Welcome to PatsFans.com

Foleygate and the Blogs

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,762
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +162 / 7 / -13

    Patters had asked me in another thread where I was getting some of the info I had posted. I promosed him some links. In the course of putting together my repy, I ended up putting down my POV on Foleygate. So I decided to start a thread on the blogs.

    IMO the MSM isn't interested in getting to the facts, they are interested in pushing an agenda. Conservatives and Libertarians don't believe the MSM is objective or that they are really represented in the MSM, as a result they have developed their own alternative media.

    OK Patters here is a summary from my POV, and some links to bloggers who are covering and investigating Foleygate. I will first stipulate than RW are glad Foley is gone and deserves what he got. He has resigned, so Foley per se is no longer the issue.

    Pelosi, Dean and others have accused of covering up for Foley. The dems have demanded that Hastert resign for covering up for Foley. The alleged cover up involves 2 sets of documents, an email to a minor (ex page) from LA, This email was written in 2005. This email was non sexual in nature but did inquire about the ex page and asked for a picture. The parents of the boy contacted Congressman Alexander and asked that Foley send no more emails they considered odd. Hastert was notified and spoke with Foley. Apparently no more emails were sent to the boy. Copies of the email were circulated to press sources, the press concluded they were possibly odd but too innocuous to follow up on. BTW the parents stated today that they were satisfied with the way Hastert handled the situation with respect to their boy.

    (As an aside I can imagine that if Hastert had forced Foley out at this point he would have been accused of being homophobic and roasted by the same folks who are denouncing hem now for 'not doing enough'.)

    There was also a set of sexually explicit IM's that were written during 2003, these were the smoking gun that led to Foley's resignation and to the claims of cover up and for Hastert's resignation. Who saved these IM's? Who knew about these IM's? When did they know about the IM's? These are all questions that need to be answered.

    It must be noted that when the identity of the writer of the IM's was identified it turned that they were written to an ex-page who was at the time an adult. Nonetheless, if Hastert (or any other congressperson) knew about these IM's and didn't act on them, they could legitimately accused of not acting to protect pages who could be harmed by Foley (although there is no assertion he ever had physical contact with any of the pages).

    ABC reacted to the disclosure of Edmund's identify and the IM's being between adults by setting up on their blog a place for other pages approached by Foley to contact ABC, and indeed a couple of other ex pages claim to have been contacted by Foley. At least 1 has claimed that Foley sent sexually explicit IM's before he was 18. I don't consider this very importantly frankly. Why? Well, Foley is not in office and the other pages never told anyone of these contacts, so no one in a position to stop Foley had proof of illegal or immoral activity. Also the motive of these ambitious young men could be questioned. Since there is no way to verify their claims. The issue has moved on Foley has been disgrace and is now (thankfully) out of office.

    link to the blog that has IMO done the best job of tracking the developments in this story:

    http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/

    The blog who identified the page who exchanged and saved the IM's with Foley from 2003:

    http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/

    A blog with some info on the issue of 'the list', a supposed list of gay republican staffers, who left wingers are threatening to 'out'. This is sort of funny in a weird way. The presumption is that the gay staffers will be forced or damaged if they are outed. I'm not sure about this since a number of conservative legislators have openly gay staffers (Santorum eg).

    http://justoneminute.typepad.com/

    The bloggers have done a very good job of getting publicly available info and putting it out there. There is a lot of speculation about how the dots connect. But the story is still incomplete. You do wonder why the 'professionals' in the MSM, haven't discovered this info? The Rathergate forgeries wouldn't have been found out if not for the blogsphere either. IMO this is why the (biased) MSM is currently losing viewers/readership.
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,862
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ratings:
    +203 / 5 / -6

    Is there a working hypothesis? In the other thread, you implied that Pelosi colluded with a page, which frankly seems unbelievable. Do you agree that what Foley did was wrong? Do you agree that several Republicans had been concerned about Foley's behavior prior to the scandal breaking? Do you agree that the House leadership did nothing, and by doing nothing possibly put some pages at risk (especially based on what we're learning about Foley)? I think you're missing the point of the whole issue. No one's said any crime has been committed -- it's a matter of lewd and unethical behavior. I looked closely at the first blog, and it struck me as far fetched, but maybe you should contact Terry Glenn is a Cowgirl. He probably has some good links for conspiracy stuff. If the Democrats had and withheld information, they would be wrong, too, but where does the buck stop? There's always the possibility of a surprising angle, but given how the Republicans reacted (Foley resigning, lots of finger pointing), I think it's a long shot. With Rathergate, the rightwing had some valid questions (even though I disagree with many of their conclusions). Here, most of the key facts come directly from Republicans, not Democrats.

