated because he sent some innocuous emails to a male page??? How many seconds after that hearing was annouced would the NYT be running editorials about “homophobic” GOPers on a “witch hunt”??

    There are a lot of things I stand up and call “immoral” that are not “illegal.” Adultery is immoral, but no one goes to jail over it. Pointing out that is NOT illegal doesn’t mean I’m “fine” with it.

    If you don’t understand that, I assert you’re arguing in bad faith.

    feh.

    Darleen (03346c)

  71. What’s really annoying is that Drudge, “the man in the Fedora” has a link to the discredited smear version of the Hastert story:

    Knew in ’05…

    Christoph (9824e6)

  72. In the interests of accuracy, I stated earlier that the page was in Washington when the first reported email communication occurred.

    This is incorrect. During this communicationthe page had returned home to Louisiana.

    The graphic IMs: I have no idea where they occurred and were received.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  73. – Round up the usual suspects…

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  74. Foley was rightfully forced to resign…

    He was an adult in a position of power, no matter that his emails (non-sexual) or recently revealed 2003 IM’s (sexually explicit) appear to be legal as the age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16. You see,……

    Darleen's Place (1650a7)

  75. It’s another vast right wing conspiracy…Armies of GOP pedophiles after the Liberals “essense”…..

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  76. Darleen, Christoph, and others,

    Obviously there is much we don’t know yet. I agree that initially Hastert probably did not have enough information to take action against Foley, especially if all Hastert had were emails and a page unwilling to file a formal complaint.

    However, as to Foley, I’m not convinced his alleged actions are crime-free. Patterico mentioned criminal solicitation. I think some state laws also treat sexual harassment and/or cyber-stalking as crimes, and there’s also federal law including Title 18, Chapter 110 (“Sexual Exploitation of Children”) that at first glance doesn’t seem to apply. However, this title covers minors under 18 and sanctions any attempt to entice a minor to “engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.” Maybe this doesn’t apply but the allegation that Foley asked for pictures sends up a red flag for me.

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  77. If you and I are saying, “Maybe this doesn’t apply,” then it doesn’t apply.

    There’s that pesky matter of convincing 12 jurors to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If the Congress expected convictions for this behavior, then they word have worded the law to get them.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  78. BBH

    Damn you… I should know better to read your comments while sipping iced tea

    almost cost me a monitor!

    Darleen (03346c)

  79. DRJ

    Cursory reading of your link seems to indicate all manner of visual depiction of actual or simulated sex.

    Unless Foley was sending naked pics of himself or others to the anonymous pages, then it doesn’t seem to apply.

    Darleen (03346c)

  80. Any other interpretation would mean they are too young to be away from their mommies.

    It means that they’re old enough to be with their peers, but can still be preyed on by adults in position of power and authority.

    actus (10527e)

  81. can still be preyed on by adults in position of power and authority.

    If they’re old enough to page, they’re old enough to close a chat window.

    Chat-rape is a non-concept. A figment of your non-brain.

    boris (e173ce)

  82. Boris, you can’t rape someone through chat.

    But it is a very compelling, even addictive form of communication, not natural all for the human brain.

    But that’s not my point.

    My point is it is inappropriate for U.S. Congressman to groom and seduce their 16-year old pages entrusted to them for a learning experience.

    Don’t you see that?

    If not… well, then who cares what you think on the subject?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  83. it is inappropriate for U.S. Congressman to groom and seduce their 16-year old pages

    How about actually reading what the debate is?

    Foley is a pervert but chat is consensual.

    Perverted chat can be illegal but the age of consent applies to perverted and illegal, not to chat. If it were even possible for chat to be non-consensual it would be banned. Like Heron or coke.

    boris (e173ce)

  84. What was Hasert supposed to “look into”?

    His consistently creepy behavior with the congressional pages. Assuming that the emails weren’t illegal, ethics rules are more than broad enough to capture this kind of behavior.

    But the leadership knew this would cause a scene before the midterms, so they opted to ignore it, going so far as to keep it from the Democratic member of the page program.

    jpe (182338)

  85. JPE,

    My understanding is that Hastert did report Foley’s email correspondence to the Ethics Committee and to the person in charge of the Page program.

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  86. Boris, your points make no sense: non sequitur after non sequitur.

    “Perverted chat can be illegal but the age of consent applies to perverted and illegal, not to chat. If it were even possible for chat to be non-consensual it would be banned. Like Heron or coke.”

    Almost anything can be non-consensual, if you’re forced or coerced into doing it. For example, at the direction of your boss. This debate with you is pointless.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  87. His consistently creepy behavior with the congressional pages. Assuming that the emails weren’t illegal, ethics rules are more than broad enough to capture this kind of behavior.

    What consistently creepy behavior ? Being a single man suspected of being gay ? Responding to an email from an ex-page halfway across the country ?

    Lotta people denied BJ did any of that bad stuff until the DNA test on the blue dress. Seems there is a little exaggeration of the evidence on a partisan basis here. For leadership to go after another elected Republican’s seat requires more than a single non-sexual email and a dead end investigation shut down by the boy’s parents.

    boris (e173ce)

  88. the direction of your boss

    What’s pointless are your posts.

    There’s no such thing as non-consensual IM chat.

    boris (e173ce)

  89. What consistently creepy behavior ?

    That he was creepy was an open secret among pages. A little bit of looking would’ve revealed this.

    And, I might add, conflating gay men and child abusers? Classy.

    jpe (182338)

  90. That he was creepy was an open secret among pages. A little bit of looking would’ve revealed this.

    Is it actionable “evidence” that male pages find an older gay man “creepy”?

    conflating gay men and child abusers?

    Ah yes, here comes the h-word now. Classy

    boris (e173ce)

  91. JPE

    That he was creepy was an open secret among pages

    Yeah, so open that two reporters assigned to interview pages couldn’t find it.

    Again. Outside of Foley being gay, what gives rise to an investigation concerning legally consensual relationships? The emails with an ex page didn’t fall either under sexual harassment of a minor NOR a power differential (since the page wasn’t there anymore).

    Cuz I’m just having a tough time not laughing out loud at the leftists suddenly championing themselves as the proponents of sexual propriety and of saying gay guys have to be assumed to be guilty of ephebophilia.

    Darleen (03346c)

  92. Christoph

    It is inappropriate for any elected member of government to engage in sexual encounters with any subordinate, regardless of the age of the subordinate.

    It may be legal (bj’s and diddling with cigars in the oval office, for instance), but it certainly is inappropriate and subject to whatever rules the organization has to handle ethical transgressions.

    Clinton was impeached, Foley resigned. Good! Well done! Consistent!

    But not all immoral behavior is, or should be, criminalized.

    Darleen (03346c)

  93. “It is inappropriate for any elected member of government to engage in sexual encounters with any subordinate, regardless of the age of the subordinate.”

    — Darlene

    I do not agree that it’s immoral for a senior person to have a sexual relationship with a junior person, certainly not in all circumstances.

    Frankly, I think that’s crazy and prudish in the extreme.

    Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for gettinge a BJ or diddling said intern. I personally, had I diddled her, would not have used a cigar, but each to their own.

    If you believe sex is immoral or are particularly religious, I can see why you feel this way. I, however, believe that sex is moral and particularly delightful so I don’t share your views.

    Should supervisors have sex with their staff? It’s often not the best idea, but beautiful marriages and families begin like this every day. And of course, so does great sex.

    So i disagree with you entirely. I believe it is a fundamental violation of both people’s crucial human rights, namely freedom of association.

