Resign, Mr. Speaker: Washington Times

[Gunny]

The im's have been all over the news....

Haven't seen a one. Just a few statements caveated by "allegedly."


They are putting the specific language of the im's all over network and cable news... you might not get it on Fox, though. (I'm not being facetious about that, I don't know if they're giving it that kind of coverage). There also isn't anyone out of Foley's camp, including his attorney, denying the content of the im's.

See my previous response. However, let's assume he's guilty. He's resigned. He should be tried, convicted and shot. That is STILL no reason for a partisan witch hunt.


It's only relevant to the extent that it's an excuse and his going in to alcohol rehab really doesn't have anything to do with his "problem".

I say irrelevant meaning he might as well piss in the wind as expect me to believe any lame excuses for completely unacceptable behavior, that not only shows him for the immiral scumbag he is, but has also cast a shadow on the political party he represents.



No. Hence my post specifically saying "if" he knew. But I'm also not the one calling for his ouster. That started with the WashTimes and some Republicans in the house.

The Republicans have proven time and again they eat their young.


Except, again, they've been playing the specific language of the im's on network and cable news since yesterday. So, unless the im's are fabricated.... then yes, he propositioned minors for sex... something, again, that Foley's camp isn't denying. As for him not being charged, I suspect that is going to happen pretty soon, hence him getting his team in order now.

So his running off to rehab and/or blaming it on a Catholic priest more than likely isn't going to fly with the law anymore than it is me.


Not really.... again, Foley hasn't denied the allegations and it is being treated as a given by everyone in the House...including the Republican leadership, so I'd say it's safe to assume the allegations are true. Do you know of anyone on Foley's end who's saying that it didn't happen as described?

I do not. However, counsel, isn't it true that it is not encumbent on the accused to state or prove innocence? It is encumbent on the accusers/prosecution to PROVE his guilt.




No... haven't forgotten it. Foley is, to the best of my knowledge, only denying having had physical contact with a minor. I don't believe he's denying the on-line propositions.

Again, I don't see a lack of denial as an indicator of guilt. A confession and/or some evidence would work.

Sure, by not denying it, he's playing to the "rush to judgement" crowd, but legally, it indicates nothing.


We're of like mind on that issue. I think that's pretty much universal and non-partisan.



Fair enough.

I'm not taking Foley's side, and by all indications, he's guilty as Hell. But, I would hate to be wrong based on assumption.

And yes, I gave President Clinton the same benefit of doubt until HE proved otherwise. Matter of fact, I gave him more than the benefit of the doubt because I knew Linda Tripp and she was a self-righteous, power-hungry bitch.

 

[Gunny]

Amazing how those attorney skills fly out the window when passionate hyperpartisanship consumes people.

LOL .. none here. I don't care WHAT a pedophile believes in. I consider them a menace to society.

They steal from children what they can NEVER, no matter what punishment befalls them, give back to the child. And it only takes ONCE.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

I think this is overreactionary, politically-driven bullshit.

The Foley part, yes, probably the best thing to do is encourage the Democrat Party to keep up the moral outrage. It's not exactly their strong suit.

It was known for years that Foley was a pedophile as well as a homosexual, this was an accident waiting to happen. There was a reason pages referred to Foley as "FFF".

What exactly is Hastert's responsibility in this regard? His statement was that he was only aware of an e-mail, not the contents, and passed that info on to the guy running the page program.

Well, that's not the Democrat Party's call, if they keep trying to climb far out on the morality tree, they'll fall yet again.

Suddenly there's a witch hunt on to crucify anyone that ever used "e-mail" and "Foley" in the same sentence.

It would have been a nightmare for Hastert to have forced Foley to resign, the MSM would have called it a "GOP purge of all gays".

Since we know the multi-billion dollar, decade-long investigation is sure to follow, how about let's wait for SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE AT ALL before hanging the "fat hypocrite and his buddies"?

It's in the IMs, the left's accusations of "why didn't Hastert read those IMs?" after he knew about the emails falls flat. Most of them didn't want wire-tapping for terrorists, now the Speaker of the House is being blamed for not spying on his own colleagues?

Thud.

