Washington Times calls for Speaker Hastert’s Resignation

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

  1. Bull Moose says:

    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.

  2. Bill Simon says:

    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.

  3. Bill Simon says:

    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.”

  4. GetReal says:

    If anyone doubted the magnitude of this scandal, that paper calling for that action should just about put a rest to the doubt.

  5. RiverRat says:

    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?

  6. Bull Moose says:

    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…

  7. Bull Moose says:

    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… 

     

  8. buzzbrockway says:

    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.

  9. Bill Simon says:

    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.

  10. Chris says:

    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?

  11. Mojo says:

    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.

  12. Mojo says:

    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.

  13. John Konop says:

    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

  14. John Konop says:

    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.

  15. RandyMiller says:

    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.

  16. John Konop says:

    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.

  17. RandyMiller says:

    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.

  18. pvsys says:

    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

  19. John Konop says:

    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.

  20. kspencer says:

    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

  21. buzzbrockway says:

    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.

  22. rightofcenter says:

    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.

  23. John Konop says:

    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

  24. pvsys says:

    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.

  25. John Konop says:

    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 !

  26. John Konop says:

    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 !!!!!

  27. rightofcenter says:

    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.

  28. pvsys says:

    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

  29. pvsys says:

    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

  30. John Konop says:

    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!

  31. buzzbrockway says:

    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?

  32. Mojo says:

    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.

  33. Mojo says:

    John,

    If this was a Democrat congressman and the Speaker was Nancy Pelosi they’d be plenty freaked out.

  34. John Konop says:

    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.

  35. Jen says:

    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.

  36. John Konop says:

    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.

  37. buzzbrockway says:

    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.

  38. John Konop says:

    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.

  39. Demonbeck says:

    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.

  40. pvsys says:

    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

  41. Jen says:

    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.

  42. John Konop says:

    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.

  43. John Konop says:

    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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  44. CHelf says:

    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

  45. Demonbeck says:

    Barney Frank is a homosexual. Our Judicial system treats them like ambassadors. That’s why he’s still in Congress.

  46. Bill Simon says:

    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.

  47. Jen says:

    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.

  48. Mojo says:

    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.

  49. Mojo says:

    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.

  50. John Konop says:

    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.

  51. John Konop says:

    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

  52. pvsys says:

    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

  53. Jen says:

    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.

  54. pvsys says:

    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

  55. CHelf says:

    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.

  56. pvsys says:

    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

  57. John Konop says:

    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.

  58. Bull Moose says:

    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…

  59. John Konop says:

    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.

  60. Mojo says:

    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.”

  61. debbie0040 says:

    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.

  62. Mojo says:

    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.

  63. Mojo says:

    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

  64. debbie0040 says:

    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.”

  65. CHelf says:

    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.

  66. John Konop says:

    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.

  67. Mojo says:

    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.

  68. debbie0040 says:

    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.

  69. John Konop says:

    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.

  70. Demonbeck says:

    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.

  71. debbie0040 says:

    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.

  72. pvsys says:

    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

  73. Bull Moose says:

    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.

  74. pvsys says:

    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

  75. Mojo says:

    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 to.”

    Again, by the worldnetdaily and the Arkansas Project. No one else.

    “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.”

    I have never seen any evidence that he raped that woman, she herself has recanted and changed her testimony numerous times. It reminds me of that girl that accused the Duke lacrosse team of rape. Some of these women are actually lying. During my service in the United States Army I knew a female soldier that falsely accused two NCOs of sexual harassment and a third of rape. It is sick, but it does happen.

    “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

  76. Mojo says:

    pvsys,

    “Why? Because there is MUCH that Hastert did NOT know about until the past few days!”

    He knew enough.

  77. Chris says:

    Jeees at all the selfrighteousness being spewed in here. John, the parents in LA knew something was up, why don’t you go after them with the same energy you go after the others and demand to know why THEY didn’t call the police? Don’t limit this to the politicians, if you’re really concerned about those kids up there. Anyone who knew about it has an obligation to notify law enforcement, and those who don’t should be prosecuted as accomplices. Now get on with it and go after all of those responsible for the wellbeing of those boys and stop making it a political issue only.

    Personally I don’t think anybody really cares about the boys’ wellbeing in this, Dems, Republicans nor the onlookers. Boys not much older than these are sent off to fight and die for an unjust war with inadequate plans and insufficient gear, authorized by these very same people, so protecting our young ones are not really that high up on the list of priorities for anybody in authority in Washington.