    A bad Canadian Prime Minister once said it best:

    “Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”

    — Pierre Elliot Trudeau

    People who are so young that they cannot give legimimate consent are of course an exception. 25-year old interns who think it’d be fun to go down on the most powerful man on Earth are not.

    What made that immoral is the fact that Bill Clinton was married — nothing else.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  94. I apologize for spelling your name incorrectly.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  95. Patterico: I have updated the story on my blog to reflect that Hastert and Boehner did not know about the IMs.

    aphrael (3bacf3)

  96. Christoph

    The disparity of power makes it inappropriate.

    College professors have (and should be) fired for having sex with their adult students. Most private businesses have conduct rules that forbid verticle relationships (when such relationship go sour it makes the business liable to ‘hostile sexual environment’ lawsuits), certainly the military has a long history of forbidding fraternization between officers and enlisted. And all of this is rules of conduct of an organization covering behavior fully legal but deemed organizationally inappropriate.

    Unless someone can come up with an appropriate criminal statute to cover the Foley affair, his highly inappropriate, lascivious behavior is just that. Ala Clinton.

    BTW… if Clinton had admitted his l’affaire Monica, he may not have been impeached for perjury, but only censured for inappropriate conduct. He gambled and lost.

    Darleen (03346c)

  97. Scrapiron, re #33: my friends and family all seem to believe that I can be trusted around their children, and I somewhat resent your implication that I cannot be.

    You don’t hear about the homosexuals who don’t abuse children because they aren’t doing anything newsworthy.

    aphrael (3bacf3)

  98. Patterico: have you seen any evidence that Democrats were sitting on this?

    If not, the throwaway line near the end of your post about Democrats allowing Foley to continue for a while so that they could get more election mileage out of it is every bit as much unwarranted character assassination as what many lefty bloggers are saying about Hastert.

    aphrael (3bacf3)

  99. Read Flopping Aces’ post, Aphrael.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  100. Whether dem or rep, what Foley did was absolutely reprehensible. This is not about ideology. It is about doing the right thing. Hastert should have investigated and outted Foley as soon as he was made aware of these allegations. If the damn teen pages were being warned to stay away from this predator by their peers, then certainly one (can assume) that Foley’s propensity to prey on pages was common knowledge within the halls of congress.

    History has shown us that when scandals like this happen, we rarely get the whole story the first week. A such, we (republicans) better be prepared for the fallout in the coming weeks from this scandal. It won’t be pretty folks and all of the obfuscation, hind-sight reasonings, and ideological glad handing won’t help us. We need to face up to what happened and make sure that our representatives know that this can never happeen again in the halls of Congress.

    alabastard (fae9cf)

  101. Yeah, so open that two reporters assigned to interview pages couldn’t find it.

    At least one class of pages were warned about Foley, ABC reported. For someone that claims that Foley’s behavior was unethical, you certainly going all out to defend Haster’s failure to investigate.

    jpe (eaa0e9)

  102. Unless someone can come up with an appropriate criminal statute to cover the Foley affair, his highly inappropriate, lascivious behavior is just that. Ala Clinton.

    I don’t quite see the point of this. It’s possible that Foley’s behavior wasn’t illegal (although it’s entirely possible it falls under any number of solicitation statutes), it was almost certainly unethical per Congressional rules.

    jpe (eaa0e9)

  103. Patterico, have you read updates 2 and 3 to Allah’s original post (first comment on this thread)?

    He links to sites that suggest… Jason Leopold might be involved.

    Reference Link 1

    Reference Link 2

    Christoph (9824e6)

  104. Cristoph: I’m sorry; that post seems to do a good job of questioning how the story was released, and implies that the people owning the website knew about it months ago, but it doesn’t even point fingers at Democratic politicians.

    This post is better in that it provides good reason to believe that an activist organization and part of the MSM knew earlier and sat on it. But that still doesn’t make the connection with ‘Democrats’.

    aphrael (3bacf3)

  105. Christoph,

    That’s interesting, but too speculative for me at this point.

    Patterico (de0616)

  106. I’m not saying it is Democrats per se, at least not sanctioned by the party… I’m thinking it is radical leftists who happen to vote Democratic.

    Patterico, I just read the IMs. They’re bad. I have no idea what the law is in the USA, but if it occurred in Canada where we generally have a more liberal attitude toward sex, in the context of obviously trying to arouse him, talking about his and the offenders’ errections, etc., the phrases:

    “get a ruler and measure it for me”

    and

    “take it out”

    … would be a crime under section 153(1)(b) of our criminal code, since Foley was in a position of trust and authority.

    Now that I know he committed these actions including giving directions to the young man for a sexual purpose after setting out to arouse him… I hope he is imprisoned for his actions.

    If anyone knows what the relevant law is there, if any, I am still curious.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  107. It’s totally speculative, Patterico, not the slightest verified. But very interesting.

    Watch and see. The writers of those posts admit it’s speculative.

    What doesn’t appear so speculative is that sitting on these potentially criminal IMs involving child safety and setting up that alleged “blog” in July were part of a hit job… by someone.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  108. Actually, my reading of the law in Canada is wrong. Those wouldn’t be crimes since “invitation to sexual touching” appears only to be a crime for someone 14 and younger here… it takes actual touching to be a crime with someone 15-17 inclusive and only then when you’re in a position of trust and authority.

    So it may be an offence tending to corrupt morals here, but no more than that and I don’t see a clear black and white Canadian statute related to it (I don’t think you all care about Canadian law, I’m just thinking aloud here).

    So back to the question, is Foley guilty of criminal conduct?

    I have no idea. I haven’t seen the exact law he would have broken. If anyone has an actual citation or reference to said law, that would be helpful for this portion of the debate.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  109. It is interesting to watch the dynamic at work here. A Republican is caught doing bad things. The Republican leadership did nothing about it, to the extent that they knew. The Republican leadership is now claiming ignorance or blaming staff. But if you had just read Patterico’s post and the comments you would think that this was a case of Democratic misdeeds.

    The question at the heart of this is why the Republican leadership did not investigate or even try to find out what was going on. You have the kids father and the kid complaining. You have Foley asking for the kids picture and talking about pages looking very fit. You have the general gossip among pagers that Foley was creepy but not only do the Republicans not look into it, they look the other way, hard.

    I think in the weeks to come more will come out about how much the Republicans knew these things were going on, much like the catholic priest abuses, with the partisans in denial almost to the bitter end. In quality, not quantity. The commenters here that tried to defend Hastert and downplay Foley’s behavior will look even worse than they do now.

    Paul (143c3a)

  110. Got the answer on the age of consent.

    “The teen was a legally consenting adult is all jurisdictions mentioned. DC, LA, FLA, & GA all have laws setting the age of consent at 16. Also it’s not clear the teen was still a Page when the advances started thus eliminating any claims of workplace sexual harrassment”. Another democrat plan gone the way of the Titanic.

    Scrapiron (71415b)

  111. No. #103. Hastert at least knew of the allegations. As a matter of CYA(cover your arse), he should have investigated Foley. We have way too much at stake in the upcoming elections to get stuck in the mud behind this scandal. I fear the msm will ride this out until 11-02 and unfortunately, it will have an affect on the outcome of many races. This scandal may be the tipping point that will return the majority back to the dems and I am not happy about that one damn bit!

    We got played by the republican leadership. These buffoons have turned what could have been a political and cultural revolution into an absolute debacle. It just makes me sick to my stomach. So please excuse while I go throw up…again!

    alabastard (fae9cf)

  112. This brings up the bigger question everyone is avoiding. Can any homosexual of either sex be trusted around children?

