Republican party covered up sick emails for five years

TomF

Time for everyone to do his or her homework. Please read the article included with my first posting on the thread topic. It is posted on 03-10-2006 at 09:18.

Sgt. Sensible

TomF wrote:

Time for everyone to do his or her homework. Please read the article included with my first posting on the thread topic. It is posted on 03-10-2006 at 09:18.

Time for you to stop trying to patronise people who have been patient enough to put up with your frankly disturbingly weird defence of a paedophile.

How about answering Bonkeys questions?

Would you have any issues with your children receiving this type of attention from an adult male in the workplace whilst underage? Would you have any issues with said adult's coworkers and seniors no taking action to put a stop activities immediately once they became aware of them? If and when the adult who was treating your children this way was finally caught, would you want the question of his actions to revolve around the gender or the age of your child?

TomF

This excerpt from a Florida newspaper makes for unsettling reading for those who want to believe that the U.S. Republican Party was involved in a cover-up to protect ex-Rep. Foley (and his seat in Congress). It also makes good reading for those of us who are nearly certain the huge furor is strictly U.S. Democratic Party election year orchestration. (You can fool some the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.)

And it might be a good idea to go back and read my earlier posts to see if there is evidence that I was defending Foley. He is a sad case, and certainly didn't belong in such high office, but finding reason to remove him would mean having evidence (like the now-available instant messages).

St. Petersburg [Florida] Times, by Neil Brown, Executive Editor
...

"Which brings us to the Mark Foley scandal.

Last November, we chose not to publish a story about how the Republican congressman sent cryptic, though arguably inappropriate, e-mails to a former congressional page from Louisiana.

Let's be clear: The e-mails we obtained were not at all sexually explicit. As Tom Fiedler, my counterpart at the Miami Herald, said, they were 'ambiguous.' Further, the page had provided Foley with his e-mail address voluntarily and had acknowledged in an e-mail to a friend that he initially had no suspicions about the congressman. We later tracked down the page, who told us that the e-mails made him uncomfortable. We also interviewed another page who had received e-mails from Foley and found nothing inappropriate.

Still, the Louisiana page had forwarded the e-mails to a congressional staff member asking for guidance. The Foley exchange - including the request for a 'pic'- seemed creepy. Was I being paranoid? the page wanted to know.

Our decision not to publish was a close call. We decided to hold off. Why?

I led deliberations with our top editors, and we concluded that we did not have enough substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.

We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were involved in the matter or those who administer the House page corps to acknowledge any problem with Foley's ambiguous e-mail or to suggest that they thought it was worth pursuing.

And we couldn't come up with a strong enough case to explain to a teenager's parents why, over their vehement pleas to drop the matter, we needed to make their son the subject of a story - and the incredible scrutiny that would surely follow.

It added up to this conclusion: To print what we had seemed to be a shortcut to taint a member of Congress without actually having the goods.

We paid for that restraint last week when we got scooped by an anonymous blogger - not a reporter - who posted the ambiguous e-mails on a Web site titled Stop Sexual Predators. When Foley's election opponent seized on it and called for an investigation, ABCnews.com ran with the story. That provoked former pages to come forward with the stunning set of sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's resignation and a tidal wave of political fallout.

Nobody in the news business likes to get scooped. We're not happy about it. We're also not alone.

The Miami Herald had the same e-mails. In Washington, several other mainstream news organizations apparently have had the ambiguous e-mails (which had been making their way around the Capitol corridors for some months), yet took a pass on publication. That's absolutely not an excuse from our perspective. It simply reflects that our judgment, agree or disagree, was not an unusual one."
...
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Columns/Why_the_Times_didn_t_.shtml

lostexpectation

if it came from the a democrat initially then good for them... bout time it came out,


cbs news asid last night that , foleys was known to be gay and so was the Rep assistants that worked with them and went to hasert about foley I presume hasert isn't a bear

this just shows this whole problem these rightist have with coming out, I guess its far from peadophilia but it is predatory, and shows the standards of all the **** going on on capital hill, what those pages must see.

couple of the aides that told hasert about it have resigned,

bonkey

TomF wrote:

It also makes good reading for those of us who are nearly certain the huge furor is strictly U.S. Democratic Party election year orchestration.

