Skip to main content

While the GOP tries to cover it up! Hurry up folks, it's a show not to be missed!

The thing that gets me the most about these bastards is how they try and compare this to the indiscretions of Democrats without also acknowledging that Foley's Follies were with MINORS! I don't care how many fucking ways you want to spin it, the guy was pursuing, and knowingly doing so at that, underage young men. How the fuck anyone would try and spin that is beyond me and says more about the Repukelicans than anything else. When it comes to an adult woman blowing the most powerful man in the world, it's an outrage. When it comes to a low-life predator stalking underage boys, it's spin worthy.

What are some of the lines so far?
Brit Hume: It's probably worth noting that there's a difference between the two parties on these issues. Inappropriate behavior towards subordinates didn't cost Gerry Studds his Democratic seat in Massachusetts, nor Barney Frank his. Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though indirectly he was impeached for it. Mark Foley found out about this, was found out to have done this, and he's out of office and in total disgrace in his party.
Yea Brit, none of the people you mentioned had lewd interactions with someone under the age of 18 you piece of shit!
WALLACE: Speaker Gingrich, did House Republican leaders do all they should have?

GINGRICH: Well, I think if you look at what they actually knew, which was that the family did not want anyone involved, and the actual notes were relatively innocuous, there was nothing sexual in those notes. They had him counseled. They had the head of the page program, Congressman Shimkus, talk to him very directly. And I think they thought it was over. The newest incident only surfaced when ABC News interviewed Foley and he resigned within two hours, or I think the House leaders would have moved to expel him.

WALLACE: But, during all those months, they left Foley in the House Republican leadership. They left him as the head of the congressional caucus dealing with exploited children. No second thoughts about that?

GINGRICH: Well, you could have second thoughts about it, but I think had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would have also been accused of gay bashing. I mean, the original notes had no sexual innuendo and the parents did not want any action taken.

WALLACE: Well, how would it have been gay bashing?

GINGRICH: Because it was a male-male relationship. And it had no -- there was no proof, there was nothing that I know of in that initial round that would have led you to say in a normal circumstance that this is a predatory person.

Gay Bashing? Did this piece of shit really say that? Of course he did. Only a turd name Newt would completely disregard that Foley had targeted an underage boy.

An excellent timeline from Think Progress.

2001 -- A Republican staff member warns pages "to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley." A former page says that they were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff." [ABC, 10/1/06]

2003 -- Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has sexually explicit IM exchanges with an underage boy who worked as a Congressional page. [ABC News, 9/29/06]

SUMMER 2005 -- Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sends inappropriate emails to another former Congressional page. [CREW]

SEPTEMBER 2005 -- Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns "of the e-mails from a reporter." [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]

FALL 2005 -- "Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert'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...[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] 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." [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

LATE 2005 -- Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, "was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page." Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him "to cease all contact with this former house page." He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]

FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 -- Alexander tells NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds about "the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's." Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

SPRING 2006 -- House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of "inappropriate `contact' between Foley and a 16-year-old page." After leaning about Foley's conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would "take care of it." Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn't remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]

MAY 10, 2006 -- Reynold's personal PAC, TOMPAC, donates $5,000 to Foley's campaign. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]

JULY 27, 2006 -- Foley writes a $100,000 check to the NRCC, chaired by Reynolds. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]

JULY 27, 2006 -- Foley, still co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, attends a signing ceremony at the White House for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. [White House, 9/27/06; Talkingpointsmemo, 9/30/06; Washington Post, 10/1/06]

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 -- ABC publishes emails between Foley and former page. [ABC, 9/28/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 -- Foley resigns. [ABC, 9/29/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 -- ABC publishes sexually explict Instant Messages between Foley and several former pages. [ABC, 9/29/06]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 -- "Aides to the speaker [Hastert] say he was not aware until last week of inappropriate behavior by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned on Friday after portions of racy e-mail exchanges between him and current and former underage congressional pages became public." [Chicago Tribune, 9/30/06]

SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 -- Hastert admits he was told about the emails by Reynolds in the spring. [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]

Soon to be cross posted at nowhereweb. The site is down at the moment.
Cross posted at MLW

Originally posted to A Patriots Revenge on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:16 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Fantastic. (0+ / 0-)

      "I'm baaaack"

      Welcome back.  Going down over Steve Irwin was WEAK!  I hope whatever was wrong is all better and thanks for the shoutout over at nowhereweb (although I didn't actually TR you)!

