^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wait, that's real??? OMG. If that was CNN and they labeled a Dem a Rep, we'd never hear the end of it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wait, that's real??? OMG. If that was CNN and they labeled a Dem a Rep, we'd never hear the end of it.

Yup. That's real. Ran on O'Reilly last night I'm told. here is a different screenshot from the same little clip. It's also up on Drudge now.

 

Supposedly the AP also ran this today.

 

[Dobson] touched on the uproar over former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, D-Florida, who resigned Friday in a scandal over electronic messages he sent to former teenage male congressional pages.

 

Oopsie Daisie.

Edited October 4, 200619 yr by Balta1701

You would think journalists would do a better job of hiding their conservative bias. No way all these are mistakes. They know which candidates they want elected and will stop at nothing to make it happen. Shameful.

Supposedly Fox made that "mistake" in labeling Foley a Dem three different time son two different clips.

 

unreal.

Bob Novak is reporting today that the head of the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) knew of all the emails last year - and rather than demand an investigation, or even encourage him to retire (as he was considering) - he encouraged Foley to run again.

 

That person? Congressman Tom Reynolds.

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10042006/news/...rrespondent.htm

Supposedly Fox made that "mistake" in labeling Foley a Dem three different time son two different clips.

 

unreal.

 

I actually do believe it was a mistake. Call me crazy.

Bob Novak is reporting today that the head of the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) knew of all the emails last year - and rather than demand an investigation, or even encourage him to retire (as he was considering) - he encouraged Foley to run again.

 

That person? Congressman Tom Reynolds.

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10042006/news/...rrespondent.htm

Reportedly, Reynolds' chief of staff, the guy who tried to convince ABC not to run the nasty stuff, has now resigned.

 

I actually do believe it was a mistake. Call me crazy.

I don't believe it was intentional either...in the way that most Freudian slips aren't intentional.

Bob Novak is reporting today that the head of the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) knew of all the emails last year - and rather than demand an investigation, or even encourage him to retire (as he was considering) - he encouraged Foley to run again.

 

That person? Congressman Tom Reynolds.

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10042006/news/...rrespondent.htm

Um... So a guy heard this second hand, and its reported in the NY Post... I'm not sure I find that very credible.

Reynolds' Chief of Staff first victim of Foley Fallout.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/1...op_staffer.html

 

Um... So a guy heard this second hand, and its reported in the NY Post... I'm not sure I find that very credible.

 

It does cite Robert Novak's column which I believe is subscription only.

MSNBC finally saids what I was trying to say yesterday

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15126151/

 

FBI case against Foley explores legal 'gray area'

Making a federal case out of sexually charged e-mail could prove difficult

 

Updated: 2 hours, 39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former Rep. Mark Foley’s online conversations with teenage male pages have all the trappings of a political scandal, but making a federal case out of the sexually charged exchanges could prove difficult, veteran investigators say.

 

Foley, a six-term Republican from Florida, resigned abruptly as his e-mails and instant message transcripts surfaced. The chats discussed sexual acts and possible meetings with pages, according to ABC News, which first reported them last week.

 

With the FBI investigating Foley’s behavior, his defense attorney, David Roth, said that the congressman never had sex or attempted sexual contact with a minor. Foley, who is being treated for alcohol abuse, was drinking when he had the explicit conversations, Roth said.

 

“Any suggestion that Mark Foley is a pedophile is false,” Roth said Tuesday at a news conference in West Palm Beach, Fla.

 

If Foley never had sex with a congressional page, then his case is in uncertain legal territory, said Ken Lanning, a retired FBI agent who served as one of the agency’s leading experts on child exploitation.

 

“There are going to be some issues here in the gray area,” Lanning said. “You may find this behavior repulsive, offensive or immoral. Whether it’s a violation of law will be based on a precise reading of the law.”

 

Congressional leaders, who called for an FBI investigation as Foley resigned, turned to finger-pointing over who knew what about Foley’s behavior, when they knew it and whether anything was done to protect the teens.

 

One federal law enforcement official said the FBI reviewed some Foley-related e-mail in July but concluded that no federal law had been violated. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is active, said agents are reviewing new evidence, including the instant message transcripts, to see if a law was broken.

 

FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said the agency is continuing its assessment.

 

In Florida, Roth said no law enforcement officials had contacted him. Foley has not been subpoenaed but voluntarily agreed not to delete any e-mails or instant messages from his computers, the lawyer said.

 

Some Democrats have claimed Foley might have violated the federal law used to prosecute Internet sex predators, but experts said it’s not that simple.

 

On the surface, the chat transcripts released by ABC News look much like any of the explicit conversations the FBI has used as evidence in its many Internet sex stings. In those cases, however, the sexually charged talk led to an arrest when adults arrived for real sexual encounters.

 

Graphic talk alone is rarely enough, said Joseph Dooley, a former agent who helped set up New England’s first FBI unit targeting Internet predators. Many adults engage in explicit chats with undercover agents but never show up for the scheduled meetings, he said.

 

“We never charged anyone unless they actually traveled to have sex,” Dooley said.