At a guess, one would find a strong correlation between this group and :

- those who believed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were honourable, truth-telling, well-informed people
- those who believed Rove didn't leak the information he subsequently has admitted to leaking
- those who believed the Administration when it claimed the CIA told them it had a "slam dunk" case about WMDs
- those who believe Bush didn't dodge the draft
- those who are staunch Republican supporters

Its hardly surprising that an article which defends the Republicans and casts the Democrats in a bad light makes "good reading" for you TomF. The real issue is whether or not its a balanced or fair article.

For example, does it mention that Foley's aide - a man hardly likely to be a Democrat, I'm sure we both agree - has gone on record saying
that more than three years ago he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene."

Trying to cast the issue as a smear campaign is a little bit pointless if the allegations are true. So far, that appears to be the case and it would seem that the Republicans aren't complaining that they're being lied about, but rather that its unfair that someone - allegedly the Democrats - revealed the truth.

Well, when I say pointless, I mean that the only thing it will do is give staunch Republican supporters a flag to rally round so they can feel victimised by the truth.

A quick search of google reveals that there are numerous articles from various Republicans coming out and making comments to the effect that they raised flags / were aware of at least part of this for 3, 5 or (in at least one article I read today) 10 years. More articles suggest that the rank-and-file Republicans are extremely dissatisfied with the whole affair.

I'm guessing, though, that we're expected to believe that these Republicans are somehow part of a Democrat smear campaign too, or that all the news articles making such claims are nothing but libel.

And it might be a good idea to go back and read my earlier posts to see if there is evidence that I was defending Foley.

That depends on how we interpret the word "defending", TomF. If we take the same type of interpretation that says "alerting the authorities to this type of behaviour" is somehow a smear campaign, then trying to cast Foley as "a strange man", and make out that the major issue is apparently that he'sgay....then yes, you were defending him.

If you'd like to stick to the conventional interpretation of the english language , then I'd say "after you, sir".

You're not fooling anyone, any of the time.

Diogenes

TomF wrote:

This excerpt from a Florida newspaper makes for unsettling reading for those who want to believe that the U.S. Republican Party was involved in a cover-up to protect ex-Rep. Foley (and his seat in Congress). It also makes good reading for those of us who are nearly certain the huge furor is strictly U.S. Democratic Party election year orchestration. (You can fool some the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.)

I'm sorry but what? The article you include doesn't so much as include the word's "democratic" and "party." You can keep trying to make this smoke and Mirrors nonsense going but it would be helpful if what you linked in any remote way support your assertions.

Our decision not to publish was a close call. We decided to hold off. Why?

I led deliberations with our top editors, and we concluded that we did not have enough substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.

We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were involved in the matter or those who administer the House page corps to acknowledge any problem with Foley's ambiguous e-mail or to suggest that they thought it was worth pursuing.

And we couldn't come up with a strong enough case to explain to a teenager's parents why, over their vehement pleas to drop the matter, we needed to make their son the subject of a story - and the incredible scrutiny that would surely follow.

It added up to this conclusion: To print what we had seemed to be a shortcut to taint a member of Congress without actually having the goods.

We paid for that restraint last week when we got scooped by an anonymous blogger - not a reporter - who posted the ambiguous e-mails on a Web site titled Stop Sexual Predators. When Foley's election opponent seized on it and called for an investigation, ABCnews.com ran with the story. That provoked former pages to come forward with the stunning set of sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's resignation and a tidal wave of political fallout.

Nobody in the news business likes to get scooped. We're not happy about it. We're also not alone.

The Miami Herald had the same e-mails. In Washington, several other mainstream news organizations apparently have had the ambiguous e-mails (which had been making their way around the Capitol corridors for some months), yet took a pass on publication. That's absolutely not an excuse from our perspective. It simply reflects that our judgment, agree or disagree, was not an unusual one."
...

Where is there any evidence that this is democratic party orchestration!

The fact remains that the republican speaker of the house knew about the concerns about Foley for over a year and did nothing about it, until the scandal errupted

The first in the line of fire is the House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, whose office knew about Mr Foley's behaviour for nearly a year but did not seek an investigation until after the damaging email had become public.

Mr Hastert's political career was hanging in the balance yesterday, with the Speaker admitting: "If I thought it could help the party, I would consider it."

In the last 48 hours Mr Hastert has been attacked by Republicans worried about keeping their seats. Democrats have already begun to use the Foley scandal in TV ads. "We have to do something different, more dramatic," congressman Ray LaHood told reporters. "This is a political mess and what we have done so far is not working. Somebody has to take responsibility for this. It is on our watch."

The momentum for Mr Hastert's departure gathered pace on Tuesday, when his deputy, the House majority leader, John Boehner, told a radio station in Ohio that he believed the Speaker had had primary responsibility to deal with Mr Foley when he first learned of his activities. "I believe I talked to the Speaker and he told me it had been taken care of," Mr Boehner said. "And my position is [that] it's in his corner, it's his responsibility."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1887797,00.html

And it might be a good idea to go back and read my earlier posts to see if there is evidence that I was defending Foley.

TomF wrote:

Foley ruckus is much more than a cynical exploitation of what that strange man was doing with Congressional pages,

Foley's relatively innocuous emails to the youths

Defend outright no, downplay most certainly.

He is a sad case, and certainly didn't belong in such high office, but finding reason to remove him would mean having evidence (like the now-available instant messages).

I'm sorry in 1998 a fortune was spent by the republican congress investigating Clinton over his affair with Lewinsky, based on a blue dress stain and a taped phone call with a third party. in Less than six years later, you're saying it's acceptable not to even bother to attempt to investigate allegations of paedophilia by a republican senator, when there is evidence of a level of misconduct which supports the allegations. The hypocracy is simply staggering.

lostexpectation

TomF wrote:

This excerpt from a Florida newspaper makes for unsettling reading for those who want to believe that the U.S. Republican Party was involved in a cover-up to protect ex-Rep. Foley (and his seat in Congress). It also make
The Miami Herald had the same e-mails. In Washington, several other mainstream news organizations apparently have had the ambiguous e-mails (which had been making their way around the Capitol corridors for some months), yet took a pass on publication. That's absolutely not an excuse from our perspective. It simply reflects that our judgment, agree or disagree, was not an unusual one."
...
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Columns/Why_the_Times_didn_t_.shtml

i think it speaks to the boys club between capital hil operators, journos too, apparently it was well known since he first came to congress 11 yrs ago, so many knew apparently getting over-friendly with 16-18 yr olds is ok in congress.

RedPlanet

It's not the first time the St. Petersburg Times quashed a story.
I'm sure news companies do it all the time.
I happen to be familiar with 2 stories regarding Gulf War I (Iraq/Kuwait) where they didn't run the story til much later (when it was "safe").

Sorry, make that 1 story.
Other news companies also didn't run with the story at time.
From the archives:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/50586247.html?dids=50586247:50586247&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jan+6%2C+1991&author=JEAN+HELLER&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&desc=Photos+don%27t+show+buildup

Hobbes

tbh, I get the impression TomF doesn't even read the thread. Just ignores anything that rebuts what hes just posted and posts more of the same crap again from another source.

bonkey

The apparent strategy would be to redefine the debate into a question of whether or not this is strategically-timed elctioneering, rather than into one of who did what, who knew about it and for how long.

If the leak was Democrat orchestrated, then there is a genuine question to be asked in terms of which Democrats knew how much, and for how long. Of course, a question like this is independant of who leaked the story, and really shouldn't be put in partisan terms at all.

