You can read the article here: http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061002-102008-9058r.htm
The Mark Foley internet sex predator scandal is working it’s way through America’s newspapers and it appears that the Washington Times is the first paper to call on the resignation of Speaker Dennis Hastert.
If everything holds to be true as is being reported by ABC News, it would seem appropriate that those in leadership that knew about this stuff and did nothing need to be replaced. They just may be a little out of step with mainstream America.
It’s hard to see the Speaker resigning this close to the elections, but it’s also hard to imagine that he has much credibility in light of doing virtually nothing about the situation over email messages and Mark Foley.
What is the feeling here on this situation?
{ 160 comments }
Bull Moose 10.02.06 at 11:48 pm
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I agree with the Editorial. Rep. Henry Hyde would be a very appropriate and suitable steward of the Speakership during this important investigation and would send a clear message that the Republicans are dead serious about getting to the bottom of this situation about who knew what and when…
When Congress reconvenes after elections, should Republicans maintain the Majority, the next Speaker needs to be Congressman Jack Kingston.
Kingston is currently the number 5 guy in the House leadership and is untouched by any of the scandals of the past few years.
He’s a well experienced “fresh face” who knows how to communicate with America, whether it’s on the news programs or shows like The Colbert Report.
Trust me, it’s going to be hard to scare people about Nancy Pelosi when you’ve got the current House Leadership turning a blind eye in regards to an internet sex predator praying on young male pages.
Bill Simon 10.02.06 at 11:48 pm
Wow! The Washington Times? That’s the CONSERVATIVE newspaper in D.C.
Betcha Sean Hannity keeps on kissing everyone’s ass in the House leadership. What a jackass.
Bill Simon 10.02.06 at 11:55 pm
Ehh…I like Jack…but, he’s not mature enough yet to be Speaker. He still thinks the Judiciary should have its’ authority ripped-out from under them and leave the only law-interpreting actions to Congress on really “big issues.”
GetReal 10.02.06 at 11:56 pm
If anyone doubted the magnitude of this scandal, that paper calling for that action should just about put a rest to the doubt.
RiverRat 10.02.06 at 11:59 pm
How about a pile-on with Senate leadership? Sen. Frist thinks that we should let the Taliban back into Afghanistan government. Are you freaking kidding me? Remind me again what your party is supposed to stand for, because everyone in your leadership seems to be doing exactly the opposite these days. Can’t keep the budget in order (hello earmarks!), covering up for child molestors, letting the Taliban win… why would anyone in their right mind vote for a Republican right now?
Bull Moose 10.03.06 at 12:03 am
Um, just read the Washington Post story on this for tomorrow… It’s disgusting…
I just can’t believe that these people knew about this stuff and did nothing…
Hastert, Boehner, and Shimkus should all resign from Congress or at least their leadership positions over this…
This just demonstrates really poor judgement…
Bull Moose 10.03.06 at 12:04 am
Tom Reynolds is a good man and shame on the Speaker for trying to hang him out to dry on this… He passed the information up the chain of command and the Speaker fumbled the ball…
buzzbrockway 10.03.06 at 12:36 am
I hesitate to comment on this because I’m sure I’ll get dumped on, but shouldn’t we wait until ALL the facts are out before people (other than Foley) start being forced out?
Hastert and the others say they never saw the the IM’s until ABC reported them. They only saw the emails. Knowing what we know now, the emails show Foley to be a pervert and possibly a criminal. But put yourself in their shoes. You work with Foley, he’s a valuable member of the GOP caucus, you have no idea he’s dangerous, and you confront him, tell him to knock it off and he says he will. What else could be done at that time, with that information? Now that ABC has produced the IM’s, yes throw the book at him.
To ask Hastert and the others to resign seems foolish to me, unless evidence comes out to prove they saw the IM’s before ABC did.
Flame away fellows.
Bill Simon 10.03.06 at 12:45 am
1) Frist has been on my sh*t list ever since his moronic medical exam via video-tape of Terri Schiavo. He shouldn’t be practicing medicine OR politics.
2) Why doesn’t Frist call for the Democrats to come in and share power in the Senate and the House? Same concept as having the Taliban come in and share power, except, of course, for the degrees of difference between the two societies.
3) The GOP is full of morons at the top. Time for them to be flushed-out and have to sit out a little while on the bench…maybe it’ll knock some sense into them and they will pick better leaders rather than friggin’ idiots.
Chris 10.03.06 at 12:46 am
Well the worst of it to me is the hypocrisy. Those men who tolerated this crap, and turned a blind eye to it in the halls of power are the absolute least qualified to try to legislate morality. Their credibility has been utterly shattered, what’s left for them to try to do now that they have no moral authority to do it?
