Posted on 10/04/2006 4:57:03 AM PDT by Perdogg
I have yet to hear anyone other than personal acquaintances of Foley's defend him. The Repubs do need to go on the offensive regarding how this information was used. If someone knew about the IM's and sat on them, with the intention of releasing them right before the election, then there is a definite issue. Not only could they have enabled that POS Foley to take his advances to the point where a crime was committed (by all accounts, at this time none was), they may have also tried to influence a Federal election through illegal means.
Foley is a turd, and has been repudiated by the Repubs, the story now should be about the dirty, and possibly illegal way the left handled the situation.
So you are willing to turn over the country to the Al Qaida party over this???? I am not!!!
Firstoff - take a chill pill. Secondly, Foley obviously is a sick man and a pervert. He should have resigned and if he committed a crime, should be prosecuted. However, it appears more everyday that there is more to this story and the donks are entangled. You just cant't parse over that, unless you are a donk and want to. If the donks are involved, they should be held accountable too.
Are you kidding me? I can't believe anyone is still talking about this dumb story. My congressman, who is up for reelectoin, is not named Foley and is not a perv. In fact, he's a good man who can count on my vote. How I vote has absolutely nothing at all to do with the pufftah perv congressman from FLA.
Dems may have sprung this surprise too early. There may be time yet for the pajama patrol to uncover whose behind it all and what's fact and what's fiction before the election. Somewhere in the wings there is a Bill Burkett wannabe with ties to the Dem party.
To be clear: Foley resigns Friday, Sept 29, checked into Rehab on Sunday Oct 2, someone used his AOL account on Tuesday Oct 4.
lol. Whatever dude. I'm so chilled I should be a Heineken. It's just sad and pathetic to see ppl grasping at the lamest defenses of this creep Foley. He's basically admitted it, hasn't he? So what else is there to talk about? That the DEMs released the info in a politically advantageous way? Well shazzam! What a surprise. Get over it. Move on.
Personally, if I were Foley, I would retaliate against those who outted me for partisan reasons by outting all of the other gay and lesbian members of Congress.
Even the playing field a little.
As long as part of what's fact is Foley being a gay perv, then it's really academic at this point.
but Robert Novak said there is no conspiracy!
The beltway media is soooo smart they would know about CREW!
The beltway media would have told us Foley was a homosexual!
The beltway media would never have protect a homosexual who pusues boys!
ok sarcasm off.
The MSM knew loooooong before the congressional leaders HOWEVER even Fox News is being intentionally ignorant.
plain old MSM lack of ethics as usual.
and yes Novak was on Fox News' fox and friends to push the "no conspiracy" BS.
I was going to post the same thing, but I read the rest of musikman's post first. He's NOT talking about defending Foley at all. He's talking about putting together some legislation that would force congresscritters to temporarily step down if allegations are made.
I don't agree with musikman on this legislation, but he was not suggesting defending the indefensible.
Doesn't necessarily matter that there wasn't physical contact. Attempting to meet with a minor is enough in most cases to get arrested.
Ever watched the To Catch a Predator series on Dateline?
Admitted what, exactly?
This is the whole problem, IMHO. "He's admitted it," leaves us with lurid and perverted imaginings. But there is an important difference between writing disgusting and perverted Instant Messages and engaging in disgusting and perverted sex. There's even an important difference between disgusting and perverted emails and disgusting and perverted Instant Messages - and a greater one between mildly disquieting emails and disgusting and perverted IMs.
But we just say,"He's basically admitted it," (where "basically" means he may NOT have admitted anything but his actions lead one to conclude that he's not going to dispute anything) and pay no attention to collateral damage and innocent bystanders -- or between culpable negligence, such as Hastert is being accused of, and possibly careless inaction?
Oh my, it's SUCH fun to throw out vague charges, but to base one's opinions and actions on them is irresponsible, I think.
Seriously and not argumentatively: Is it enough to get convicted with a conviction that will survice the appeals process?
The crime, if there is one, is a violation of a Federal statute (bizarrely sponsored in the House by Foley himself) that makes use of the internet to solicit sex from a minor, defined to be a person under age 18, rather than a person under age of consent in the jursidiction where the sender and/or recipient are located or reside.
Of course the lewd IMs were sent to a *former* page, who may well have turned 18 in the time between serving as a page and the sending of the IMs in which case there is no crime.
From what I've seen even a prosecution on that charge isn't an open and shut case, as the 'solicitation' was elliptic: phrases like "and then" with replies like "we'll see what happens."
I agree the Republicans need to go on the offensive, and the measures you suggest are a good start. But I'd also like to see a rhetorical offensive, contrasting Democrats' stand on the intercept of IMs between two persons in the US by a leftist advocacy group with their stand on intercept of communications between persons in the US and suspected terrorists abroad.
Something like "Isn't it ironic that the same people who think the President of the United States lacks the authority as Commander-in-Chief to protect the American people by monitoring communications between terrorists overseas and persons in the US seem to think the Speaker of the House has the authority to monitor instant messages sent by members of the House?"
While this page is assumed to have been the party to these instant messages, why hasn't he come forth to further damn Foley? All that is presented is some instant messages supposedly sent as far back as 2003 involving some unknown party and Foley. The convenient timing of the release of this information and lack of detail would seem to indicate that these instant messages could be all or in part fakes as part of a October surprise by the Democrats.
You have blinders on. This has gone beyond Foley. He's yesterday's news. It's now about an attempt to force Hastert to step down and use this for political gain. If someone is complicit in withholding evidence of a potential crime so the information could be used as an "October surprise" then it needs to be pursued with all speed. Wake up and smell the coffee.
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.