    I only looked at one blog, but will look at the others tomorrow.
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,762
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +162 / 7 / -13


    Yes there is a strong suspicion that this is a dirty trick, not that Foley isn't guilty, but that the republican leadership is being smeared by the dems and MSM. Additionally that the Dem leadership know about the overtly sexual IM's between Edmund and Hastert, that Pelosi want Hastert to resign over. There is also no evidence that Hastert knew about the IM berween Edmund and Foley.



    Yes, Foley was wrong and good riddence to him, as you know I have stated many times inculding Post #1 in this thread.

    Define concerned? about the email to the underage intern? About the IM's between Edmund and Foley. Can't answer without you being specific about which actual behavior of Foley?

    Try to be specific and I will respond.


    We don't know. That is what the polygraphs and testifying under oath will reveal. Not enough data to reach a conclusion at this point. Again I would differentiate between the IM's between Edmund and Foley and the email Foley sent to the kid in LA.

    Anyone who was aware of the IM's between Edmund and Foley shouls be forced to resign. Even though Edmund was not a page and was an adult. While not illegal it was certainly immoral.


    BTW I am unaware of lewd behavior per se, since no physical contact betwen Foley and any page has even been alleged. Certainly I find Foley's behavior to be unethical just as I found Clinton's behavior with a young intern unethical.


    Far fetched???? Let's see they find post on a public forun for the pages (sort of like this forum for Patsfans). Edmund, the source of the salacous IM's, is talking about a book deal detailing the experiencess of pages on the Hill, the person pitching the book is Robin Katsaros, a hard left activist (she help organize house parties for Conyers to promote Bush impeachment, NEM's kind of woman), her son Chris (a self proclaimed Gay democrat) is talking with Edmund on the blog about the book deal, Chris was also sponsored into the page program by Pelosi.

    Does Chris know about Edmund's 'prank' IM's with Foley?

    Is that part of the interest in the'book deal' Edmund is discussing with Chris?

    IF (big if) Chris knows about the IM's is it 'far fetched' to think he might tip off his sponsor (Pelosi) to this explosive information? I don't think so.

    We know M Rogers is claiming on his website that he tipped off the DCCC to the existanence of the IM's and emails, could they have transmitted the info to the woman planning on draining the swamp or her peers?

    There is certainly enough circumstancial facts to make it worth asking Pelosi and Emmanuel what THEY knew and when THEy knew it.



    Given the involvement of CREW and Rogers and the Katsaros family I will be suprised if Pelosi and Emmanuel and others didn't know about the IM's between Edmund andFoley. My guess is that Hastert didn't know about the Edmund Foley connection and only had knowledge of the email to the LA kid which he discussed with Foley.

    Hopegully we will find out who had prior knowledge of the Edmund IM's anyone who knew about the IM's and didn't act on them were endangering children and should resign be it any republican or democrat. Do you agree with that?


    As always Patters your willingness to engage in dialogue and examine and challenge (spin ;) ) information is appreciated.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2006
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,762
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +162 / 7 / -13

    Patters a question to you. It has been established so far that Foley sent an email to an ex underage male in LA. The email asked how the boy was doing after Katrina and requested a pciture of the boy. We also know this email made the boys parents uncomfortable and they contacted Rep Alexander (the boy's sponsor) about this. Alexander brought the parents concerns to Hastert's attention. Hastert spoke to Foley and Foley didn't contact the boy. The boy's parents say they were happy withthe way the situation was handled.

    My question is if (the email to the kid in La) was the only evidence Hastert had of Foley contacting pages in perhaps inappropriate ways. What would suggest he do?

    Should he presume Foley is a pedophile on the basis of a single email with a picture request and no sexual content of innuendo, just because Foley is Gay?

    There are many in this society who feel Gays should be aroung young boys as Boy Scout leaders, youth sports coaches, Big Brothers, teachers and so on?