The distinction should be made, however, that the Democrats would only ever be in a position to do anything once in possession of proof positive that something was going on. The Republicans, on the other hand, should have the ability and responsibility to ensure that their members are behaving, and to investigate (internally) any credible allegations...of which there appear to have been many for a long time.

Somehow, though, I can't see the Republican Election machine taking the "they're just as guilty as we are for not reporting it cause they knew about it too" stance. Admitting culpability - even if only to share it - just doesn't seem the in thing.

TomF

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton did not resign when his dalliance next to a sink in the Oval Office of the White House with a young woman on her knees was found out. I'm not sure of the legalities of what they were doing in relation to office hours, but it certainly disgraced Clinton. He also didn't admit to being a sexual predator or a sex addict although he certainly seemed to many reasonable people to be both, and he therefore didn't admit himself to any kind of a clinic to have his problems treated. Even the impeachment didn't go through, so the House of Representatives, his judge and jury, lost their collective nerve and he survived--although Hillary may have bounced a few more heavy glass ash trays off his forehead in the days and months that followed. Where is Bill now? Collecting mucho dinero while dispensing what dispensing his brand of wisdom and lots of hot air around the world.

In Foley's case, now I am reading claims that the particular page in question may have been "of age" when the instant messages were exchanged. If that is true, then it could be that Foley didn't actually committ paedophilia. We'll just have to see what the actual truth of the matter is.

Getting back to the rapidly diverging parallel, Foley confessed sending the instant messages, apologised to the House and his constituents, resigned his office and admitted himself to an alcohol treatment facility. The last is the usual maneuver after your lawyer takes you aside to give advice, it appears.

Actually, I do read the thread, but so much of what I read seems to be extreme reactions suggesting I condone paedophilia that I just don't bother replying to it.

I like the idea of focusing on whether the furore is orchestrated by the U.S. Democratic Party, and, as with the laughable episode of the Valerie Plame "outing", I think we will see this orchestrated attempt sputter out too. Much will depend on how aggressively the Republicans get the true story out.

Sgt. Sensible

Having an affair with a 22 year old woman is no different to being a paedophile apparently.

Only desperate.

Diogenes

TomF wrote:

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton did not resign when his dalliance next to a sink in the Oval Office of the White House with a young woman on her knees was found out.

Are you serious, you're trying to claim that Clinton isn't honourable because he didn't resign after he didn't commit a crime, but Foley is honourable after he broke a law that he helped draft. A law to protect children from online sexual predators.

I'm not sure of the legalities of what they were doing in relation to office hours,

You are trolling now aren't you?

Theres no law aganist "office hours nookie"

but it certainly disgraced Clinton. He also didn't admit to being a sexual predator or a sex addict although he certainly seemed to many reasonable people to be both, and he therefore didn't admit himself to any kind of a clinic to have his problems treated.

I'm sorry these "reasonable people". Would they be the same "reasonable people" who claim that Foley's relationship with the kids is the kids fault cause they egg'd him on?

Even the impeachment didn't go through, so the House of Representatives, his judge and jury, lost their collective nerve and he survived--although Hillary may have bounced a few more heavy glass ash trays off his forehead in the days and months that followed. Where is Bill now? Collecting mucho dinero while dispensing what dispensing his brand of wisdom and lots of hot air around the world.

Yes yes that lazy money grubing Clinton.

Where is he now...Hmmmm
http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org

At the end of the conference, each member is then asked to make a commitment which is original, specific, and measurable. Last year this meeting generated more than $2.5 billion in commitments that are already improving countless lives.

In Foley's case, now I am reading claims that the particular page in question may have been "of age" when the instant messages were exchanged. If that is true, then it could be that Foley didn't actually committ paedophilia. We'll just have to see what the actual truth of the matter is.

I'm sure you can point us to where those claims are being made? Repuitable news organised no doubt.

Getting back to the rapidly diverging parallel, Foley confessed sending the instant messages, apologised to the House and his constituents, resigned his office and admitted himself to an alcohol treatment facility. The last is the usual maneuver after your lawyer takes you aside to give advice, it appears.