    And, are parents yanking their kids out of the page program over this? Not that I’ve seen. It appears the whole thing is a scandal for scandal’s sake, and all the riches and rewards scandals can generate.

    John wants to know why nobody’s going after the Dems for committing similar immoral acts, well consider that the Dems are not in charge of ANYTHING right about now, and are most definitely not trying to pass laws dictating how people live their lives in private. Those who ARE trying to pass such laws are now demonstrating their moral bankruptcy and utter lack of authority to preach to the rest of the world how they’re supposed to live.

  78. John Konop says:

    Chris,

    The parents are in a tough situation. That is why in cases like this you report them to the police right away. Once you know who child predators are catching them is the easy part. Foley is like a drug addict and they always need their fix.

    That is why you also tell parents because the story almost always ends with multiple victims. And hopefully this time nobody got killed to cover his tracks.

    As far as the Democrat issue. All I am saying is we need both sides to worry less how it looks and do the right thing. Bull Mouse had a lot of guts to say what he said.

    At the end you have to say you respect Bull Mouse for what he said and it was the right thing. Do you not think if we acted honest instead of being partisan hacks would that not force Congress to do the same?

  79. CHelf says:

    The parents are responsible for their child’s well being. Hastert, Shimkus, etc. are responsible for the entire page program of however many teenagers from across the country that come to DC to participate in this program. These parents are responsible for their children. Those in charge of this in Congress are responsible for their own behavior and what goes on with the children in their charge while there in DC.

  80. pvsys says:

    you base your entire argument on worldnetdaily

    I only linked to the wnd page because it had one of the most detailed sources about a particular interview with the nurse who had examined Juanita’s injuries immediately after the rape… but Juanita’s testimony and the 4 people who she discussed this incident with, including that nurse, have been discussed in MANY news outlets. (didn’t I already say this!!!)

    But, again, you obviously hate WND, so you are trying to make WND the issue while ignoring the very credible witnesses in this case.

    I have never seen any evidence that he raped that woman

    Many people have been convicted in a court of law for similar crimes with less evidence. Sure, there is no DNA evidence… but much corroborating circumstances and verification by witnesses.

    OK… so you are going to believe Clinton over Juanita when:

    (1) we now know about Monica …Monica wasn’t in the picture when these rape allegations 1st came out

    (2) Since that time, it was proven in a court of law that in a sexual harassment lawsuit Clinton presented to the court an affidavit which both Clinton and Clinton’s attorney knew in advance was false. This is highly illegal and, in fact, led to Clinton’s disbarment in Arkansas.

    (3) I’m quite sure you’d now be saying similar things about inconsistencies in Monica’s story Monica she didn’t happen to keep that blue dress handy.

    (4) There is no comparison of Juanita to the Duke lacrosse allegations. Juanita owned a nursing home business and was a respected member of the community. As I understand it, the Duke Lacrosse accuser admits to having casual sex at other times that very same week. The two accusers have dramatically different ethical standards and there is really no comparison between the two. Also, unlike Clinton, there is no history or similar misbehavior with the Duke players… or at least not a history involving additional sexual harrassment allegations.

    But the overall point is simply that, Democrat or not, anyone who so easily blows off Juanita’s allegations but then expects massive resignations of the house republican leadership over Foley is inconsistent at best and more likely a disingenuous partisan hack.

    –Rob McEwen

  81. Mojo says:

    pvsys,

    “But, again, you obviously hate WND, so you are trying to make WND the issue while ignoring the very credible witnesses in this case.”

    Yeah, I don’t care for WND, and I haven’t seen any credible witnesses. So?

    “Many people have been convicted in a court of law for similar crimes with less evidence. Sure, there is no DNA evidence… but much corroborating circumstances and verification by witnesses.”

    Then why wasn’t he convicted, in a criminal or civil court? Ken Starr himself felt that Broaddrick’s claim was not credible. It merited a footnote in his report.

    “(1) we now know about Monica …Monica wasn’t in the picture when these rape allegations 1st came out”

    I’m not for sure if you know this but there is a difference b/w consensual and non consensual sex. I certainly hope you know this.

    “(3) I’m quite sure you’d now be saying similar things about inconsistencies in Monica’s story Monica she didn’t happen to keep that blue dress handy.”

    Probably not being that there were actual recorded conversations from Monica and her recollection of the incidents was continuously spot on. Oh yeah, and she never recanted and changed her story like Broaddrick.

    “(4) There is no comparison of Juanita to the Duke lacrosse allegations. Juanita owned a nursing home business and was a respected member of the community.”