    Would Hastert been wrong to jump to the same conclusion about Foley based on just this email?
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,441
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +278 / 10 / -26

    You sound like a voice crying in the wilderness who really believes all of this.. I just reviewed my share of right and left wing blogs, and the consensus seems to be that Foley did what he did and Hastert et al knew about it. If it is such a conspiracy why are people resigning and apologizing?? My read is completely different, i.e. that this is the tip of the iceburg and there is more involvement. Blogs like Townhall, Rush, Cato and the rest are not denying it happened, they are talking about the timing, how the Dems are two faced and the rest of the crap, but very little talk about how Foley was set up.

    I am willing to bet that this is just the beginning, and the subsequent investigation will show a history of this type of behavior as well as some direct involvement. Bottom line is that this guy is a pedophile or an edophile, however you want to label him.. was a big fund raiser for the Republicans and they looked the other way. Blame Pelosi, Dean, ABC or whomever they are responsible.. Foley has already resigned blamed it on booze, being gay or being molested by a priest. Hastert is doing his dance, and saying he was only made aware of it on 9/29.. however, there are blogs showing a different time line. If you want to look at conspiracy theories, there are some coming out about Fla and involvement of Jeb and Crisp who are doing damage control for the Fla rebublicans... relying on blogs takes an incredible amount of filtering as there is extremism and hysteria on both sides of the aisle.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2006
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,866
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +562 / 2 / -9

    If the republicans knew about it the Democrats knew about it, the Bloggers will report the people will decide, the backlash is coming.

    Democrats hate bloggers.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,862
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ratings:
    +203 / 5 / -6

    It's established that several key Republicans were concerned about Foley, so it seems unlikely that the only evidence was those emails. A coverup hasn't been proven, but the evidence continues to mount. This, from today's news:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100601888.html

    "House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

    "The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

    "The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's one-time chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

    "Palmer said this week that the meeting Fordham described 'did not happen.' Timothy J. Heaphy, Fordham's attorney, said yesterday that Fordham is prepared to testify under oath that he had arranged the meeting and that both Foley and Palmer told him the meeting had taken place. Fordham spent more than three hours with the FBI on Thursday, and Heaphy said that on Friday he contacted the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer his client's cooperation."

    If Fordham, Boehner, and Reynolds are lying about having warned Hastert, and we only have the emails to go on, we should look at them in the context of the page's response:

    http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/FoleyEmailExchangeUpdated.pdf

    Clearly, Foley creeped out the page and, at the very least, directing the matter to the Page Board would have been warranted. At any rate, it's pretty clear that there were concerns about Foley and the pages for quite awhile.

    I've never seen that as the issue, since the age of consent in DC is 16. If this matter had been handled responsibly, it would have been investigated, Foley would have been censured (assuming he hadn't committed any crime), and the matter would be closed.

    Again, that's not the issue, but as you know a number of Republicans are using this issue for gay bashing.

    I've never denied that this issue is much like the Lewinsky affair, and has legs of its own because sex sells. Certainly, issues like the Iraq War are far more serious, but this issue is exposing the hypocrisy of the House leadership, and their indifference to those they should protect. Obviously, the Democrats will exploit this issue, just as the Republicans did with Lewinsky. It's also apparent that key Republicans were aware of Foley's lewdness and have been covering it up for several years. By doing so, they put young pages at risk.

    This is a DNC press release, so is obviously not an objective source, but it does build a timeline that's supported by news reports:

    http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73784
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,762
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +162 / 7 / -13

    You are right NO one is denying that Foley is a creep. He has resigned, no one has suggested that he shouldn't resign, and if he did anything illegal he should be prosecuted. That of course is no longer the issue. The issue is whether anyone knew about the IM's between Foley and Edmund. What they knew and when they knew it.

    There is no evidence that Hastert knew about the IM's.



    Why do you think Hastert asked the FBI to investigate right away. IF he had just refered this to the House Ethics committee he would have guarenteed that nothing will happen until after the election. Involving the FBI changes the dynamic.

    Why do you think Edmund lawyered up as soon as the FBI got involved?

