Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Internal Review of Contacts with the Office of the Speaker Regarding the Cong. Mark Foley Matter
Office of Speaker Hastert | Saturday, September 30, 2006

Posted on 09/30/2006 7:02:50 PM PDT by kristinn

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: dogbyte12
I'm not even assuming he had "cyber sex", all I'm confident of is he had some disgusting language which is protected as free speech but I would be surprised if more personal interaction reports start surfacing.
21 posted on 09/30/2006 7:58:43 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

When you see a cockroach on the kitchen counter, there's usually a few hundred behind the wall.

That's the sort of common sense that our Congressional leaders seem to have forgotten.


22 posted on 09/30/2006 7:58:47 PM PDT by nj26 (Border Security=Homeland Security... Put Our Military on the Border! (Proud2BNRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nj26

I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Hastert shouldn't resign and did exactly the right thing.


23 posted on 09/30/2006 7:59:21 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: alnick
"Could the IM's have been to a different boy?"

So I gather that Foley did not, in fact make any other electronic contact with the page in question subsequent to the weird, but nonsexual e-mails, after he was forewarned.

He did, however send sexually explicit IMs to former pages in the past,that were not reported to either the press, the boys'parents or to Congressional authorities until now. Is that it?
24 posted on 09/30/2006 8:11:39 PM PDT by RonnG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RonnG
So I gather that Foley did not, in fact make any other electronic contact with the page in question subsequent to the weird, but nonsexual e-mails, after he was forewarned.

He did, however send sexually explicit IMs to former pages in the past,that were not reported to either the press, the boys'parents or to Congressional authorities until now. Is that it?

Yes, when the sexually explicit IM's were found out by Hastert and the leadership, probably Friday morning, foley was immediately and rightfully booted.

Unlike the typical democrat reaction to the same situation.

25 posted on 09/30/2006 8:19:32 PM PDT by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RonnG

You can't fathom the details so you'll make some up?


26 posted on 09/30/2006 8:19:52 PM PDT by OldFriend (Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? President Karzai 9/26/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nj26
You seem to ignore the real FACTS.

Hastert handled it as best he could.
The boy who received the explicit IM's is a different boy.
27 posted on 09/30/2006 8:20:11 PM PDT by JRochelle (You can believe what you want, but you can't have your own facts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

I saw that exchange between Ann and the dem...he seemed so proud of the fact that when THEIR congressman was found to actually have a physical affair with a page, he stood up on the House floor and ADMITTED it.

Like that is all that matters...just admit it...and you can be re-elected as often as you want.

OTOH...the Reps eat their own, quite well, and the dems don't.


28 posted on 09/30/2006 8:24:45 PM PDT by Txsleuth (,((((((((ISRAEL)))))) Pray for the release of the Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
"The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander's office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not."

Are you listening Kos-heads? There is no scandal here, other than the contemptuous conduct of Mark Foley.

29 posted on 09/30/2006 8:27:25 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonnG; kristinn
As I cannnot fathom either scenario, I suspect that the parents must have approached a third party, perhaps the press, who advised them to remain silent, keep track of them and bide their time.

I have been saying this repeatedly for 24 hours now. ABC News knew about this for as long as Alexander did...but unlike Hastert, ABC News HAD the explicit transcripts. ABC NEWS PURPOSELY SAT ON THIS UNTIL IT WAS LATE ENOUGH TO WREAK HAVOC IN FOLEY'S DISTRICT. That is the real "coverup" here.

30 posted on 09/30/2006 8:31:43 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"Yes, when the sexually explicit IM's were found out by Hastert and the leadership, probably Friday morning, foley was immediately and rightfully booted"

So the $64,000 question, which is not answered in the news, is WHEN were the obscene IMs made and when were they reported to the Congressional authorities ,if at all , and why didn't the boys' parents raise a ruckus, assmung that the boy even told them?


31 posted on 09/30/2006 8:36:43 PM PDT by RonnG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

On one of the text messages I thought there was a comment from Foley or the kid stating they would have to wait till February when he turns 18 but then the reports says the kid was 16 in the summer of 05?


32 posted on 09/30/2006 8:43:09 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

"I have been saying this repeatedly for 24 hours now. ABC News knew about this for as long as Alexander did...but unlike Hastert, ABC News HAD the explicit transcripts. ABC NEWS PURPOSELY SAT ON THIS UNTIL IT WAS LATE ENOUGH TO WREAK HAVOC IN FOLEY'S DISTRICT. That is the real "coverup" here"

I am confused. The parents reportedly assured Congress that the contents of the e-mails we not sexual in nature.

Are you saying that that some of the e-mails to Alexander's page were sexual in nature and deliberately withheld from Congress and the parents, but given to ABC? Or are you saying that ABC had both the transcrips of e-mails to Alexander's page, non sexual in content, as well as other IM's, not reported to the Congress, to former pages that were obsecene? Either way that is shady.

I guess I'm getting confused.



33 posted on 09/30/2006 8:50:28 PM PDT by RonnG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nj26
There was no contact, from what I understand. Also Folley didn't use his name just his initials. He most likely knew who the boy was.
34 posted on 09/30/2006 8:55:05 PM PDT by frannie (Be not afraid of tomorrow - God is already there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
In Washington DC the age of consent is 16 and in Louisiana the age of consent is 17 with neither having age variation laws nor distinguishing gender preferences. This should be a warning to parents who send their kids to Washington DC, they are legally sexually emancipated if they are 16 and over.
35 posted on 09/30/2006 9:15:21 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonnG
Are you saying that that some of the e-mails to Alexander's page were sexual in nature and deliberately withheld from Congress and the parents, but given to ABC? Or are you saying that ABC had both the transcrips of e-mails to Alexander's page, non sexual in content, as well as other IM's, not reported to the Congress, to former pages that were obsecene? Either way that is shady.

Correct. I suspect one of those two scenarios, but time will tell which it was. ABC News along with the entire MSM is always working with the DNC to subvert the GOP right before election-time. They did it to Bush 41 4 days before the 1992 election with an Iran-Contra-Weinberger "surprise" (which turned out to be meaningless but then cost Bush 4%). They did it to then-Gov. Bush with the sudden DUI release one week before the 2000 elections (which cost Bush 5%). They are doing it again here, and I think there will be one more "surprise" before October is done.

36 posted on 09/30/2006 9:28:30 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.

Many of the articles I've read .. they are blurring the emails and the IM's together

37 posted on 09/30/2006 10:36:55 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey McCain and Graham .... our soldiers signed up to dodge bullets not lawsuits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonnG
What puzzles me is that 10-11 months went by after Foley was warned to have no contact with the page. If the boy was still receiving e-mails, especially the obscene ones reported in the news, why did he not report them either to the authorities or his parents?

There are no reports of the emails continuing

The recent reports and the reason Foley resigned was due to IM's from 2003 to a different person

Those were not known about until this week

38 posted on 09/30/2006 10:41:25 PM PDT by Mo1 (Hey McCain and Graham .... our soldiers signed up to dodge bullets not lawsuits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
On one of the text messages I thought there was a comment from Foley or the kid stating they would have to wait till February when he turns 18 but then the reports says the kid was 16 in the summer of 05?

It was a different child. The IMs were from 2003. The e-mails were from 2005.
39 posted on 10/01/2006 1:32:47 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RonnG

I think all the cards should be put on the table. When did ABC News receive the emails? Who was their source. It's possible that Foley was set-up? He should be thrown out of congress for his actions, but let's find out who new what and when did they know it including the MSM.


40 posted on 10/01/2006 5:09:13 AM PDT by Shocked2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson