There was a lot of talk over the weekend about who in the Republican party knew what about the Foley emails and when they knew it. It was learned that Dennis Hastert and others in the leadership knew about the Foley emails for many months and many, quite rightly, asked what was done when the information became known and wondered why Foley continued in his position. That concern was largely a result of initial confusion between the emails and the instant messages (IMs). Just to clear up any confusion, which I had when the story first broke, the emails were odd, but not explicitly sexual in nature. The “me so horny” IMs were quite another story.
From what I now understand, Dennis Hastert says that no one in the Republican leadership knew about the IMs, but only the emails. He is asking for help from the public and the media, in identifying anyone who had knowledge of the IMs, but did not report them to anyone.
If someone knew about the IMs, but did not report them, and rather decided to hold the information for whatever reason (can’t imagaine what that could be), that person put pages on Capitol Hill in danger. Hastert has asked the Attorney General for an investigation into Mark Foley’s actions and also to address the question of who had knowledge of those IMs.
I hope there is a full investigation into Foley’s actions, as well as one into who knew what when. Anyone guilty of wrongdoing should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those wanting to expose the truth should be commended and joined, but those seeking only to make political hay out of this might just end up getting bitten if it is discovered that anyone on their side had knowledge of those instant messages. If it is learned that a Democrat has been holding those IMs for any period of time for political purposes, the backlash could be as nasty as those disgusting messages.
Update: Be sure to check out Gateway Pundit on the group that has been out to get Foley for quite some time. I scanned the post and saw some surprising information that I had not seen elsewhere, but need to go back and read more carefully later when the house is quiet. Other posts following in detail are Sister Toldjah and Flopping Aces.
Must read from Macsmind:
What we know so far is that several principals, such as CREW, and ABC knowingly withheld information about Rep. Foley and had done so for many months, if not years before this story came to light. In light of that the FBI will be investigating. While the left wants us to believe that there was some sort of conspiracy involved, where GOP leadership hid the dirty truth about Foley, that simply isn’t feasible at this point.
According to sources involved in the investigation investigators will also be looking at who had copies of the IMs and emails and purposely held them for all this time. As obtaining evidence and witholding it is a federal offense, the focus of the investigation will be to the outside.
There has been a lot of Clinton comparison in this matter. One of the liberal commenters here at Wizbang threw it out there over the weekend and many, including me, responded. I am not going to defend Foley if he did the things that have been reported. The whole things creeps me out more than I care to get into, but if someone (of either party) was sitting on this info for political reasons then that should be exposed as well.
As for those saying those on the right are trying to compare whatever Foley did to Clinton/Lewinsky, or that anyone wanting to find out who had the IMs is doing the same as those who defended Clinton during impeachment, I say they have it all wrong. First, the Lewinsky comparison is not necessarily the right one concerning the offense itself. While the intern aspect is similar, the unwanted nature of the correspondence is closer to the cases of Kathleen Willey or Juanita Broaderick — except that those two women actually had hands laid on them. How many on the left thought those women’s claims even deserved a hearing?
But the truly huge difference is this — no one on the right is defending what Foley is accused of doing. Those on the left had a word for what Clinton did with Lewinsky when it was first revealed. The word was “reprehensible.” I heard that word more times in those months than in my entire lifetime up to that point. They said that over and over, but they did not want Clinton to face any punishment. They wanted to give him a good tongue lashing, but that was it. They thought he was still fit for office, in spite of his horrible judgment, and they did not want him to face any real punishment. All those Democrats who couldn’t wait to rush to the cameras to talk about how “reprehensible” Clinton’s “affair” with Monica was are now calling it a relationship between two consenting adults.
No one I have heard has suggested that Foley should not have resigned. No one is suggesting that he should not be investigated and held to the strictest punishment the law will allow if he commited any crimes. Many of us just want to make sure the whole story is told.
Update II: See Kim’s post about the Washington Times calling for Hastert’s resignation. (Oh, and everything Kim says in that post, I second.)
Allah and I are of the same mind on the topic of holding all involved accountable and the accusations of some claiming that is equivalent to making excuses.
Update III: I just read the Washington Times editorial and I can’t help but wonder if they don’t know more than has been reported, and more than they are saying, because it seems to me that a resignation of the Speaker of the House would only inject more politics into the investigation than is already there. Unless they know something that is not being reported, then I think the call for resignation is counterproductive to the desired result, which is to take this from the political realm and into the justice system.
Update IV: Dafydd notes some intentional “confusion” and some suspicious reporting of the emails and instant messages.
Lucianne posted the following:
I just did a quick hit on the Paula Zahn show at the CNN headquaters studio here in New York and everyone from the interns to John Roberts, the temp host, were bats with joy about this story. They could hardly contain themselves with joy. That should tell you something.
Update V: Allah wrote that I was disgusted with the Washington Times. Just to be clear, my disgust is with the Washington Times for joining in the chorus of those wanting to blow Foley’s disgusting behavior into some huge GOP sex scandal led by the Speaker, all the while ignoring those on the left who, evidence suggests, had some knowledge not only of the non-sexual emails, but of the nasty IMs, and planned to use them not to warn pages, but rather for political advantage.
Outside the Beltway writes, “Lorie Byrd also thinks the email/IM thing enough for Hastert to keep his job” referring to my distinction between the emails, which contained no sexual content, and the IMs, which did. My opinion that Hastert should not be run out of the leadership based on the emails is based on what I have seen of the emails thusfar. If there is some other information that I have either not seen or that has not been reported, that shows Hastert had knowledge beyond the non-sexual emails, then obviously that changes things significantly. To compare knowledge of those emails to knowledge in the Catholic church of priests molesting little boys (as I have seen a few people doing over the past 24 hours) only serves to further confuse voters about the facts of the matter. If more was known by Hastert, I will holler as loud as anyone for his head, but based on those emails alone, I am not ready to join that chorus. As for Democrats making the argument, give me a break. Studds didn’t even resign and he actually had sexual contact with his underage victim. Furthermore, they didn’t even think Juanita Broaderick or Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones deserved to be heard.
Update VI: I have been out most all day, so I have not seen any blog coverage yet, but did hear Hastert’s interview on Rush Limbaugh. If he is telling the truth about what he knew, I do not believe he did anything wrong. Hindsight is 20/20, and looking back now it is easy to say he should have done more, but considering what he was told about the emails, if he is telling the whole story, I think he did what most in his position would have done.
John Hawkins is on the same page I am about the Washington Times editorial, and provides great commentary. He also makes a great point about the page program: “Isn’t it time to kill the page program? This is the second sex scandal related to these pages. Moreover, do we really want 16 year olds ‘learning about the real world,’ from the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Tom Foley, Robert Byrd, and William Jefferson? ”
Update VII: Carol Platt Liebau is asking Republicans to remain calm and points out that Democrats are doing with Foley what they did with Iraq.
Previous posts:
Lee … you are quite possibly the most foolish of the trolls to ever troll a blog I have ever seen. And that post may well be your nadir.
I was NOT apologizing for Foley. I did not vote for him. I am not excusing what he did. I am putting it into perspective.
Your hero, Clinton, did worse with Monica. That involved actual sexual contact. Where is YOUR outrage on that? All I get from you is apologies for his outrageous behavior AND the lies that followed.
Democrats have repeatedly covered for and turned a blind eye to the miscreants in their midst. What do Republicans do in the same situation? Resign, censure and investigate. IOW, take responsibility for their own.
NO ONE, least of all me, is exusing Foley for what he is being accused of. It is highly inappropriate, as I clearly stated. What I am calling for is perspective. Do you have a clue what that is? Do you have a clue, period?
The page was of the age of consent. No crime was committed. Calls for Foley’s head on a platter are a bit over the top. Resignation and an investigation are in line with the nature of the offense. And that is a lot more than what Democrats do when one of theirs strays out of line, eh?
Brian:
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm
http://www.ageofconsent.com/dc.htm
All three say 16 for DC
Those state laws might still be on the books, but federal law is 18.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-house-leadership-and-mark-foley.html
Your hero, Clinton, did worse with Monica. That involved actual sexual contact.