 

[NATO AIR]

Blankley captures the honor, spirit and courage of what being a conservative is all about. Yes, this is partly a democrat fed scandal, but it began with foley's crimes and people like hastert who looked the other way, either because they didn't want to know or couldn't bear the terrible mess it would cause to confront him. Either way, they were wrong. Terribly wrong.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/its_never_too_late_to_do_the_r.html

It's Never Too Late to Do the Right Thing
By Tony Blankley

Yesterday, on The Washington Times' editorial page, of which I am editorial editor, the lead editorial called for House Speaker Denny Hastert to resign his speakership immediately. Several loyal Republicans and conservatives around the country strongly disagreed with that judgment and thought we were caving to Democratic Party and liberal media pressure and dirty tricks.

I couldn't disagree with my fellow conservatives and Republicans more. I have been an active and loyal Republican for more than 40 years (starting as a youth coordinator for Barry Goldwater in 1964, campaigning for Ronald Reagan for governor and president, serving in the Reagan White House for six years, and as Newt Gingrich's press secretary from 1990 to 1997, among other Republican campaigns and jobs.)

I believe in and have regularly fought the partisan fight to the bitter end -- except when the position is ethically indefensible.

In this case, defending Denny Hastert's decisions is ethically wrong, would undermine our party's commitment to the defense of traditional moral values and is politically stupid in the bargain.

I have known Denny for almost two decades. He is an exceedingly decent man and a hard worker for conservative Republican values and politics. But we cannot deny the fact that he had a sustained lapse of good judgment. The fact that he reportedly has been quite ill for some time may be an explanation -- but not an excuse.

Forget the later hideous text messages. When the speaker was told that Mark Foley had sent that first e-mail -- the "overly friendly" one we all saw last Friday -- he had to be either obtuse or on notice of the problem. Any father of a young man who saw such an e-mail sent to his son would rightly be disposed to immediately punch out Mr. Foley and warn him to keep away from his son, and then he would call the police. It was common knowledge that Mr. Foley was gay. If he had been straight and asked for a 16-year-old girl's photo, any sensible person would have concluded the same thing.

But the fact that, according to my best sources in the House Republicans, Mr. Hastert never informed any Democrats of the matter (even on the page oversight board), unambiguously suggests that he knew what was up. Thus began the cover-up. Of course he knew what the Democrats would do with the information. But not only is this not a Democratic Party dirty trick (the facts are real, not made up), but Mr. Hastert had a moral duty to do all in his power to make sure there would not be more victims of Mr. Foley's alleged sexual predation -- or clear potential for such.

The fact that Democrats might also cover up such facts is just another reason why I am a Republican. Republicans do stand for sound moral values.

And if it is unfair that Democratic voters often give their politicians a pass on such matters (e.g. former Massachusettes Democratic congressman Gerry Studds got re-elected by his liberal voters after a similar incident was made public), well, that is just the price we have to pay in this wicked world for holding fast to our values and principles. If virtue were profitable, the whole world would be virtuous.

How in the world will Republicans be able to champion our values in the future if we weasel and excuse the cover-up of such conduct in one of our own? We have more to protect than the next election, we have our historic reputation among more than half the country for our principles.

It has been excruciating watching Republicans on television in the last few days grimly and ineffectively trying to defend Mr. Hastert. Better to take a stand on principle and elect a new speaker for the last three months (the retiring Henry Hyde, a man of principle who is held in esteem on both sides of the aisle, would be ideal). We may or may not take a political hit, but better to go to the electorate with our heads held high for doing the right thing than to slink around like a pack of phonies.

But this may end up being embarrassing for the Democrats, too. It is implausible that ABC got hold of this information on their own and just happened to broadcast it on the last day of the congressional session.

While I don't have any proof, I will be amazed if Democratic operatives and at least a few Democratic congressmen didn't know about this and fed it to the media through various obscure blogs and to ABC. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) (just like the National Republican Congressional Committee) is in the business of disseminating negative information before elections, among other things.

It will be interesting to see what the FBI finds in the DCCC e-mail and files. It may well turn out that the Democrats also knew about Mr. Foley and the pages and held it back from the FBI for crass partisan purposes.

But whatever the Democrats did or didn't do, we Republicans can only be responsible for our own conduct and conscience.

Although the hour is late, it is never too late to do the right thing. At this point, there is nothing left worth defending but our honor. And who knows, as an added bonus, it might also be the politically smart thing to do. But either way, it is the right thing.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

 

[dilloduck]

Blankley captures the honor, spirit and courage of what being a conservative is all about. Yes, this is partly a democrat fed scandal, but it began with foley's crimes and people like hastert who looked the other way, either because they didn't want to know or couldn't bear the terrible mess it would cause to confront him. Either way, they were wrong. Terribly wrong.