 

Investigators could consider federal obscenity laws, experts said, but the law prohibiting disseminating obscene material to children applies only to those under 16.

 

Benjamin Vernia, a former federal prosecutor specializing in such cases, compared Foley’s online conversations with pages to “grooming,” a law enforcement term for the way sexual predators bring along their underage victims. Grooming is a red flag for authorities, Vernia said, but it’s rarely enough to bring charges.

 

The question for federal investigators is whether Foley’s online chats ever led to real encounters. One chat transcript suggests Foley and a page had met in San Diego, but the chat doesn’t indicate what took place.

 

Even if a sexual encounter occurred, however, that won’t necessarily be enough to lead to charges. It depends on how old the pages were at the time and what the age of consent was in that state.

 

If a state law was broken and authorities can show Foley used the Internet to facilitate it, that could trigger federal jurisdiction, experts said.

All I know is if SNL doesn't do a spoof with a Foley look-a-like walking into a well-to-do suburban home and being greeted by Chris Hanson holding an IM chat transcript, they've become even more irrelevant than I thought.

 

Dateline films in the same damn building as SNL. They can probably get Hanson to do it himself.

And these assholes in the Democratic Party are literally RUNNING for the cameras to talk about resignations up and down the House? Welcome to October, and welcome to holding on to the story until Congress ajourned for the elections. What a shameful act all the way around.

 

Yeah... this is almost as shameful as impeaching a popular president during a time of peace and economic growth for lying about getting a blowjob.

 

Hate to break it to you. If republicans knew about this and concealed it or failed to report it, Its WAY worse than the lies Clinton told. Their acts jeopardized the safety of underage children.

 

Hastert voted to impeach clinton... By his own standard, Hastert should resign.

 

Oh, by the way, its not just Dems....the loyally conservative Washington Times is also calling for his resignation:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_...ert_newspaper_1

Yeah... this is almost as shameful as impeaching a popular president during a time of peace and economic growth for lying about getting a blowjob.

 

Hate to break it to you. If republicans knew about this and concealed it or failed to report it, Its WAY worse than the lies Clinton told. Their acts jeopardized the safety of underage children.

 

Hastert voted to impeach clinton... By his own standard, Hastert should resign.

 

Oh, by the way, its not just Dems....the loyally conservative Washington Times is also calling for his resignation:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_...ert_newspaper_1

I'm glad you brought this up.

 

It's funny how it's a "personal matter" with Clinton, but THIS, MY GOD, THE REPUBLICANS, ALL OF THEM, better step down because of what they may, or may not, have known. Nice double standard. It's all about the children... please. I don't hear anyone saying that, except to dramatize it. And truthfully, that's sick and wrong.

 

Oh by the way, he wasn't impeached over that, he was impeached because he lied about it under oath. That's called perjury, and it's a felony, except when Clinton does it, (over a personal matter). I don't see that happening in this case. The party that this involved resigned immediately. What a concept.

All I know is if SNL doesn't do a spoof with a Foley look-a-like walking into a well-to-do suburban home and being greeted by Chris Hanson holding an IM chat transcript, they've become even more irrelevant than I thought.

 

Dateline films in the same damn building as SNL. They can probably get Hanson to do it himself.

 

 

Hanson is in Arizona filming a new series of kiddie porn Dateline specials. The irony..

 

 

 

 

 

It's funny how it's a "personal matter" with Clinton, but THIS, MY GOD, THE REPUBLICANS, ALL OF THEM, better step down because of what they may, or may not, have known. Nice double standard.

 

Hu...? Double standard...

 

2 concenting adults doing nasty stuff is waaaaaaaayyyyy different than an old man and a 16 year old.

 

Not even on the same planet to make a comparison.

Clinton was sleazy. Foley is sleazier.

 

Anything else?

Hanson is in Arizona filming a new series of kiddie porn Dateline specials. The irony..

Hu...? Double standard...

 

2 concenting adults doing nasty stuff is waaaaaaaayyyyy different than an old man and a 16 year old.

 

Not even on the same planet to make a comparison.

You know what? It sort of is. I understand the "minors" concept here, and yea, that makes it doubly wrong... BUT...

 

for all these people who want to throw every gauntlent down that they can to bring down the entire Republican Party over this is doing nothing but playing smear the (you get the idea). Pun intended.

Edited October 4, 200619 yr by kapkomet

You know what? It sort of is. I understand the "minors" concept here, and yea, that makes it doubly wrong... BUT...

 

for all these people who want to throw every gauntlent down that they can to bring down the entire Republican Party over this is doing nothing but playing smear the (you get the idea). Pun intended.

 

 

 

You try all you want to compare the two. Sick.

 

 

And I hope you're not using the slurrs on my account...

 

I edited this - Steff caught me saying something I shouldn't have, and I didn't mean it the way I put it, to pick on someone. I probably crossed a line here that I didn't mean to, and for that I apologize to anyone who may have read it. So I guess I'll go sit my time out now.

 

Kap

Edited October 4, 200619 yr by kapkomet

You try all you want to compare the two. Sick.

And I hope you're not using the slurrs on my account...

It's not the same on a lot of levels, but it is on others.

