Posted on 09/30/2006 3:06:00 PM PDT by wjersey
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. Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.
"I pronounce it as certain that there was never yet a truly great
man that was not at the same time truly virtuous."
-- Benjamin Franklin (The Busy-body, No. 3, 18 February 1728)
Those occasions are so rare I can't remember them. My thought is that once a door is opened we should get busy and toss all the offenders of that or a similar nature outside into the ditch.
That means all the gay people in Congress are going to have to start proving they leave kids alone ~ none of them should be accepted on their word alone. The percentage of the ones in Congress who are pedophiles seems to be VERY HIGH, and that's a risk we can't take.
At the same time NRA2BFree assures us that Barney Frank is NOT INVOLVED with a child.
NO, I did NOT say "Barny Frank is NOT INVOLVED with a child." Show me where I said that!!
That's a totally different issue, and none of us know that for a fact. We could surmise that maybe he's not involved with a child since no one has said anything about it ~ and certainly he's public enough person there are those who keep a close eye on him (the Congress seeming to have a high percentage of homosexuals who do, in fact, engage in cruising for sex with minors). All we can really say about Barney, unlike Mr. Frank, is that Barney hasn't been caught!
You have TOTALLY missed the point!! It's NOT about Barney Frank, so don't go there. Our focus has to be on FOLEY! Right now, I don't care about Barney Frank. I care about what Foley and the Republicans who looked the other way have done to that child. I care that it is probably going to give control back to the RATS. Foley needs to go to prison for what he did to that child. It is AGAINST THE LAW, and so is it AGAINST THE LAW for ANYONE to cover up a CRIME! There will be consequences to pay, and rightfully so. They are NOT ABOVE THE LAW! I like Hastert, but I am NOT going to give him a pass on this one. By his inaction, he allowed Foley to continue his crime against that child, and so did the other Republicans who looked the other way!! It's fine if you want to debate, but stick to the facts!!
Maybe this ought to be done in a dramatic manner ~ right there at the top of the steps on the East Front.
Put it on TV.
Foley commits hari-kari ~
Only question might be about allowing him to have a "second". Maybe they could bring up one of the AlQaida fellows who has some head chopping experience from Guantanimo.
Hastert has been a terrible Speaker. He should have been dumped years ago.
BTW, so far no one has provided us any evidence that Speaker Hastert knew about an earlier crime. He certainly acted with dispatch on the one he did hear about.
Horsemanure!!!! This situation is nothing but a thing that is 'all about sex'? Didn't Clinton get a pass for that? Did anyone accuse Foley or Hastert of personal rape? Did anyone ever accuse Clinton of rape? What does Barney Frank think about this? Didn't his boyfriend have a little boys ring going in DC?
Assume that Foley is guilty and seeks little boys. Which party is generally more supportive of that kind of behavior? Republicans????????????
But voting Americans thought that was one of the differences between a democrat and a republican.
"I care about what Foley and the Republicans who looked the other way have done to that child."
I am not certain that Republicans looked the other way. These kind of situations are often difficult to investigate and it appears that the witnesses/victims may not have been anxious to cooperate. It is possible that limited information was first presented and only near the end of the investigation was there a full understanding of what was going on. If there was a cover up, well that would be problematic.
Where's Nancy Pelosi? Oh, yeah, in her district such things aren't thought of as crimes are they.
They didn't look the other way.
They didn't have the IM's which are dated 2003 and which Soros' CREW had.
Here's Hastert's statement:
"On Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.
Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander
In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker's Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.
Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker's Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk's Office to discuss the matter.
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. Congressman Alexander's Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.
The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker's Office liaison with the Clerk's Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.
Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker's Office.
Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.
Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript
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."
His name is BARNEY FRANK, not BARNEY FWANK, but we all know who you're talking about!
It's not ok for either party - if the Republican leadership knew about this and kept it quiet, this is a huge mess. I don't care about the timing or the source. These emails and IMs are true. Foley resigned for a reason, not because he was innocent. If Hastert, Boehner and other Repubs knew about this months ago they have no excuses.
However, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's "friends" did ~ another poster says those nasty Instant Messages date from 2003.
So yeah, there's a crime here ~ most likely Foley's crime, but also a crime commited against the Speaker of the House by CIA agents.
They couldn't take out the President, or even that ol'hurricane-maker, Karl Rove, and they barely laid a hand on Cheney. However, that's not stopping them from trying to take out the Speaker and the Republican leadership in the House.
I wouldn't be surprised a bit if we find out that Mary McCarthy was "holding the paper" for them.
The Democrap plan seems to be finding repub dirt!
I agree, it is hypocrisy. But consider the opposite: that the "party of values" had a Congressman sending inappropriate emails to boy pages and didn't seem concerned enough to dig to find out.
You do have point here and yeah, that is the problem with analogies etc they are an attempt at parallel, but certainly not exacting. But I do think you make a good point in that there is more freedom and the ability to really select and put one's feet to the fire, when one is talking about party loyalty.
It is up to us the voters to put those feet to the fire. It is up to us to vote someone out or in and even to put pressure on them and other candidates in our party, when we feel they are not doing the job we sent the there to do.
I see this as a good thing. I see this as an example of why participation in a political party is so important. It is not perfect and yes, there are times we can just shake our heads and go, "What the ?" But we can even more then with out family clearly define who is a member and who is not. As they say . . . you can't pick your family, but you can pick your FRiends :-).
So hey, I'll renege on my own initial analogy and move on to the next level. This to me is what we do in politics. Sometimes we have to reevaluate and make change and this we can do in our own political party. Thus us is them if we participate.
I must add though there is an expected certain amount of compromise in politics and one needs to really decide, both individually and as a group when to fight and when to voice and opinion and stand down.
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.