Mojo 10.03.06 at 5:43 am
buzz,
You say that the emails show Foley to be a pervert and possibly a criminal, but if Hastert and the GOP House Leadership did not report possible criminal activity then what does that make them?
Hastert and the others knew that Foley was sexually pursuing teenage boys and yet they did nothing for purely political reasons. They see a big year for Democrats this year and they are anxious to retain control of the House, so they refused to investigate this matter for fear of losing a safe GOP seat in FL-16. This was about their jobs and not about the children.
And (not directed to buzz) we get to Frist who basically calls for a surrender to the Taliban. This weasel has given up. This is akin to, after WWII, calling for Nazis to be included in a coalition government in Germany (sorry, I too hate Nazi references).
Chris,
I think many we now see that Speaker Pelosi can never be as scary as Speaker Hastert.
Mojo 10.03.06 at 5:47 am
On the emails, I’ve read them and, no they are not as raunchy as the IMs, but Foley ask a teenage boy how old he is, when his birthday is so he can buy him something, and for him to send an email pic. How does this not raise a red flag? How do you not report this to law enforcement? How do you not initiate an immediate investigation? Hastert is a scumbag.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 6:54 am
CONGRESSMAN ATTACKS KIDS
For over 5 years members of Congress knew that interns under 18 were being sexually harassed by Congressman Foley. One kid was so upset by Congressman Foley s e-mails he said this is “freaking me out
John Konop 10.03.06 at 7:28 am
BTW ,for anyone think that my serve and defend line about Congress is over the top read the following:
Denny Hastert, who said the Act was critical in “preventing child exploitation, stopping child pornography and creating new criminal offense penalties protecting children from the Internet,” proclaimed:
“At home, we put the security of our children first and Republicans are doing just that in our nation’s House. We’ve all seen the disturbing headlines about sex offenders and crimes against children. These crimes cannot persist. Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists. . . That’s why today we passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
RandyMiller 10.03.06 at 7:44 am
Well, Buzz has a point that we need all the facts before us as this is a very serious matter. Also, just curious, who all new about this if it’s gone on 5 years, and why until now is this coming out of the closet? Surely someone should have spoken or done something before in either party?
Now, a question. I’m not an attorney so I don’t know. While what we’ve heard/read from the IM’s is pretty strange conversation between an 45 y.o. and a 16 y.o. is that considered enticing?
Either way I agree Foley should go; but I thought enticing was when someone lures an underage person to meet for sexual purposes.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 8:02 am
Randy,
It is a federal law to entice a minor into sex. This was part of the internet law.
As far as State laws I am not sure if Florida or D.C. law would apply, that is for a lawyer to explain!!
The biggest issue to me is child predators tend to act on kids not just send e-mail. In one of the e-mails I read he invited a kid on a date. That is why I posted the federal law above. You will see that Congress all are aware of the issue and passed tough laws.
If Congress had reported this to the police, they could of set up a sting operation to find out how far Foley would of gone. And also the police would of investigated if he had attack kids in the past.
That is why I keep saying this is a crime and common sense would tell you call the police and tell the parents.
RandyMiller 10.03.06 at 8:18 am
Thanks John, and yes, asking one of the kids on a date (under age 18) is a serious problem. And yes, someone should’ve done something about this a long time ago.
pvsys 10.03.06 at 8:24 am
John,
can you back up the following statement:
For over 5 years members of Congress knew that interns under 18 were being sexually harassed by Congressman Foley.
With hard, substantiated facts?
Not saying you can’t… I just want to make sure that hear-say and innuendo isn’t being mixed up with facts.
Also, I haven’t read the e-mails in question… but asking a page to send a photo or about their birthday is definitely suspicious, but NOT something that you’d contact law enforcement about. I think the key here is that if you view this action through the lens of ALREADY knowing that the person in question is a sexual predator… then, sure, these actions would seem sinister. But if viewed through the lens of someone respectable and admired, one might not even consider bad motives. Hindsight is 20/20.
Now, if John Konop can produce a better answer to my first question, or if there is something more damaging in those e-mails, then I stand corrected… or if it can be shown that the house leadership knew about the IMs much earlier, I also stand corrected.
Otherwise, they hype and hysteria on this thread is a bit beyond the facts. (other than the fact that we all agree that Foley is a scumbag)
–Rob McEwen
John Konop 10.03.06 at 8:50 am
Rob,
A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.
E-mails Show Foley Sought to Rendezvous with Page
Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor.
Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told “don’t get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.”
Staff members at the House clerk’s office did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Some of the sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley’s abrupt resignation Friday were sent to pages in Loraditch’s class.
Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominated them for the page program.
Several pages for members of Congress tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley, R-Fla.
Loraditch says the some of pages who “interacted” with Foley were hesitant to report his behavior because “members of Congress, they’ve got the power.” Many of the pages were hoping for careers in politics and feared Foley might seek retribution.
Loraditch runs the alumni association for the US House Page Program and he is deeply concerned about the future effects this scandal could have on a program that he sees as a valuable educational experience for teens.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2514259&page=1
Also Rob, any expert will tell you that we have no cure for being a child perdator. That is why Denny Hasert said, Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists. . . That’s why today we passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
kspencer 10.03.06 at 9:13 am
Bull Moose,
Tom Reynolds may have additional problems IF (and that is so far unconfirmed) the ABC report is correct. His chief of staff allegedly tried to get ABC to hide part of the story (the IMs) on Friday in exchange for an exclusive that Foley was going to resign.
Again, unconfirmed as far as I know at this time. And note it’s his Chief of Staff Kirk Fordham who did the actual (alleged) negotiating, not Reynolds himself. But if true it leaves Tom with some taint as well.
For all - the big thing that’s going to hurt Hastert is that he’s been caught lying about what he knew and when he knew it. Remember the Clinton mess? “It’s not the sex, it’s the lies.” Yes, the sex is what caught attention in the first place, but it’s still pretty simple that while you can quibble and doublespeak all you want once you flat-out lie you’re out.
Congressman Hastert is now an anchor. The only question is how much weight he’ll have on the GOP till they cut free of him.
Kirk
buzzbrockway 10.03.06 at 9:17 am
You say that the emails show Foley to be a pervert and possibly a criminal, but if Hastert and the GOP House Leadership did not report possible criminal activity then what does that make them?
You took me out of context mojo. Here’s what I said:
Knowing what we know now, the emails show Foley to be a pervert and possibly a criminal. But put yourself in their shoes. You work with Foley, he’s a valuable member of the GOP caucus, you have no idea he’s dangerous, and you confront him, tell him to knock it off and he says he will. What else could be done at that time, with that information? Now that ABC has produced the IM’s, yes throw the book at him.
rightofcenter 10.03.06 at 9:24 am
Buzz is the only one that makes sense on this. You other guys are as bad as the Democrats and the national media in distorting what is known and what has been suggested by those who would benefit by this being a political nuclear bomb. Go to the Drudge Report and read the Democratic talking points on this and then realize you are playing into their hands.
The facts that we know to date (or as admitted to by those involved - if it turns out they are not telling the truth, all bets are off): 1) the original emails to the page in Louisiana were not sexual in nature - odd, yes, but certainly not anything that could be used to fire a person over; 2) the leadership didn’t SEE the emails - they were just told about them and that they were not sexual in nature; 3) the parents of the page didn’t want it to be pursued, they just wanted it stopped; 4) no one in leadership knew about the IMs until ABC exposed them last week, and the IMs are the only reason this story is a story; without them, the emails are innocuous; 5) the page alumni president who said they were warned about Foley has now gone on the record to backtrack on his original story - go to read it on Drudge.
The FBI is investigating. If the “facts” change, it can be dealt with then. Until that time, perhaps we can do something besides read from the Democratic playbook.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 9:41 am
If the Democrats really wanted to take the high road they should ask Barney Frank to set down in public. Barney past record would not allow him to teach or coach minors. So why can he supervise 16 and 17 year olds in Congress? If Barney did not step down he should not be able to contact minors (interns)!!! This combined with all of Congress asking anyone evolved in not reporting Foley to the police and alerting parents should also resign would be a step in the right direction.
1. Read this from the Washington Post.
Gobie’s dream has come true. His accusation that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) knew that Gobie had operated a prostitution service out of Frank’s Capitol Hill apartment became national news after it was first reported Friday by the Washington Times.
Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm
pvsys 10.03.06 at 9:42 am
rightofcenter is correct!
John Konop:
To turn this statement from 5 years ago:
“don’t get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 9:43 am
rightofcenter,
Anyone reading the e-mails and did not report this to the police and tell parents ASAP should not be able to work with kids bottom line !
John Konop 10.03.06 at 9:46 am
Rob,
That was the warnings from congress to the interns not the e-mails!!!! If you read the e-mails which I will not print you would have to be blind not see something was wrong !!!!!
rightofcenter 10.03.06 at 9:49 am
John,
Please tell me what you would tell the police based on the emails? What would you tell the parents based on the emails? There’s nothing remotely criminal in the emails. Give me a break.
pvsys 10.03.06 at 9:52 am
John:
Are you sure you are not confusing the e-mails with the IMs? (At least that is what is sounds like you are doing)
Also, if you know of some e-mails which are much worse than what what has been discussed so far, then please just link to them if you don’t want to quote them.
