Captain Ed: Hastert Should Resign (UPDATE: Allah Says Maybe Not)
[UPDATE x3 10-1-06 7:23 a.m.: I’m putting this update at the head of the post, since my previous updates didn’t make my position clear enough. Let me spell it out here.
With an inadequate knowledge when I first posted, I failed to distinguish between slightly creepy e-mails (which Hastert appears to have known about), and overtly sexual ones that may be criminal (which he does not appear to have known about).
This is a huge difference.
In this post I provided a link to this ABC News Blotter piece, which quoted some of the Foley instant messages, and hinted at worse:
Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.
Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.
And this one:
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.
According to experts quoted in the story, this could be criminal, under the very laws Foley helped pass:
Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley’s prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.
“Adds up to soliciting underage children for sex,” said Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and now an ABC News consultant. “And what it amounts to is serious both state and federal violations that could potentially get you a number of years.”
Now, the first I read of Hastert’s knowledge was on Captain Ed’s blog, and I had the impression after reading Ed’s post that Hastert knew of all of the disgusting messages. I unfortunately did not click through his link to the story or read anything else before posting this post. Within minutes, Allah commented to let me know that I was jumping to conclusions. I instantly updated the post (after the post had been up for 19 minutes) to reflect this.
Having read more widely on the topic, it appears Allah is right. Hastert stands accused by Tom Reynolds, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, of having known about a different set of e-mails that are summarized this way:
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.
The kid was creeped out, and I don’t really blame him.
I think Ed’s position is that Hastert appears to have lied; on Friday he says he knew nothing about this, and since then it has become fairly clear he was told about the more innocuous e-mails. He is no longer denying this; he merely says he doesn’t remember it. I agree with Ed that this is a concern, but — if you keep the e-mail strands separate — it’s not as clear to me as it is to Ed that Hastert lied. Accordingly, I am no longer of the opinion that Hastert should resign now. But I do think this merits further investigation.
By the way, I think there is some misunderstanding out there on both sides; John from Power Line wrote a post that described the messages as “over-friendly,” which leads me to wonder whether John is even aware of the nastier messages.
Here is the original post:]
Captain Ed says Dennis Hastert knew about Foley’s inappropriate contact with an underage page months ago, and that Hastert should resign.
Sounds fine to me. Long-time readers know I am no fan of Hastert’s anyway. Hastert is the guy I called a “moron” for claiming that the raid on William Jefferson’s office was an affront to the Constitution. Because the word fits, I also called him a “moron” for smearing George Soros.
Now it appears he is more than just a moron. He is a Roger Mahony-style accessory after the fact to men with an unhealthy interest in young boys. If the current allegations are true — and it sure seems that they are — I wholeheartedly agree. Hastert must resign his leadership position. I’ll go further than Ed: I think he should resign entirely.
UPDATE 9:26 p.m.: Allah says we should all take a deep breath, and that Hastert may not have known the worst.
He’s still a moron, but that’s obviously not enough to make someone resign from Congress . . .
UPDATE x2: To make this clear: we need to know what Hastert knew and when. But it’s not clear (although some make it sound that way, and I was taken in myself at first, albeit for only 19 minutes, before I updated the post) that Hastert knew about the overtly sexual messages ahead of time. That’s a big distinction, and we should not allow the media to blur it.
UPDATE x4 (x3 is up top): I have written Ed to ask him to clarify the difference between the two strands of e-mails. I think he plans a third update. I have also written John from Power Line to ask if he is aware of the worst of the Foley messages.
UPDATE x5: John Hinderaker writes to say that, indeed, he had been unaware of the worst of the messages. He knew only about the ones Hastert had been told about, and had posted to make clear that what Hastert had been told about wasn’t all that terrible, which is true.
He has updated his post in response to my e-mail.
But work that outrage muscle!Allah (2ec92c) — 9/30/2006 @ 9:11 pm
I agree with Allah.Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 9:21 pm
If the reports are true, and Foley’s resignation suggests they are, Foley is sick and probably should face criminal prosecution. But I don’t think we know what Hastert knew and when he knew it, especially since the email content is not as inflammatory as the IMs. How could Hastert realistically force Foley to resign based on the reported emails and a complainant that would not press charges? Having said that, though, I question why Hastert let Foley continue as in a leadership role as chairman of the subcommittee of missing and exploited children.DRJ (ccb97e) — 9/30/2006 @ 9:31 pm
DRJ again brings up criminal prosecution. Under a previous thread, a commentator asked:
And then I also asked:
Do you have any insights into this?Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 10:25 pm
Pat, an accessory to an interest?
I’m no fan of Hastert and I’ve wanted him out since the Jefferson incident. But suggesting he’s an accessory to what doesn’t appear to be a crime (Scummy, yes. Very scummy. But probably not criminal.) is a little over the top.
I won’t miss him if he goes.Pablo (08e1e8) — 9/30/2006 @ 10:39 pm
Yeah, Pablo, I caught that sentence too. It appears grossly unfair to Hastert.
Accusing him of being a jackass for smearing Soros without proof or taking the wrong constitutional position on the Jefferson incident are valid points of criticism, even up to calling for his resignation.
But using that particular sentence on this subject: aiding alleged paedophiles — is way over the top.Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 10:45 pm
Follow-up. The sentence:
is NOT an adequate step back from accusing someone of covering up for a paedophile.Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 10:47 pm
That’s not all I said. I said: “Allah says we should all take a deep breath, and that Hastert may not have known the worst.” With a link to a post that explains exactly what you folks are saying.
The update came within 19 minutes of the post, and well before you and Pablo left your comments. You have to read the whole post.Patterico (de0616) — 9/30/2006 @ 10:53 pm
I know that, Patterico, at the risk of the most inappropriate pun, I “swing back and forth” on this one.
If Hastert knew that Foley was sending sexual emails, essentially, “Are you horny? Etc.” to pages and didn’t do anything, he’s a bastard with little to redeem him.
But if he did no such thing, then you should more clearly back off from that sentence, in my opinion, an do it yourself instead of quoting Allah.
Anyway, the facts aren’t in, though Allah’s take makes the most sense to me. In which case, Hastert is innocent of any blame in this case and took action the moment he realized the true nature of it.
Power Line Blog has some good context on the story.
And since a lot of your readers including yours truly are curious about the laws surrounding this, those instant messages/emails, have they broken any that you’re aware of?Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 10:59 pm
I have left a second update to make it even clearer, since some of you didn’t follow what I was saying in the first update.Patterico (de0616) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:02 pm
Is it a crime? Very possibly.
We don’t know the entire content of the messages, but they could rise to the level of soliciting sex with a minor.
But it doesn’t sound certain that Hastert knew about that stuff.Patterico (de0616) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:04 pm
I followed what you said in the first update. It was merely my opinion that if you make a direct statement in the first person that someone is covering up for a paedophile, then you learn from someone you respect that they probably weren’t, the person you accused deserves a direct statement in the first person retracting your accusation.
It’s a matter of form, not content.Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:06 pm
Thanks for clarifying that, Patterico. I didn’t read the transcript so I didn’t know there was more graphic language.
It’s interesting how your courts would interpret that… in Canada, we tend to have a very left of centre judiciary in most provinces since all judges other than local magistrates are appointed by the Prime Minister without Parliamentary oversight or review and the Liberal Party of Canada has been in power for 75% of our history.
A judge recently threw out an Internet conversation with a much younger child that was probably more graphic on the basis that “it was just fantasy”.
The police, prosecutor, and victim’s family were incredulous because there were actual offers/requests made.
But that’s Canada for you. Conservatives — and many non-elite leftists — are pretty outraged by it.
Hopefully your courts are capable of better. In Canada, it’s tough to get a paedophile to adequately pay… outside of Alberta where they wear Stetson hats.Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:12 pm
Even if Hastert knew about the explicit IM’s, I still don’t think we have a crime here. We don’t even have attempted sex here, while Gerry Stubbs and Dan Crane were both censured but kept their seats after having actual sex with their pages. Stubbs was reelected six times afterwards.
So this makes Hastert an accessory after the fact to what again? Men with an unhealthy interest? I don’t get it. Mahoney, like Bernard Law, aided and abetted ongoing child rape.Pablo (08e1e8) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:14 pm
I don’t think anyone has accused Hastert of a crime, Pablo.