Hastert covered up the fact that a gay representative was sending "overly friendly" e-mails ? Off with his head. Then lets decapitate all the rest of the congress who lies.

 

[Avatar4321]

I just want to remind people there are a difference between the emails and the IMs. Something people calling for the head of the leadership are conviently ignoring. The leadership was aware of emails. It's the IMs that have the damning conversation in them, but the leadership was entirely ignorant of them. The emails from all reports, were not damning at all. In order to have a cover up they would have needed to know about the IMs

And i hate to beleaguer the point, but what laws did Foley break? Im not saying he didnt break any laws, but no one has specified what he has supposedly did. There is no evidence, or even any accusation, that he was involved sexually, except in internet coversation, with any of the boys. And considering these boys are all above the age were they can legally consent in most states, i dont think a charge of pedophilia could be sustained should he have done anything with them.

Whatever he did, he was clearly wrong, but Id like to see people wait until they have all the information BEFORE we start calling for resignations of others. We havent even learned whether Folley did anything illegal for leadership to cover up. So why not be patient, get more information and then make a decision on what actually happened and not over the emotional outrage we all feel over this.

BTW - I would expect more from persons with legal training who seem to be using absolutely none of their skills in looking at this situation. Pretty sad

 

[Bonnie]

I think its pretty hysterical that Dems are screaming for these GOP people to resign. I guess since it was known he was gay the GOP should had started a witch hunt when they in fact knew little more than the fact he was gay.

Yes that would have made the Dems so very happy to have another gay witch hunt to pin on the Republicans.

No question Foley should have resigned, but the fact that others in the party are being targeted tells me all I need to know.. Started with Lott, then Delay, Libby, now Allen, Frist, Santorum, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Hastert... Who's left but Bush?? Nice calculated plan to pick the most conservative members off one by one.... after all the Dem's need some way to get back in power right?? They don't have any ideas. Hastert did the right thing, he made Foley resign. The rest is minutia.

Where was Pelosi when 90 thousand dollars was found in her colleagues freezer? Or when Marion Barry was allowed to be re-elected? Or when Barney Franks was running a brothel out of his townhouse??? She should be long gone I would think, that is if you apply the rules equally?????

 

[dmp]

Why should leadership resign? Because they knew about the emails? There was nothing serious in the emails. Odd yes. They looked into it and thought it had been taken care of. Its the Instant messages that they didnt know about that had more serious things, although if you notice we haven't even really been told what exactly he said in the IMs.

When the IMs were exposed, Folley resigned. The Republicans didnt circle the wagons to defend him. We still arent circling the wagons to defend him. And what exactly has Folley done? Had some questionable instant messages with minors. We dont know that he did anything. No one has come forward and made that claim. We dont know that he broke any law. That would depend on the state laws and how old the minors were. You know in some states you are old enough to consent at the age of 16.

Seriously, we dont know squat about anything other than its clear the guy is sick and has admitted it by resigning. So why the heck should we go after Republican leadership who knew nothing, pursued what they did know, and concluded the problem had been resolved?

This is ridiculous. There is no doubt the guy should have resigned, but lets find out what he actually did before we start we railroad him and demand the resignation of leadership for no reason other than the Democrats wanting a scandal.

Well said - and what people forget is foley doesn't WORK for hastert or anyone else in Republican 'leadership' - he only works for the people who elected him.

 

[glockmail]

......
It would have been a nightmare for Hastert to have forced Foley to resign, the MSM would have called it a "GOP purge of all gays".....

Not to mention "those Republicans accusing Foley of pedophilia, just because he's gay."

 

[Annie]

I just want to remind people there are a difference between the emails and the IMs. Something people calling for the head of the leadership are conviently ignoring. The leadership was aware of emails. It's the IMs that have the damning conversation in them, but the leadership was entirely ignorant of them. The emails from all reports, were not damning at all. In order to have a cover up they would have needed to know about the IMs

And i hate to beleaguer the point, but what laws did Foley break? Im not saying he didnt break any laws, but no one has specified what he has supposedly did. There is no evidence, or even any accusation, that he was involved sexually, except in internet coversation, with any of the boys. And considering these boys are all above the age were they can legally consent in most states, i dont think a charge of pedophilia could be sustained should he have done anything with them.

Whatever he did, he was clearly wrong, but Id like to see people wait until they have all the information BEFORE we start calling for resignations of others. We havent even learned whether Folley did anything illegal for leadership to cover up. So why not be patient, get more information and then make a decision on what actually happened and not over the emotional outrage we all feel over this.