    Scrapiron, I think the reason “everyone” (or as I prefer, “nobody”) is avoiding that question is because (1) it is as off-topic in this thread as it is ridiculous, and (2) this “bigger question” is based on caricature and innuendo–an untrue stereotype–rather than empirical evidence to support that the average gay or lesbian person cannot be “trusted around children.”

    Tom (eb6b88)

  113. it was almost certainly unethical per Congressional rules

    This seems to assume the IMs were to a current page rather than an ex-page.

    crime under section 153(1)(b)

    Got a case where someone was successfully prosecuted for saying “take it out” in IM chat?

    boris (e173ce)

  114. rather than empirical evidence to support that the average gay or lesbian person cannot be “trusted around children”

    The claim that the Republican leadership should have immediatly pulled out all the stops to go after a single gay man over a non-sexual email exchange to an ex page sorta reeks of profiling.

    “They SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING he was CREEPY !!!”

    Is creepy the new word for what queer used to mean?

    boris (e173ce)

  115. Thanks for proving my point Scrapiron.

    The Republicans are the victims who must be defended and the Dems the bad guys.

    Paul (143c3a)

  116. No.# 105 – With all due respect, no one gives a flying fuscha(sp?) wig if the msm or dems knew about this and sat on it until now. Foley committed these acts, the Republican leadership sat on it, and now the story has been erected as another monument to perceived Republican scandal mongering. The timing is suspect. But if Foley had not had IM sex chats with pages, we would not be setting here gnashing and grinding our teeth.

    alabastard (fae9cf)

  117. Is creepy the new word for what queer used to mean?

    Depends on whether “queer” used to mean “predatory” as well, I’d say.

    Tom (eb6b88)

  118. sorry folks…”fuscha” should be “fuchsia.”

    alabastard (fae9cf)

  119. Depends on whether “queer”

    So you didn’t know that queer didn’t used to mean gay?

    boris (e173ce)

  120. Hell even gay didn’t used to mean homosexual.

    boris (e173ce)

  121. JPE

    was almost certainly unethical per Congressional rules.

    Have I said, or anyone said, anything different?

    Foley has resigned. He is now out of Congressional jurisdiction. They can denounce him from the floor, but he’s gone that away.

    Find me a relevant criminal statute, jpe. Otherwise my statement stands. Disgusting, immoral, ephebophilia. But not pedophilia, not illegal sexual contact and not illegal sexual conduct.

    And we don’t even know the age or status of the anonymous “Xxxxxxx” in the IM session.

    I abhor adultery. I think people who engage in it are moral cretins who are more concerned with their genitals than with the spouse they made public oaths to.

    But I don’t think it is within the proper province of the law.

    I don’t think the law has any business criminalizing a host of sexual and pseudo-sexual practices of the parties are willing and meet the age of consent.

    The IM’s were graphic, but certainly I didn’t see anything non-consensual about them.

    Darleen (03346c)

  122. The conduct may very well be legal, but Hastert etal still had a duty to investigate conduct that falls within the scope of unethical conduct per the House rules.

    jpe (182338)

  123. (I think we’re talking past each other at this point)

    jpe (182338)

  124. alabastard

    Foley committed these acts, the Republican leadership sat on it,

    “These” acts? Which ones? We are discussing two different and separate instances.

    1 – innocuous, if questionable, emails that were handled internally at the demand of the ex-page & his parents. Foley was told to “knock it off.” There was no credible reason to start an “investigation” unless the Republicans wanted to see NYTimes editorials denouncing their “homophobic witch hunt.” People figured it was handled…not “sat on”

    2 – very explicit anonymous IMs which the Republican leadership learned about when they were published by the media. “I didn’t know this about Foley” is a legitimate answer about those IM’s because no one but the recepient and whoever got the transcript over or under the transom does.Did the Repubs “sit on” this one? Nothing indicates they didn. Nothing.

    Darleen (03346c)

  125. JPE

    Link me the relevant rule.

    Darleen (03346c)

  126. within the scope of unethical conduct per the House rules

    The original non-sexual email exchange was investigated to a dead end when the parents of the boy wanted it dropped.

    The status of the IM receiver is unknown at this time and has been claimed to be an ex page now in college.

    What the exact scope of unethical conduct per the House rules that you refer to?

    boris (e173ce)

  127. Boris, in #116 you linked “queer” with “creepy.” This may be true if “queer” used to mean “gay and predatory” instead of just “gay.” I don’t believe that someone being gay makes them any more creepy or predatory than anyone else–do you? (This guy apparently agrees too–wait til the end. Also, beware of bad language.).

    Tom (eb6b88)

  128. At least Foley isn’t going to drag us through the exercise of trying him and asking what the definition of “is” is.

    paul from fl (464e99)

  129. I obviously did not reduce the information content of my comment down to your level.

    Before gay and queer became slang for homosexual, creepy and queer meant approximately the same thing. Not knowing that you completely miss the point.

    boris (e173ce)

  130. I haven’t looked too closely at the rules, but I know the House has a catchall, forbidding conduct that reflects poorly on the House. (The argument that this was private conduct obviously doesn’t wash, because these were kids working at the House)

    FWIW, I’d *love* it if the GOP tried to argue that Foley’s actions weren’t unethical – so do give it a dry-run.

    jpe (182338)

  131. Not knowing that you completely miss the point.

    Yeah, that’s plausible.

    jpe (182338)

  132. So what conduct that the house leadersip was aware of reflected poorly on the House?

    boris (e173ce)

  133. For God’s sake, Boris, what kind of man are you?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  134. The ethics manual notes here that engaging in sexual relationships with House pages has led the ethics committee to recommend censure in the past. A reasonable person would find that cybersex is, at a minimum, cause to forward concerns to the committee.

    jpe (182338)

  135. So what conduct that the house leadersip was aware of reflected poorly on the House?

    That’s what I’m talking about. I can only hope the GOP picks up this crazed reasoning and runs with it. It’s your time to shine, Boris!

    jpe (182338)

  136. but I know the House has a catchall

    Link it.

    Has anyone here said Foley acted ethically?

    these were kids working at the House

    And the EMAILS were to an EXpage. We still have no idea who was on the other side of the 2003 IM exchange.

    Care to keep digging, jpe? I’m suspecting you are acting in bad faith.

    Darleen (03346c)

  137. On a completely unrelated note, isn’t it about time the DoJ announces a “new” bust in the war on terra? I don’t know about yall, but I could really go for an orange alert right about now.

    jpe (182338)

  138. yep

    bad.faith.

    meshugganah.

    Darleen (03346c)

  139. engaging in sexual relationships

    So the claim is that the house leadership was aware of sexual relations between Foley and a page? Or is that like BS.

    boris (e173ce)

  140. So the claim is that the house leadership was aware of sexual relations between Foley and a page? Or is that like BS.

    We could just ask them to tell to go under oath and tell us what they knew and when.

    actus (10527e)

  141. For God’s sake, Boris, what kind of man are you?

    You didn’t answer so I’ll ask again …

    So what conduct that the house leadersip was aware of reflected poorly on the House?

    boris (e173ce)

  142. HASTERT CALLS FOR A FULL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION:

    “In his letter to Gonzales on Sunday, Hastert asked the Justice Department to investigate “who had specific knowledge of the content of any sexually explicit communications between Mr. Foley and any former or current House pages and what actions such individuals took, if any, to provide them to law enforcement.”

    Jason Leopold or whoever the leftist blogger is who sat on the IMs should be pretty scared right now.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  143. I obviously did not reduce the information content of my comment down to your level.

    No need to be an asshole. Even when I thought you were writing from some weird assumptions, I treated you with respect. I’d expect the same in return.