I believe the question is is his behaviour reprehensible by not taking adequate steps to protect minors from sexual exploitation in order to cover up a potentially embarrassing political matter… or did he do no such thing and when he learned of it, express his outrage, which I believe I saw yesterday.
CNN described Hastert as visibly angry and I think he was.
I simply believe that when it comes to the welfare of a child, Hastert is an honorable man. If I’m wrong, I’m open to learning otherwise, but I believe I am right.Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:18 pm
Wouldn’t he have to ask for, or attempt to arrange a sexual encounter? And would it be sex with a minor if the kid is over the age of consent?
Don’t get me wrong, Foley is a mega creep and he should be handcuffed to John Mark Carr for the rest of his life so that kids can see them coming. If it were my kid, I’d be looking for Foley with a baseball bat.Pablo (08e1e8) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:22 pm
I have no idea what the law is like there… in Canada, the age of sexual consent is in most cases 14 (our new Conservative government wants to raise it to 16), but… if the older person is in a position of “trust and authority” like a judge, policeman, teacher, priest, boss, and certainly a Member of Parliament overseeing a page… then the age of consent becomes 18.
I’m not sure what the equivalent law is there, but it’s a great question.Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:25 pm
[…] Patterico’s Pontifications […]Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Latest Democratic Hitjob (986d71) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:36 pm
In addition to solicitation, there might also be a claim of sexual harassment.DRJ (ccb97e) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:37 pm
True, but is that a crime? Click here now for details about how to avoid sexual harrassment lawsuits and other trouble.Christoph (9824e6) — 9/30/2006 @ 11:45 pm
Foley: It gets worse…
OK, this exchange between “Maf54” and the teenager went on for about 50 minutes, and includes such alleged Foley comments as: Maf54 (7:37:27 PM): how my favorite young stud doing …Alabama Liberation Front (6ed3f8) — 10/1/2006 @ 12:03 am
You’re being taken in , Patterico. Neither the Republican leadership nor the other papers who had this-like the St Pete Times had anything but the very innocuous email correspondence with a kid whose parents refused on privacy grounds to let this be fully explored.
The salacious IM’s were provided ABC just the other day, per Brian Ross, a reporter of dubious reputation.(See Sweetness& Light).Among other things he insisted Hastert was under investigation despite Hastert and the DoJ’s strong denials.
And Soros’ CREW seems intimately involved.
Finally, the thing which supposedly broke the story was a post on a newly formed blog with an anonymous owner and few posts and certainly no readers.
Pull back for a while.clarice (c49871) — 10/1/2006 @ 1:53 am
The ONLY e-mails that ANY news report has alleged Hastert was aware of were the ones with the Louisiana page which had nothing of a sexual nature in them at all. No nudity, no “what are you wearing?”. Those e-mails felt a bit creepy only because they were between a Congressman and a page, and were more friendly in tone than we would generally expect between 2 people of such disparate ages. Combined with the fact that the parents of that boy told Rep. Alexander (who told Hastert’s office) that they didn’t want to pursue the matter, there’s not much else Hastert could have done at that point.
Capt. Ed has gone WAY overboard on this one. He has very uncharacteristically not looked closely at the specific allegations.
On the other hand, Powerline weighed in without seemming to understand that there were in fact e-mails which went far beyond “creepy”.
I recommend getting all the accurate facts before becoming swamped in spin.PatHMV (0e077d) — 10/1/2006 @ 6:34 am
Powerline posted on the subject of what Hastert knew so the other IMs are irrelevant to that point.
The other stuff went well into creepy and inappropriate but AFIC did not come out the other side.boris (e173ce) — 10/1/2006 @ 6:45 am
Pull back for a while.
Do I need to write a THIRD update that says I REALLY MEANT IT in the first two???Patterico (de0616) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:01 am
boris, the problem with the Powerline post is it sounds like it is talking as if the “creepy” e-mails were the ONLY ones that Foley ever sent. Since John admitted he was late to the story, and hadn’t been following it that closely, it sure looked to me like he was unaware that other IMs (that Hastert never saw) went far, far beyond creepy.PatHMV (0e077d) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:04 am
Patterico… my only problem with your update is that it ought to say that there is not a single piece of actual original reporting, not a single source anywhere alleging that Hastert knew about the really bad IMs. Captain Ed’s post is based on a NY Times article which never says that Hastert knew about anything other than the overly-friendly e-mails. So not only is it “not clear” that Hastert knew about the nasty e-mails, there has been no actual claim by ANYBODY that Hastert ever had any knowledge of the nasty e-mails.PatHMV (0e077d) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:08 am
Fair enough. It seems that some people don’t even know about the nasty e-mails (Power Line appears not to know, e.g.), and others don’t know Hastert may not have known of them. Time to make it clear.Patterico (de0616) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:13 am
it sounds like it is talking as if the “creepy” e-mails were the ONLY ones that Foley ever sent
Not to me. The other stuff was not referenced, but that wasn’t the point of the post either.
