Really bad timing...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails_7

WASHINGTON - Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., submitted a letter of resignation from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former male page, according to a congressional official.

Foley, 52, had been considered a shoo-in for re-election until the e-mails surfaced in recent days.

Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times, but had said there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at the time of the e-mail correspondence.

Foley's election opponent, Democrat Tim Mahoney, has called for an investigation.

The correspondence took place in August 2005 after the boy gave Foley a handwritten thank you note before returning to Louisiana.

The emails: http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/FoleyEmailExchange.pdf

Do you really think this came out now as a coincidence?

What's real interesting is this may have been covered up by the leaders of congress. They were told by a news agency (about the emails), who chose not to cover it at the time, and nothing was done. Now, was the cover-up politically motivated? Sure seems like it, with Foley's seat on the re-up this year.

It is funny to watch Demos chase after Jews and Gays.

Too bad the gay guy likes em fresh, I suppose.

But then again, if I were a 16yo page I would have done Nancy Pelosi in a second. I would have been her personal under desk slave boy toy, if she asked. [and I would have told NO ONE]

His gayness isn't the issue, its his going after children. Especially in view of the fact he's been serving on special panels about pediphilia.

It is funny to watch Demos chase after Jews and Gays.


The cynical side of me says that the Demos feel that, like being black or Jewish, being 'homosexual' can only be valid if you are a good card carrying Democrat. If you are a minority, and not a Democrat, or horror of horrors, a Republician, then there's something extremely wrong with you, by their view.

The Democrats pride themselves as being the party of 'repressed minorities', to the point of feeling they have a minority monopoly, as it were.

They don't, of course, but they think they do.

I keep saying I wish that Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton would go head to head for the Presidency in 2008. I'd start recording, copy/pasting, and photographing every article that both sides of the aisle wrote about each candidate. My hope would be to finally extinguish the oft repeated slur that Republicians are anti-women, anti-black bigots.

If the GOP rand Condi...some southern republican would shoot during the campaign.

Status Quo Ante?

No thanks on Rice.

She doesn't have what it takes for her current position. Let alone top spot.

Clinton already has experience running the country, and I am sure she would be first against Frist.

Funny thing about Foley... they had him saying on TV last night a clip of him saying how disgusting Clinton was and how someone in his position should be able to control himself.

*snort*

Stop trying to make this into an issue about him being gay. For cripes sake, you all know it isn't that. The issue is he was using his position of power to try to have sex with under age children. That's still illegal, even in CA.

What a lame attempt at deflection.

It is funny to watch Demos chase after Jews and Gays.

A man who is embarrassed because he has Jewish roots is only a Jew to anti-semites.

It's the Gerry Studds (D) scandal all over again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

Of course, he didn't actually step down. He just ignored it all.

Its kind of like the Catholic Priest sex scandal, because the Bishops covered it up for years. Looks like the Republicans have been sitting on this for 5 years. :p

Looks like whomever had those explicit IMs was sitting on them until an opportune time as well.

Looks like whomever had those explicit IMs was sitting on them until an opportune time as well.

I don't doubt it.

Hold on! This issue was reported to Hastert long ago and nothing was done. Now Hastert is being investigated for a possible cover-up.

I love this. Matt Drudge is blaming the victims for egging the Congressman on.

I liked the FARK headline for this:

The same people who didn't mind pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage didn't investigate Mark Foley for fear of being seen as gay bashers.

Hold on! This issue was reported to Hastert long ago and nothing was done. Now Hastert is being investigated for a possible cover-up.

But he never had the IM's which were where the realy explicit material was. Who had those IMs that would want to sit on them until right before an election? Wouldn't that person be doing something even worse than Hastert by sitting on something far worse than the e-mails? And why is it republicans are held to a higher standard by the press when it comes to scandals such as this?

Do you have a timeline? You seem to be making assumptions that things were "held". What do you have to back this up? To me, it sounds like the holding has been done by Hastert.

Personally I'd wager republicans are held to a higher standard is because they always say they are the "moral" party, with "values"

heh, thing came full circle, foley said he was molested by the clergy in church when he was young.

Guess he followed his church teachins a little bit too much!

Personally I'd wager republicans are held to a higher standard is because they always say they are the "moral" party, with "values"

I can buy that. Republicans hold their representatives to a higher standards than democrats do. But I have to question why democrats seem to also hold republicans to a higher standard than they do members of their own party. Fact is, a democrat in a similar position as Foley would likely have refused to step down and the democrats would do nothing about it. Heck, he would probably win his election and be in office for years into the future.

Aw now, you're pulling stuff out of your ass. Sounding a bit sour grapish.

Aw now, you're pulling stuff out of your ass. Sounding a bit sour grapish.

No, I am just basing it on history, want me to detail the cases?

13 more years probably!

FWIW though, scandals that happened 10 years previous arnt nearly as interesting as ones that happened recently.

Both are despicable though!

Aw now, you're pulling stuff out of your ass. Sounding a bit sour grapish.

Come on.

You Demo gave the Republicans sh!t for giving back the casiono indian abrahamoff money. "Oooo, they gave it back, it must be dirty."