It usually is necessary to find a place to hid until it blows over.

Actually, I do read the thread, but so much of what I read seems to be extreme reactions suggesting I condone paedophilia that I just don't bother replying to it.

Not condone, just try and downplay it's significance, while implying it's related to being gay,.

I like the idea of focusing on whether the furore is orchestrated by the U.S. Democratic Party, and, as with the laughable episode of the Valerie Plame "outing", I think we will see this orchestrated attempt sputter out too. Much will depend on how aggressively the Republicans get the true story out.

You would like the idea of focusing on whether the furore is orchestrated by the Democratic mainly because it distracts attention from the real issue, how long the republican party covered up Foley's behaviour.

RedPlanet

If this Foley character didn't do anything wrong then why is he apologising and why resign?

sceptre

TomF wrote:

Actually, I do read the thread, but so much of what I read seems to be extreme reactions suggesting I condone paedophilia that I just don't bother replying to it.

Ah that's not fair Tom. I wouldn't say your posts indicate that you condone it, just conveniently ignore it while trying to misdirect the audience so you can pull the phantom gay rabbit out of the hat in order that reasonable and rightly concerned people feel homophobic as opposed to the little disappointed that we should and do feel that Republican party supporters, of which you may be one, reckon paedophilia isn't such a bad thing as long as the right people stay running things.

Hobbes

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Having an affair with a 22 year old woman is no different to being a paedophile apparently.

Only desperate.

According to Fox News she was only 19. lol

Or even funnier is Ann Coulter actually defending Foley and calling him "a nice guy", you can see even O'Reilly squirming on the fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XukNaP7H87o

lostexpectation

yeah 16 v 22 big difference and apparently he's a demo to both fox and ap, and to ap hasert is a D aswell, apparently O'Reilly show is pre-recorded and they had plenty of time to fix that 'mistake' I mean come on thats just crazy...

he also turned up at the pages dorm room drunk...

and he gone to rehab and other behaviorial problems in Clearwater 'the town scientolgy built' and the HQ for de-gaying programs!!!!

its obvious that plenty of dems and aides knew about this too, but didn't want to say, didn't have evidence,like the papers... but if they really tried.

Diogenes

lostexpectation wrote:

yeah 16 v 22 big difference and apparently he's a demo to both fox and ap, and to ap hasert is a D aswell, apparently O'Reilly show is pre-recorded and they had plenty of time to fix that 'mistake' I mean come on thats just crazy...

Hmmmm Generally Aston's and graphics are added live on air as the show is broadcast. Not to say the mistake isn't bloody telling. Though the "D" and the "R" keys are close by one another keyboard.

It's still bloody convenient though.

oscarBravo

Diogenes wrote:

You are trolling now aren't you?

Accusations of trolling are against the charter. Don't do that, thanks.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton did not resign when his dalliance next to a sink in the Oval Office of the White House with a young woman on her knees was found out. I'm not sure of the legalities of what they were doing in relation to office hours, but it certainly disgraced Clinton.

The legalities are clear. What they did was 100% unquestionably and totally within the law....right up to the point where Clinton lied under oath.

He also didn't admit to being a sexual predator or a sex addict although he certainly seemed to many reasonable people

He seemed that way, did he. gosh, well then, he should have admitted it.

After all, Foley has admitted he's gay. Its not because he is gay, but just because he seemed that way to some reasonable people. He's also admitted to having been molested as a child and having alcohol problems. None of this is because its true either, its becuse some reasonable people think it might be the case.

If the point isn't clear yet.....on what planet does some unqualified opinion of some unspecified group of people of undetermined "reasonableness" qualify as grounds to suggest that an admission of allegations is warranted.

In Foley's case, now I am reading claims that the particular page in question may have been "of age" when the instant messages were exchanged.

I claim the page was 6 eyars old when it happened.

See, now you can also say you've read claims that the page was 6 years old when it happened.

If that is true, then it could be that Foley didn't actually committ paedophilia.

Correct. If that is true, then it could be the case. Of course, if my claims are true then it could be the case that Foley molested a 6 year old.

In case its not obvious to anyone at this point, I am in no way suggesting that my claims are true. In fact, I'll admit that I made them up on the spot here. They're complete fiction and I don't even have grounds to suspect anything of the sort happened.

However....having made up and posted such utter fiction you have now read claims to that effect.

TomF wants you to believe that him having read claims (and I'm sure he has read them) means there is reasonable grounds to consider them true. I'm trying to show that having read claims has little or nothing to do with the underlying truth.

We'll just have to see what the actual truth of the matter is.

Alternately, while we do that, you could supply the evidence of where you read this stuff, comment on how credible you find the sources etc. so that people would have a basis on which to form a credible opinion of their own rather than just having to rely on your say-so.

Getting back to the rapidly diverging parallel, Foley confessed sending the instant messages, apologised to the House and his constituents, resigned his office and admitted himself to an alcohol treatment facility.

No, thats not getting back to the rapidly diverging parallel at all. Instead, it is once again removing us from the issue of who knew what, and for how long.

Actually, I do read the thread, but so much of what I read seems to be extreme reactions suggesting I condone paedophilia that I just don't bother replying to it.

Tell you what TomF. You post and condemn the man for his behaviour towards minors and I will follow up and apologise for treating you harshly for previously not condemning same.

I'm sure anyone else who's been harsh on you in this thread will also do likewise.

Similarly, if you'd like to say that condemnation should be issued to anyone from any party who can be shown to have rested on information about this problem instead of acting, I'll admit that my claims of your having clearly-Republican-favouring tendencies here are also mistaken.




I like the idea of focusing on whether the furore is orchestrated by the U.S. Democratic Party, and, as with the laughable episode of the Valerie Plame "outing", I think we will see this orchestrated attempt sputter out too. Much will depend on how aggressively the Republicans get the true story out.[/QUOTE]

lostexpectation

what with you bonkey and 'you claim this, I claim that', rubbish, we're working on the latest infomation reported, that hasn't refuted, this ain't the dail, if you haven't kept up thats your fault... that keep questioning people cos you havn't read the latest stuff from, not everything can be linked, you post are just geting way to convoluted... if you want to refute something go look it up come back and shows us the clear refute.

TomF

The site belonging to the man who I understand discovered one of the pages alleged to have been under-age when Foley sent instant messages was actually not under-age is at:

http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/meet-jordan-edmund-one-mark-foley.html

Zombrex

TomF wrote:

He also denied any paedophilia, or maybe it is paedophilic contact with a minor that he denies

Oh well if he says he wasn't engaging in inapprorate sexual attivity with a minor, who are we to question.....

Is there a bigger rolleyes icon than this one :rolleyes:?

TomF wrote:

What are the Florida Democratic Party's gay constituency going to make of all this when it comes time to vote?

They will probably say you shouldn't go on the internet trying to have online sex with minors.

You seem to be just assuming that all gay men are sexual freaks who tolerate and approve of online sex with underage boys TomF?

Why may I ask?

Diogenes

TomF wrote:

The site belonging to the man who I understand discovered one of the pages alleged to have been under-age when Foley sent instant messages was actually not under-age is at:

http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/meet-jordan-edmund-one-mark-foley.html

I'm sorry that page is a load of uncoberated, speculative, conjecture filled hooey that I've seen outside of the conspiracy theorist forum.

TomF

Sorry these analyses of le affaire Foley are so long, but this Clarice Feldman really has her teeth into the topic and doesn't seem to intend to let go until the rat(s) involved are well and truly dead.

"ABC [American Broadcasting Company] Scrambling to Put Some Meat on Ross' Story
October 7th, 2006

As time passes, it is increasingly clear that the ABC News report which started the Foley firestorm is odorous—and I’m not talking Chanel.