    Thanks for clarifying–I did initially misunderstand your comment.

    ‘Nuff said on this tangent.

    Tom (eb6b88)

  144. I don’t know about yall, but I could really go for an orange alert right about now.

    I believe that we are at threat-level orange right now.
    Rick

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  145. We could just ask them to tell to go under oath and tell us what they knew and when.

    We are discussing currently available public information here, not one of your inquisition wet dreams.

    Let me ask again, is your claim that the house leadership was aware of sexual relations between Foley and a page? Or is that like BS.

    boris (e173ce)

  146. Jason Leopold or whoever the leftist blogger is who sat on the IMs should be pretty scared right now.

    Is there a law that anyone that sees those IM’s has to call the cops?

    actus (10527e)

  147. No need to be an asshole.

    I love it when you call me names.

    boris (e173ce)

  148. Let me ask again, is your claim that the house leadership was aware of sexual relations between Foley and a page? Or is that like BS.

    I don’t know what they knew. I’ve heard conflicting stories. Better get them under oath and find out, right?

    actus (10527e)

  149. Well, Actus, as you see in comment #144, it looks like we’ll get answers.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  150. Oh BS, you claimed that Hastert etal still had a duty to investigate conduct that falls within the scope of unethical conduct per the House rules.

    Your claim. Back it up. What was Hastert aware of that duty bound him to investigate further than he did?

    boris (e173ce)

  151. Is there a law that anyone that sees those IM’s has to call the cops?

    Actus… it’s a matter of losing credibility.

    And perhaps there is. I assume failing to report child abuse is a crime.

    Not reporting child abuse so as to hoard your political ammunition until you have a blog set up for a few months and can slowly feed info into the mainstream media is abhorent. If that happened.

    But you want to find out, don’t you? Isn’t that what you’re going on about in comment #150?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  152. Hilarious. You find a child predator in your midst, and the first impulse is to accuse political opponents of a timing game.

    Clearly, serious people.

    fishbane (3389fc)

  153. So the claim is that the house leadership was aware of sexual relations between Foley and a page? Or is that like BS.

    The claim is that they had plenty of reason to suspect something untoward and forward their concerns to the ethics committee. Instead, they figured he probably wouldn’t molest any teenagers and let it go.

    Oh, they did that after they asked him nicely to stop. That’s enough, I guess.

    jpe (182338)

  154. plenty of reason

    Like what exactly. That he was a single gay man or was it a non-sexual email exchange? Or do you add the two together?

    boris (e173ce)

  155. But you want to find out, don’t you? Isn’t that what you’re going on about in comment #150?

    Ya. I just read those ims. Is that child abuse?

    actus (10527e)

  156. No, Fishbane, my first impulse is to insist that the guilty party resign and to search, as I’ve done so for multiple comments under this thread, for a law that they can be prosecuted under. I also support a criminal investigation as Dennis Hastert has done.

    But then I damn right want to know why some far-left “blogger” may have sat on these for months rather than go to the authorities or go public for child protection.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  157. You find a child predator in your midst

    And toss the pervert, prosecute him if warranted. How unlike Studds, Franks and Clinton. Democrats.

    boris (e173ce)

  158. “Ya. I just read those ims. Is that child abuse?”

    — Actus

    You don’t think it’s abusive to a minor?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  159. Just go to http://www.house.gov/ethics and look at #1 in the ethics manual. I think that is what jpe is talking about. Googling ain’t rocket science.

    Paul (143c3a)

  160. Anyone seen a reliable poll, or have info on how this is playing in Boys Town, or on gay blogs?

    I wonder if opinion is running strongly in one direction or another, or is subject to a variety of mixed emotions.

    Black Jack (63943a)

  161. You don’t think it’s abusive to a minor?

    There was no touching. There was improper words. I don’t think this was a molestation. What definition of ‘child abuse’ are you using?

    actus (10527e)

  162. Fishbane

    What “child predator”? Do you know something the FBI, which is currently investigating to see if any laws were broken, doesn’t?

    Please enlighten me how even a salacious IM session in 2003 between two people legally of the age of consent falls under criminal jurisdiction?

    Really. Give me some authoritative links.

    And excuse me if I find people who demand that 13 year old girls are mature enough to seek an abortion on their own, suddenly referring to sexually active 16/17 y/o boys as “children” amazingly cynical in its obvious partisanship.

    Darleen (03346c)

  163. Black Jack

    If you look at the commenters here you’ll see it’s all the fault of the homophobic Rethuglicans ie:

    my guess is that Rep. Foley’s inappropriate actions might not have occurred were his sexual needs satisfied with a mature, committed and open relationship that actually lined up with his orientation. It appears the GOP would rather have a closeted, frustrated predator in Congress than a well-adjusted openly gay representative. …

    it’s that self-hating gay Republican men figure that as long as they’re lying about it to begin with, why not go after the young meat?

    The spin is so insane as to be beyond words.

    Darleen (03346c)

  164. “There was no touching. There was improper words. I don’t think this was a molestation. What definition of ‘child abuse’ are you using?”

    — Actus

    I believe that to say one must touch a child to be abusive is a very very scary definition, Actus.

    I would say there is a legitimate question as to is 16 old enough to have a relationship? I believe the fact that the other person is a Congressman that they served as a page for this Congressman changes things dramatically.

    But are you saying that words can’t constitute child abuse? Particularly when those words are to arouse a child then to get the child to pull out and describe their genitals to the offender?

    Is that your actual position?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  165. Studds, Franks and Clinton (and Crane, republican) were not involved with minors, so no prosecution.

    Paul (143c3a)

  166. I would say there is a legitimate question as to is 16 old enough to have a relationship? I believe the fact that the other person is a Congressman that they served as a page for this Congressman changes things dramatically.

    Ya. That makes it uncomfortble for me. Sexual harassment, misuse of power, etc. But abuse of a child? Not so sure. Thats why i’m asking for your definition.

    But are you saying that words can’t constitute child abuse?

    I’m having a hard time picturing how talking about sex with someone above the age of consent is abuse.

    actus (10527e)

  167. Please enlighten me how even a salacious IM session in 2003 between two people legally of the age of consent falls under criminal jurisdiction?

    Really. Give me some authoritative links.

    It would be my pleasure, Darleen:
    H.R. 4472: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and 18 U.S.C. 2251

    Though the legal age for consensual sex in Washington, D.C. is 16, it is illegal under Federal law to send a salacious email or IM to anyone under 18. Strange as that may seem, and in part due to Mr Foley himself who co-sponosred the “Adam Walsh Act”, sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page in D.C. might not have been criminal, but sending him those internet messages quite possibly was.

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  168. The age of consent in DC is 16 and the page was an ex-page at the time this occurred, as far as I know. Foley is a creep and there is some concern about stories that the other pages knew about him. Still, this looks like a planned hit on Hastert.

    Mike K (416363)

  169. The spin is so insane as to be beyond words.

    Yeah, it’s patently insane to think that if you tell someone enough to hate what they are, they’ll start to hate themselves and act immorally.

    Did I mention that I love the “tolerance and sunshine!” spin being put on this? ‘Don’t you see, we blame gays for everything because we care about them!’ The homophobia in the right is so transparent I don’t see why anyone bothers, but it’s amusing to watch.

    And the “Look! Abortion! Look! The clenis!” stuff is so passe. At least come up with some new non sequiturs.

    jpe (eaa0e9)

  170. “There was no touching. There was improper words. I don’t think this was a molestation. What definition of ‘child abuse’ are you using?”