The e-mails that I have read about so far are cause for concern, but could have just as easily and innocently been sent, for example, by a 70 year old grandmother to attendees of a sunday school class she teaches. They only seem sinister if you look at them through the lense of ALREADY knowing that the sender is a pedophile.
(but again, do you know of some other e-mails that we don’t know about?)
–Rob McEwen
John Konop 10.03.06 at 9:55 am
Rob,
read this link,
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html
I will give you more if you want.
pvsys 10.03.06 at 10:07 am
John,
The title of that article is “E-mails Show…”, but the actual content of the article describes IMs.
Again, I think you are confusing the tame e-mails that were known about much earlier with the not-tame IMs known about later.
You haven’t provide any new information or enlightenment with that link.
–Rob McEwen
John Konop 10.03.06 at 10:13 am
ROB,
Did you know a 16 year old kid went to his supervisor to complain?
RED FLAG
The Congress knew they had a problem or they would not of warned the interns!
RED FLAG
Instead of warning some of the pages Congress should of called the police and talk to parents!
RED FLAG
This is how this situation would be taken care of in the real world. If not all of the people evolved would be fired!!! And they would not be working with kids again!
buzzbrockway 10.03.06 at 10:21 am
John,
Ross is muddying the waters by calling them “emails” in the title and then “internet messages” in the body of his post. Ross then goes on to quote from the IM’s Foley and the kid exchanged.
Foley is a sicko who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, I just don’t see that the Congressional leadership did anything wrong.
Another person who should be questioned is the person who gave the IM’s to ABC. How long did this person have them, how did they obtain them and why didn’t they come forward sooner?
Mojo 10.03.06 at 10:27 am
pvsys,
I guess it doesn’t raise a red flag when a middle aged man asked for an email pic from a teenage boy.
You can read the emails here.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 10:29 am
Rob & Right of Center,
If a kid was “freak out
Mojo 10.03.06 at 10:31 am
John,
If this was a Democrat congressman and the Speaker was Nancy Pelosi they’d be plenty freaked out.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 10:33 am
Buzz,
Congress warned interns 5 years ago why?
Congress had to know something ?
You are the voice of reason ! So help me understand.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 10:41 am
Mojo,
Why are Democrats not calling for Barney Franks head ? This is like the lobbyist scandel , both parties argue you took more than me.
My point it is time for voters to send a message to Washington, you serve the people not yourself.
Mojo 10.03.06 at 10:59 am
John,
Because Frank is a Democrat and not a Republican.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 11:10 am
Mojo,
That is my point! This is not a party issue, it is about protecting kids. And if both parties cannot agree on this God help us !!!
Jen 10.03.06 at 11:18 am
Re: Barney Frank
Are you all referring to Steve Gobie (who was of age) or is there some scandal involving a minor that I’m not aware of.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 11:29 am
Jen,
You make my point. You want to split hairs about behavior that is wrong for any Congressman. Why not take the high road and say all of this is wrong for anyone in Congress? And we have no room for people like this serving our Country.
buzzbrockway 10.03.06 at 11:42 am
Read this from the Miami Herald. Apparently the Herald and other news papers also saw the emails and didn’t think they were newsworthy:
Some newspapers — including this one — knew of this message as well and did not find it worthy of a news story because it seemed innocuous. Thus, Democratic charges of a ”cover up” of Mr. Foley’s activities by the Republican House leadership seem not only premature but crassly political. But the discovery of other, more explicit, messages and confusion over who knew what and when raise questions that require answers — preferably, under oath and soon.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 11:49 am
Buzz,
In all due respect, if the newspapers knew that 5 years ago That Congress had warned interns about this behavior, I think they would of printed the story.
Demonbeck 10.03.06 at 11:49 am
John,
What would you suggest the federal government do to ensure that this never happens again?
Regardless of illegality, Mark Foley, as a role model and representative of his district, should have known that such e-mails would raise questions about him and, by extension, his party. His punishment and the legality of his actions will be decided by our broken judicial system.
pvsys 10.03.06 at 12:09 pm
John,
Implicit in your arguments is the idea that earlier suspicions (no matter small or vague) equals explicit knowledge that Foley is a pedophile.
But have you considered that it actually makes much sense that someone (who might have been very low on the totem-pole, btw) might have noticed some very tiny and inconclusive tell-tale signs which might have been completely misleading and, therefore, that person might have wanted to warn the pages in a nice way that wouldn’t get anyone in trouble if the warning came to light, especially considering that the person giving the warning might have known that their suspicions might have been completely false… but would have been helpful if that suspicion had proved valid?