(1) It dealt with the emails which the FBI and many media organizations considered as innocuous as the Republican leadership did. Who circulated these reports is not yet clear.Foley’s spokesman said his opponent, Mahoney had been shopping the story to the media for some time.

(2) ABC was the first to run with the story which every other media outlet, of the many which had received the email story, had passed on as unsubstantiated and not newsworthy. The only new tag for the story was that Mahoney, Foley’s opponent, called for an investigation, a demand he said was impelled by a report on a newly created, barely trafficked utterly fake website designed solely to hide the source of the emails. How did he happen to come across this website?

(3) The emails on that site, in any event, are themselves demonstrably fake.

(4) Almost simultaneously with the ABC report, C.R.E.W. placed on its blogsite a .pdf file purportedly of the same emails. It has refused to disclose to the FBI their provenance. And an ex-page, Jason Edmund, later determined to be one of the ex-pages involved in an IM exchange, posted notification of the story on the now removed (but screen saved) page website run by an another ex page, Matthew Loraditch. See post #264 here.)

There is a suggestion, I think, that he’d been anticipating this story. Did Ross, or someone acting with him or on his behalf, have contact with the ex-pages before the initial story ran? Or is this another of the many curious coincidences which surround this story?

(5) Ross reports that overnight after that story ran, he received racier IMs from other ex pages. Loraditch, who ran the page website, was quoted by ABC as saying he’d seen some steamy IMs in which Foley purportedly had been involved. After considerable ducking, ABC has finally admitted that the IMs came not from the ex-pages themselves , but from 'other pages'.

Were those other pages Loraditch and Edmunds? And were they alerted by someone to fax them to Ross as soon as the first story ran? If so, why? If not, had they given them—wittingly or not—to third parties who provided them to Ross? Was the second story designed to conflate in the public mind the notion—utterly false—that Hastert had seen them, too? Or was it just to keep the story alive?

(6) From the snippets of the IMs ABC published, one blogger was able to quickly track Mr. Edmund as one of the participants according to ABC’s report. (We still haven’t got enough information to know if these IMs are authentic.) That enterprising blogger has since received a letter from Edmund’s lawyer demanding he remove his client’s name from his website. Curiously the letter states:

Without any foundation or legal permission, you are stating that our client is the person associated with the IMs. Neither ABC News nor Brian Ross have been error free in their reporting in the past. You should not assume that they are correct now. Like all individuals and institutions, they occasionally make mistakes. (Emphasis added.)

(7) Drudge reported that he’d contacted two of Edmund’s friends who say the IM correspondence was a 'prank'. We don’t know if that means the IMs are in some respect false or if they were deliberately designed to somehow entrap the Congressman. Drudge reports his witnesses stand by their story. In a subsequent interview on CNN, Edmund’s counsel said he could not “rule out” a prank.

(8) As that story started falling apart, Ross announced he had three more ex-pages who had had IM communications with Foley, but he has not revealed their names. Apparently they do not have documentation for their claims, for ABC has posted none of their material. Presumably these ex-pages are Democrats, for unlike the first, no affiliation was given. Presumably they, like Edmunds, never contacted the Republican leadership, for no such claim was made and such a claim certainly would have been made had that been the case.

(9) ABC has now set up a tip line asking pages and ex-pages to report incidents with Foley. It is not necessary to identify oneself to report a “tip”, and one can only suppose that having hit dry wells on the prior reports, ABC is trolling for anything else it can find to prop up an increasingly suspicious story.

Anyone can try his or her hand at creative writing and create a “tip” for ABC to report.

Or anyone can just conclude, as I have, ABC is behaving extremely irresponsibly.

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

Clarice Feldman"

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5925

Hobbes

How about quoting a reliable source, or better yet checking what you are posting. Most of what you just cut and pasted is bunk.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

Sorry these analyses of le affaire Foley are so long,

Yours aren't....just eh news articles you quote verbatim are.

