Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » GOP House leadership should resign (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: GOP House leadership should resign
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
LoJ, even if they didn't communicate all the details, which Boehner and the page program director said that they did, they did communicate how serious they thought it was and got a conscious "I will take care of this [awful crap]" out of Hastert. Clearly, according to all of them, he knew it was very bad.
Clearly, it is in the best interest of all of them to claim that. I'm not sure that we KNOW it's true. In situations like this everyone will of course say they told everything they knew to the person above them. That way they can claim that it the fault of someone below them or above them. And of course the person at the top can just say they weren't told enough details. That's what I expect. I'm not sure we can get at the full truth until there's a full investigation.

I was basing my comments on the time line Ricky gave me, particularly this:
quote:
The clerk asked to see the e-mail. Alexander's "office" declined, citing privacy. "The clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not." Instead, Alexander's chief of staff called the exchange "over-friendly."

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.localnewswatch.com/benton/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=11664
quote:
Still, such tears are growing increasingly evident. Last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he told Hastert of Foley's inappropriate behavior last spring and was told the issue was being dealt with. Boehner then sought to deny he had said it.

On Tuesday, Boehner returned to his original contention, emphasizing Hastert's responsibility for the page program.

Why is everyone lying like crazy right now? Well it is easy to see the truth, the truth comes out when they are worried their denials won't fly so they keep running back to it. It's really hard to keep up a lie when you're worried about whether other people will know to help with it, isn't it?
quote:
At least two Florida newspapers have acknowledged they received copies of e-mails sent by Foley last year, but decided it wasn't enough to publish a story that could destroy his career.
So, I guess we can safely say that the either the parents never requested to keep it quiet or the rep.s in question had access to more than just one part of one email since they somehow made their way out of the government email and security network. Remember, this is in the period in which the NSA was/is recording all emails and IMs, I'm sure the government had/has it.

[ October 04, 2006, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
quote:
He had a prostitution ring running out of his house. Yeah, nothing wrong with that!
Once he learned of it (from his landlord) he kicked out Gobie - your accusation is misleading.
I can't see Frank not having some idea before his landlord "enlightened" him. Frank meets Gobie and then moves him in and you think they never had the "So, what do you do for a living?" discussion? That topic generally comes up in a relationship.

Frank knew Gobie was a prosititute so either Gobie told Frank he was still turning tricks and Frank was cool with that (even though it is illegal) or some other way to earn money had to be offered. No way I'd believe Frank was totally oblivious to Gobie's acivities. I'm sure Frank has retained plausible deniabiltiy but you'd have to be naive to believe Frank had no clue, Frank would have to be an idiot and I don't think he is.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Naw, I don't think it's a given that Frank knew. It's quite possible that Gobie lied to Frank. If Frank is gone all day at the office, it may not be that hard to fool him no matter how intelligent he was. I don't know how extensive this "prostitution ring" was, but if it was limited to short hours while Frank was at work it's possible he wouldn't find out for a bit.

I do agree that it is suspicious, though. I think it's very possible that he knew or at the very least had his suspicions about the character of Gobie but it's not a sure thing that he knew about the prostitution as far as I can tell.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
At least two Florida newspapers have acknowledged they received copies of e-mails sent by Foley last year, but decided it wasn't enough to publish a story that could destroy his career
So, not even news hungry media-types decided it the emails weren't bad enough to require further investigation. Interesting.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
At least two Florida newspapers have acknowledged they received copies of e-mails sent by Foley last year, but decided it wasn't enough to publish a story that could destroy his career.
So, I guess we can safely say that the either the parents never requested to keep it quiet or the rep.s in question had access to more than just one part of one email since they somehow made their way out of the government email and security network. Remember, this is in the period in which the NSA was/is recording all emails and IMs, I'm sure the government had/has it.
You think the reps in question are the ones that sent it to newspapers? I am not convinced that because some newspapers had some fairly innocuous (at least not extreme enough for a story) emails that Hastert knew just how serious Foley was getting with pages. Sure, it's quite possible that the "government" keeps backup logs of all emails/IMs going through their system but that doesn't mean Hastert or anyone else in particular reads them all or is even able to find a particular one at any moment. Even if Hastert had it in his power to hunt down all emails and IMs Foley was sending I'm not sure I'd want him to track and read them based on a complaint that Foley was overly friendly.