This is actually a very plausible explanation.
But I love these new standards for evidence… where were these standards when Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of rape? (Very convincingly, I might add.)
According to these standards, Clinton should have resigned the presidency that very day!
–Rob McEwen
Jen 10.03.06 at 12:16 pm
John Konop,
I am not splitting hairs. Just above my comment you stated, “This is not a party issue, it is about protecting kids.” And to my knowledge, Barney Frank never slept with or tried to sleep with any kids.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 12:19 pm
Demonbeck,
If this happen at my company with minors, I would call the police and parents. This is a criminal matter for the police to figure out not me. Also my obligation is to the safety of my employees. I have dealt with similar situations ( not with minors) like suicide, threats against my employees….. I have even hired private security when I was aware of any of my employees were in danger from x spouses…….. If you talk to anyone in the HR business this is standard operating procedures.
If you are dealing with kids your tolerance level is low for this type of behavior. As I said the reason Congress wrote such a tough law that will put Foley away is child predators tend to go after the kids not just e-mail. Also any expert will tell you that there is no cure for people who are child predators.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 12:24 pm
Jen,
Barney Frank had a whore house running out of his apartment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would you hire this guy to watch your kids?
He is either a pervert or to incompetent to serve as a Congressman or both !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Konop 10.03.06 at 12:25 pm
Rob,
I do not think you see me giving a break to Democrats ?
CHelf 10.03.06 at 12:30 pm
First of all, every one of you who like to jump on this “well Democrats do it too” are sick. You have basically turned an issue of a child being abused into some little elementary school argument. I’d like to think that some of you adults would look at this a little more than just some little partisan campaign issue or slip-up. This is sick behavior that does not warrant any response about any other party or group out there. The fact is that the leadership was made known of this behavior and did nothing but talk to Foley and tell him to cease contact appalls me. This is as far as it went. Nothing changed in actions with pages, no changes were made in protocol, nothing was done to ensure this was not bigger than an email about a picture, and this was not even discussed with the full panel of those overseeing the pages. This was buried.
This is a program allowing underage kids from all over the country to come to the Capitol to participate in a program on learning more about their government and their elected leaders. And what happens? The system protects its own and throws the wolf back out to the sheep. There was enough questions raised to cause Hastert, Shimkus, and anyone else to look even deeper than a conversation with Foley and a promise to stop. No one bothered to see if other pages were involved or if there were more emails than what was known. Is this the half-assed effort this leadership puts towards protecting kids under their care?
Read this article here and tell me what you think as well. The GOP Congressman from LA, where the page in question is from, has quite a bit to add that makes this even worse.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006610030310
Demonbeck 10.03.06 at 12:31 pm
Barney Frank is a homosexual. Our Judicial system treats them like ambassadors. That’s why he’s still in Congress.
Bill Simon 10.03.06 at 12:40 pm
I’ll bet Rob or Right of Center that former House Whip Tom DeLay knew all about Foley’s predilections.
Why would he? Because that’s how he maintained order in the caucus and got them to vote in certain ways. He was like J. Edgar Hoover when it came to knowing where all the bodies were buried and where all the skeletons were hanging in the closet of the GOP House Caucus.
If the FBI is smart, they will go knock on his door and depose him.
Jen 10.03.06 at 12:44 pm
John Konop,
Whether I would hire Barney Frank to watch my children is irrelevant to the issue of whether he’s a sexual predator towards children.
And that’s what we’re talking about here.
We’re talking about a Representative who used to his position to prey on minors. You cannot equate that to hiring a hooker. It does a great disserve to the victims of sexual abuse.
Mojo 10.03.06 at 12:51 pm
buzz,
The Miami Herald speaks of a “message,” singular, there were more than one email. I wonder which message they saw, and if they saw them all, including the page’s emails as well, would they still have sat on the story? I doubt it.
Mojo 10.03.06 at 12:54 pm
pvsys,
Unlike Foley, I don’t think Clinton ever admitted, through some time of correspondence, that he committed such a crime. Foley had a clear history of this, or else pages would not have been warned of a certain congressman, couple that with the language of the emails and you have a clear case of a sexual predator preying on teenage boys.
Also, in the case of Broaddrick she continuously changed her story, even saying in 1997 in a sworn affidavit for the Paula Jones case that she had never been assaulted.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 12:55 pm
CHelf,
I am not comparing child abuse with what Barney Frank did. In fact I was outspoken about the Foley issue as a Republican when it first broke.