    But are you saying that words can’t constitute child abuse?

    — Actus

    I would say that any person who is legally defined as a minor for the purposes of consenting to sex is a child.

    In Canada, this person WOULD be a “young person” protected by law from sexual exploitation because they were over 15, but under 18, and the other person is in a position of “trust and authority”.

    In the USA, I simply don’t know enough about what the law is to know whether this relationship and the instant messages Foley engaged in constituted a felonious act.

    And neither do you. You don’t know squat about the law here, just like me.

    Intelligent people like Dennis Hastert, Patterico, and others are supportive of or actively calling for a criminal investigation and these people know more about the law than you or I.

    Ironically, it is apparently possible that Foley could be convicted of a law he helped sponsor although I’m still trying to find out exactly what law this is.

    So yes, to answer your question, if a person is legally a child because of a combination of their age and/or the position of trust and authority another an adult was placed over them and that adult used the internet to sexually arouse the child, which he clearly did (just read it), then asked the person to take an action with their aroused genitals including describing them to the offender, then yes, if these prerequisites are met, this is ‘child abuse’ with words.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  171. Jason Leopold or whoever the leftist blogger is who sat on the IMs should be pretty scared right now.

    The emails were forwarded to the FBI months ago.

    jpe (eaa0e9)

  172. * over 14, not 15, but that’s moot since it’s Canadian law

    Christoph (9824e6)

  173. Intelligent people like Dennis Hastert, Patterico, and others are supportive of or actively calling for a criminal investigation and these people know more about the law than you or I.

    That’s the assumption under which I’m working. If nothing comes out of the blawgs in a few days, then Haster etal are only on the hook for covering up a gross violation of House Ethics Rules, rather than a felony. If that’s the case, so be it.

    jpe (eaa0e9)

  174. The IMs, jpe, it’s the IMs.

    If the sexually explicit IMs were forwarded by this leftist blogger to the FBI months ago, that’s good. Emails are not IMs.

    Notice the distinction.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  175. Christoph

    If the person is under the age of consent, then it does violate statute. But if they are age of consent, then it does not.

    A 16 y/o male is not legally a “child” in DC or in any number of other states.

    Salacious behavior, but it may not rise to “child abuse.”

    To label it such is to dilute the horror of real abuse against children.

    Good lord, how many threads have I see where adult males rail against the prosecution of those female teachers who seduced their male teenage students?

    Double standards, guys?

    Darleen (03346c)

  176. Darleen, for goodness sakes, have you ever heard of the federal government?

    There is such a thing as federal law governing interstate communications between minors and children (and any number of other things).

    Notice comment #169 intended especially for you, but very informative for me, which I shall read up on. You should too.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  177. JPE

    The left treats gays, Jews, and minorities in a particularly patronizing way…as their own private preserve of performing pets.

    I’m only pointing out the abject hypocrisy of how the Left defines a “child” and an “adult” on shifting political criteria.

    Darleen (03346c)

  178. “Good lord, how many threads have I see where adult males rail against the prosecution of those female teachers who seduced their male teenage students?

    “Double standards, guys?”

    …and I have never ever railed against prosecuting female sexual abusers.

    While Canada’s laws are far from perfect and our new Conservative government wants to raise the age of consent, one thing I am proud of is we removed the ridiculous double standard under our law where a male child, abused by a female, had no legal protection.

    It is now merely concerned with the age of the child and the relationship of the child with the offender. This is how it should be.

    If you’re going to try groundless attacks, they will fail.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  179. Christoph

    The IM’s are from 2003. The Walsh bill is 2006.

    In the USA you cannot be held criminally responsible for a law that didn’t exist at the time of the incident. Ex post facto laws are not allowed.

    If said communications took place in CA, under CA statute they would be illegal — CA Penal Code 288.2(a). But we aren’t talking about CA, are we?

    Darleen (03346c)

  180. Christoph

    My double standard assertion wasn’t aimed at you.

    I don’t think female teachers should be let off the hook either, but even American judges admit to double standards while sentencing a female teacher to probation when a male teacher in the same circumstance would have gone to prison.

    Darleen (03346c)

  181. Darleen, you have exasperatedly asked over and over for what law was broken. Comment #169 gave it to you. What is your response?

    Paul (143c3a)

  182. “If said communications took place in CA, under CA statute they would be illegal — CA Penal Code 288.2(a). But we aren’t talking about CA, are we?”

    We don’t know in what state the person who was the recipient of the IMs was located.

    It is definitely where the child is located, not just the offender that matters. Otherwise, the offender could just move to a jurisdiction where they have no laws and use the Internet with impunity.

    Clearly this isn’t allowed.

    By using the Internet to meet a child online, Congressman Foley placed himself under the jurisdiction wherever the child was located at the time.

    Do you know where that is, Darleen?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  183. Rick,

    The more I’ve thought about this, I’m unsure of the applicability of the Title 18 exploitation of children and the Adam Walsh statutes in this case under the facts as we know them now. Specifically, it’s my understanding that the more sensational allegations are based on the content in the IMs (not the emails) and I thought I read that the IMs were sent as early as 2003-2004. If so, since these criminal statutes became law in 2005-2006, only those IMs sent after that date would be covered.

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  184. Didn’t see your comment till I sent mine Darleen. OK. But ya gotta admit, it takes some arrogance and major denial to sponsor a bill that would criminalize the behavior you were engaged in.

    Paul (143c3a)

  185. Darleen,

    Like Paul, I didn’t see your comment #181 until after I’d posted. Sorry for the repeat.

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  186. Christoph

    We don’t even know if the “child” of the IM’s (who alludes to past sex with a girlfriend) was under 18 at the time of the IMs.

    The emails contained nothing legally actionable.

    Darleen (03346c)

  187. Thanks Darleen, the link provided some interesting information. As indicated in your example, many gay commenters attribute Foley’s problems to the frustration of being a “closeted gay Republican.”

    However, that doesn’t square with the fact Foley was “outed” years ago, was known by the Page boys for his advances, and had achieved an 88% record on gay issues as of 2005, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Apparently putting him at, or near, the top among Congressional Republicans.

    One of the commenters mentioned he’d known Foley for years, and was aware of a gay relationship Foley had stretching back nearly 2 decades.

    I’m working with limited and often contradictory data, but I don’t see much indication he was closeted, his orientation seems rather open, or at least not a deep dark secret.

    The strongest criticism involved allegations of predatory behavior, but there was no hint of evidence of such activity, other than speculation that his IMs could be construed as such.

    In short, we’re only in the opening scenes of a complex drama. We haven’t met the entire cast yet, and there are several important acts sure to follow.

    It’s a bit too early for the lynch mob to be howling for Foley’s head in a noose. Unless gay Republicans don’t qualify for a hearing before the sentence is carried out.

    Black Jack (63943a)

  188. Darleen,

    Are these Louisiana statutes similar to the California statute you mentioned?

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  189. That’s why they have investigations, Darleen.

    Here is some interesting information. At least one of the emails was altered.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  190. But ya gotta admit, it takes some arrogance and major denial to sponsor a bill that would criminalize the behavior you were engaged in.

    There is an old saying that “nobody preaches like the converted.”

    How many times in politics have we seen the major backer of a piece of legislation get busted for doing the very thing that he was attempting to legislate against?

    Call it projection, call it denial, perhaps even call it cover. Call it what you like. All that has been proven so far is that Foley is a sleazebag, and it is well that he is out of Congress.

    As to whether any black-letter law was violated, that’s a far murkier issue, as it is probable that these IM’s were generated from Foley’s office and/or residence in the District of Columbia, and the definition of a “state line” is murky where the District is concerned.