    Oh, so it was okay for those lacrosse players to rape her if they wanted? Wow, and I get accused of being insensitive.

    “As I understand it, the Duke Lacrosse accuser admits to having casual sex at other times that very same week.”

    Easy women deserve to get raped I guess.

    If Ken Starr and investigators decided it didn’t merit prosecution. If she changed her story, then I guess I’d have to say there is a reason to doubt her story.

    But, I’d have given it the same consideration that I do now, but when this all blew up I was 15 and didn’t give a damn about politics or the president, so I can’t say. All I know is that my attention is on the current scandal and it appears, listening to Boehner and Reynolds, that Hastert may be involved in a coverup. At worst he is an opportunistic scumbag, and at best he is a negligent incompetent. Either way, the man does not deserve to sit in such a dignified chair. I don’t have the facts and evidence of Juanita Broaddrick before me, and frankly I don’t care, I never liked Clinton anyway, but I can see the evidence and messages and emails of Foley and the possible coverup. And, like I said I am not a Democrat so I can’t be a partisan hack, as a matter of fact, I’m a registered Republican so you can quit with that bit of b.s. It’s getting a little old.

  82. pvsys says:

    Mojo:

    You are really good at taking other’s statements out of context and adding meanings which were clearly not originally intended.

    First, YOU are the one who brought up the Duke case… but ALL I was saying is that a nursing home owner who volunteered for Clinton’s campaign AND a nurse who attended to Juanita afterwards are much more credible witnesses in a rape allegation than an exotic dancer with a history of frequent casual sex. That is all I said… nothing more. Nothing less. For example, I never said that the exotic dancer didn’t have a case or didn’t deserve her day in court or didn’t get raped.

    Regarding Starr, it was my understanding that he had a particular range or focus and that he dutifully stayed within this range during his investigation and that is why he didn’t open up his inquiry to include Juanita. Certainly, the fact that the rape occurred about 20 years before Clinton even took office probably had much to do with this as well.

    And my point about Monica was simply that I recall many who initially discounted Juanita saying… “hey, maybe that rape really did happen” after the Monica situation came out… the point being an overall pattern of sexual conquest… sometimes in the form of rape, other times in the form of sex with subordinates… both stemming from the same need to use power as a means the achieve sex and both forming a general pattern which many didn’t acknowledge until AFTER Monica. THAT is why I brought up Monica! (something else you took out of context, as usual)

    But what I find startling is… why do you so desperately need to defend Clinton and trash Juanita?

    Certainly, I never imagined that anyone would defend Clinton in this matter… but thank you for showing everyone the Left’s hypocrisy in these matters.

    –Rob McEwen

  83. Mad Dog says:

    Bill,

    I agree with your post back at:

    Bill Simon // Oct 3rd 2006 at 12:40 pm

    Not much intelligent being said on this thread anymore.

  84. Chris says:

    Oh we know it’s incorrect, as is about 99% of everything else Fox News spews. What are you planning to do about it, besides condone it and hope it registers with enough people to think it’s a Democratic scandal.

  85. Chris says:

    Omitting someone’s party affiliation to protect the party’s reputation is a helluva lot different than getting the party WRONG. And I have seen that party designation omission repeatedly in the press over the last several years, ALWAYS protecting the republicans. Every single sinner Democrat has been loudly labeled as such, while the more demure and innocent republicans go all ambiguous without party affiliation ever being mentioned.

  86. pvsys says:

    Omitting someone’s party affiliation to protect the party’s reputation is a helluva lot different than getting the party WRONG.

    Good point. Can’t argue with that. Fox was simply wrong. You are totally correct! (Btw – are they STILL doing this?)

    But for this statement:

    And I have seen that party designation omission repeatedly in the press over the last several years, ALWAYS protecting the republicans.

    …I couldn’t disagree with more. For example, check out the page linked in my 10:12 pm post… and read the comment there as well.

    –Rob McEwen

  87. Chris says:

    You know what would be even sweeter is if enough of the Fox viewership were already aware that Fox is the GOP propaganda mouthpiece and saw that blatant mislabeling as more attempts to lie and cover up the truth, pushing these people past the tipping point to finally say enough is enough with the lies and distortions and deceipt, and be gone with all of you.

    That would be justice, if the Fox viewers finally recognized what kind of spell they’ve been under for the last 5-6 years and woke up.

  88. Chris says:

    I did read the post, it was a complaint about a Democratic governor whose party affiliation was hidden on page 2 of some news report.