Yet to not be upset about Barney Frank having a whore house ran out of his apartment is crazy. And my point is both parties attack each other without cleaning up there own mess.
My position on this topic makes me a target from both sides as you see.
What would be wrong to have a Congressman say hey everyone should go not just the other side?
What would be wrong telling a guy with a whore house running out of his apartment you are not fit to serve?
If Barney was a school teacher and his apartment was being used as a whore house would we let him teach kids? So why would you let him supervise them in Washington?
I am not attacking Barney Frank for being gay, this is up to the voters (I think in the Boston area). I believe in States rights strongly and we would have less problems if we respected the rights of each State.
This is just about right and wrong that simple.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 1:02 pm
Jen,
You said, “Whether I would hire Barney Frank to watch my children is irrelevant ”
It is the bigger issue why can you not speak out against your own guy? This is killing the our political system.
You should read a book by JFK called Profiles in Courage
pvsys 10.03.06 at 1:04 pm
CHelf:
Just so you’ll know, I brought up the Juanita Broaderak rape allegations NOT to defend anyone! Therefore, if your comment was directed towards me, then you’ve put words in my mouth.
Instead, I brought it up because I find that any “outrage” from Democrats on this matter is disingenuous and “pure politics” considering that they looked the other way on Juanita Broaddrick and did their best to sweep that under the carpet!
Also, at this time, there is some debate over exactly what Republicans knew about this matter… but I’ve also heard (unsubstantiated) reports that Democrats knew about this as early as late 2005 but chose to sit on it until weeks before the elections, for maximum political gain.
I can’t prove that, but if this is later proven true, would not such Democrats LIKEWISE be putting children at risk by allowing this to go on so long without doing something about this earlier?
My point here is that:
(1) Until I’m told about more specific damaging things known about by the Republican leadership earlier, then I think they deserve to be considered innocent until proven guilty
(2) I’m having a hard time taking the “outrage” on the part of Democrats seriously, considering their selective outrage on such matters
(3) Shouldn’t what Dems knew and when be just as important and punishable as what Republicans knew and when?
–Rob McEwen
Jen 10.03.06 at 1:18 pm
John Konop,
It is the bigger issue why can you not speak out against your own guy?
If I had the opportunity, I would kick out plenty of folks. I think my problem with this whole issue is that when one person says, “Mark Foley!” someone else yells out “Barney Frank! Monica Lewinksy!” when I just can’t equate the two.
And yes, Gary Studds should have resigned.
pvsys 10.03.06 at 1:21 pm
Mojo, you said:
Broaddrick she continuously changed her story, even saying in 1997 in a sworn affidavit for the Paula Jones case that she had never been assaulted.
The rape occurred in 1978. That affidavit was in 1997. She came forward with the allegations in 1998 and said that she initially protected Clinton in the 1997 affidavit because, “I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn’t want to go through it again.”
Here is an expert from wikipedia:
There were four witnesses who told NBC that Broaddrick had revealed to them years ago that Clinton had brutally raped her in 1978. One was a nurse who told NBC that she tended to Broaddrick after the assault, applying ice to the victim’s bruised face and badly swollen lips. It was right after the attack that Broaddrick first revealed the rape, telling the nurse that Clinton had sex with her “against her will,” NBC reported. ABC News released a statement from Broaddrick friend Phillip Yoakum, who identified the nurse as Norma Rogers.
Keep in mind that if these events were conjured up out of thin air AFTER that 1997 affidavit (as you seem to imply), then Broaddrick would have had to have a time machine to go back and time and tell these 4 witnesses about these events years earlier.
More details here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33270
Regarding the “inconsistencies”… other prominent people have very thoroughly investigated her story and her witnesses and have found her story very credible and convincing.
–Rob McEwen
CHelf 10.03.06 at 1:32 pm
Rob,
Until something comes out that the Democrats knew something, you are only speculating and rumor-mongering. I am sticking to what has been released. Fact is that the leadership was made aware of some questionable behavior a year ago. Fact is little to nothing was done in response to this year old event to ensure this was not larger and did not involve other pages.
Rep. Rodney Alexander brought this up and nothing was pursued. Even if the page’s parents did not want to pursue this further, it was the leadership’s responsibility to take care of this with their own and the panel overseeing the page program’s job to ensure the pages were protected.
As for the Franks incident, this was wrong and happened years ago. This event is happening under the GOP’s watch. It is happening now. This Congress has already been labeled as a do-nothing Congress. Do they want to be equated to the one of 1983? Personally I’m a little more concerned with the current leadership than the one from 23 years ago.
pvsys 10.03.06 at 1:40 pm
CHelf:
To some extent, I agree with your last post and I think that is why the Washington Times rightly clarifies that its recommendation for Hastert to step down is based on the idea that even if Hastert didn’t fully understand the extent of the problem, at the least, he was negligent to not be more on top of this situation and to not takes steps to ensure that nothing was wrong. I don’t know that I agree with that, but it is a reasonable conclusion.