Then you support Demo who would NOT give any of it back. You supported him keeping the rancid cash. "Ooo, he kept it, it must have been clean."


You are doing the same thing here. "Oooo, the Republican must have been holding on to the letters for political gain." And I need no proof for my opinion, just my antipathy.

"OOooo, the Democrats would never hold the letters for political gain." I demand proof for my opinion to be changed.

I love how the Republicans are trying to reframe the issue:


1) Deflection: Try to make this scandal sound less bad by comparing it to past scandals on the Democrat side. This is a poor tactic because Republicans, especially in this day and age, try to paint themselves as having the moral high ground, churchy, etc. Its usually someone who has taken a preachy tone on other people's scandals too.

2) Re-guiltify: Try to put the blame elsewhere. In this case blame the victim.

3) Cast doubt on the motives: Its the democrats playing politics! They sat on this until it would impact the elections. Sure, sure... the Republicans have known there was a problem brewing here for at least a year, plenty of time to address the issue. Democrats didn't know anything about it until ABC broke the story -- although I'm sure they're making full use of the political opportunity it presents. It'd be dumb not to. If you want to blame the timing on someone, blame MAF54 (or whatever his online name is).

eanwhile Foley is seeking redemption by:

A) Going into a "treatment" program for alcoholism.
B) Coming up with excuses for his behavior, but saying he isn't trying to excuse himself (being molested as a child by a priest).

The ironic thing is, if he *IS* convicted of something, which at this point is probably doubtful, he'll face a stiffer (sic) sentence because of legislation he co-authored on the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

I love how the Republicans are trying to reframe the issue:

1) Deflection: Try to make this scandal sound less bad by comparing it to past scandals on the Democrat side. This is a poor tactic because Republicans, especially in this day and age, try to paint themselves as having the moral high ground, churchy, etc. Its usually someone who has taken a preachy tone on other people's scandals too.


Deflection is a time tested and favorite tactic of Dems. Accuse Clinton of pergering himself and it's just about the sex. A fine example. Today in my state dems are trying to deflect a story about Duval Patrick (dem candidate) petitioning twice to have a convicted rapest freed.

The funny thing is, No republican is supporting Foley on this. Every conservative I know thinks that it was appropriate that he stepped down. It's clearly an abuse of his position.

Even funnier is that he actually didn't do anything more wrong than talk dirty to them in IM but that's it. There hasn't been any allegations of any actual sexual contact. It's still wrong, and IMHO warrents his stepping down, but in reality it's not the same thing as child molestation.

Right now it's the Dem's taking the preachy stance here and are clearly trying to bring down as many as they can in the process. My problem is that when the shoe is on the other foot they seem to be far more forgiving. Gerry Studds is a perfect example. He actually had sex with a minor page yet never resigned, and served for an additional 10 years after the scandal. In Studds case, his offense was worse.


2) Re-guiltify: Try to put the blame elsewhere. In this case blame the victim.


I haven't heard anyone defending Foley or trying to put the blame elsewhere.

3) Cast doubt on the motives: Its the democrats playing politics! They sat on this until it would impact the elections. Sure, sure... the Republicans have known there was a problem brewing here for at least a year, plenty of time to address the issue. Democrats didn't know anything about it until ABC broke the story -- although I'm sure they're making full use of the political opportunity it presents. It'd be dumb not to. If you want to blame the timing on someone, blame MAF54 (or whatever his online name is).

There is every indication that the people in the page program knew of this sort of thing for a very long time. I seriously doubt that dems were oblivious to this until now. I have no problem believing that they held these cards until it advantaged them. If you don't believe politicians do crap like this, Dem or GOP, you are just being niave.

eanwhile Foley is seeking redemption by:

A) Going into a "treatment" program for alcoholism.
B) Coming up with excuses for his behavior, but saying he isn't trying to excuse himself (being molested as a child by a priest).

Just like any other person in the public eye caught doing things they shouldn't be doing.

Clinton did it.
Studds did it by "coming out" after the scandal broke.
A Kennedy did the rehab thing after crashing his car in DC.
A NJ Governer did it as well.

This is not a Dem or a Republican thing. Just as many Dems have seeked redemption after getting caught as Republicans.


The ironic thing is, if he *IS* convicted of something, which at this point is probably doubtful, he'll face a stiffer (sic) sentence because of legislation he co-authored on the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.
Except that he won't be charged for anything like that since his offense doesn't fall under those charges. It's a grey area of sorts. Does Cyber Sex count as the same thing?

I love how the Republicans are trying to reframe the issue:

1) Deflection: Try to make this scandal sound less bad by comparing it to past scandals on the Democrat side. This is a poor tactic because Republicans, especially in this day and age, try to paint themselves as having the moral high ground, churchy, etc. Its usually someone who has taken a preachy tone on other people's scandals too.

2) Re-guiltify: Try to put the blame elsewhere. In this case blame the victim.