    And at least the affiliation was revealed. Not like the ones I’m talking about, where you search up and down the article to figure out what party so and so belonged to, while the Democrats involved are clearly labeled.

  89. Chris says:

    Speaking of how effective that sort of omission is, the whole time Bob Packwood’s sexual harassment scandal was in the news I thought he was a Democrat. I only discovered he was a republican about 3 years ago.

  90. Dorabill says:

    Amen Chris
    Fox news is trying to keep republicans in line just long enough for the concrete to dry so it seems with their “dubya” worship.

  91. Mojo says:

    As far as I know FoxNews showed the incorrect party affiliation of Foley three separate times. Should I be surprised?

  92. Dorabill says:

    Right now the House is the only reason they haven’t passed an amnesty bill. the Senate is becoming a branch of the Executive. So how selective is this witch hunt going to be, where’s it coming from, (and how did they vote on amnesty?) Yeah, let’s go after the pervs and lawbreakers–in the house, senate, and white house.

  93. Bill Simon says:

    Chris,

    That you didn’t know Packwood was a Republican at the time of the incident demonstrates, not that the “media” is flawed, but that you weren’t paying attention.

  94. John Konop says:

    As I said child predators almost always have a history of going after multiple victims.

    Read this form the Washington Post.

    In 1995, male House pages were warned to steer clear of a freshman Republican from Florida, who was already learning the names of the teenagers, dashing off notes, letters and e-mails to them, and asking them to join him for ice cream, according to a former page.

    Mark Beck-Heyman, now a graduate student in clinical psychology at George Washington University, and more than a dozen other former House pages said in interviews and via e-mail that Rep. Mark Foley was known to be extraordinarily friendly in a way that made some of them uncomfortable
    Beck-Heyman, who was a Republican page and is now a Democrat, said the attention was “weird,” and he provided a handwritten letter that Foley sent him after the page left Washington to return home to California. The note suggested that they get together during the Republican National Convention in San Diego in 1996.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301633.html

  95. Chris says:

    Actually Bill, it’s a combination of not paying close enough attention to pick up the party affiliation, and being convinced at the time that republicans didn’t do sex because of their moral selfrighteousness.

  96. John Konop says:

    Debbie,

    So what does any of that have to do with how the leadership of the House demonstrated gross negligence in this situation? I hope you are not saying, because the Democrats did not get rid of Barney Frank that it was ok to turn a blind eye to Foley? So we punish kids because people in Congress cannot act like adults?

  97. Chris says:

    Just 10? Wow, wanna see what’s under the GOP skirts? http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals

    , Republican legislator, was sentenced to 13 years in prison for molestation of his daughter and her friend for eight-year period starting when they were 9. Full Article

    Randal David Ankeney, Republican activist, arrested on suspicion of sexual assault on a child with force. He faces 6 charges related to getting a 13-year-old girl stoned on pot and then having sex with her. Source Also accused of sexually assaulting another girl. Denver ABC Article

    Dick Armey (R-Texas), former professor, has been accused by The Dallas Observer of sexually harassing female students.

    Jim Bakker, televangelist with Pat Robertson at Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting network. Committed adultery with Jessica Hahn [1] and then used charitable donations to pay her hush money[2]. Fellow televangelists say he’s gay. [3][4]Indicted on 23 federal charges of fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering [5].

    Merrill Robert Barter, Republican County Commissioner, pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy. Booth Bay Register Article

    Robert Bauman, Republican congressman and anti-gay activist, was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar. Source: Washington Blade

    Parker J. Bena, Republican activist and Bush Elector, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography (including children as young as 3 years old) on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000. Source

    Howard L. Brooks, Republican legislative aide and advisor to a California assemblyman, was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography. Sacramento Bee article

    Andrew Buhr, Republican politician, former committeeman for Hadley Township Missouri, was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy. Source

    Ted Bundy campaigned for the Republican Party. Infamous serial rapist who murdered 16 women. Source: BBC [Chris’s note: I had no idea Bundy was a republican, or even political]

    John Allen Burt, Republican anti-abortion activist, convicted of sexually molesting a 15 year old girl at the home for troubled girls that he ran. Source: Pensacola News Journal

    Dan Burton, Republican Congressman who, while married, fathered a child by another woman. Salon.com Article

    Neil Bush, brother or G. W. Bush, in a March 2003 divorce deposition, admitted repeatedly having sex with strange women who just showed up at his room while on an Asian business trip. (Overshadowing the sex scandal; the business scandal–see link.) Washington Post article.