But my question about what Dems knew and when still applies regardless of what we know at the moment. Particularly due to the timing of this scandal! (and there is much investigation to be done)
Therefore, I’ll ask again (but with different wording):
Shouldn’t what Dems knew and when (IF it can be shown that they know about this a while ago) be just as important and punishable as what Republicans knew and when?
I think this is a fair question. If the Dems didn’t know about this much earlier, then they shouldn’t have anything to fear in this question, right?
–Rob McEwen
John Konop 10.03.06 at 1:56 pm
Rob,
IF ANYONE HELD BACK ANY INFORMATION AND DID NOT TELL THE POLICE AND PARENTS ASAP THEY SHOULD BE GONE , end of story!!!!!
Your Question is more than fair. You do not play politics with a kids life.
debbie0040 10.03.06 at 2:02 pm
Hastert respected the wishes of the VICTIM’s parents by not going public .
Great article that puts it in perspective.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs_ibd_ibd/2006102issues01
Did Democrats Page Mark Foley? Ibd
Mon Oct 2, 7:00 PM ET
Jace Walden 10.03.06 at 2:10 pm
Hastert should have resigned a looong time ago for having done relatively nothing as SOH to control spending or government expansion.
Bull Moose 10.03.06 at 2:20 pm
Of course Debbie defends the status quo… You don’t have a choice of doing nothing when it comes to breaking the law… This man was a predator and those that knew of his behavior should have taken steps to prevent it from happening again…
John Konop 10.03.06 at 2:21 pm
Debbie,
Hastert had a responsibility to every intern in the program. That even gives more of a reason why he needed to go the authorities ASAP and tell the parents. The parents did not need to know the name of the kid. The police could of run a sting operation without the kid. I cannot believe as a parent you would see this at least as poor judgment.
Mojo 10.03.06 at 2:23 pm
Uh oh, looks like Majority Leader Boehner is feeding Hastert to the crows: “I believe I talked to the Speaker and he told me it had been taken care of, and, and, and my position is it’s in his corner, it’s his responsibility. The Clerk of the House who runs the page program, the Page Board—all report to the Speaker. And I believe it had been dealt with.”
John Konop 10.03.06 at 2:23 pm
Bull Mouse,
Another voice of reason !!!
Mojo 10.03.06 at 2:25 pm
pvsy,
Haha, worldnetdaily? Really? Man, I got a good laugh.
debbie0040 10.03.06 at 2:29 pm
I agree that Hastert should have gone to the authorities when it was bought to his attention.
I agree with his decision not to notify the press and the Democrats.
Hastert should have removed Foley from his Committee Chairman position while it was being investigated.
Foley’s local press and Fox News also kept it quite. They kept it quite because they were afraid it would offend the gay community. It was not secret Foley was gay.
Mojo 10.03.06 at 2:30 pm
OMG, I can’t stop laughing…worldnetdaily…wikipedia says it all. I mean, Joseph Farah sits atop Worldnetdaily and he was heavily involved in the Arkansas project. Ask David Brock about Farah.
Jace Walden 10.03.06 at 2:31 pm
I guess it’s just another part of that “vast radical-gay” agenda, huh Debbie?
Mojo 10.03.06 at 2:32 pm
debbie,
Yeah, it is true that they would have kept a lid on this for fear of offending gays, I mean, a Federal Marriage Amendment isn’t as offensive, or refusal to allow gay adoption, but Foley is the last straw. /snark
debbie0040 10.03.06 at 2:34 pm
The FBI also did not follow up and investigate.
I just quoted wh at I read.
Read it yourself:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/03/america/NA_GEN_US_Congressman_Resigns.php
Leader of U.S. House defends handling of scandal involving congressman, young former page
The Associated Press
Meanwhile, Florida newspapers — who were leaked copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year — defended their decision not to run stories. Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News.
“Our decision at the time was … that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to ’sick,’ as the page characterized it, to be cautious,” said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. “Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story.”
CHelf 10.03.06 at 2:34 pm
Rob,
Again, I am more concerned with those in charge of ALL of this than those on the side. If Dems knew of this and sat on it until now, then they are as deplorable as Foley. I’m not a Democrat so I have no issues with this to a partisan level. What I do know is that this was sat on by the GOP leadership a year ago. I also know that several other media outlets including a few newspapers and Fox News sat on this story as well. I am quite surprised they did not investigate further. Obviously plenty of people had the chance to discover the same thing ABC did. I question why no one else did.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 2:38 pm
Debbie,
You cannot just tell interns who are Republicans.