 

The double standard is the raising hell, when the other is a personal matter, and it's both sleaze.

 

To say it another way, consent vs. minors, yes, I agree that's pretty bad and should NOT be compared. I'm talking about how it was/is being handled. That's more my point.

Hanson is in Arizona filming a new series of kiddie porn Dateline specials. The irony..

I can't have been the only one who imagined Dateline having a sitting Congressman show up on one of their "to catch a predator" shows when I heard about this, can I?

 

It's not the same on a lot of levels, but it is on others.

 

The double standard is the raising hell, when the other is a personal matter, and it's both sleaze.

 

To say it another way, consent vs. minors, yes, I agree that's pretty bad and should NOT be compared. I'm talking about how it was/is being handled. That's more my point.

So, if I thought Bill Clinton should have resigned in 98, does that make me asking if Hastert and Boehner and Reynolds should resign now more credible?

No, because of three things.

 

First, what did they know and when did they know it? I think that's still being determined.

 

Second, nothing's been testimony and falsifications under oath.

 

Third, they didn't do it... but if they were accomplices and it can be proven, buh bye...

Reynolds' Chief of Staff first victim of Foley Fallout.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/1...op_staffer.html

So...this guy, Fordham, doesn't seem to be too happy about being the next scapegoat. He sure sounds like he's going to try to take others down with him.

 

A senior congressional aide said Wednesday he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office in 2004 about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage pages -- the earliest known alert to the GOP leadership.

 

Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene."

 

The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of the House GOP leadership have acknowledged.

Edited October 4, 200619 yr by Balta1701

It's not the same on a lot of levels, but it is on others.

 

The double standard is the raising hell, when the other is a personal matter, and it's both sleaze.

 

To say it another way, consent vs. minors, yes, I agree that's pretty bad and should NOT be compared. I'm talking about how it was/is being handled. That's more my point.

 

It would only be a double standard if the two acts were on the same scale. They are not.

CNN is reporting that 2 more pages are coming forwards with allegations against Foley.

Much as it pains me to say it, Hastert really has to go. If he doesn't step down because of this then the voters should make him next month. I was listening to Kudlow and Company on CNBC radio a while ago and Hastert actually called Larry Kudlow before the show. His explanation for not moving on this a year ago when the E-Mails surfaced was "we were distracted and too busy at the time". What a load of horses***! To offer a lameo excuse like that for sitting on a sex scandal involving kids is beyond the pale.

I'm glad you brought this up.

 

It's funny how it's a "personal matter" with Clinton, but THIS, MY GOD, THE REPUBLICANS, ALL OF THEM, better step down because of what they may, or may not, have known. Nice double standard. It's all about the children... please. I don't hear anyone saying that, except to dramatize it. And truthfully, that's sick and wrong.

 

Oh by the way, he wasn't impeached over that, he was impeached because he lied about it under oath. That's called perjury, and it's a felony, except when Clinton does it, (over a personal matter). I don't see that happening in this case. The party that this involved resigned immediately. What a concept.

 

 

Kapkomet... It seems like you're playing partisan politics here. Why are you protecting Hastert so much? Shouldn't there be accountability if Hastert concealed the fact that a child-predator was in Congress and making inappropriate gestures towards employees of the government? What makes that the Democrats fault?

 

Right now, we have a lot of details about what Hastert knew and did not know. Right now, the preponderence of evidence suggests that he knew about Foley and the Pages and did nothing so as to avoid political turmoil. If he did conceal material information about a child predator for political purposes, thats is the type of thing he should be asked to resign for. I can't think of anything worse than covering up for a child-predator for political gain. That's politics at its worst.

 

I'm pretty sure that would get anybody fired from a job. I'm pretty sure thats why the uber-conservative Washington Times is saying Hastert should resign also.

 

I'm sympathetic to you desire to avoid political turmoil right before an election. But I think conservatives would be MUCH MUCH MUCH better off if they said the following:

 

"Hastert, you're out. We're not going to take this. We are the republican party and we're tough as nails on child predators. We're going to conduct a full investigation, through a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. Here is Congressman X, he's our new leader with vision and toughness to fight for a better america."

 

That would be insanely more effective than to keep a lame duck Speaker in place who many people believe aided and abetted a child predator a month before an election. But hey... I'm a Democrat. What do I care. Its to my personal benefit for all these right-wingers to stand by Hastert....

 

 

 

 

 

Much as it pains me to say it, Hastert really has to go. If he doesn't step down because of this then the voters should make him next month. I was listening to Kudlow and Company on CNBC radio a while ago and Hastert actually called Larry Kudlow before the show. His explanation for not moving on this a year ago when the E-Mails surfaced was "we were distracted and too busy at the time". What a load of horses***! To offer a lameo excuse like that for sitting on a sex scandal involving kids is beyond the pale.

 

Nuke, I think you're right. Not only is it better for America, its also better for Republicans. I think standing by Hastert is the absolute dumbest thing they can do. He can keep his seat... Just force him out of the Speaker role.

 

I'm a Democrat. Politically, it helps us if he stays on... but its bad bad bad for people's view of American society and government. I hope he resigns... or the right wises up and forces him out on their own.