      Scary Republican Quote of the Day: People like you are the reason if I saw someone else's kids on fire, I wouldn't throw water on them to put it out.

      by cowgirl on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:47:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good to a point (6+ / 0-)

    Though the page Studds was with was 17 at the time, but above age of consent and the page stood with Studds at press conferences and told the press and the world to shut the fuck up as this was consenting sex between legal adults. Which is not the case with Foley. The rest of your rant is good, but thought you might want to be aware of that slip up of facts.


    Mitch Gore

    Rule of Law (b. March 4, 1789 - d. September 28, 2006)

    by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:23:49 AM PDT

    •  Good point (4+ / 0-)

      Everything I've read states it was consensual and that the page stood by Studds (how apropos). Foley I'm afraid was being more of a deviate and a hypocrite than an openly gay man having a consensual relationship. But, you are right, Studds' page was underage.

      •  Not underage (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        curtadams, bayside

        The age of consent for D.C. is 16.
        If Foley had given a 17-year-old
        a blow job, apparently that would
        have been legal.

        But the new federal law that Foley
        helped pass makes it illegal to
        solicit sex with a minor using
        the internet -- and that law defines
        the age of a minor as under 18.

        So what Studds did was NOT illegal,
        and NOT with a minor.

        What Foley did WAS illegal, with minors
        as defined in a bill he had a hand in
        and certainly knew its terms!

        •  I believe you are misreading the Walsh law (0+ / 0-)

          The Walsh law kicks into effect for anyone seeking to solicit illegal sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18. So if age of consent is 16, then the Walsh law does not make seeking sex with someone 16 illegal. At least that is the understanding I have of the way the law is written so as to not be in conflict with state age of consent laws, the majority of which have 16 as the age of consent. In D.C. the AoC is 16, though in Florida it is 18 where Foley was IMing the page from, according to the released transcript of the chat messages, and Louisiana it is 17 where the page was when he was chatting with Foley. So that makes it seem like it might be illegal under the Walsh law since the AoC is higher in the two jurisdictions. Now the legal murkiness is, does the content of the chats constitute a violation of AoC laws since it is not physical content, therefore breaking the law in either jurisdiction and thereby kicking in the Walsh Federal law? Further, do we know when and where the emails were sent from and do they break any laws?


          Mitch Gore

          Rule of Law (b. March 4, 1789 - d. September 28, 2006)

          by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:21:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  hmm (0+ / 0-)

      at the time that they told the world to stfu, the page was ten years older, around 27.  

      probably better to not even engage on that point though - better to mock them for having to dig back to something that happened more than thirty years ago.

      Check out my podcast of piano improvisations.

      by tunesmith on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:11:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A couple more differences (0+ / 0-)
      1. In both the Studds and Crane incidents, only one page was involved.  With Foley, it was several.  i.e. a pattern of conduct, not a single incident.
      1. Many of Foley's contacts reported being disgusted by his behavior, but felt too intimidated to report it.
  •  New Rule (0+ / 0-)

    Regarding Republican sex scandals: The primary and secondary sugjects of the scandal must make shitheaded, incriminating statements 24 hours a day, every day... for awhile. Cable news must cover this 24 hours a day.

    Seems to me these guys are slacking off at night now. Not very entertaining.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:45:12 AM PDT

  •  Edwin Edwards was SO right. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tung sol

    A dead girl or a LIVE boy.  And guess what, there's more than ONE live boy.  And guess what else, them live boys can make a fortune by telling their stories.
    And guess further ..... one of their parents is less than happy and wants some motherfuckin payback from the Grand Old Pedophiles.

    Denny Hastert, you might want to look at some property in Dubai.  The area of the Michael Jackson estate is quite nice I hear.

    If we're dumb. Then God is dumb. And maybe a little ugly on the side.

    by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:45:35 AM PDT

  •  They are trying to squash this quick. (0+ / 0-)

    The longer it goes on, the deeper the shit gets. Jump on it quick and smooth it over fast. Don't let 'em look under the rug.

  •  In any case, at the very least (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Whether a page is above or below the age of consent, this is clearly a case of sexual harassment.

