Does Hastert Eventually Step Down?

#26
#26
CSpindizzy said:
Before we start jumping to conclusions we have no info on which set of messages were during what period. There are more than one sets of IM's in the news. WHo knows what were during what period.

Now there are at least two other former pages saying Foley made advances at them while they were pages.

Now you all that said we need to wait for the facts, let's not suddenly jump to conclusions that this was all legal and consensual. The age of consent is 16. But I seem to recall during the whole Clinton affair how people decried Clinton for doing what he did on the job.

The spin machines are out in force. Before this is over, the media will somehow be the evil in this as one side makes the other look like a greater evil than someone using his power and influence to seduce underage unpaid pages on the job.

I read all of this about the original emails and I'd like to think this would have raised a few more alarms than it did:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/FoleyEmailExchangeUpdated.pdf
Click to expand...
Easy distinction here: Clinton was under investigation for sexual assault, harrassment, and rape. His sex life was pertinent to the investigation and he went on to lie about his relationship with Lewinsky.

Wow, the age of consent is 16 in the District of Columbia. So, again, what is the problem here? What he did was unethical, in my opinion, but again I believe homosexuality, in general, is unethical. He had an online sexual relationship with boys who were of the age of consent.
 
#27
#27
Teachers get fired for this. People even consenting adults in companies get fired for this. Is there no problem with a sitting member of Congress using his power to seduce unpaid interns while on the clock? Is there no problem with the fact that no one pursued this?

Foley's sex life will come into play here. He has a history of questionable behavior and even now is being investigated for a drunken attempt to get into the pages' dorm a block from his office.
 
#28
#28
"The point is that NO PARTY has a moral mandate or commands a greater respect for life than any other. Because Republicans generally refer to themselves as Pro-life and Democrats as Pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion), many Republicans shamefully consider themselves morally superior to Democrats. Judge not lest ye be judged. Criminal behavior, values, morality - those are individual characteristics and have nothing to do with political party affiliation. Just a reminder..."
 
#29
#29
therealUT said:
He had an online sexual relationship with boys who were of the age of consent.
Click to expand...

Even if the pages were over the age of consent, Foley is at the very least guilty of sexual harassment and a number of employment practices violations.
 
#32
#32
It's that one issue that we're never going to agree on that I make it a point to never discuss on here.
 
#33
#33
GAVol said:
Even if the pages were over the age of consent, Foley is at the very least guilty of sexual harassment and a number of employment practices violations.
Click to expand...

And the way the leadership handled this as well?

And is sexual harrassment not a major issue?
 
#34
#34
Hastert is now making this all about "who knew what, when?". I guess the fact that the leadership sat on this and what Foley did comes second to any alleged agenda by someone else?
 
#36
#36
I don't know who knew what when, but at the very least I think Hastert is guilty of underestimating just how warped Foley was. Still not sure how much he can be blamed for that.
 
#37
#37
What about..

Tom Reynolds (R-NY) took $100,000 from the political PAC of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in July of 2006. Which would just be GOP business as usual but for one thing — Reynolds had been informed months before that Foley had a certain e-mail problem. You tell me — which was more important to Rep. Reynolds: principle or politics?
Click to expand...
 
#38
#38
Let's analyze the argument here. Hastert knew about this long ago. There was always a possibility of something like this blowing up so what was the response? Nothing. Foley has a reputation for spending large amounts of time with 18 and under staffers. A strange string of emails even with the receipient feeling creeped out about this sent up no red flags.

Hastert's argument is that when he found out he did something and the member is gone. From what Foley's people are saying, he was approached by ABC and he went to Hastert to resign. If Foley is telling the truth, Hastert did not do anything but accept a resignation.

Hastert says that he's reached out to the experts to make sure this doesn't happen again. What has been done and when?

Hastert alleges that the Left knew about this and sandbagged it. Then he is just as guilty for knowing about it as well. He could have probed more and came up with the same information as ABC. His inaction for political reasons is just as corrupt as the alleged action on the part of Left operatives.

Hastert is trying to divert attention away by saying he is sorry it happened but when he found out he dealt with it immediately. According to the key players in this, he did nothing all the way up to Foley leaving. And now he's trying to turn this political saying the Dems sandbagged this and are out to get him.

Well the top leadership in the House and his own party has already jumped ship with both Blunt and Boehner saying they would have handled this much differently. If the top two positions below Hastert said this was essentially handled wrong, then what other argument is there?
 
#39
#39
GAVol said:
I don't know who knew what when, but at the very least I think Hastert is guilty of underestimating just how warped Foley was. Still not sure how much he can be blamed for that.
Click to expand...

Foley's reputation was not a secret. If his staff is keeping Coach that isolated then they are incompetent and he clearly has no handle on his own party in his own chamber.
 
#40
#40
Now there is a link on Drudge to an OK station that says a 21 year old staffer to Rep. Istook is the one who is attributed to the IM's on ABCNews' story. This OK station is saying Jordan Edmund, from CA, is the one whose name appeared on the ABCNews.com site before being pulled. If this is the case, this means the LA page is completely different and the IM's floating around are all attributed to different people. So that means Foley was IM'ing multiple people about various topics we will refrain from discussing.

Just how wide was this and who knew what and when? It's hard to believe that all of these pages being abused like this would not go unnoticed. There is a potential for Dems to know about this. But what is more deplorable? The Dems sitting on this or the Republicans who were running this just sitting on this?

This will get much worse before it gets better. The only good news for the GOP is that this draws attention away from the Woodward book.
 
#41
#41
OWB said:
"The point is that NO PARTY has a moral mandate or commands a greater respect for life than any other. Because Republicans generally refer to themselves as Pro-life and Democrats as Pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion), many Republicans shamefully consider themselves morally superior to Democrats. Judge not lest ye be judged. Criminal behavior, values, morality - those are individual characteristics and have nothing to do with political party affiliation. Just a reminder..."
Click to expand...

The way I see it, both parties make claims to moral high ground which both violate consistently. It's nuts when Reps do it and it's nuts when Dems do it.
 
#42
#42
Politicians have used their power and influence for years (read, since the 1790s) for sex. It is nothing new and it is not quite as scandalous as people are trying to make it out to be. People who pursue positions of power (politicians, CEOs, Generals, Kings, Dictators) tend to have relations with many people under them. Whether this is ethical or not, it is not going to go away. It is a fact of politics.
 
#43
#43
Democratic congressman Gerry Studds didn't he do the same thing in 83? where was the outrage then?
 
#44
#44
oklavol said:
Barnby Clark has been surprisely quiet doing all of this........
Click to expand...

I am sure there are alot of people being quiet on this. There are enough immoral people on both sides of the aisle to go around, they don't want to speak too loudly knowing the skeletons they have in their own closet.
 
#49
#49
This story has so many twists and turns it's impossible to follow:

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.

The news come on the heels that former FBI Chief Louis Freeh has been named to investigate the mess.
Click to expand...
 
#50
#50
We're to the point of sitting back and waiting now. We're in CYA damage control mode until some facts come out. Even if this prank is true, why would a GOP operative lure a member of the same party? And that still does not take away from the fact that Foley did this. No one held a gun to his head and made him speak of sexual acts while he was voting. This does not take away from Foley being drunk trying to get into the page dorm nor the emails he sent the other page from LA. This whole issue just really smells odd....very odd.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top