3) Cast doubt on the motives: Its the democrats playing politics! They sat on this until it would impact the elections. Sure, sure... the Republicans have known there was a problem brewing here for at least a year, plenty of time to address the issue. Democrats didn't know anything about it until ABC broke the story -- although I'm sure they're making full use of the political opportunity it presents. It'd be dumb not to. If you want to blame the timing on someone, blame MAF54 (or whatever his online name is).

eanwhile Foley is seeking redemption by:

A) Going into a "treatment" program for alcoholism.
B) Coming up with excuses for his behavior, but saying he isn't trying to excuse himself (being molested as a child by a priest).

The ironic thing is, if he *IS* convicted of something, which at this point is probably doubtful, he'll face a stiffer (sic) sentence because of legislation he co-authored on the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

1. I agree that republicans do take the high moral ground. Of course, this also means the democrats are taking the lower moral ground. Republicans hold themselves to a higher standard. Notice that in this case, no one is defending Foley. After the IMs came to light, republicans are happy to see him gone. On the other hand, in similar scandals democrats don't do the same. And that is fine. The problem is when democrats try to hold republicans to a standard that they don't apply to themselves. Democrats try to paint the republicans as hypocrites when one of them does something wrong (even though it almost always means the end of that person's political career), but the fact is they are the hypocrites for criticizing republicans for doing something that they themselves do with lower or no consequences.

2. Not sure what you are talking about here. Only thing I have heard about the family is that they didn't want to persue the matter about the e-mails.

3. Okay, let's take you assertion that Hastert and the republicans were sitting on the e-mails for political purposes. Those IMs are something like three years old. So who would release those a month before the election? If the republicans sat on the e-mails for political reasons, then it would only stand to reason that if they had sat on the IMs this long that they would continue to do so until after the election. It isn't logical to think a republican would plant an October surprise on their own party. So who would have a motive to sit on those IMs all this time and then release them a month before an election? I will let you be the judge since I am sure I am unlikely to change anyone's mind anyway.

a & b) You are right, he is trying to get sympathy for being scum by blaming everyone but himself. Funny thing is that this behavior is right out of the democrat politician playbook. Heck, if he were a democrat and had done this, he might not even have had to give up his seat *cough*Kennedy*cough*

I am not sure if he broke any laws, but if he did and is sent to jail, it will be interesting to see if Bush pardons him when he leaves office. After all, we know he would get a pardon for child sex crimes if he were a democrat under a democrat president.

Foley Quotes on Clinton, 1998

"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

A few more, just struck me as funny:
At Sacred Heart, I was taught how to be a better citizen because of their focus on discipline and moral values.
ark Foley
By offering an education centered on values, the faculty in Catholic schools can create an interactive setting between parents and students that is geared toward long-term healthy character and scholastic development for all enrolled children.
ark Foley


I haven't heard anyone defending Foley or trying to put the blame elsewhere.

att Drudge blames the kids for Predatorgate: They are 16 and 17 year old beasts (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/02/matt-drudge-blames-the-kids-for-predatorgate-they-are-16-and-17-year-old-beasts/)


There is every indication that the people in the page program knew of this sort of thing for a very long time.
This was reported to a Republican a year ago, by a page's parents, he took it to the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. Nothing was done.

Now, since it was in the hands of Republicans for that long, how can you go around blaming Democrats? It defies logic. ABC did a little investigation and found fire was lurking right behind the smoke. Couldn't the House Republicans have done a little digging, a little asking? Or, as Newt Gingrich says, did they decide if they responded to it they'd be labeled as "Gay Basher"? I guess they felt it was better to put up with a child predator than to be accused of Gay Bashing.

He broke some Florida laws, I heard today. They have laws about enticing minors or telling them about explicit sexual acts. I think there are Federal laws regarding enticing minors. It just depends on how agressive the prosecutors want to be.

As far as we know he hasn't had sex with a minor, but you never know what'll come out of this.

Daily show was hilarious on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMfQDbFESmM

This was reported to a Republican a year ago, he took it to the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. Nothing was done.

Okay, let's get this right. Hastert knew about the e-mails, but he didn't know about the IMs. What is the difference? Well, if you read up on them you will see. There wasn't explicit sex talk in the e-mails. Hastert talked to the family and they didn't want to do anything about them (seems the e-mails weren't bad enough that they wanted to make an issue of it and this was involving their own child). It was the IMs (as yet, no one has revealed who had them) which contained the explicit sex talk and caused Foley to resign his seat. We don't know who had those IMs all this time, and we can only guess as to why they were just revealed now.

BTW, if it comes out Hastert or any other politician knew about those IMs prior to their release to the media, that person needs to be charged as an accomplice for covering up what may well be a criminal act.

A few more, just struck me as funny:



att Drudge blames the kids for Predatorgate: They are 16 and 17 year old beasts (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/02/matt-drudge-blames-the-kids-for-predatorgate-they-are-16-and-17-year-old-beasts/)
ok, the one guy is also pointing the finger at the "kids." But I didn't hear him saying that Foley was just an innocent in it. Drudge has always been a bit on the oddball side anyway. Personally, I'm not a Drudge listener or reader. Even still, this is the exception to the rule. Foley is getting very little support here. I haven't heard anyone, even Drudge, suggest that Foley shouldn't have stepped down.