    Conlige suspectos semper habitos

    by Marcus Junius Brutus on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:46:48 AM PDT

  •  I wouldn't try to defend anyone (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in a position of power who engages in sex with a minor who works for them (or their institution). Gingrich's frame that "Democrats do it too" is the lamest. Why fall into his trap? It's wrong whether Democrats have done it in the past or not. How far can you get with an argument like, "Our horny Congresspeople are more ethical!" Bad move.

  •  good timeline (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm wondering how this dkos hit-an-run poster fits into all of this.


    Fri Jul 28, 2006 - created blogspot account for StopSexPred

    Make the World Safer for our Kids
    Welcome to !!! This blog is dedicated to exposing sex predators before they can get to our kids. This site is intended to serve as a clearing house for the public to report sex predators and as a resource for concerned parents and citizens.

    Mon Sep 04, 2006 - posts to StopSexPred blog about Wonkette story and story about "skinterns"

    Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 08:48:09 PM EDT - first dkos post (in diary about Foley)

    It's not that he's gay. It's that he constantly hits on underage interns on The Hill. You guys talk about an "open secret" well Foley's eye for the young boys in the White House and around the Capitol is what has the Republican bosses scared to death. It's just wrong that this guy can hit on young boys and still be in the leadership.

    Thu Sep 21, 2006 6AM - posts to StopSexPred blog with insider emails from Interns (supposedly in response to the previous skintern blog post)

          FIRST EMAIL
          From: congress intern
          Signed-By: Mailed-By:
          Date: Sep 12, 2006 12:34 PM

          I saw your article’s about Congressional sex scandals with interns. ....

          SECOND EMAIL

          From: hill boy
          Signed-By: Mailed-By:
          Date: Sep 17, 2006 7:55 PM
          Subject: Outraged by skinterns?

          After reading your post on skinterns I wanted to fill you in on what really goes on in the halls of Congress. ...

          THIRD EMAIL
          From: repub intern
          Date: Sep 18, 2006 2:07 PM

          My dad who gives a lot of money to republicans got me an internship capitolhill. ...

    Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 02:18:14 PM - dkos comment pimping blog and insider emails

    "Today I Googled Congressman Foley and came upon this website:"
    (pimps the blogspot StopSexPred URL)
    "I was just shocked by what I found."

    Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 02:25:31 PM - dkos diary pimping blog and insider emails

    My analysis.  Too coincidental the creation of the blogspot account and the JULY 27, 2006 timeline events above occuring nearly at the same day. Is it complete coincidence the signing ceremony and $100,000 occured when the leak/outing blog account was created?

    The dkos account my not be owned by the blogspot account, but I doubt this.  Seems to be fake, "hey I just found this website, check it out"

    How in the world would interns happen to randomly stumble upon this website and send in emails.  Based solely on a blog rant about "skinterns".

    Aren't these three emails close to the ones talked about on the recent ABC news coverage of this event and the interview of an intern (advisor?)?

    Was this planned?  Why the long roll out for this leak?  Was this an Oct surprise meant to distract the media from something else?  

  •  add this to timeline (0+ / 0-)

    Does someone have a more recent dmsilev graph on userid?

    When was this dkos account created?

    August 9th was 100,000 so I'm guessing sometime around August 20th?  Why was this account made to let dkos out the intern scandal??

  •  "But Clinton...But Studds...The LIBRUL MEDIA! (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a great one from redstate:

    Let's change the subject.

    Let's talk about how what the Media did was just as bad, if not worse.

    Let's talk about what the Democrats are likely to do if they get in power.

    Let's talk about how, tactically, this isn't that bad to lose him because he didn't consistently vote the way we'd like.

    Doctor Dobson will probably be no help on this issue, his "because of you" page has a letter that begins "A few days ago, I called your 800 number to order information on pornography, specifically resources that would help our teenage son who is struggling with material on the Internet." Goodness only knows whether this is a veiled attack on the House Republicans who may have been cybering their child (who, if he was sixteen, is really more of a "young man" and should be able to make his own decisions regarding his sexual habits).

    Am I right folks? Let's get on message:

    It's not "What Foley did was bad."

    It's "What Foley did was bad, but"

    "Party of Personal Responsibility", step forward and take a bow!

    Government sucks. Vote for us and we'll prove it. --Republican Party Platform

    by turbonium on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:35:04 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site