Sexual contact with an adult is worse than sexual overtures towards a minor? To reuse a quote, do you have a clue what perspective is?
The page was of the age of consent. No crime was committed. Calls for Foley’s head on a platter are a bit over the top. Resignation and an investigation are in line with the nature of the offense.
If that’s all you think is warranted here, then certainly Clinton warranted far less, correct? After all, Monica was not just “the age of consent”, but was an adult. No crime was committed. Calls for Clinton’s head on a platter were a bit over the top, then. Right?
What do Republicans do in the same situation? Resign, censure and investigate. IOW, take responsibility for their own.
How many times will this canard be repeated? DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Burns… none of them quickly resigned, nor took responsibility, except perhaps as part of a guilty plea. To this day DeLay still whines his troubles are a Democrat conspiracy.
Was 16. Until Foley helped pass federal legislation that raised it to 18 nationally. How’s that for irony?
Well, no, that’s incorrect. I don’t know about DC, but age-of-consent laws are a state issue, not federal. The a-o-c in my state, according to my quick research is still 16.
And, let’s be more precise in our terms. Pedophillia is the sexual contact with a pre-pubescent (before puberty) child. This page was (at best) 17 during the IM fracas. And, at best, it could be sexual proposition of a minor (depending on said age-of-consent.)
The “ick” factor comes from the abuse of power, and if the page were a 17 year old woman, the “ick” factor would remain.
Do I defend Foley? Absolulely not, anymore than Mr Clinton’s abuse of authority in the seduction of one of his employees. But, as LissaKay stated…perspective please.
Now, the Walsh Act, to which Brian is referring to. This Act seems to be regarding current convicted sex-offenders, and disposition and tracking thereof, as well as record-keeping for the purposes of adult films (the so-called 2257, so named for the 18 USC 2257 code.
http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=12352
This has nothing to do with defining age-of-consent in the states.
Nice try, Brian, but I read the entire document you linked to. (Took about an hour to do so.)
Sorry, I meant, a half-hour.
Glenn Greenwald??? *spit* Please!
Whatever. I am not excusing or downplaying Foley’s actions. Perspective and reason are called for here. I said the same thing when it was Clinton’s ass on the line as well. Then he lied and all bets were off.
Then of course, there was Mel Reynolds.
The Dem moral superiority is bunk.
Oh, and from your own link to the Sockpuppet:
Via Lexis, in D.C. Code § 22-3001 — defining crimes of sexual acts against children — section (3) provides: “‘Child’ means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.” D.C. Code § 46-403 (2006) provides: “The following marriages in said District shall be illegal, and shall be void from the time when their nullity shall be declared by decree, namely: . . . (4) When either of the parties is under the age of consent, which is hereby declared to be 16 years of age.”
And GG is just as misinformed about Walsh Act as you are.
If that’s all you think is warranted here, then certainly Clinton warranted far less, correct? After all, Monica was not just “the age of consent”, but was an adult. No crime was committed. Calls for Clinton’s head on a platter were a bit over the top, then. Right?
Well, discounting Sexual Harrasment Laws (which I wouldn’t put pass the DC crowd to excempt themselves from, as Federal Employers/Employees), the sex itself wasn’t a crime. But what brought Clinton to impeachment was his lying to a FEDERAL GRAND JURY, which IS a crime, due to the Paula Jones case. Like Nixon, it was the cover-up more than the crime that got him in hot water. (Nixon didn’t bug the Watergate, but he tried to cover up CRP’s activities)
Here is a blog post from “Eric’s Blog” dated May 2003, Wrestling Alligators:
Of course this can’t prove or disprove the veracity of the various emails and IM’s that Foley is alleged to have sent, but it does again illustrate that Foley has been a target for “outing” for some time.
Foley seems to have done some dispicable things, but there is no doubt in my mind that the present dog and pony show being trotted about by Democrats is the result of a very elaborate plan.
“The page was of the age of consent.”
Careful of your backwash, LissaKay.
– Was the page was of the age of consent in his home state? That’s what matters — or do Republicans think when a parent ships their young son off to Washington it it becomes property of The Party?