This was reported to a Republican a year ago, by a page's parents, he took it to the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. Nothing was done.
Incorrect. Something was done. The parents wanted contact to stop between Foley and their son. That is exactly what they did. The parents didn't want it to go any further than that.

Now, since it was in the hands of Republicans for that long, how can you go around blaming Democrats? It defies logic. ABC did a little investigation and found fire was lurking right behind the smoke. Couldn't the House Republicans have done a little digging, a little asking? Or, as Newt Gingrich says, did they decide if they responded to it they'd be labeled as "Gay Basher"? I guess they felt it was better to put up with a child predator than to be accused of Gay Bashing.


Except that Democrats and several Florida news papers knew about the story as early as last November. Yet, they sat on it until 6 weeks before an important election. What exactly defies logic?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=244680809798238

I still love the double standards being applied here:

• In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page — something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

• In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him — a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

• In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)


He broke some Florida laws, I heard today. They have laws about enticing minors or telling them about explicit sexual acts.

Interesting, but doesn't really apply as the incidents didn't occur in Florida.

I think there are Federal laws regarding enticing minors. It just depends on how agressive the prosecutors want to be.
Feds are saying this is a grey area at the moment. If there had been more than cyber sex or if he had tried to arrange a meeting for the purpose of sex then the laws would apply.

As far as we know he hasn't had sex with a minor, but you never know what'll come out of this.

So, you don't believe in the whole innocent until proven guilty concept or just not until it's someone you support?

So, you don't believe in the whole innocent until proven guilty concept or just not until it's someone you support?
Oh! Wait... didn't he admit he did something wrong? Or is it ok now for adults to seduce children? I'm getting really confused. First you say he did something wrong and resigned for it, now you're saying he's innocent. Which is it?
and several Florida news papers knew about the story as early as last November.
From the newspaper's editors about why they didn't publish it: http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/09/a_note_from_the.html

That Florida newspaper that didn't report it, believe it was even his district, didn't think that the emails they saw warrented it. Why they didn't investigate further is beyond me. Sounds like they wanted to give the benefit of the doubt versus were clinging to the story for a time when it would be more devastating. They totally blew it, IMHO. Are you accusing them of sitting on it to influence elections? If so... they failed miserably because they never published anything.

In San Diego, our local rag uncovered the story that Cunningham was on the take.

Wait... you dredge up a link you claim is evidence the democrats were sitting on the issue? But there are no names, no timelines, just the same groundless insinuations you're making. You're flailing. :p

On the other hand, we have a timeline and witnesses that the Republicans knew this long ago and did nothing.

As far as if he had sex with those kids, I don't know. I was just saying that it's early yet and investigations haven't even started.

There is a difference between farting and sh!tting.

Ok, now we're starting to see some timelines:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=foley+timeline&btnG=Search+News

Washington Times calls for Hastert's resignation.

What is a newspaper doing calling for resignations and stuff?

From the first page of the first link of your search page.

Oh! Wait... didn't he admit he did something wrong? Or is it ok now for adults to seduce children? I'm getting really confused. First you say he did something wrong and resigned for it, now you're saying he's innocent. Which is it?
confused? lol good one. You said:
As far as we know he hasn't had sex with a minor
So you admit that no one has said that he has had sex with a minor. Then you say in the same sentence:

but you never know what'll come out of this.
implying you expect more will come from this.

I think the guy is total slime. Good riddence to bad rubbish. But what he did isn't any worse than what Gerry Studds did and at worse is the same thing.



From the newspaper's editors about why they didn't publish it: http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/09/a_note_from_the.html

That Florida newspaper that didn't report it, believe it was even his district, didn't think that the emails they saw warrented it. Why they didn't investigate further is beyond me.

from the link:
There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him. He told us Foley's request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy's family didn't want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.

They did investigate it. Hardly a republican cover up.

Sounds like they wanted to give the benefit of the doubt versus were clinging to the story for a time when it would be more devastating. They totally blew it, IMHO. Are you accusing them of sitting on it to influence elections? If so... they failed miserably because they never published anything.

If the papers caught wind of stuff way back then, you can bet that Foley and Hastert's political opponants did as well.

In San Diego, our local rag uncovered the story that Cunningham was on the take.

Wait... you dredge up a link you claim is evidence the democrats were sitting on the issue? But there are no names, no timelines, just the same groundless insinuations you're making. You're flailing. :p
I remember that. The evidence was a video of the candidate herself. What horrible evidence!

On the other hand, we have a timeline and witnesses that the Republicans knew this long ago and did nothing.

Ok, so here you say that the paper didn't publish because there wasn't anything in the e-mails to warrent it. Then you flame the Republicans for knowing about this long ago and doing nothing, yet the only information they had were the exact same letters the paper didn't publish. Hmmm. I love the smell of double standards in the afternoon.


According to the time lines you linked:
Foley timeline

2001

Supervisor in office of Clerk of the House warned congressional pages about former Rep. Mark Foley's penchant for befriending teen assistants, according to Matthew Loraditch, president of the Page Alumni Association.


Penchant for befriending teen assistants does not=penchant for buggering them in the cloakroom.