That was wrong. Do you get kids are kids !!! All the parents and all of Congress ASAP !!!!!!!!!
Child predators kill kids to cover up !!!!!!
This is from Hastert,
“Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists” . . “That’s why today we passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
Mojo 10.03.06 at 2:41 pm
debbie,
Okay, so the newspapers do not want to convict others in print. That’s cool. But, how does that prevent Hastert from investigating the matter and taking care of the situation. I’m sure he could have kept an independent inquiry on the DL.
debbie0040 10.03.06 at 2:46 pm
I am not saying I agree with his decision not to refer it to law enforcement. He should have.
John, I did not even mention Republican interns or Democrat interns. Where on earth did you get that from? You don’t make sense. Read what is posted.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 2:55 pm
Debbie,
I am sorry if i read this wrong.
“I agree with his decision not to notify the press and the Democrats”.
That was part of the issue is only Republican interns( I am not sure if all ) knew not Democrats.
Demonbeck 10.03.06 at 2:57 pm
John,
There is a huge difference between interns and pages. I hope you know that.
First and foremost, interns are predominantly college students (and no longer minors.) Pages are high schoolers in 10th or 11th grade and are 16 or 17 years old.
John Konop 10.03.06 at 3:01 pm
Demonbeck,
I am sorry you are right. I did make that mistake. Thank you jk
debbie0040 10.03.06 at 3:21 pm
I was talking about the Democrat leadership. Hastert was told by the victim’s parents not to pursue it, and Hastert had no reason to believe that this was not an isolated incident.
Hastert should have notified law enforcement but he did notify the Congressman that recommended the page.
pvsys 10.03.06 at 3:23 pm
Mojo:
Your comments:
I can’t stop laughing
…demonstrate that you are obviously a partisan hack and you don’t have the facts to back up your assertions… so you resort to personal attacks which don’t prove anything.
Personally, I don’t find rape to be a laughing matter (as you obviously do) and, in fact, everything I quoted and linked to is very well substantiated in MANY places and has not been proven wrong. If you’d like me to source this in mainstream media sources, let me know. I’d be happy to.
But you’d rather attack the messager than deal with the fact that there is actually MUCH proof that Bill Clinton raped Juanita and very little evidence to the contrary.
But, hey… I think it speaks volumes about your intentions on this thread that you are so willing to blow off Juanita yet, at the same time are trying your hardest to get “Hastert and the GOP House Leadership” in trouble as best you can over this issue.
I think it is obvious that the target of the scandal is your primary motivation, not the crime itself. …which again proves my point that Democrats are disingenuous about this matter.
–Rob McEwen
John Konop 10.03.06 at 3:31 pm
Debbie,
Not true, remember his speach about Adam Walsh law. That is why Hastert called child predators as the same as “terrorists
John Konop 10.03.06 at 3:47 pm
debbie,
BTW, if you think I am wrong about guys like Foley acting on kids , the story just broke he did. The sad part this story usual ends with police finding more victums.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html
Bull Moose 10.03.06 at 3:52 pm
Um, had Hastert launched an appropriate investigation, he would have found out that this was NOT an isolated incident and other minors would not have been subjected to this Congressman’s advances.
Just as such, the entire membership of the Page Board, Republicans and Democrats should have been notified.
There is nothing that can be said in defense of those who tried to make light of this incident.
Just know that had an investigation occured when Hastert and Company knew about this last year, a lot of this would have been avoided.
caroline 10.03.06 at 4:05 pm
Tragic and horrible. Very sad is all I can say.
pvsys 10.03.06 at 4:13 pm
These types of statements are driving me crazy:
when Hastert and Company knew about this
Why? Because there is MUCH that Hastert did NOT know about until the past few days!
(But, I have to agree that there is a fairly solid case here for negligence and lack of due diligence on Hastert’s part…. considering the little he did know about then.)
–Rob McEwen
Mojo 10.03.06 at 4:22 pm
pvsys,
“demonstrate that you are obviously a partisan hack and you don’t have the facts to back up your assertions… so you resort to personal attacks which don’t prove anything.”
This is funny considering that you base your entire argument on worldnetdaily which was started by a man heavily involved in the Arkansas Project.
“Personally, I don’t find rape to be a laughing matter (as you obviously do) and, in fact, everything I quoted and linked to is very well substantiated in MANY places and has not been proven wrong. If you’d like me to source this in mainstream media sources, let me know. I’d be happy