Y'know...once you give people the link, they can go and check it themselves. If you're not gonna comment on teh content, there's not much point actually including it in the post as well. We'll see it when we follow the link.

but this Clarice Feldman really has her teeth into the topic and doesn't seem to intend to let go

Bit like yourself, eh? Stake your position early, ensure that everyone gets reminded as soon as anything turns up which you can use to push your position....

Me, I'm more disappointed there hasn't been much on the fact that the House Ethics Committee can't touch Foley because their brief ony extends to current members and since he resigned, so they're limited to investigating who knew what...

until the rat(s) involved are well and truly dead.

You seem to be hinting that this is some sort of bad idea, TomF.

Do you not believe the allegations should be fully investigated and it correctly determined who was responsible for what?

TomF

As I read more about the Foley case, I am becoming more convinced that he is an alcoholic gay man who may or may not have made homosexual advances to Congressional pages. He may have been under the influence of alcohol when he sent instant messages to ex-pages. However there is a claim floating around that he was inticed by some of these ex-pages to send such messages. A kind of "Lets see what we can get old Foley to send" laugh-a-minute thing.

I don't think the case is clear yet, and I certainly don't know all the facts, but there is enough about this whole episode to make me wait and see. At this point, I will say that I see it as another campaign dirty-trick, and I think it will fizzle just as badly as the "Get Rove!...no, Get Libby!" fiasco.

Diogenes

TomF wrote:

As I read more about the Foley case, I am becoming more convinced that he is an alcoholic gay man who may or may not have made homosexual advances to Congressional pages. He may have been under the influence of alcohol when he sent instant messages to ex-pages. However there is a claim floating around that he was inticed by some of these ex-pages to send such messages. A kind of "Lets see what we can get old Foley to send" laugh-a-minute thing.

I don't think the case is clear yet, and I certainly don't know all the facts, but there is enough about this whole episode to make me wait and see. At this point, I will say that I see it as another campaign dirty-trick, and I think it will fizzle just as badly as the "Get Rove!...no, Get Libby!" fiasco.

As I hear more about the Foley case I am becoming more convinced that Foley liked to wear a child's salior suit and sing "I'm the good ship lollipop" while IM'ing these children. Foley enticed these ex-pages offering dog food in exchange for such messages. He was into a kind "Lets see what sexually explicit things I can get these illegal minors to send" laugh a-minute thing.

I don't think the case is clear, and I certainly don't know all the facts, but I'm willing to make several judgement calls at this stage alread. I will say that I think the campaign to defend Foley and defamd children makes the behaviour of the catholic church in the ferns report look postively saintly in comparsion.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

As I read more about the Foley case, I am becoming more convinced that he is an alcoholic gay man who may or may not have made homosexual advances to Congressional pages.

As I read more of your posts, I am becomnig more convinced that your only interest in this matter is to try and make sure that everyone focusses on the wrong sisues.

There are two, and only two issues here.

1) regarding Foley, whether or not he made advances on minors.

2) Regarding the rest of the House, the question of who knew what and when they knew it.

Foley's alcolohism, his being abused as a child, or whether or not he is gay has nothing to do with anything. Its notable that the only people who keep bringing this up - both on this forum and in the mainstream media that I've been following - are all Republican supporters.

However there is a claim floating around that he was inticed by some of these ex-pages to send such messages. A kind of "Lets see what we can get old Foley to send" laugh-a-minute thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html

Rep Jim Kilbe confirmed, via a spokesman, that former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. This occurred 6 years ago.

I don't think the case is clear yet, and I certainly don't know all the facts,

And you're certainly doing your best to focus attention on the ones you know aren't relevant (like whether or not Foley is gay) and away from the ones you know are (like who knew what, and for how long).

but there is enough about this whole episode to make me wait and see.
At this point, I will say that I see it as another campaign dirty-trick,

TomF, you're a Republican supporter. We expect no less of you.

Your party would be proud.

You still haven't said whether or not you'd have no problems if it was your kids on the receiving end of Foley's attentions and nothing was done for 6 years??? I assume we can take it you'd give you kid a clip round the ear and tell him not to egg the old pervert on, rather than being concerned.