BTW - I would expect more from persons with legal training who seem to be using absolutely none of their skills in looking at this situation. Pretty sad

Correct on all counts. Hastert contacted Shimkus, who along with others on committee, contacted Foley over a year ago, to cut ties with this boy and others. Foley claimed no contact of sexual nature. They told him to 'stop.' He did. He didn't make them aware of the im's. Which it seems, democrats had copies of, to release now. Notice, while the GOP leadership was unaware of IM's until Friday, when they forced the resignation, there were no further contacts after Shimkus had contacted Foley.

 

[Avatar4321]

Correct on all counts. Hastert contacted Shimkus, who along with others on committee, contacted Foley over a year ago, to cut ties with this boy and others. Foley claimed no contact of sexual nature. They told him to 'stop.' He did. He didn't make them aware of the im's. Which it seems, democrats had copies of, to release now. Notice, while the GOP leadership was unaware of IM's until Friday, when they forced the resignation, there were no further contacts after Shimkus had contacted Foley.

There are some people who refuse to note the difference between the emails and IMs. In fact, they are trying to blur it in this thread alone. So i cant over emphasize there is a differnce. too many people are thinking about this in an emotional rage rather than looking at the facts. I can understand the rage. But lets get the facts before we beat someone to death.

Id still like to know if there is anything here Foley can go to jail for. Even with the IMs I am not sure he can go to prison for anything. Of course that depends highly on the state law and who will come forward and, of course, what he did.

However, I think the Democrats are really desperate if they think Folley's indiscretions are going to change voters in any other race. I dont think I am going to change my support for Santorum or Weldon just because Folley was a gay man who might be guilty of pedophilia.

 

[Gunny]

Correct on all counts. Hastert contacted Shimkus, who along with others on committee, contacted Foley over a year ago, to cut ties with this boy and others. Foley claimed no contact of sexual nature. They told him to 'stop.' He did. He didn't make them aware of the im's. Which it seems, democrats had copies of, to release now. Notice, while the GOP leadership was unaware of IM's until Friday, when they forced the resignation, there were no further contacts after Shimkus had contacted Foley.

Certainly puts a new light on things. Just how long have the Dems had copies of the IMs?

It doesn't make what Foley has done right; however, neither is holding damning evidence for an opportune moment ... such as 6 weeks out from mid-terms.

 

[USViking]

I find the Washington Times editorials to be persuasive.

The Republican leadership knew there was a problem,
they did nothing about it, and they should be held accountable
even if every Democrat in Congress is worse than Foley.
They failed to LEAD.

Foley might have done nothing illegal, but that does not matter.
What he did was wrong, and the leadership should should have
acted. No doubt Foley is not the only member who has chased
pages. The disgrace of resignation of the leadership, and the
appointment of a man of untarnished reputation such as Henry Hyde
might be a step in the right direction of ending improper sexual
relationships between members of Congress and their pages.

 

[musicman]

There are some people who refuse to note the difference between the emails and IMs. In fact, they are trying to blur it in this thread alone. So i cant over emphasize there is a differnce. too many people are thinking about this in an emotional rage rather than looking at the facts. I can understand the rage. But lets get the facts before we beat someone to death.

Id still like to know if there is anything here Foley can go to jail for. Even with the IMs I am not sure he can go to prison for anything. Of course that depends highly on the state law and who will come forward and, of course, what he did.

However, I think the Democrats are really desperate if they think Folley's indiscretions are going to change voters in any other race. I dont think I am going to change my support for Santorum or Weldon just because Folley was a gay man who might be guilty of pedophilia.

Avatar, you are - as always - the voice of reason. By drawing the vital distinction between the e-mails and the IMs, we can see that the Republican leadership did the best it could with the knowledge it had. Moreover, if anyone sat on intelligence for the sake of politics - potentially placing children in harm's way for the sake of their own depraved ends - it was the Democrats. In our very recent past, this critical piece of information could - and WOULD - have been buried by the MSM/DNC. But we live in a new world, and I thank God every day for it.

 

[glockmail]

....

The Republican leadership knew there was a problem,
they did nothing about it, and they should be held accountable
even if every Democrat in Congress is worse than Foley.
They failed to LEAD.......

Perhaps, but they have been told over and over again by these same Democrats that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

[Annie]

Certainly puts a new light on things. Just how long have the Dems had copies of the IMs?

It doesn't make what Foley has done right; however, neither is holding damning evidence for an opportune moment ... such as 6 weeks out from mid-terms.

What Did The Dems Know and When?