2005

Foley e-mails 16-year-old former page from Louisiana, asks what he wants for his birthday and requests a photograph.

Former Louisiana page, describing one e-mail as "sick," forwards Foley e-mails to staff member for Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La.
Copies of the e-mails have already been link and there isn't anything overtly sexual contained.

Alexander contacts page's parents.

Alexander staff members meet with staff of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Clerk of the House, who direct Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board, to investigate.

Shimkus and clerk tell Foley to cease contact with former page.

I guess this is where they did nothing about it. They contacted the page's parents, Hastert and the Clerk as for an investigation. In the end Shimkus is told by the Page's parents that they just want the contact to stop, so they tell Foley to stop.


2006

Spring: Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, tells Hastert about e-mails.
This is part is confusing, admittedly since Hastert already knew about the e-mails.

Friday: ABC News reports that Foley sent the e-mail as well as sexually explicit instant messages to other former pages in 2003; Foley resigns; Hastert asks Shimkus to look into safety of page program; House directs ethics committee to consider an investigation.

The whole IM stuff wasn't even discovered until then.

Saturday: Hastert says he does not recall discussing Foley e-mails with Reynolds, but he does not dispute Reynolds' claim; Rep. Dale Kildee, the only Democrat on the House Page Board, says he never was notified of the Foley e-mail allegations.
Sunday: Hastert requests Justice Department investigate Foley's conduct.

I guess that's where Hastert is trying to bury the whole thing.

onday: Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, the other GOP member of the House Page Board, says she never was notified of Foley e-mail allegations; Hastert repeats that neither he nor other House leaders knew of the sexually explicit instant messages sent by Foley.

With the problem solved to the parents satisfaction, apparently Shimkus (The chairman of the page commitee) didn't feel the need to pass it down to the rest of the board. Considering no one knew about the instant messages until Friday, it doesn't smell like the cover up you are suggesting.

I'm not going to say that the dems definately sat on this to spring it now, but I do know it's not something that they wouldn't do.

ostly my irritation is with the notion that this is a big cover up when there is no indication of it being one. My irritation is with the indignation and outrage the dems are showing when they have proved to be no more honerable in the past. Indeed, they have done worse in the cases of Frank and Studds.

My irritation is with the indignation and outrage

Don't be irritated.

It's not real.

Mostly my irritation is with the notion that this is a big cover up when there is no indication of it being one.
Well, perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. We shall see.

If I were investigating something like Hastert was supposed to, I wouldn't stop with the bare minimum being requested of me. I'd ask myself if it was appropriate for a 53 year old man to be asking a 16 year old boy what he is wearing. I've been asked that question myself a few times and I knew full well what was behind the question wasn't an interest in clothing design.

This is part is confusing, admittedly since Hastert already knew about the e-mails.Strangely enough, he denied he knew anything about this when this first came to light. I dunno, maybe he's getting doddy. Or perhaps he was trying to cover it up.

I remember that. The evidence was a video of the candidate herself. What horrible evidence!
What the heck are you talking about? Cunningham was a "he" and he was found to have over a million dollars of bribes. He was the head of some military committee in Congress and he's now sitting in prison on bribery charges. At least our local rag isn't so in bed with the politicians that they won't report on their shennigans.

ostly my irritation is with the notion that this is a big cover up when there is no indication of it being one.
Except that Democrats and several Florida news papers knew about the story as early as last November. Yet, they sat on it until 6 weeks before an important election. What exactly defies logic?
Strange, since you yourself said that the democrats covered it up to spring it at this point. :p

Strangely enough, he denied he knew anything about this when this first came to light. I dunno, maybe he's getting doddy. Or perhaps he was trying to cover it up.

Once again he knew about the e-mails he DID NOT know about the IMs. The e-mails contained nothing overtly sexual. The IMs did. They are two seperate things and no matter how many times you try to clump together as one it won't change the facts.

You sure about that? (http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=hastert+denies+mail&x=wrt)

aybe they're relying on clever parsing. He didn't "see" the email but they obviously knew the kid's parents had concerns.

One of the big problems with this Congress has been it has done a really crappy job of policing their own ethics. Time and time again when they could have investigated, reprimanded or otherwise nipped something like this in the bud early on, they've failed to do so.

You sure about that? (http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=hastert+denies+mail&x=wrt)

aybe they're relying on clever parsing. He didn't "see" the email but they obviously knew the kid's parents had concerns.

One of the big problems with this Congress has been it has done a really crappy job of policing their own ethics. Time and time again when they could have investigated, reprimanded or otherwise nipped something like this in the bud early on, they've failed to do so.

He did see and read the e-mails. No one is denying that. The Instant Messages are what he didn't see and no one knew about until Friday. You're just not reading any of this stuff. None of the e-mails in question had overtly sexual content. None. The e-mails are what were called into question last year.

Since you don't seem to understand the difference:
E-Mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail)
Instant Messaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging)

Two entirely different things.

The e-mail that Hastert saw is completely different from the overtly sexual messages from the google instant messaging.