    Could Foley’s conduct be pounded into the confines of 18 USC 2251? Probably, but only for the purposes of generating a plea bargain of some sort. Unfortunately, like most USC provisions, it is written in such generalities that it makes specific cases like this very touchy to procsecute, and is better used as a cudgel to force someone into a plea bargain. Besides, does anyone want this crap any more in the public record than it already is?

    JD (044292)

  191. DRJ posted:

    The more I’ve thought about this, I’m unsure of the applicability of the Title 18 exploitation of children and the Adam Walsh statutes in this case under the facts as we know them now. Specifically, it’s my understanding that the more sensational allegations are based on the content in the IMs (not the emails) and I thought I read that the IMs were sent as early as 2003-2004. If so, since these criminal statutes became law in 2005-2006, only those IMs sent after that date would be covered.

    Thanks for your reply, DRJ.
    18 U.S.C. 2251 was signed into law in April of 2003, and some internet communications from Foley were purportedly sent to the page while he was still under age 18 after Hurricaine Katrina in late 2005. Whether or not Mr Foley violated either the “Adam Walsh Act” and/or 18 U.S.C. 2251 or any other applicable laws has yet to be determined.

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  192. Paul

    The power of elective office really can cause many people to lose themselves. They start thinking themselves as “rock stars” and entitled to all the perks of groupies and with the same entitlement to eschew responsibility.

    Arrogance and chutzpah are just icing on the cake.

    Darleen (03346c)

  193. Correction: 18 U.S.C. 2251 was signed in 1977; Federal laws defining a minor as one under age 18 were put into effect over 20 years ago.

    Sorry, my bad.
    Rick

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  194. Good points, Rick, but Darleen may also be right that it’s difficult to apply the Sexual Exploitation of Children statute (18 U.S.C. 2251 et seq) to the facts as they appear now. To my knowledge, there are no pictures nor any attempts to get pictures of illicit conduct. The Adam Walsh Act seems a better fit but I’m unclear on the timing of the IMs and the effective date of the Act.

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  195. Rick, re 169, I don’t understand how these laws apply to the IMs. 18 USC 2251 refers to visual depictions. It may have been passed because of cases where boys were bribed to perform sexual acts for webcams. The Adam Walsh act contains many parts, which do you think applies?

    James B. Shearer (d9afa0)

  196. To my knowledge, there are no pictures nor any attempts to get pictures of illicit conduct…I don’t understand how these laws apply to the IMs. 18 USC 2251 refers to visual depictions.

    I believe it is alleged that Mr Foley both used a computer and explicitly solicited pictures from the page, though I agree that § 2251 may not apply on that basis alone. I don’t know if Mr Foley broke the law; someone asked:

    Please enlighten me how even a salacious IM session in 2003 between two people legally of the age of consent falls under criminal jurisdiction? Really. Give me some authoritative links.

    and I answered. Whether or not the laws I cited or some others will apply in this particular instance remains to be determined.
    Rick

    Rick (c7fbdd)

  197. When did the House of Representatives become a law enforcement agency?

    They do have an obligation to protect the pages that work for them. In Foley’s case, they had emails that raised a suspiscion and a family that wasn’t interested in pursuing anything. The matter was referred to the Chairman of the Page Board (which is how they move issues around – through the chair of the Committee/Board/Panel, etc…)and Foley was told to refrain from contact with any pages outside of Congressional business.

    What the hell else were they supposed to investigate based on the LA page emails? Were they supposed to waterboard Foley until he confessed to something he may or may not have done, and they had no evidence that he had? Who should they have notified and what should they have notified them of? That Foley sent overly friendly/curious emails and was counseled not to do it anymore?

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  198. I believe it is alleged that Mr Foley both used a computer and explicitly solicited pictures

    Requesting a picture of the ex-page in a non-sexual email is hardly constitutes a visual depiction of a sexual nature.

    If Foley can be prosecuted for the IMs he will be. But there needs to be more than dirty talk for a conviction. Pictures, meeting, that sort of thing.

    boris (e173ce)

  199. Bearing False Witness…

    Of all the kinds of lying, the most damaging and most despicable, practiced by only the most coldblooded and spiritually empty human vessels, is “bearing false witness.” BFW is not a typical lie to duck accountability for something you did……

    Big Lizards (5ca406)

  200. Republicans are held to higher standards. When they commit crimes, are caught with their pants down so to speak or make an “insensitive remark” they step down or resign.

    Democrats like Franks and Clinton or William Jefferson remain untouched and un-repentant. They reflect a quality of boorishness that bothers them not – but just let a Republican step out of line and there is heck to pay.

    Johanna Stephens (5b886f)

  201. i love this story, and the reaction to it.
    “demos have sex scandals too, clinton, studds, frank…”
    “the demos timed this to affect the election!”
    “this is a smear on denny hastert!”
    it isn’t the sex, it’s the hypocrisy. it’s a member of the house committee on exploited children exploiting children. it’s the party of morals, values and decency opening its raincoat to flash us.

    assistant devil's advocate (cb2eec)

  202. ada, you’ll notice that the first thing that happened, damned near simultaneously with the story breaking, was that Foley resigned and his party washed it’s hands of him. There is no rally around him, he’s already hung out to dry. That was apparently Job 1, as well as Reaction 1.

    I think you missed it and perhaps don’t realize that everyone else has moved on to #2.

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  203. If the leadership of the republicans in the house knew about Foley and protected him that brings up a bigger question. The democrats and the media types or hypes (whichever)evidently/definitely had the same or more information and held it for political purposes. Does that make one a bigger slimeball than the other? Me think not. So if one should resign from the house, dozens of democrats should also resign and all should be prosecuted for the same crimes as Foley, if a crime really was committed, which is still a question. Since the democrats drive for years is to do away with all parental control and allow children age 12 and younger to obtain an abortion without the parents consent, that also says the democrats approved of the same children having sex at that age. No sexual encounter, no abortion required.
    Of course the democrats are all throwing a Slick Willie fit today to try and cover their part in this. Won’t work, everyone saw the Slick fit ,and know you are all mentally retarded or simply crazy.

    Scrapiron (a90377)

  204. – The Left may have bitten off more than they can chew by over-reaching in the attempt to “get Hastert”, whom I don’t have a lot of use for anyway.

    – Now that they’ve decided to open the “who-knew-what-when”, it will also extend to which Dems knew what when. Undoubtedly the posting of this on a new, unsourced blog-site, is an attempt to distance the party from this. As others have said, it will be interesting to see where the “trail” leads. In the mean time, if this is the best the Dems can do for their OKtober surprise, what with Bush’s approvals up another 2 ticks today @44%, I’m encouraged. Remember, they needed something desperately, to offset the essentially lost seat with their brilliant Lame-mont/Lieberman stratedgy.

    – There’s rumors of a real October surprise in the works for the Dembulbs to gnash their teeth over.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  205. Scrapiron, you sound clinical. Or really, really stupid.

    jpe (182338)

  206. BILL CLINTON was abig time skirt chaser remember?

    krazy kagu (522a1c)

  207. – Speak of the She-Devil, and poof she appears. Nancy (The trouble with) Polosi has been called on to testify in the Foley investigation.

    – The problem with pissing in the political cornflakes, is to always make sure your own bowl is clean. Good luck with this one Dhimmies.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  208. I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you.

    — Mark Foley

    Well, any question about what Mr. Foley’s intentions were, if any remained, has been answered.

    Christoph (5ab65d)

  209. I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you.

    — Mark Foley

    Well, any question about what Mr. Foley’s intentions were, if any remained, has been answered.

    Christoph (5ab65d)

  210. apologize for the double post

    Christoph (5ab65d)

  211. And I don’t know why the link didn’t go through properly… it’s:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html

    Christoph (5ab65d)

  212. Oh no, republican cognitive dissonance will not allow them to accept blame for their own mistakes so it must be Clinton and the dems fault. Look out dems, you forced another good republican to do wrong. You should be ashamed of yourselves, or at least have the good graces to not expose us.

    Paul (9ab930)

  213. – Yeh paul. Throw shit, and then duck…. that should work. Be sure to wear your overcoat though.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  214. Even though I’m a Dem and out, I agree with you all that are saying the hit on Hastert is stupid and a bad strategy. This Foley guy needs help and he did the right thing by stepping down.
    The next step should be for the Feds to determine if any laws were broken (the moment he resigned, the House Ethics Panel had no authority over him) and if the leadership (D or R) knew they had a problem with CRIMINAL conduct. If not, I agree with several of you who are (unfortunately) correct in that we’d have a wholesale resignation of half the House if “questionable” behaviour was the litmus test.
    As I stated on another string here, it’s interesting to see what’s happening to adults that are not allowed a healthy outlet for their sexuality and what happens to them – congressmen, priests, etc…

    Warlord (655844)

  215. Call it a day sanctimonius hyperventilating mock outrage scandal mongers.

    Loraditch’s Facebook.com statement said: …
    “Firstly, as to the ABC “Warned” story, while I may have inadvertently used the word, “warned,” in communication, I can assure you it was not intended. The fact of the matter is in an informal situation a supervisor mentioned that Foley was a bit odd or flaky and did not connote by tone or otherwise that he should be avoided.

    . . .

    “Thirdly, I have stressed several key points in my contact with media that all situations with Mr. Foley occurred after we had finished our service as pages. That if anything had happed while we were in Washington, it would have been dealt with.

    Whose got a fork?

    boris (e173ce)

  216. Who’s ducking BBhunter. You have a point to make then make it.

    People defending the Republicans here by talking about Frank and Clinton fail to mention Dan Crane, who stayed in office after his scandal another four years till defeated. Course that don’t fit with your argument so ignore it.

    Oh yeah, what about James Guckert, your male escort who went prancing about the White House with a pass and an alias, to ask softball questions at press conferences. What ever happened to that?

    Paul (9ab930)

  217. Who is Loraditch?

    Warlord (655844)

  218. The original source for the claim that pages were warned about Foley. Probably in contact with the pages involved.

    boris (e173ce)

  219. All I want to say is that it’s not “Left wing bloggers” who are reporting this story. It’s the mainstream press, including AP:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061001/ap_on_go_co/foley_reynolds

    If you don’t know that much, I can’t imagine why anyone should take your blogosphere histrionics seriously.

    The Associated Press? Yes, I know, liberal media liberal media hey nonny nonny, fa la la.

    You can bluster and fume, and I can gloat, but this isn’t about you, and it isn’t about me. it’s about millions of Conservative Christians who are going to seriously consider voting for the Right to Life party this year.

    I think your best hope is those Dieboldt machines.

    fedora1958 (0b262c)

  220. – Oh gosh paul. I’m all atwitter with your overwhelming strident outrage.

    – Maybe you could get off your partisan feckless soapbox long enough to look up Polosi’s indorcement of Condon AFTER he had been exposed as a Congressional diddler.

    – What’s that. You forgot. Well see that’s the problem. You moonies continue to forget yesterdays embarrassments.

    – General question. What is it about Liberals, that they just never seem to tire of kicking themselves in the ass with that very bad political ploy, and dead horse of titanic proportions, named the “Culture of corruption” troupe. Here’s a hint. Mud slinging is a free-lance sport, and very definately a two edged sword. Something like using elephants in a war. Get it? If that’s to complicated for you, then just try not too fall off and drown.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  221. Well, don’t twitter youself too much on my account BBhunter. That’s how Foley got in trouble.
    Your concern is touching, but I do have a rain coat and can swim just fine thank you. You on the other hand seem to have some trouble. I mention to you Crane and Guckert and you come back with Condon, which means condom in spanish.

    Of course there is no culture of corruption in washington and every new scandal that goes by will just serve to reinforce that beleif in you. Good for you. Belief in the face of evidence shows the kind of strength of character you admire in your leader, Bush, and you can do no less than follow his example.

    By the way, moonies are right wingers, not liberals. Get it?

    Paul (9ab930)

  222. […] I’ve seen several articles pointing out that perhaps Speaker Hastert didn’t really know what was going on; Patterico is on top of that, and Dafydd ab Hugh is utterly livid over the demagoguery from the left. I’ve seen articles which note that the ABC or at least its sources had the information and apparently sat on it until five weeks before the election, one assumes to influence the outcome of the election. Such points might be valid, in and of themselves, but they are unlikely to matter; having seen how the bishops kept trying to minimize and obfuscate the problems of homosexual priests preying on young boys and the Church moving them around to protect the Church, the public are unlikely to believe the least bad of the House leadership, but are more likely to think that they are simply trying to prevent the other shoe from dropping before November 7th. […]

    Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archives » If we lose the House in November, we’ll deserve it. (819604)

  223. “strength of character”

    – Damn. Here I thought moonbats weren’t allowed to mention things like strength of character, principles, moral values, and such. You’ve so widely advertised those qualities as being against your “soft Marxist” religion. Looks like you have some catching up to do with mainstream America.

    – Glad you can swim. As poorly as you seem to do in understanding the point of other peoples posts, you’ll need it.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  224. Yeah thanks, but us poor moonie, moonbat, “soft Marxist” worshiping, and some such people are still waiting for your mainstream American strenth of character to enlighten us about Mr. Condon. I am convinced now that he must be the key to explaining why the Republicans are so principled and value driven,,but us commie rubes just can’t see it without your help. Please lend me your superior wisdom BBhunter.

    Paul (9ab930)

  225. [Ad hominem nonsense deleted. This guy can’t make a comment without attacking me personally. Find another venue for that, pal. — P]

    m.croche (8704be)

  226. Rick #198,

    Actually, I’m still open on the applicability of 18 USC 2251 since my reading is that all that’s rquired is that the defendant enticed a minor to engage in sexual conduct for the purpose of visual depiction. It may be that the existence of actual photos is a necessary element of proving this crime, but what if it’s sufficient that Foley expressed an intent to take sexually explicit photos (assuming he did)?

    DRJ (ccb97e)

  227. […] If you want to see some great balanced writing on this whole thing.  Cruise over to Patterico’s blog.. […]

    Juneau Blog » Hastert Has To Go? (f3f021)

  228. Juneau Blog has a great and thoughtful piece worthy of fuller reading. It’s not your average pingback.

    Have a look if you haven’t already done so.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  229. Patterico,

    How is this spin of yours doing? I think most people are on the he “knew or should have known” kick. Most people see those emails for what they are: someone chasing tail. What do you think?

    actus (10527e)

  230. fun fun fun

    —On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC’s Brian Ross.

    The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley’s former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

    “I said we’re not making any deals,” Ross recalls. He says the Internet made the story possible, because on Thursday he posted a story on his ABC Web page, the Blotter, after obtaining one milder e-mail that Foley had sent a 16-year-old page, asking for a picture. Within two hours, former pages had e-mailed Ross and provided the salacious messages. The only question then, says Ross, was “whether this could be authenticated.”—

    That woul be Kirk Fordham, currently the Chief of Staff for NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds.

    fun fun fun

    jewish socialist (5e7461)

  231. “How is this spin of yours doing? I think most people are on the he “knew or should have known” kick. Most people see those emails for what they are: someone chasing tail. What do you think?”

    I think Foley should have become a Democrat, then he wouldn’t have had to resign.

    BTW, Patterico was talking about the e-mails initially released…months after the media had them. It’s still Foley’s fault.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  232. If neither party wants a far-reaching backlash in 5 weeks, both sides would be wise to drop this thing, IMHO, with no further damages. This is starting to look like the Jon Grunseth situation in Minnesota in 1990.

    Jon Grunseth was the GOP nominee for Governor in MN that year. He was accused of diddling with pre-teen girls at pool parties. The incumbent DFL Governor, Rudy Perpich, pushed this issue as far as he could push it, to the point where Jon Grunseth ended up dropping out.

    The guy who replaced Grunseth on the ballot ended up beating Perpich with only a week of campaigning. As a sign of how far the backlash went, that was the same election in which the late Paul Wellstone beat another incumbent Rudy. As a resident of neighboring South Dakota at the time, the media coverage and its associated backlash came very close to toppling my state’s incumbent GOP senator at the time, Larry Pressler.

    Everyone would be well advised to back off from this.

    Brad S (12c864)

  233. […] RightWinged Randy and Patterico […]

    Juneau Blog » Who set up Foley? (f3f021)

  234. Patterico, when you get a chance…
    Please give the definition of pedophile; It seems a lot of commenters have no idea what they’re talking about.

    Ali (c3e71e)

  235. […] As I discussed the other day, leftists are pretending that Republican leaders knew about the disgusting instant messages that disgraced congressman Mark Foley traded with a 16-year-old boy. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » L.A. Times Implies the Republican Leadership Knew About and Covered Up Foley’s “Sexually Charged Internet Exchanges with Minors” (421107)

  236. BTW, Patterico was talking about the e-mails initially released…months after the media had them. It’s still Foley’s fault.

    So close yet so far sharon. All thats needed is those emails. Everyone can tell that’s a pickup. You think the heartland wants to read about a congressman doing a gay teen pickup? and have that spun as overfriendly? I think not.

    actus (10527e)

  237. So, actus, what should have been done when the first indications surfaced that a gay congressman was friendly with male pages? Just curious.

    Perhaps the leadership should have assumed that he was hitting on male pages because “that’s what gay men do”? Perhaps gay men should not be allowed to befriend young males. Oh, but wait, the Boy Scouts already tried that, didn’t they? If I recall correctly they were roundly criticized for their homophobic ways. Does this mean that we’ve now solved the question about whether BSA should allow gay scoutmasters?

    Or maybe just the unfriendly gay scoutmasters would fit in. I’m having a hard time determining how the republicans could straddle the fence with the “gay issue” here. Perhaps you can suggest some boundaries.

    And I don’t mean the IMs. Those were clearly and disgustingly over the line. But WRT the emails, is there a level of “friendliness” that is appropriate for a gay man? Should he have been suspect because he is gay? And what would NAMBLA opine on the subject?

    I’m also just a little curious about how Mr. Folley was picking up 16 to 18 YO males in local bars. I’m thinking that perhaps there was even more going on than we’ve been told thus far.

    hmmm.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  238. Warlord, As I stated on another string here, it’s interesting to see what’s happening to adults that are not allowed a healthy outlet for their sexuality and what happens to them – congressmen, priests, etc…

    heh? How is it that congressmen are “not allowed a healthy outlet for their sexuality”? Not enough gay men over the age of 16 in Washington, DC, that Mr. Folley has to find boys?

    “…what happens to them…” is a comment that seems to suggest that Folley is somehow the victim here. I’d have to take serious issue with that thought process if I understand your point. It seems to me that you are excusing the conduct of Mr. Folley and the errant priests of earlier scandals. Are they not able to control themselves? Do we need to lock them away to protect the young men in our society?

    Just wondering.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  239. So, actus, what should have been done when the first indications surfaced that a gay congressman was friendly with male pages? Just curious.

    Figure out if his pickups were, well, leading to what pick ups lead to. People see through this ‘friendly’ euphamism you know.

    I don’t see what the boy scout example shows. The problem with that was their exclusion, not their ‘no dating’ policy.

    This whole scandal is really showing how some people don’t seem to know much about interpersonal relations.

    actus (10527e)

  240. Re: Hastert’s involvement, here’s an interesting addition to the story via ‘The American Thinker':

    On Sunday 10/1/06, Inside-the-Beltway gay activist Michael Rogers wrote on his blog BlogActive:

    Well the good news is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is finally getting it. I called their Director of Communications, Bill Burton, before the Foley story broke to let him know about Foley (and another case) were coming down the pike. …I am glad he followed up on my call and was ready on Friday to come out of the gate running. [Emphasis added]

    And in the post’s comments, he adds:

    I had the emails before they were on the net. Additionally, I had the additional emails, written by the page to a friend. The story was being written by a number of outlets and I provided additional information to reporters involved in the breaking of this story. Was [I] the central figure in reporting on Foley’s latest scandal? Never said I was. Was my work on the case important to helping make sure it came out before the election? Yes.

    In the comments, I ask for a link to a credible source for the accusations that Hastert covered for Foley. We’ll see if any are forthcoming.

    AMac (b6037f)

  241. […] Some of my friends on the conservative side (Sister Toldjah and Patterico and Dafydd ab Hugh would be three, but hardly the only examples) of the aisle have pointed out, properly, that the Democrats have been demagoguing taking advantage of the Mark Foley situation. And they’re right, the Democrats have done just that, and will continue to do just that, for as long as they see political advantage in doing so. And had Mr Foley been a Democrat, the Republicans would have been just as quick to take advantage, in a very similar manner. […]

    Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archives » Knowing when it’s time to go (819604)

  242. […] emergence of the story back in 2006 to reveal its race through the Old Media. Patterico also had a good post talking about how the left and Old Media began to beat the Hastert-knew-it-all drum before any […]

    Dem Leaders Knew of Massa’s Sexual Misconduct, Will Dems Be Held Accountable Like GOP Was Over Mark Foley : Stop The ACLU (dae8af)

  243. […] emergence of the story back in 2006 to reveal its race through the Old Media. Patterico also had a good post talking about how the left and Old Media began to beat the Hastert-knew-it-all drum before any […]

    The Reality Check » Blog Archive » Dem Leaders Knew of Massa’s Sexual Misconduct, Will Dems Be Held Accountable Like GOP Was Over Mark Foley (6dda6f)

  244. […] emergence of the story back in 2006 to reveal its race through the Old Media. Patterico also had a good post talking about how the left and Old Media began to beat the Hastert-knew-it-all drum before any […]

    Dem Leaders Knew of Massa’s Sexual Misconduct, Will Dems Be Held Accountable Like GOP Was Over Mark Foley | Right Wing News (c8efe7)

  245. […] emergence of the story back in 2006 to reveal its race through the Old Media. Patterico also had a good post talking about how the left and Old Media began to beat the Hastert-knew-it-all drum before any […]

    Dem Leaders Knew of Massa’s Sexual Misconduct, Will Dems Be Held Accountable Like GOP Was Over Mark Foley by: wth | American Conservative Daily (914ef3)

  246. […] emergence of the story back in 2006 to reveal its race through the Old Media. Patterico also had a good post talking about how the left and Old Media began to beat the Hastert-knew-it-all drum before any facts […]

    » In Massa Scandal, Will Dems Be Held Accountable by MSM? Are You Kidding? - Big Journalism (d59464)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6637 secs.