Republican party covered up sick emails for five years

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.