I know the difference between emails and IM's, but apparently not everyone reporting on it does. Otherwise I wouldn't have had 178 hits on "hastert denies mail". That's why, when I see Hastert denying he knew about or read the emails, I thought he was either lying on going dotty. Turns out either he, or the press, are using the term email and IM interchangably.


The e-mail that Hastert saw is completely different from the overtly sexual messages from the google instant messaging.
Right, but there's enough smoke there that even conservative papers like Washington Times think Hastert failed to act and should resign.

Resign, Mr. Speaker

TODAY'S EDITORIAL
October 3, 2006
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061002-102008-9058r.htm

On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat.
Hmmm... I can hardly believe it. That was in the Washington Times?

I don't see what the problem is. I mean...it's not like he wanted to marry the kid or anything.

/eyeroll

If this guy had been Joe Perv out there saying crap like that to a typical high schooler (same sex or different sex), there would be some charges pressed if the evidence was submitted to law enforcement.

aybe the parents should have skipped Hasbert and gone straight to the authorities. That would have looked much better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMV-5ncUpxM&mode=related&search=

The release of this was well timed to take attention away from the new detainee bill. H.R.6166 (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=H.R.6166&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

6162. Military Commissions Act of 2006

Goodbye Constitution, You Will Be Sorely Missed (http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/9/30/18304/1576)

H.R.6166 Link is broken.

Ok, Republican apologists. I'm going to give you some ammo. You're going to have to dig for it though: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

I hope this makes you laugh as hard as it did me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UntkKtyUKk&eurl=

Buh-bye habeas corpus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UntkKtyUKk&eurl=

Buh-bye habeas corpus.

What an idiot.

And there are some people who believe that the mainstream media is not Liberal.


You can find the Act here
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search=%22military%20commi ssions%20act%22

It does not even address or touch Habeas Corpus.

Latest news: Crisis in our Nation (http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76485)
The opening graphic is priceless. :)

Habeas corpus:

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.


It in fact Does mention habeas corpus on Pages 69 and 71 in the link provided by you. The act also retroactively protects Bush's administration from anything done illegaly (ie, wiretapping, torture, etc.) since 9/11.



Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Bill)
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a bill (Number S.3930[1]) awaiting the President's signature, having passed the Senate, 65-34,[2] and the House, 250-170-12.[3] Among its provisions, the bill supports the formerly secret CIA interrogation program and suspends the writ of habeas corpus for detainees.

...

The proposals in the bill have been denounced by critics who assert that their wording authorizes the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens who have never left the United States - based solely on the decision of the President.[9][10] An editorial in The New York Times described the Act as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."[11] Amnesty International said that the Act "contravenes human rights principles."[12]



http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511542006

Among other things, the Military Commissions Act will:

-Strip the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases would be severely limited. The law would apply retroactively, and thus could result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantánamo detainees being thrown out of court.

-Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.

-Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that would provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.

-Permit civilians captured far from any battlefield to be tried by military commission rather than civilian courts, contradicting international standards and case law.

-Establish military commissions whose impartiality, independence and competence would be in doubt, due to the overarching role that the executive, primarily the Secretary of Defense, would play in their procedures and in the appointments of military judges and military officers to sit on the commissions

-Permit, in violation of international law, the use of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or as a result of "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating or degrading treatment", as defined under international law.





Just click the links and look for yourself. You need to wake the **** up.

WTF does habeus corpus have to do with the Foley Scandal?

Start a new thread with that.

i tend to skip over what he has to say unless i'm bored!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMV-5...elated&search=

The release of this was well timed to take attention away from the new detainee bill. H.R.6166

6162. Military Commissions Act of 2006


This is what it has to do with it.

Jon Stewart comments "The Foley Scandal" shifted his attention from the bill/act. There is no denying the majority of the main stream media is focused on the same.

Dude you got it all wrong. Foley was a democrat conspiracy to take control of congress.

North Korea is the Whitehouse/Republican Conspiracy to shift attention away from Foley and the military billl

Ok, Republican apologists. I'm going to give you some ammo. You're going to have to dig for it though: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

I hope this makes you laugh as hard as it did me.

As it turned out, at least two organizations apparently deleted the e-mail. . . But the campaign to spread The List is accomplishing something. It is offering clues about who is behind it. The version of The List sent to at least some of the conservative organizations originated from the e-mail address hprf@yahoo.com. That is the address of a California-based group, the Health Policy and Research Foundation, an organization devoted mostly to work involving AIDS, that is run by a businessman and former Democratic National Committee staffer named Rick Reidy

That's the thing I found. The "outing list" for gay Republicians is being circulated by Democrats. Surprise. Surprise.

Democrats sacrificing part of "their" voting blocks to make political hay?
Say it ain't so!

In other shocking news, water is wet, the sun warms the earth, and nothing still rhymes with orange.

That's the thing I found. The "outing list" for gay Republicians is being circulated by Democrats. Surprise. Surprise.
No real surprise there for me. They're unmasking the hypocracy of gay closeted Republicans. I'm not sure I agree with that tactic, I think they'll out themselves when they're ready to face god knows what from their Republican employers and families, etc.