Besides the “really bad” IMs are still just creepy and inappropriate. They certainly are bad enough for Foley to resign or be removed but Clinton, Franks and Studds should have resigned or been removed too then.
If what Studds did was “sex”, then what Foley did was “creepy”.boris (e173ce) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:20 am
boris, I won’t belabor the point, though I think you’re reading Powerline with a very different eye than most people. It’s a minor point in the grand scheme of things.
A larger point that everybody tossing out Studds et al in this is that we may not know yet everything that Foley did. How long might it be before somebody comes forward with an allegation that Foley went beyond simply IMing nasty talk with them? I’m not saying one word that sound even remotely defending Foley or saying that it’s not as bad as Dems have done until there’s been plenty of time for the other shoe to drop, if there is one.PatHMV (0e077d) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:25 am
we may not know yet everything that Foley did
Oh fer cryin’ out loud! We’re discussin based on what is known now.boris (e173ce) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:32 am
And Studds is relevant for putting sex-chat vs actual sex in context.boris (e173ce) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:37 am
Ok, I have done a third update and put it at the head of the post, so nobody can miss it.Patterico (de0616) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:45 am
It Gets “Curiouser And Curiouser”!
This Foley affair just underlines the fact that as Alice in Wonderland (or is that Pelosi in “Washingtonland” choosing the curtains for her office as Majority Leader) would say: “Things are getting “Curiouser and Curiouser” in politics nowadays!
It really has gotten to the point where it is almost “Apocalyptic,” as Dan Aykroyd said in “Ghost Busters”: “Cats and dogs living together – Wrath of God stuff…”
Take Senator Lieberman for instance. Not only was he the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate on the Al Gore ticket of 2000, but has been a stalwart Democrat all of his political life, with a voting record that proves that he has voted in the Senate 95% of the time along “Democratic Party lines”…yet, now he’s too “Republican” for the “tastes” of the new Howard Dean “Marxist Democratic Party”!!!
As a result, now Senator Lieberman has been forced to run as an “Independent” in his very own turf, forced by how left-leaning the Democratic Party has become, which accuses him of “toeing the Bush line,” just because, as any sensible American, Senator Lieberman is concerned about the Jihadist terrorist threat to America, and about the dire consequences that “cutting-and-running” in Iraq will have in emboldening the Radical Islamists terrorists, and the catastrophic results that it will have on Western Civilization, as well as on our national security! If someone would have predicted this in 2000, he or she would have been told to “take two aspirins, and call Jeane Dixon in the morning” (had she not been dead in 2000)! Unbelievable!
And now, Congressman Mark Foley, of Florida’s conservative Sixteenth Congressional District, a man presumed to have been a stalwart conservative, best known for his sponsoring of legislation against “Sexual Child Predators,” turns out to be nothing but a gay, “Sexual Child Predator” himself, chasing pubescent “Pages” at the Capitol, sending them sexually charged e-mail messages, just as if he was a love-struck 12 year old girl passing folded paper messages to the boy she has a “crush” on in Junior High, just as Liberace chased after a panicked reporter sent to interview him in the privacy of his hotel room in the 50s, trying to make-out with him! Oh, the wonders of the “gay” mind! It certainly is getting “Curiouser and Curiouser”!!!
This at a time, when shrill, hysterical, defeatists Democrats pose a real threat to our national security, were they to take over the House or the Senate in November with their obstructionist, “let’s Impeach Bush over the NSA Program that has saved American lives,” ” politically correct,” “rights for the Islamofacist detainees,” “let’s cut-and-run” attitudes; and Foley’s seat, being a conservative stronghold, not being in “play” had it not been for this debacle! Just another “gay” victory for the Democrats!!!