I think it's quite possible that there are a few republican and democrat "hackers" within the government who snoop into particular people's correspondance and occasionally pass it on to the press when they come across something "interesting." Does that mean those "hackers" also inform Hastert? I doubt it.

That's why I'm curious where the newspapers got it from. It's quite possible that somehow a democrat found out and instead of thinking of the boy's best interest and informed authorities just thought of how it'd hurt Foley and republicans and passed it on to the press. Heck, it could have been a democrat page messing around or hearing stuff through the grapevine and decided to do some "investigating."

That's not to blame what happened on the democrats. The blame squarely rests with Foley. But all who knew and could have done more but didn't are also muddied by this. Both republicans who were informed by the page himself and any person who reported it to the press (whether republican or democrat).

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 - there's a huge difference between knowing that someone turns tricks and knowng that they operate out of your house.

I don't consider prostitution by consenting adults a moral offense, so I have no problem there.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"there's a huge difference between knowing that someone turns tricks and knowng that they operate out of your house"

It's like having a COngressman live in your house. It's one thing to know they legislate... but to have them run a Congress in your basement [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LoJ - ABC says it came from the pages themselves.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm trying to understand why this is suddenly the hot topic of the day, and why people are calling for the head of the Speaker of the House. I just don't get it. It's a scandal. It sucks.
I think you answered your own question. The variable is how close to an election it hits the airwaves. Besides the candidates, their parties and control of Congress, there is also the not-insignificant issue of how much money the MSM can make off of "the story", particularly TV/cable. So, we can expect scandal-mongers to be as screechy as possible. If this remains a hot topic through the election, it will die the day after.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If this remains a hot topic through the election, it will die the day after.
Then why does it seem like it is so important to people on this forum? Are people on this forum calling for the head of Hastert because of the election, or because they honestly believe he should have done more a year ago?

It's not just the media - I'm seeing it on this thread, and trying to understand motivation - and doing my darndest to ASK about it, not assume, not accuse - I hope I'm not failing on that.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been thinking it MAY be pretty horrible and even cause for Hastert to lose his job because it MAY be a lot more than just a overly friendly email misunderstanding. If a number of other pages complained and were "essentially" ignored (as in, someone mentioned to Foley to cool it but then dropped the matter, even after more complaints came in) then it's a really big deal. It's not like someone being flirty at a bar or some anonymous person on the web. This is an on the job problem dealing with people you interact with on the job. If someone makes a complaint the person receiving the complaint (supervisor or whatever) has a responsibility to see it through. To have it totally unresolved to the point where the pages feel they have to "go public" for anything to happen then it is totally unacceptable. It doesn't matter if the kids were 13 or 43, male or female. If there's a complaint that is occurring and reoccuring and isn't resolved them something is seriously wrong.

IF all Hastert and his workers ever heard was that Foley was overly friendly in an email and it turned out that Foley was doing a lot more, then no, I don't think it's the hugest of deals. Ideally they'd learn to look into something more when a complaint is made but that's about it. If Foley is unprofessional and downright smutty to a dozen pages that is a heckuva lot different than if it came out that he was talking diry to a bunch of random 16 year olds on the net (although even that would be a sad thing considering his position). So to me, it could POTENTIALLY be a big deal but isn't necessarily. We should look into it to find out, though.

edited to add: Remember this is something that may have been ongoing for over a YEAR.

[ October 04, 2006, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav, the issue is public trust and whether Hastert violated it. Usually violation of the public trust involves financial corruption, but the GOP has coopted morality as a critical piece of their party mission. That results in a violation of their definition of the public trust when they exhibit moral corruption. To paraphrase, "follow the taint". The Dems made no such highfalutin claim, so they can frustrate G3 by "getting away" with similar behaviors.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
Jav, the issue is public trust and whether Hastert violated it. Usually violation of the public trust involves financial corruption, but the GOP has coopted morality as a critical piece of their party mission. That results in a violation of their definition of the public trust when they exhibit moral corruption. To paraphrase, "follow the taint". The Dems made no such highfalutin claim, so they can frustrate G3 by "getting away" with similar behaviors.

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. What public trust was violated by Hastert? I certainly see public trust violated by Foley, but so far, not by Hastert.

As LOJ said, if it turns out that repeated warnings were ignored, then yeah, Hastert violated public trust, IMHO - but so far, I haven't heard anything even rumbling in that direction.

On last thing - are you saying that had this been a democrat in control of the house, not dealing with a democrat doing these same things, that it'd be okay, because they don't make a big deal about public trust or something? I'm truly not trying to put words in your mouth there - so please correct me, but for some reason, that's part of what I get from what you said.

[ October 04, 2006, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Repeated warnings?

1. Reynolds deals privately with Foley then tells Hastert.

2. Shimkus tells Hastert.

3. Boehner tells Hastert.

That's 3 warnings that took place last year that we know of, and probably more since it was well known among the pages that Foley was doing this but they felt powerless since all their complaints had failed.

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberal, what are you talking about? Can you source any of that? Are they about different instances? I've said before that I may be missing information here, and I'll repeat - I haven't seen what you seem to be asserting here in anything I read. Can you show me where you are getting this stuff?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've seen that too, Jav. Gonna let someone else hunt it down tho. No offense, just tired and still working on a column. Why do I agree to regularly scheduled tasks?? [Frown]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Liberal, what are you talking about? Can you source any of that? Are they about different instances?
Not only that, but did Hastert REALIZE they were different instances? "Boss, I just got word about a Foley email that I need to talk to you about." "Yes, I've already been notified, thanks. I'm taking care of it. I have an appointment to meet with Foley at 2." Or, "yes, I spoke with him about this a week ago. I've taken care of it." If he only heard about one email, wasn't given any details of it beyond it being overly friendly it doesn't matter if one person told him about it or 8 people, he likely will have the same (or very similar) reaction.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
LoJ - ABC says it came from the pages themselves
The weird thing is that Florida papers also got emails (assumedly from pages) that weren't considered newsworthy. It sounded like they got it even earlier. So was someone sending each email they got until it got sufficiently bad? Did the editors in Florida just not realize how big a story this could become? Did the ones who sent the emails to the press also send their emails to their supervisors?

It's one thing to turn to the press because you tried to work things out with a supervisor and they wouldn't/couldn't fix the problem. It's another to go straight to the press without even telling anyone who could have done something about it (supervisor, cops, Hastert, etc.). Why keep the email private from everyone who could help and then go public to the press? This makes me suspicious that either Hastert and others are lying about how much they knew about what was in those emails OR the informant had other motives.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
It's quite possible that somehow a democrat found out and instead of thinking of the boy's best interest and informed authorities just thought of how it'd hurt Foley and republicans and passed it on to the press.

I think you're going to see more and more Democrats pull back on this one (as Lanny Davis recommended on Larry King last night). If a Democrat or two found out and simply sat on it to release as an October suprise (not saying they did but someone appears to have sat no this for some time), this would backfire like nothing has before.

I think it's a bad idea for Democrats to focus on the sexcapades of Foley and try to make it a centerpiece of their election season. Most Americans don't get too drawn into salacious actions and their resultant attacks beyond a grin and a wink, they certainly don't vote based on it. The last time this was tried (by Republicans in 1998 over Clinton/Lewinsky)it cost the Republicans, not the Democrats. I think we'll see a repeat of 1998 if the Democrats don't learn from that history.

Then, next week or possibly the next if the Foley story retains traction (or the Democrats don't wise up), we can move on the the next October surprise of who knew what and wen they knew it or who covered up.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The first emails weren't clear-cut enough to lay that kind of heat on someone, so they passed, until the more explicit stuff came out.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The first emails weren't clear-cut enough to lay that kind of heat on someone, so they passed, until the more explicit stuff came out.
So how recent is this more explicit stuff? Was this more explicit stuff ever complained about to their supervisors/Hastert? Is it at all possible that when the more innocent emails were known to dems that someone took advantage of a known weakness of Foley to draw him into saying more explicit stuff? Or that once the one was found fishing expeditions went out to find some other guy who flirted back a bit and got the most juicy stuff out of Foley but never complained before? Is that what Rush and Drudge are implying?

It seems there definitely was definitely at least one email that was ... well... mild. There were definitely more than one email or IM that were ... significant. There have been accusations but I don't think any proof of which ones were seen by Hastert some time ago or even complained about.

Do we know for sure which ones were actually complained about to their supervisor?