Democrats sacrificing part of "their" voting blocks to make political hay?
Say it ain't so!
I don't quite see how Republicans are part of the Democrat voting block. Can you elaborate on that?

And what a shame, you totally missed the nugget of information that could let you gloat a bit and say "Ah ha! I knew it!".

WTF does habeus corpus have to do with the Foley Scandal?

Start a new thread with that.
Well, the literal translation of the latin is have the boy, er, body :)

*snicker*

What an idiot.

And there are some people who believe that the mainstream media is not Liberal.


You can find the Act here
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf#search=%22military%20commi ssions%20act%22

It does not even address or touch Habeas Corpus.


Sec. 5. Judicial Review

Section 2241 of title 28, United States code, is amended by replacing subsection (e) with the following:
"(e) Except as provided for in this subsection and notwithstanding any other law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this Act, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement:
"(1) COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS.-The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The scope of such review is defined in section 1005(e)(2) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. If the Court grants a detainee's petition for review, the Department of Defense may conduct a new Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
"(2) MILITARY COMMISIONS.-Review shall be had only of final judgements of military commissions as provided for pursuant to section 247 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
"(3)" iNFORMATION CONSIDERED.-The court may consider classified information submitted in camera and ex parte in making any determination under this section.". emphasis added

Essentially, as it stands right now, the government can indefinately imprison you, try you before a military commission, use hearsay as cause for declaring a US citizen as an alien enemy combatant via membership in or providing support or aid for a group defined as an enemy group by the government, then use that hearsay as evidence against you, hide evidence from the accused based on the governments decision that the evidence would be classified. Further the only attorney you are permitted to have is one assigned by the government, or agreeable to the government. I suspect that Gerry Spence or any attorney who is also a member of the ACLU, for instance, will be given the "security clearance" required.

Right now, with the Presidential Orders and the US Statutes currently on the books the following senario can happen and break no current laws, barring constitutional challenge...which Congress has even attempted to curtail via the removal of habeas corpus:

Bob, your neighbor, calls the HomeSecs and informs them that he saw you associating with some shifty looking Arabic looking men in a foreign language and overheard Al Qaida spoken various times. Based on that statement the state picks you up and takes you off to military detention because of association with an enemy group. The government then extrapolates long standing law that a US citizen found residing in an enemy nation during a time of war can be considered an alien enemy combatant and claims that since these enemy groups are extra-national and have no nation, that mere membership or association is sufficient to consider you an alien enemy combatant. You are held for years, subject to fierce interrogation the entire time, without an attorney, because the government has no duty to provide for a speedy trial under the new laws and simply needs to recertify that you are an alien enemy combatant every six months or so. You, however, are left without recourse, other than an appeal to a special court set up to appeal your classification as an enemy combatant. Of course, since the government is the only entity who knows where you are at the moment and you're being detained, you have no real means of making such an appeal. Nor can "Next Friend" request a writ of habeas corpus on your behalf, because its been outlawed for detainees. Finally, you are taken before a military commission, your attorney is an 0-3 fresh out of law with on experience on his first duty as JAG, assigned to you by the government. The primary evidence the government uses against you is Bob's hearsay statement, but its been classified so you are not permitted to see it. Your attorney is permitted to see it, but he's not permitted to let you know what it was. You are convicted by a military commission and sentenced to 25 years to life.

In the course of this little sham trial, reminiscent of Stalinist Russia, your right to ask a court to force the government to charge you with a crime or release you has been revoked. Your right to a speedy trial has been revoked. Your right to a trial by a jury of your peers has been revoked . Your right to know your accuser has been revoked. Legal requirements that a statement made outside of court which is being offered to prove the truth of what the statement asserts cannot be admitted as evidence (Hearsay) have been revoked. You have had your right to see all the evidence offerred against you has been revoked. Your right to counsel of your choosing has been revoked. Your right to free expression and assembly has been revoked. Your right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure has been revoked (because you know the government ransacked your **** while you were being kept in a secret cell for some years).

Now...imagine, if you would, that instead of Al Qaida, the group which was declared an enemy group and you were accused of being a member of was the ACLU.

This is what our government is trying to do. This is how the tyrants begin to destroy our constitutional rights.

Well, the literal translation of the latin is have the boy, er, body :)

Produce the Body, actually, if I recall...

Gimme a break, I did a text search of the document, with no hits.


Now let me go back up and read why you guys all think that foreign non citizen individuals are entitled to habeas corpus from the US.

Now let me go back up and read why you guys all think that foreign non citizen individuals are entitled to habeas corpus from the US.

Americans travelling abroad expect habeas corpus in the countries they visit. That right can only be sustained if the US provides habeas corpus to foreign guests.

Gimme a break, I did a text search of the document, with no hits.

That's why you should read it, instead of just doing a text search ;)


Now let me go back up and read why you guys all think that foreign non citizen individuals are entitled to habeas corpus from the US.

Read my post there, Fy'yr. The GOP government has basically found a legal means of declaring a US citizen to be an alien enemy combatant based entirely on what the President tells his Secretary of Defense.