    John Butler, Republican activist, was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

    Ken Calvert, Congressman (R-Ca), champion of the Christian Coalition and its “family values.” Sued as an alimony deadbeat by his ex-wife. Said “We can’t forgive what occurred between the President and Lewinsky.” In 1993 he was caught by police receiving oral sex from a prostitute and attempted to flee the scene.

    Keola Childs, Republican County Councilman, pleaded guilty to sexual assault in the first degree for molesting a male child.Honolulu Star-Bulletin Article

    Kevin Coan, Republican St. Louis Election Board official, arrested and charged with trying to buy sex from a 14-year-old girl whom he met on the Internet. Source: Newmax

    Roy Cohn, continually condemned gays and gay rights. Was a closet gay who died of AIDS. Wikipedia Article

    Carey Lee Cramer Political consultant and anti-Kerry ad producer, tried for molesting two young girls, one of whom lived with him, and was 8 yrs old; the other starred in an anti-Kerry commercial. Diary Diary. The Monitor.

    Dan Crane, Republican Congressman, married, father of six. Received a 100% “Morality Rating” from Christian Voice. Had sex with a minor working as a congressional page. Salon.com article On July 20, the House voted for censure Crane, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.[6]

    Paul Crouch Televangelist, Former President of Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Paid $425,000 in hush money in an attempt to cover up a gay affair. Christianity Today article

    Richard A. Dasen Sr., Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, convicted of sexual abuse of children, promotion of prostitution and several counts of solicitation, enough to add up to a sentence of 126 years in prison. Investigators estimated that he spent up to $5,000,000 on prostitutes.

    Richard A. Delgaudio, Republican fundraiser and Bush pioneer, was found guilty of child porn charges. WBAL Channel article

    Peter Dibble, Republican legislator pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl. News Channel 8 Article

    Nicholas Elizondo, Director of the Young Republican Federation molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison. Halfway down this Bakersfield Californian article

    Larry Dale Floyd, Republican Constable in Denton County, Texas Precinct Two. Arrested for allegedly crossing state lines to have sex with an 8-year old child and was charged with 7 related offenses. Age 62 at time of arrest. Dallas News Article | Atrios Article

    John Fund, of the Wall Street Journal, a prominent anti-abortion columnist and GOP fund raiser. He lost his position after it was revealed that he impregnated the daughter of an old girlfriend and then encouraged her to abort his child. American Politics Journal Article

    Jack W. Gardner, Republican Councilman, had been convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl. when the Republican Party, knowing of these crimes, put him on the ballot. Article with documents

    Richard Gardner, a Nevada State Representative (R), admitted to molesting his two daughters. Review Journal Article

    The list is in alphabetical order, so you see there’s plenty more to learn about.

  98. Chris says:

    Don’t forget the honorable Henry Hyde who was in the middle of an extramarital affair the whole time he was attacking Clinton for having no morals.

  99. John Konop says:

    We have two parties that protect incumbents. And now we are in a contest as to which party has done the worse job. I have a hint look at both list and you might find a trend. Term limits are looking real goooooooood about now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  100. pvsys says:

    Getting back the the specific original topic of this thread, I was going to get back on this thread and mention that I kind of sympothize with Hastert because, it turns out that the original e-mail exchange that Hastert DID know about had an innocent sounding pretense.

    Appearently, the page was from the gulf area and this was soon after Katrina and Foley simply explained that he was checking on the page. Under this context and this this explaination in mind, it makes those original e-mails seem well within the range of normal.

    Therefore, from Hastert’s point of view, and NOT knowing what we know now about Foley, I can see how ANYONE would have easily not seen much of ANYTHING to be concerned about in those original e-mails.

    Also, speaking of misleading new reports (since this has been discussed much in recent posts)… the absolute most misleading thing reported in the news media right now is how the news media keeps talking about how “republican leadership knew about this last year”… when, as far as we know for sure, they actually knew very little compared to what we know now. But no matter, the mainstream news media would prefer to report this in a way that leads the general public into thinking that Hastert and others know about the more tawdry IMs last year. (But I’d venture a guess that all those asking for Hastert could care less about this point)

    But I guess this whole thread is for not since it has just been revealed that the teen in the explicit IMs was 18 at the time of the IMs!

    Unless I’m mistaken, what is amazing about this is that the networks and others who already knew the identity of the boy were reporting the IMs as happening when when the boy was 16… but the networks KNEW that he was 18 at the time that they reported this… so, in a sense, we’ve been fed a deception by the media.