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And here's at least #4

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/hastert.foley/

quote:
A former aide to former Rep. Mark Foley said Wednesday he notified House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office of concerns about Foley's behavior over three years ago -- two year before previous accounts have suggested top GOP leaders knew of the issue, according to The Associated Press.

There was no immediate response to the report from Hastert's office.

How many more people have to come forward before it is clear Hastert is complicit in keeping this quiet?

[ October 04, 2006, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think you're going to see more and more Democrats pull back on this one (as Lanny Davis recommended on Larry King last night). If a Democrat or two found out and simply sat on it to release as an October suprise (not saying they did but someone appears to have sat no this for some time), this would backfire like nothing has before."

Proving that a Dem sat on it in order to hammer a election time is a tougher sell than proving that Haster et al sat on it to avoid being hammered at election time, for, all other things being equal... aren't. Foley was a Rep, the Reps ran the House, Hastert was their boss...

But I agree that both sides are making too much f it already.

"I'm shocked, disgusted, outraged, nauseated... ad nauseum."

However, the balancing act on this easily can work to the Dems advantage without them calling off the attack but merely toning it down.

The Reps can't help but respond to Foley's actions as outrageous. The Dems need only remind the public now and then, and let the Reps protest too much in reply.

Also, Monica was exaggerated by the reps to the EXTREME. Clinton broke no lae except Hillary's. Monica was an adult, and it's not illegal to boink in the Oval Office.

But they impeached Clinton.

(Clinton hurt the Dems by not fessing up. The Reps were already under the gun at the time. Gingrich, their former poster boy, was on his way to resigning that November.)

Without Clinton, the reps might have fared worse. They were under the gun so badly by then that they hammered the Lewinsky affair more than was wise.

The Dems aren't under the gun. I suspect they'll show some restraint. But not much, since the Reps have proven that the only defense they currently know is offense, and you have to smack a smacker to put him down.

But yes, October is likely to be full of surprises.

Live by the suppressed story; die by the leaked story.

It's how it works.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
On last thing - are you saying that had this been a democrat in control of the house, not dealing with a democrat doing these same things, that it'd be okay, because they don't make a big deal about public trust or something?
No, I am saying that if you claim the moral highground and then get caught doing the same dirty thing you elevated yourself above, you're guilty of the dirty deed and hypocrisy. Of the two, people more readily forgive the dirty deed. Because of their famous family values rhetoric, all Goppers are damaged by Foley's misdoings. I don't think all Dems would be similarly diminished by one of their own misdoing it.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
quote:
On last thing - are you saying that had this been a democrat in control of the house, not dealing with a democrat doing these same things, that it'd be okay, because they don't make a big deal about public trust or something?
No, I am saying that if you claim the moral highground and then get caught doing the same dirty thing you elevated yourself above, you're guilty of the dirty deed and hypocrisy. Of the two, people more readily forgive the dirty deed. Because of their famous family values rhetoric, all Goppers are damaged by Foley's misdoings. I don't think all Dems would be similarly diminished by one of their own misdoing it.
Thanks for clarifying.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"On last thing - are you saying that had this been a democrat in control of the house, not dealing with a democrat doing these same things, that it'd be okay, because they don't make a big deal about public trust or something?'

Gawrsh no, jav. He's jsut sayin: live by self-ascribed high moral ground, die by perceived low moral ground. This scandals hammers at the Reps' conservative 'family values' base in an especially withering manner.

The Dems' perceived fall from grace on such matters would be less of a drop, because they don't portray themselves as the moral paragons that Reps claim to represent.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A former aide to former Rep. Mark Foley said Wednesday he notified House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office of concerns about Foley's behavior over three years ago -- two year before previous accounts have suggested top GOP leaders knew of the issue, according to The Associated Press.

There was no immediate response to the report from Hastert's office.

Again, no specifics? What behavior exactly? Maybe the guy was acting in a cliche' flamboyantly gay way. If he was I'm sure there were TONS of republicans who recoiled a bit and mentioned something of his behavior to Hastert. If Hastert gets it all the time from people uncomfortable around gays then that may make it all the more reasonable for no alarms to go off in his head when he hears of an "overly friendly" email to a page.

It doesn't matter if it's one hundred people saying they said SOMETHING to Hastert. Even if it was 20 years ago. Unless we know the specifics of what they said it's not a convincing argument.