The Presidential Order that Bush originally issued also had a provision that it could only be used on non-citizens...and yet he still used it against Hamdi and Padilla. While there is precendent for Hamdi to be treated as an alien enemy combatant, since he was picked up amongst the enemy in Afghanistan...it would require the extrapolation I posted previously in order for Padilla to be treated as an alien enemy combatant. Congress has specifically given the President their imprimateur to detain and try alien enemy combatants before military commissions, rather than in Federal Court or before a military Court Martial.

The constitutional questions are going to revolve around whether A) Someone can be considered part of an armed enemy simply due to membership in the group (that's an oversimplification) and B) If Congress or the President constitutionally halt Habeas Corpus, and pass laws regarding detaining people without due process and trial before a commission rather than a Court of Law when we are not in a declared state of war (again, somewhat of a simplification).

There are arguments to made both ways, though the precendent, so far as I've found requires that we be in a declared state of war and that membership in a proscribed insurgent or sedious group is not sufficient cause to be treated as an enemy combatant, let alone an alien enemy combatant. For the second issue, it seems fairly clear that the precendent is strongly that the right of habeas corpus cannot be abridged except for a declared state of war (Similar questions arose in Korea and Vietnam...and the courts seems clear, to me, that though it looks like a war, smells like a war, and acts like a war, it cannot constitutionally be considered a war without Congress so declaring it). The issue then becomes the fact that so far as I recall, Congress only has the ability and authority to declare war on a declared sovereign nation (regardless of whether we recognize them). In order to be a sovereign nation you must have borders.

Read my post there, Fy'yr. The GOP government has basically found a legal means of declaring a US citizen to be an alien enemy combatant based entirely on what the President tells his Secretary of Defense.


Oh, you mean like that American Al Quaida guy.

Honestly, if I saw that guy walking down the street, I would cut his throat myself. You would not find his corpus of any kind anywhere.

Oh, you mean like that American Al Quaida guy.

Honestly, if I saw that guy walking down the street, I would cut his throat myself. You would not find his corpus of any kind anywhere.

Jose Padilla...there's so far, zero evidence put forth that he was involved with Al Qaida. They took him into custody for theoretically planning to detonate a dirty bomb...but three years later, when they finally decided to charge him rather than risk letting the supreme court rule on the constitutionality of what they'd done...he was charged with conspiring to kidnap folks.

Frankly, though, I don't give two flying ****s what you think about Padilla. Are you so ****ing idiotically short sighted that you would give the government consent to simply bypass the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments in order to get ragheads? I'm sorry, but I have much more fear of the government reverting to tyranny than I have of being a victim of terrorism in the US.

Were this someplace like Israel, where terror attacks are virtually a daily occurance, the situation may be different, but its not. It isn't even close. We've had two terror attacks on our soil (I don't count Oklahoma City a terror attack, it was an act of rebellion against a government target. Idiocy, perhaps, for asinine reasons, but not terror).

This nebulous, undefined, unofficial, and neverending "War on Terror" must not be viewed as the rationale for destroying our protections. You've all seen the quote, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." by Ben Franklin, but the concept is so pervasive in our history and was so important to those great men and women who have influenced it, that it begs incredularity that the lesson is so quickly forgotten by every generation.


"...the practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." Alexander Hamilton

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home." James Madison

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad" James Madison

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" James Madison

"No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without" Dwight Eisenhower

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine


"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law." Justice Louis Brandeis

"Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won; you earn and win it in every generation." Coretta Scott King

"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there no constitution, no law, no court can save it" The Honorable Learned Hand

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln


"One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independance." Charles Austin Beard

Someone is lying:
A key player in the unfolding scandal involving teenage pages and a Florida lawmaker testified for more than four hours before a House ethics committee panel yesterday, repeating his assertions that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's top aide had early warnings about the congressman's questionable behavior toward youths, according to the witness's attorney.

Kirk Fordham, who was a chief of staff to then-Rep. Mark Foley (R), was consistent with his previous statements when he gave sworn testimony to a panel investigating the House's handling of Foley's actions, lawyer Timothy J. Heaphy told reporters after the two men emerged from an afternoon of questioning.

Fordham has said that he turned to Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, in 2003 in hopes of persuading Foley to stop showing so much interest in teenage pages, who work for a semester or two on Capitol Hill. Fordham has said Palmer later assured him that he had met privately with Foley and had informed Hastert (R-Ill.) of the situation.

Palmer has been publicly mum on the Foley affair except for a seven-word statement issued days ago: "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen."

Hastert says he knew nothing of concerns about Foley's behavior toward House pages until Sept. 29. That was the day Foley, 52, abruptly resigned his House seat as ABC News was reporting that he had sent sexually graphic electronic messages to former pages.

Either Fordham is lying or Palmer is, possibly Hastert is as well.

Jose Padilla...there's so far, zero

No, this guy.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206661

No, this guy.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206661

So what?

First of all, I can't believe that's authentic. Its just so cheesy. I mean, its like he just stole his lines from the Cornholio sketches on Beevis and Butthead "I am Cornholio! Give me TP for my Bunghole! The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers!

Secondly, if he is an American...he deserves his rights under the constitution. Maintaining our rights are more important than getting Arabs.