    As I stated people like Rush and the MSM are behind the curve. The bloggers are digging around the net and turning all sorts of things that reporters should have seen. This will all come out in the wash. IMO this will be a big black eye for the MSM.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,762
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +162 / 7 / -13


    Several key republicans? The one cited is Fordham, Foley's (gay) ex cheif of staff who was later fired. Fordham had contact with our friend Rogers. Since he was fired does he have an ax to fring. I would also note that Hastert staff denies any concerns were raised by Fordham and there is no documentation of his charges that he contact anyone about Foley's behavior. BTW if he was so concerned about Foley's character why did he work for Foley's aborted Senate bid in 2004 after he allegedly raised concerns about Foley's behavior?

    I can't really respond to the anonmous staff member's claims. If your anonomyous you can say pretty much anything. Again I would like everyone involved under and taking polygraph tests under FBI supervision.



    The pdf of course has names and times redacted, we don't know both were from the page. Reading the PDF it sounds as if a third party fordwarded the LA pages email to CREW. Who was the third party and how did they obtain the LA pages email. Perhaps it was the same person who was shopping the email to the news media in the Fall of 2005. BTW I would note that the MSM didn't consider the email unusal enough to be worth persuing. Some believe that Rogers is the source of the email by way of Fordham.

    Remember the LA pages parents said they were happy with the way Hastert's office handled thsir concerns.



    Since ther was no misconduct per se, what would have been the reason to go to the Page Board? Just because Foley was gay and contacted a page?



    Censured for sending a page an email and askingfor a picture?? Really?

    What would have been the basis for a censure??



    Gay bashing? Please cite a speific and a link documenting this charge. Can't respond to a gross generalization without a source.

    Thaks, Patters.

    I think the key republicans and key deomcratics should be put under oath and volunteer for polygraph test administered by the FBI to clear up this matter ASAP so the campaign can get back to the issues like Iraq and they economy.

    What lewd behavior do you refer to? If it is the IM's between Edmund and Foley, there is currently no evidence than anyone other than CREW, Foley and Edmund was aware of the IM's with the sexual content. I hope we qucikly get to who knew about the IM's



  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,862
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ratings:
    +203 / 5 / -6

    Reynolds, Shimkus, and Boehner also seemed to know something about Foley, at least enough to talk to Foley or bring the matter to Hastert's attention.

    You're using blogs and Drudge, and you're saying you can't respond to the Washington Post? Please, patsfans13, then your whole argument really isn't worth responding to!

    I think the bigger question from your point of view is who runs the website stoppredatorsnow, or whatever it's called. I really don't see how Roger's figures into it. All I can find about Rogers is that he outs gay right-wingers, but the press really doesn't pick up on that (to their credit). As far as the third party who forwarded the emails, it stands to reason it has to be the page or an acquaintance of his, but I'm not sure how that can justify the failure of the House leadership to investigate.

    They're good Republicans, no doubt, who are concerned about their son's future. If Hastert had handled the matter properly, the issue would not be getting the attention it's getting now.

    There certainly was misconduct, but there may not have been a crime. The emails are the first tangible evidence that Foley was a creep, but there were concerns about Foley besides the emails. Otherwise, why would people like Reynolds, Boehner, Shimkus, Hastert, and as well as a few senior staff people be involved? It's rare that in a case like this there's actually a written record of harrasment. The real evidence will come from what the pages and their superiors have to say (and to some degree have already said).

    If they did their duty and did an investigation, they would have turned up additional information. If they had talked to pages, they might have learned about the IMs and sexual harassment. Naturally, by not doing their duty, they felt they could avoid the whole issue, but instead it just shows how corrupt and irresponsible the leadership was.

    Again, they should have done an invetigation. Let's remember that Studds did nothing illegal, and his scandal concerned an event that took place ten years prior to his censure. If they did uncover the IMs or if pages did testify with regard to sexual harassment, I think it's easy to understand the grounds for censure. The Republicans hoped that by not investigating, they would have an excuse, but that's not washing with the American people.

    Here are a couple:

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Buchanan_has_strong_opinions_on_1006.html

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200610040014

    The Democrats would be fools to participate in any way in this Republican scandal. The goal of the Republicans is to blur the issue. If there is evidence, and not just rumors that Pelosi was involved, it might be worth considering. But, right now, to put Pelosi under oath is to create a precedent for a fishing expedition.

    There's certainly evidence that senior Republicans were concerned enough about Foley's behavior vis-a-vis pages to talk to him and Hastert about it. When the pages testify, I expect more evidence will come out of the kinds of things pages reported to their superiors.

    [​IMG]

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>