BTW, there's no need to bold the "no immediate response" line as if that were particularly telling. If a reporter says, person X claims that 3 years ago they said Y to you, I wouldn't expect your PR people to have an IMMEDIATE response.

Edited to add an important "no" I forgot while typing fast before dinner.

[ October 04, 2006, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I ain't joinin' the lynch Hastert mob till we gots mo' than this here.

If these other Congressmen were so concerned, if the material they possesed was so damning, why did they take it to the Law instead of keeping it in house?

It's a crime not to report child abuse in most States, I don't know about D.C.


Jav

Even in States where the Age of Consent is under 18, they can often still get you for contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

I'm pretty sure there must be some law against soliciting child pornography.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jav

Even in States where the Age of Consent is under 18, they can often still get you for contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

I'm pretty sure there must be some law against soliciting child pornography.

That'd make sense to me. Just don't know for sure, personally.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin] It's like having a COngressman live in your house. It's one thing to know they legislate... but to have them run a Congress in your basement ... [Big Grin]

Now really ...! Which is the worse profession? Prostitution or the Law? I can assure you I'd be much more upset if my lover were running a Congress in my cellar than I would be if she put out for money on the roof!

I don't know, and I probably don't care any more about the legal implications here than I do about the law, but these were not emails. They were "instant messages"; isn't that a LAN or a closed-circuit thing? Are there no expectations of privacy left in our country ...?

Frankly, I don't think they can or will get him on anything. What was his name again? That he's resigned is probably the only bonus the American public is going to get. And as for feeling sorry for him, it is obvious he's not the marrying type, so skip that Florida barrier reef. Now he's covered by all the fringe benefits of being gay and therefore specially protected, as Quentin Crisp might have put it, as a stately homo with statecraft experience and historical provenance.

Cripes, now his memoirs may be of interest to publishers and filmmakers.

"Being gay is like being famous. One is now expected to write devastating memoirs." -- David Goguen --

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
""Being gay is like being famous. One is now expected to write devastating memoirs." -- David Goguen"

foley, apparently, wrote devastating 'premoirs'.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Democratic Restraint

"WASHINGTON - Usually out front in force, national Democrats expressed outrage over the Mark Foley scandal and its aftermath but largely let their candidates and allied groups do the tough talking.

Party leaders showed restraint as Republicans beat up each other amid accusations of a less-than-agressive initial response into flirtatious e-mails the GOP congressman sent to teenage male pages.

"There's no need for Democrats to drive this," said James Ruvolo, a former state Democratic Party chairman in Ohio, a state with hard-fought House and Senate races."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Also, Monica was exaggerated by the reps to the EXTREME. Clinton broke no lae except Hillary's. Monica was an adult, and it's not illegal to boink in the Oval Office.

But they impeached Clinton.

I am continually surprised that there are people that still believe Clinton was impeached for having sex with Lewinsky and that no laws were broken. You must be deliberately ignorant of the facts to maintain that. Clinton did break laws, he committed a felony - perjury. You may decide that perjury is not enough for impeachment, I can see why you would want to make that case, but to deny the facts as though they never happened is mindboggling.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clinton did break laws, he committed a felony - perjury.
Not to be Ornery [Smile] , but can you source your argument that Clinton committed a felony? I am unaware that he was ever tried for perjury in a court, and the Senate acquitted him of the charge (55-45). The subject for which the discussion of perjury was raised was a relationship between him and ML, in which non-intercourse sexual acts occurred, and about which he lied. The formal impeachment charge was perjury, but as usual, the real reason was sex.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alright, you guys wanted specifics about what Fordham said. Here is some of the newest stuff, and there will probably be more specific stuff later today as the GOP keeps turning on this guy.

quote:
Text of remarks by Kirk Fordham, who resigned Wednesday as chief of staff to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., in an interview with The Associated Press. Fordham previously was chief of staff for ex-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.:

I've learned within the last few hours that unnamed sources have purported that I intervened on behalf of Congressman Foley to prevent a page board investigation. This is categorically false. At no point ever did I ask anyone to block any inquiries into Foley's actions or behavior. These sources know this allegation is false.

Having stepped down as Mr. Reynolds' chief of staff, I have no reason to state anything other than the facts. I have no congressman and no office to protect. I intend to fully cooperate with any and every investigation of Mr. Foley's conduct. At the same time, I will fully disclose to the FBI and the House ethics committee any and all meetings and phone calls I had with senior staffers in the House leadership about any of Foley's inappropriate activities.