Lots of links

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

Foley and the Blame Game
October 1st, 2006

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.

But Democrats are attempting to make hay by alleging that the Republican leadership may have known about the inappropriate emails and covered them up for months. Their hope, no doubt, is to discourage turnout by disillusioned evangelical and other voters sensitive to moral issues. But the emerging background detail suggests that this is simply not the case, and that an attack strategy has been devised by parties anxious to damage the GOP and swing the coming election.

In July a blog appeared, designed it said to trace sex predators. Few posts were made in that month or the following month. All recounted years old stories. Then on September 18, the blog printed the fairly innocuous email exchange between Congressman Foley and an unnamed page.In this correspondence initiated by the former page, Foley asks the former page how he is after Katrina (the boy lived in Louisiana) and asked for a photo. Thus began the latest political kerfuffle which swirls through the final five weeks of the campaign. How likely is it that this site with virtually no readership , few posts and hardly any history or posts of interest suddenly receives this bombshell? I’d say slight. About as likely as Lucy Ramirez handing Burkett Bush’s TANG papers. Let’s track back what else we know of this story. Sometime last year a former page contacted the St. Petersburg Times with an exchange of emails between himself and Congressman Foley. In the words of the editor, they never ran the story. (The following has been realeased by the office of the Speaker of the House, but does not yet appear online at the time of this writing.)

In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange Foley had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later got them, too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat. Foley asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about the boy’s upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked theteen to send him a “pic” of himself. Also among those emails was the page’s exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander, who had been the teen’s sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his exchange he’d had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley was out of bounds.

There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him.He told us Foley’s request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy’s family didn’t want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.

So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn’t go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we said in today’s paper, our policy is that we don’t make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn’t meet our standard for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.

Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position. The Louisiana boy’s emails broke into the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them online. Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley’s Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy’s emails and was calling for an investigation. That’s when we wrote our first story,for Friday’s papers.

After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC and provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other page that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted friendliness. That’s what drove Foley to resign on Friday.
​

So, the paper had nothing it could act on. But Foley’s opponent somehow got wind of the story which had appeared before only on a very new, utterly obscure blogsite and demanded an investigation. ABC then picked up the story and when it did , further anonymous sources with far more salacious and troublesome evidence appeared on the scene. What an amazing-and unlikely to me-turn of events. Like that paper, the Republican leadership only knew of the innocuous email exchange:

Late night Congressman Hastert said of the incident (in terms remarkably similar to the editor’s):

In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker’s Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.

Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker’s in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page.Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later thatday Stokke met with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk’s Office to discuss the matter.

The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander’s office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker’s Office liaison with the Clerk’s Office.

The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.

The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.

Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent’s wishes to protect their child’s privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker’s Office.

Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold’s recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.

Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript

No one in the Speaker’s Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.
​

It is not only the recent, unread blog spot breaking the story which raises my suspicions. The rest of the genesis of the story is as murky.

Brian Ross of ABC ran the story, beginning with the same “overly friendly” but not sexually suggestive email exchange and adding a series of instant messages dating to 2003 previously unseen by anyone in Congress between Foley and anonymous recipients said to be former pages. The Republican leaders, seeing the more damning correspondence, sought and got Foley’s resignation.

As soon as the ABC story ran, and organization called C.R.E.W., which said it had the original exchange which Hastert had heard of and the St Peterburg paper had seen, put them on their website .They said they’d earlier conveyed them to the FBI, were releasing them because of the ABC story, and asked for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the Republican leadership.It is abundantly clear to me that C.R.E.W. and ABC communicated and may have coordinated the release of this story.

Who is C.R.E.W.?

Here’s what The Hill wrote:

One target of Republican criticism is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group that last year assisted former Rep. Chris Bell (D-Texas) in drafting an ethics complaint against DeLay, which resulted in an admonishment of DeLay from the ethics committee. At last week’s press conference, Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said that DeLay should step down as majority leader.

From 1995 to 1998, CREW’s Sloan served as minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Before that, Sloan served as the nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).

According to GOP research, Mark Penn, who had been a pollster for President Clinton, and Daniel Berger, a major Democratic donor, are on CREW’s board. Spokeswoman Naomi Seligman declined several requests to reveal the membership of CREW’s board, although she confirmed that Penn and Berger are members. Last year, Berger made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group that was dedicated to defeating Bush in the presidential election, according to politicalmoneyline.com, a website that tracks fundraising.