And given the outrageous circumstances, one is painfully forced to pose the question: “Was Foley a “Closet Democrat” ?!?! He certainly seems to have been a “Closet Fag” as well as a “Closet Pedophile”!!!
Ironically, now that Foley’s true “rainbow colors” have become known, Pelosi’s constituency in San Francisco will most likely be very supportive indeed of Foley and his “pecadillos,” now that the truth has become public NAMBLA would be more than honored to campaign on his behalf, and Ellen Degeneres and her Hollywood crowd will most likely be very sympathetic and supportive of the poor Congressman’s plight, reformed Anne Hesche notwithstanding! I wonder if a Gay wedding in Massachussets may not be in the works, with Foley marrying an underage “Page,” with the openly gay Episcopal Bishop Jeffrey John performing the ceremony, and Debra Lafave and Mary Kay Letourneau in assistance as pedophiliac guests?!?! Couldn’t get any “Curiouser”!!!
But what is even more “Curiouser,” given the extent to which the “politically correct” venom has permeated our society, is that some pundits and commentators are actually bringing up the point, of whether someone’s sexual “deviance” or orientation, aught to be taken into consideration before entrusting said persons to duties which expose them to work within a given work environment – as say, surrounded by “tempting, Adonic, pubescent youths” as was the case of the Foley’s “Bergere” and his Capitol Pages; in other words, “gays and perverts” need not apply! That would be such a revolutionary leap forward from the morass of moral bankruptcy and turpitude ailing America as a nation, that its implications are monumental! Are we finally calling “an apple an apple” and “an orange an orange” ?!?! That would be really “Curiouser” still!!!
Was Congressman Foley after all, a “Closet Democrat”?!?! Well, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…. If it’s gay like a San Francisco Democrat…he must be a duck!!!
At any rate, and notwithstanding that his “indiscretions” may help tip the balance of power in the House in favor of a Democrat “Hostile Take-over” come November (and I do mean Hostile as in “Impeachment”!), I am sure that ex-Congressman Foley will still have a brilliant career ahead of him in Washington lobbying for NAMBLA, and that he will most likely be the “Guest of Honor” in next year’s “San Francisco Gay Pride Parade”! (I wonder if he will be wearing a pink “tutu” with ruffles?!?!)
From Hyscience:Althor (ee9fe2) — 10/1/2006 @ 7:58 am
The leadership thought the information they had was bad enough to begin investigating. It doesn’t seem that got very far, or else they would’ve learned that it was an open secret among the pages that Foley was creepy and best avoided. By itself, the emails are enough to make one kinda suspicious, I suppose, but it’s pretty damning in conjunction with the other information that they should have known.jpe (eaa0e9) — 10/1/2006 @ 8:23 am
[…] 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. […]Patterico’s Pontifications » Stop the Myth That Hastert Knew Foley Was Sexually Interested in Boys (421107) — 10/1/2006 @ 8:28 am
but it’s pretty damning in …
… hindsight. Well Studds remained in office until he retired and his inappropriate behaviour was actual sex with a male page so what is this claim tht the leadership has a duty to police questionable emails?
Here’s a clue for y’all, young males consider older gay men “creepy” and investigating that perception would be … (the h word).boris (e173ce) — 10/1/2006 @ 8:32 am
Patterico… you’ve got it perfect now. I e-mailed John at Powerline last night right after he posted about what looks to me too like his lack of awareness of the nasty IMs, but I haven’t heard back from him yet.
jpe… that may or may not be so, but it’s not the debate the blogosphere is having this morning. We’ve got to get the right facts before we start condemning or exonerating Hastert. Besides, even assuming that the guy that Hastert’s office referred the matter to had looked into it and found that it was rumored among the pages that Foley was “creepy”, what exactly are they to do? Remove him from his committee positions because of rumors among a bunch of teenagers? I’ve handled a variety of sexual harassment related matters as an in-house attorney, and they are never easy to resolve or get to the bottom of.