Don’t make me use the “H” word…
the sex itself wasn’t a crime. But what brought Clinton to impeachment was his lying to a FEDERAL GRAND JURY, which IS a crime, due to the Paula Jones case.
I don’t deny that. But the LissaKay comment I was responding to said that Clinton’s sex was worse than what Foley did. That is an indefensible position.
Well, no, that’s incorrect. I don’t know about DC, but age-of-consent laws are a state issue, not federal.
I’m not a lawyer. I suspect there are both state and federal interests here. Perhaps I overstated that federal law “supersedes” this state law. But at the very least the federal law still applies, even if the state law doesn’t.
Via Lexis, in D.C. Code § 22-3001 — defining crimes of sexual acts against children — section (3) provides: “‘Child’ means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.”
You’re quoting DC law, not the Walsh Act.
And GG is just as misinformed about Walsh Act as you are.
Not as much as you are. I’ll see your half-hour and raise you a 2-minute search of the Walsh Act:
111.14: MINOR.–The term ”minor” means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.
That is an indefensible position.
No it isn’t. Clinton was doing the dirty with Monica in the Oval Office while conducting government business, in fact, important busines on the phone. In other words, during business hours and in the people’s house with a subordinate under his direct supervision. He used her, abused her emotionally, lied to her, and then turned around and turned his goons on Linda Tripp, the only adult in the WH who gave a damn about Monica and what the scumbag was doing to her. Then with that superior smirk he uses when he lies, he looked us all in the eye, shook his finger in our faces, and lied. Then he went into court and committed perjury all the while the Clinton machine of Berger, Albright, Hillary, et al were busy trashing every woman Bill had sexually attacked or abused over the years.
Brian, I don’t think that law is retroactive and those IMs go back to 2003, the email 2005. The law was just passed this year, wasn’t it?
Consensual adult sex during business hours, followed by perjury! *gasp* Sexual predation on a minor is like jay-walking by comparison!
Sexual predation on a minor? Huh? Are we talking about the same things? Nothing criminal in the emails so says the FBI, and surely you aren’t going to try to convince me of the innocence or unwillingness to particpate by the IMer. That is just laughable. Whoever it was seemed entirely comfortable in the conversation and in no hurry to end it.
Nothing criminal in the emails so says the FBI
Please cite your source for that statement.
Whoever it was seemed entirely comfortable in the conversation and in no hurry to end it.
Here’s what the teen said:
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see
That sounds “entirely comfortable” to you? He explicitly says he’s not comfortable! Or are you claiming he was just playing hard to get? To me, it sounds like someone who is uncomfortable, but trying not to blatently offend someone in a position to hinder his political career (as all of the pages who have come forward so far have stated as their reason for keeping quiet).
In contrast, surely you aren’t going to try to convince me of the innocence or unwillingness to particpate by Monica!
Brian, I don’t think that law is retroactive and those IMs go back to 2003, the email 2005.
Good point. Guess we’ll just have to see how it plays out.
Repulsive and disgusting! That’s what I think of Mark Foley and all who knew about his perverted acts. DH and others who knew need to resign right now for the good of the country. Don’t even give me any lame brain excuses for these jerks!
The Democrats are going to take control in the upcoming November elections. The Republicans are hypocrites who talked bad about President Clinton. At least his affair was with a woman of legal age and it was consenting. A fifty something year old man with a teenage boy is just sick and so disgusting. Mark Foley needs to go to jail!
Justice58,
I agree about Foley. Wholeheartedly, in fact. There will be no calling Foley “reprehensible” when polls are down, then saying it was only a consentual affair between adults when the polls swing.
As for Clinton, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaderick and Paula Jones were not consenting, but they were just trailer trash, right? They must have been asking for it. Put a little ice on that lip, it will make everything better. The worst thing Clinton did with Monica was not letting her do what she did with her mouth and his private parts or even with the cigar, it was his attempt to sell the media the story that she was a lying, crazed stalker when he knew she was telling the truth. How on earth can you condone that? Ignoring it and pretending it didn’t happen is the same as condoning. Dems have no problem whatsoever with that. Great feminist champions. As long as he keeps abortions legal what is a few gropes and some trying to destroy women telling the truth about you?