    Oh… sure, they SAY that they have other IMs that were sent before the teens 18th birthday… but it still begs the question… (we’ll see, I guess) why did they pass THESE off as being with a boy under 18?

    Furthermore, if it cannot be shown that any improper exchanges occurred with pages under the age of 18… and everything that happened was consentual… then how/why would this be any worse that what Clinton did with Monica?

    –Rob McEwen

  101. pvsys says:

    I should add that even if everything reported happened with pages or former pages that were 18+, I still think that Foley should have resigned and is/was a scumbag… but I just wonder what all changes in this under such circumstances… and I’m frustrated that the mainstream news knew about these details and through an unintended mistake, has been caught pushing a story that isn’t quite as bad in reality as what they reported. (They DID know the identity of the page!)

    Therefore, when you take the “protect the kids” angle somewhat out of this… it takes the “oomph” somewhat out of this story. And, frankly, this attempted deception by the mainstream news reminds me of their peddling of the national guard fake documents.

    –Rob McEwen

  102. Mad Dog says:

    Didn’t it just come out this evening that this was reported 3 years ago?

    New details and all that?

    and I kind of get the idea that with the new details … the story gets worse than first reported?

    So where’s all the conspiracy by the bleeding heart liberal media?

    “Kirk Fordham, who was Foley’s top aide until January 2004, said he had “more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene” several years ago.”

    So the bleeding heart liberal media is making up this Kird Fordham dude and his entire story?

    So it’s all lies and dayum lies…

    Republicans are still the only perfect people! Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure.

  103. pvsys says:

    >So where’s all the conspiracy
    >by the bleeding heart liberal media?

    It doesn’t take a conspiracy… mere over-eagerness… just as in the fake national guard docs

    Also, remember, I’m not saying that this is a non-story and I’m not saying that Folley didn’t do anything wrong… he DID do wrong.

    All I’m saying is that:

    (1) at the least, VERY careless reporting has occured which made the situation look much worse than it is

    (2) I’m not so sure than anyone knows for absolute certain that Folley had any communication of a sexual nature with anyone under the age of 18… not saying I’d be surprised if such did occur… but I’m not sure, at this point, that anyone can point to such an incident with any reasonable level of certainty.

    –Rob McEwen

  104. pvsys says:

    Oh yeah:

    Republicans are still the only perfect people! Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure.

    So is THAT what this is all about for you, Mad Dog?

    –Rob McEwen

  105. Chris says:

    Rob – It doesn’t take a conspiracy… mere over-eagerness… just as in the fake national guard docs

    You really want to talk about those? The docs may have been fake (never proven), but the story they told were true. Why does that fact not phase you? And just WHO forged them, and why weren’t they prosecuted for forging military documents, or sued for libel?

  106. Chris says:

    Re this Foley thing, I believe it’s being blown up larger than it really is also. I don’t consider 16-17-18 year olds to be children by any stretch of the imagination (withholding sexism rant about the exploitation of youth sexuality in the country’s commercial marketing strategies), and would hardly accuse Foley of something as bad pedophilia or child sex abuse, unless there are things we don’t know yet involving people far younger than these pages.

    (Youth sexuality exploitation rant ensues) So, what’d everybody think when Britney Spears and Leann Rhimes and Jessica Simpson took the nation by storm? Lotta lotta droolin’ going on over those gals, all fine and dandy. But let somebody dare try to touch it, and wham! In the slammer they go, the whole lot of them. So what’s with all the normal, acceptbale “enticement” emanating from our national moral fabric? The entire country is a bunch of perverts, just. like.Foley.

  107. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    If a 50 year old teacher ask my kid for his picture via e-mail (mind you he just saw him walking the halls) I would of called the police and went to the school ASAP. And if the School did nothing, and did not isolate this guy from kids ASAP until a full police investigation I would call every media outlet and called parents myself! So are you saying Congress is held to a different standard than a teacher, coach……?

    Rob how you cannot see this is a RED FLAG I do not get. Also for Congressman Tom Reynolds who knew the details and say nothing, and hit the guy up for 100k donation to the candidates is morally empty! Their job is to Defend, Protect and Serve our Country not re-election campaigns.

    The party will do better to take responsibility for the situation and get rid of all evolved. And then ask the Democrats to do the same. Long term this would make the party stronger.My guess both parties will keep pointing fingers

  108. Mojo says:

    pvsys,

    Middle aged men don’t normally ask for an email pic from a teenage boy. Also, there were more than one page that he contacted via IM. He had internet sex with two pages during House business.