I remember a friend of mine in college was harassed by her professor. Creepy stuff, like grabbing her rear end while hugging her, etc. No overt threats or anything. In the old days, he’d be known as “handsy”. I asked an administrator I knew about the situation, very generally, and he immediately guessed who the professor was. Several other women had all made informal complaints about him. But none were willing to go on record and file a formal complaint; they did not want to go through the ordeal which would undoubtedly have followed had they done so. So the university just couldn’t do anything about thu guy. You can’t fire somebody for that kind of conduct if you don’t have any witnesses willing to go on record.PatHMV (0e077d) — 10/1/2006 @ 8:36 am
Now that I understand the smear, I’m actually starting to get pretty annoyed at the way it’s being spread. I have done a new post on that.Patterico (de0616) — 10/1/2006 @ 8:39 am
Has the Foley Scandal Gotten Worse?…
What did they know, and when did they know it? Those are the questions being asked about GOP House leaders about what they knew about accusations about improper emails and instant messages regarding Rep. Mark Foley’s conduct towards Congressional pag….A Blog For All (59ce3a) — 10/1/2006 @ 8:51 am
[…] Linked with: Patterico’s Pontifications The Political Pit Bull Old War Dogs 186k Per Second Flopping AcesAlabama Liberation Front Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Super Fun Power Hour RIGHT WING HOWLER […]Right Voices » Blog Archive » What and When Did Hasert Know About Foley? What About CREW? (1466f5) — 10/1/2006 @ 12:39 pm
Tutti continuavano ad aspettare un dirty trick di Karl Rove in vista delle elezioni di novembre. Ma questa volta la “sorpresa” potrebbe fare molto male ai Repubblicani. Un deputato della Florida, Mark Foley, si è dovuto dimettere dopo che l’FBI ha …The Right Nation (59ce3a) — 10/2/2006 @ 3:55 am
I haven’t studied this in detail as some here have. That said;
It seems as if people are saying something like ‘well, the IM’s Hastert knew about weren’t THAT bad, and he didn’t see the ones where the guy was talking about being horny, etcetera’.
I’m sorry, but that’s too damn low a bar for me for the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America.
Any communications like this between Foley and young men are grounds for his immediate removal from his committee chair. Hastert should have treated this like a crisis before any of us knew anything about it. He should have set up an internal investigation, replaced Foley in his chairmanship and notified the FBI.
I’m sick of it. I’m sick of presidents that want to have sex with 20 year old girls. I’m sick of congressmen and priests that want to have sex with little boys. I’m tired of seeing commercials on TV where very young women – or even little girls – are transparently sexualized to sell commercial products or vacations.
If the Pubs win the house this year Hastert has to go. He has to go because the man doesn’t demonstrate a level of judgement necessary to qualify for a leadership position that puts him the line of presidential succession. Whether it is his asinine behavior over the Jefferson fiasco or this incident, Hastert has proven he does not posess the minimal qualities necessary to be Speaker of the House.Dwilkers (a1687a) — 10/2/2006 @ 4:39 am
If the republican leadership knew about the “innocuous” emails, were they not naïvely remiss to look no further? Why did they not inform the lone democrat on the committee? As to his being a “closet democrat,” mentioned earlier, no he is not; he is demonstrably your closet republican creep. All of the republican leadership is saying he betrayed them. I’m afraid he is all yours. And welcome to him.
But the usual smear tactics, blaming and evasions are in full swing, Drudge blames the pages, “The little beasts led him on.” Harris blames “The democrats that knew, but didn’t act” and “The media” (Fox news for instance). And lets not forget your perennial bogeyman “Clinton” and his consenting adult oral servicing (I won’t offend your officious Christian sensibilities with the BJ word).
Another non surprise is the silence of the clergy, Falwell, Robertson, et.al not a peep from those creeps; they that thundered about “Clinton’s immorality” and their soft ‘Christian’ forgiveness of Limbaugh as a ‘Victim of drugs’ and his need for “Our Prayers.” Well, one of them did molest him, he says, perhaps they are feeling collective guilt for his seduction.
I can’t wait to hear how he found Jesus sitting on his bunk when he got to his cell. “Redemption Now.”Fred (b54744) — 10/3/2006 @ 8:16 pm
The instant message is between Foley and an 18 year old man who is now 21.
No crime was committed.Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd) — 10/17/2006 @ 12:46 am
It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic. Thanks….Cut Off Shorts (d94d6a) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:14 pm