CREW declined to respond to the RNC talking points or House GOP research.​

C.R.E.W. is one of four “public interest” organizations which the RNC has long identifed as major recipients of George Soros richly-funded Open Society Institute. It is backing the risible Wilson/Plame civil suit against Cheney and others.

What do we know of Brian Ross?

My favorite media watcher, Steve Gilbert reports:

Brian Ross of ABC News is the reporter behind the story that Rep. Dennis Hastert is being investigated by the Department Of Justice. Ross is sticking to his charges despite vehement denials from both the DOJ and Hastert himself.

Some may recall that Brian Ross has been involved in past journalistic controversies. Just last week, Mr. Ross reported he was tipped off by unnamed “senior federal officials” that his cell phone was tapped by NSA.

Last month, Ross was one of the first (if not the first) to report that Rush Limbaugh “had been arrested.” Reports which turned out to be greatly exaggerated, but which Ross never corrected.

In January, Brian Ross was the first to promulgate the claims of the self-proclaimed NSA whistleblower, Russell Tice. Ross treated Tice has a highly credible source even though Tice had been cashiered from the agency due to “psychological problems.”
​

ABC has not disclosed the names of the recipients of the instant messages which were sexually explicit, years old, and not seen by anyone else. We do not know how anyone but the recipients could have retrieved them. We do not even know if they are authentic. None of the recipients has come forward and identified himself. What we do know is that reputable media and the Republican leadership acted appropriately on the initial innocuous correspondence and could not proceed further in view of the parents’ demand that their son’s privacy be respected only to find months later just before the election that same correpondence showing up on an unlikely blog site and then almost simultaneously on ABC and on C.R.E.W.’s site. As for the demand that a special prosecutor be appointed, maybe Patrick Fitzgerald can be appointed. Then he can fail to ask ABC or C.R.E.W. how they got the correspondence, ignore their political motivations, conflate their partisanship with “whistleblowing”, not look for the sources of the later sexually explicit emails, and nab Hastert for forgetting when he went to the bathroom on the day he heard about the emails.

Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC. and a frequent contributor to American Thinker



Clarice Feldman

 

[Gunny]

Avatar, you are - as always - the voice of reason. By drawing the vital distinction between the e-mails and the IMs, we can see that the Republican leadership did the best it could with the knowledge it had. Moreover, if anyone sat on intelligence for the sake of politics - potentially placing children in harm's way for the sake of their own depraved ends - it was the Democrats. In our very recent past, this critical piece of information could - and WOULD - have been buried by the MSM/DNC. But we live in a new world, and I thank God every day for it.

What this is, is the left and a few overreactionary, self-righteous right wingers using the MSM to put the implication of guilt on ALL Congressional Republicans for the actions of one person, NOT acting on behalf of, nor in the best interest of the GOP.

 

[USViking]

Perhaps, but they have been told over and over again by these same Democrats that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Perhaps nothing: if the Democrats or anybody else
are wrong then you do the right thing anyway, don't you?

I have a hunch that before this is over one or more
Democrats are going be sweating under the lights, anyway.

Also, I believe the disorder you mention is not limited
to homosexuals, and is properly applied only where the
victim has not reached sexual maturity, age being a
separate factor.

 

[musicman]

What Did The Dems Know and When?

Lots of links

Kathianne, I've said it before, and I'll say it again - you are a treasure.

This is absolutely damning. Once again, the Democrats snatch crushing defeat from the jaws of modest victory with their native, all-consuming treachery and conniving. Their true motives glow like radioactive waste. When are they going to quit tripping over their d*cks? ROFLMAO!

 

[Gunny]

I find the Washington Times editorials to be persuasive.

The Republican leadership knew there was a problem,
they did nothing about it, and they should be held accountable
even if every Democrat in Congress is worse than Foley.
They failed to LEAD.

Foley might have done nothing illegal, but that does not matter.
What he did was wrong, and the leadership should should have
acted. No doubt Foley is not the only member who has chased
pages. The disgrace of resignation of the leadership, and the
appointment of a man of untarnished reputation such as Henry Hyde
might be a step in the right direction of ending improper sexual
relationships between members of Congress and their pages.

The Times is making a sweeping assumption, and so are you. The Republican leadership knew of some e-mails sent to a page and told him to stop. Simple as that. They did not know the contents of the e-mails, nor of the existence of the IMs.

So WHAT exatly is it you wish to hold them accountable for? Not immediately overreacting and branding a pink "F" on Foley's forehead?

The leadership should not resign to appease people who believe whatever the Hell they wish.