  109. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    Roy Blunt sounds like an adult.

    Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, third-ranking GOP leader, pointedly told reporters he would have handled the Foley matter differently than Hastert, had he known of it.
    “I think I could have given some good advice here, which is, you have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of,

  110. pvsys says:

    If a 50 year old teacher ask my kid for his picture via e-mail (mind you he just saw him walking the halls) I would of called the police and went to the school ASAP.

    And wouldn’t you feel REAL embarrassed if you came to the school after that phone call and found out that your child’s picture was intended on a collage of photos on a billboard honoring particular children for some type of achievement?

    Again, in the context of knowing more about Foley, this photo request seems very, very sick… but, otherwise, under “normal circumstances”, Foley could have merely wanted to put the photo in a newsletter to constituents. (“here is my page who survived Katrina”)

    –Rob McEwen

  111. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    If that was the case the teacher, coach Congressman would of said the photo was for X or Y. Yet if they were strange statements that made my kid call the guy sick 13 times, I still would on gone to the school and police ASAP.

    You are a smart guy, I am sure you would not of done what Hastert did or other party leaders.

    This is how an adult acts,

    Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, third-ranking GOP leader, pointedly told reporters he would have handled the Foley matter differently than Hastert, had he known of it.
    “I think I could have given some good advice here, which is, you have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of,

  112. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    The party needs to get rid of anyone evolved ASAP. This story is so bad it could kill 2008.Now it looks like a Republican aide was the one who leak the e-mails. I would bet they had enough of doing nothing. You have to know when to cut your loses.

    Alexander Bolton

    The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.
    That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.
    The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.
    But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.

    http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html

  113. pvsys says:

    John,

    It remains to be seen exactly who knew what when… but it is “easy” for a guy like Blunt to “monday morning quarterback” this thing and pile on a congressman who already resigned in disgrace.

    It is much harder to accuse a congressman of such when there is scant and VERY inconclusive evidence at a time when that congressman is at the height of his power.

    Also, just because an aide or some other pages knew more specific details didn’t necessarily mean that the Republican leadership knew anything about this situation.

    One thing that is easy to forget is that the leaders in Congress have much more responsibilities than just the page program and there are HUNDREDS of congressman… even HUNDREDS of Republican congressman… For example, I’d bet that months go by between one-on-one conversations between Hastert and most Republican Representatives.

    When you say, “The party needs to get rid of anyone evolved ASAP“… why stop there? If this is really an issue of safty of “the children”, then why not target ALL involve, regardless of party?

    As sick to my stomach as I am about Foley’s behavior, I’m also getting ill about what I preceive on this thread to be a pretense of “lets protect the children”, when the motive seems for many seems as much (or more??) to be “lets use this to tear the Republican party apart just before an election”.

    –Rob McEwen

  114. Mad Dog says:

    I don’t see any careless reporting, by the media.

    The only carelessness I can see in this story is by Republicans in not reporting and acting on the reports.

    It didn’t have to be a public confrontation or torture in Gitmo.

    A little bait and a sting would have worked.

    BTW,

    How did Foley get the screen ID’s for these kids?

    OPS!

    Nice security

  115. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    This is a good question.

    • When you say, “The party needs to get rid of anyone evolved ASAP“… why stop there? If this is really an issue of safty of “the children

  116. pvsys says:

    >I don’t see any careless reporting, by the media

    The most illicit and revolting IM was between Foley and a page who was 18 at the time of the IM. But ABC News reported in this particular case that the page was “under the age of 18.” Very careless reporting!

    Tell you what, if you had scandelous affair with an 18 year old girl, but the local newspaper ran a story reported that the girl was 16 or 17, I think that you understand this is no small detail!

    >How did Foley get the screen
    >ID’s for these kids?

    I still don’t see anything in the IMs that isn’t consentual. Plus a screen ID is something that can be said in a causual converation. It is typically much easier to remember than a phone number…. so I’m not sure that you are getting at here?

    Even if Foley never communicated like this with someone under 18, what he did was still wrong and he should have resigned.

    But the real question is, does ANYONE have ANY solid evidence (not hear-say or speculation) that Foley communicated (via IM, e-mail, phone, etc) with ANY pages or former pages in a sexual way where that person on the other end of the conversation at that time was under 18?

    If we can’t answer that question, much of this other stuff is almost besides the point.

    –Rob McEwen

  117. pvsys says:

    >it will make the Republican Party
    >stronger in the long run

    Look, I almost agree with the Washington Times article that Hastert should resign on the basis of “negligence”… which I think there is a reasonable case for.

    But I’ve learned over time that the winners and the survivors write the rulebook and write the history books… and I’ve seen one too many Republicans resign over minor stuff where the Dems never felt ANY pressure to live up to the same standards.

    For example, if what you are saying is true, then Trent Lott’s resignation as House Majority Leader over his (taken out of context) compliments of Strom Thermond should have put pressure on “KKK” Robert Byrd… but it didn’t and these things rarely works out that way.

    –Rob McEwen

  118. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    We are talking about Teenagers? No one can debate, that this is about a line out of “context”.
    It is over and the news is only going down hill. It is time to stop the bleeding!

  119. pvsys says:

    Not defending Foley actions in the slightest… but I do think that it is wrong to accuse someone of sexual misbehavior with those “under the age of 18” AND sending these types of messages “to Minors”

    (…using direct quotes from that ABC article…)

    …when, in fact, so far, I have yet to see proof that the recipients were under 18 at the time.

    Your “teenagers” rhetoric is cute, but “legally” besides the point. If you want to advocate that the legal age of adulthood should be raised higher than eighteen or nineteen, wonderful… but that is another topic for another day.

    –Rob McEwen

  120. pvsys says:

    >you cannot be this blind!

    Maybe you are misunderstanding me or thinking that I’ve said something that I didn’t actually say?

    Otherwise, I’ll let you have the last word.

    –Rob McEwen

  121. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    Please read,

    Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, who is in a tight battle for re-election against Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, said last night that “if anybody in the leadership had information and didn’t take the appropriate action with that information, then they’re going to have to resign.”

    “Did they know he was a predator?” DeWine asked, referring to Republican Mark Foley of Florida, who resigned from Congress last week after publication of the e-mails to former House pages. “Did they have reason to believe he was a predator? And if either one is true and they didn’t do anything, they should resign.”

    Rep. Deborah Pryce, of Upper Arlington, the No. 4 House Republican, said that “anyone who was aware of these instant messages needs to take responsibility. Anybody who had knowledge of that needs to step down.”

    http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election.php?story=217144

  122. Mad Dog says:

    Rob,

    What I’m wondering is if the House has a form that the pages fill out that includes email addresses and IM screen names.

    And, to your point, to correct you, if at my age, I contact someone’s 18 year daughter who works for me, and I got their email from my employment records…

    But, that didn’t happen. What happened, is a gay Republican House Member went out of his way to target employees (pages).

    That is against the law. Worse than crossing a border without a passport.

    Holding the door while he did that … giving him access to email addresses … if the address were given in employment records …

    More than has been reported.

    The only carelessness I see is in Washington.

    Why would I ask an underaged employee for his/her non-work (private) email address or IM screen name?

    There is no defense for this behavior.

    Democrats have been screaming sexual harrassment for decades!

    And, the talk radio response?

    It’s just the normal workplace environment.

    I have no reason to ask an employee for their IM screen name or private email address.

    Are you suggesting that giving out your IM screen name is common practice in the workplace? So casual and usual that strangers wind up IMing you, emailing you, and asking your sexual details three months after you leave?

    You should not be defending this behavior on any level.

    The speaker needs to go now.

  123. pvsys says:

    John and Mad Dog,

    I can fully 100% agree with DeWine and Pryce without any inconsistancy with anything I’ve said in this thread. Initially, I had a problem with DeWine’s word “information” as being too vague… but in the context of his other sentences, I think he defines it in a way that I can agree with.

    And I’m not “defending this behavior “. But I do think that pages and various staff members as well as congressman probably become friends over time, as do co-workers in any work situation. To exchange personal e-mails and IMs, in MOST circumstances, is really not that big of a deal.

    Everything ya’ll keep posting would make perfect sense if we could find just one message of a sexual nature that Hastert was aware of before now. particularly if the recipient really WAS a minor at the time. But there is nothing remotely like this of which Hastert had knowledge.

    But it sure sounds like you WANT that piece of the puzzle to be there!

    BTW – Mad Dog… do you now have a problem with consentual sexual relationships between two adult males? Sure sound like it from your wording and tone?

    –Rob McEwen

  124. pvsys says:

    I should mention that I have an undergraduate degree in Music Education from FSU… and, as a trained teacher, I tend to think about these things more so that others. Therefore if I conduct a private meeting with an employee, I keep the door propped open!

    But I don’t expect others to think about these things and I still say that sharing e-mail addresses and IMs is generally considered to be not a big deal.

    –Rob McEwen

Comments are closed.