The fact is, even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's inappropriate behavior. One of these staffers is still employed by a senior House Republican leader. Rather than trying to shift the blame on me, those who are employed by these House leaders should acknowledge what they know about their action or inaction in response to the information they knew about Mr. Foley prior to 2005.


quote:
Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene."

The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of the House GOP leadership have acknowledged.

So at this point it was specific enough for him to ask major house leaders to pointedly intervene. Sounds like he told them some serious specifics--how else to justify requested intervention--which will probably be passed onto us very shortly.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sounds like he told them some serious specifics--how else to justify requested intervention--which will probably be passed onto us very shortly.
I'll be interested in actually hearing substantiated details at some point. So far, all I've seen is a ton of assuming (ass u me) and finger pointing. It's starting to annoy me.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I know all about the perjury. That's why I said he messed up by lying. He did this in two ways:

1) Bubba made one of the greatest blunders of his career by making that January 26th, 1998 press conference in which he said:

"Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."

Serious mental breakdown in my opinion. Clinton was oft described as having narcissistic personality disorder -- the man was so full of himself it's a wonder he didn't knock himself up -- and at this point in his career, the man seemed to believe he could get away with anything. It was amazing and appalling to watch.

2) By playing duck'n'bob with his testimony in the Paula Jones trial. The great irony of the impeachment, and one that you also neglect to mention, is the role of Paula Jones in this matter. It was because of the more serious charges made by Paula Jones against Clinton that Bubba was in a courtroom in the first place. This was where the perjury took place:

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact which excluded oral sex. This definition was ordered by the Independent Counsel's Office during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. [2] During the deposition, Clinton was asked "have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which was limited strictly to intercourse, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex.

+++

As part of the impeachment inquiry, House Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde sent a list of 81 questions to Clinton on November 5, 1998. Formal impeachment hearings began on November 19. After receiving Clinton's answers, the Judiciary Committee commended four articles of impeachment to the full House. In summary, they were the following:

* Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998
* Article II: Perjury in Paula Jones case on December 23, 1997 and January 17, 1998
* Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case
* Article IV: Abuse of high office

Article I was approved by a vote of 228-206. Article II was rejected by a vote of 205-229. Article III was approved by a vote of 221-212. Article IV was rejected by a vote of 148-285. On December 19, the House of Representatives forwarded articles I and III of impeachment (perjury and obstruction of justice) to the Senate. The two articles that were passed made Clinton the first president to be impeached since Andrew Johnson in 1868 (President Richard Nixon had resigned under the threat of impeachment in 1974).



So again I'll repeat, whether it boggles your mind or not, that "Clinton broke no law except Hillary's. Monica was an adult, and it's not illegal to boink in the Oval Office."

And then I'll clarify, since stating that "Clinton broke no law except Hillary's" is indeed false as stated.

I should have stated that Clinton broke no law with Monica except Hillary's. Now, regarding Paula Jones' allegations... but Monica made the news via a semen-stained dress and some recorded phone calls, just as Foley made the news not from 1-3 year old warnings given to Hastert by Congressional colleaghues and aides but by some recorded messages made public.

Here, comparisons between Foley and Clinton verge widely.

a) The accusations against Foley are already rendered mostly irrelevant because he has resigned and because the 'testimony' (email) is already available.

b) The person under heavy fire is, ironicaly, Foley's boss, not Foley, who has removed himself from current fire by resigning. (Hastert would probaby prefer it if Foley staged a foolish Clinton false-pride denial and remained in office. Hastert could then be busier calling for Foley's resignation than defending himself.)

c) The party manning the most and heaviest cannons are not the opposition party but Foley's home party.

It remains to be seen whether a semen-stained page will emerge. The scandal has only begun and has past layers yet undivulged.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The formal impeachment charge was perjury, but as usual, the real reason was sex."

1 perjury Congressional convicxion, 1 obstruction of justice Congressional conviction. The perjury charge has proven to carry more narrative historico-political weight than the obstruction charge. 'He lied to the American people' rather than 'he obstructed justice in a trial wherein he was accused of soliciting and engaging sexual favors with Paula Jones'.

The luridness (actually, I prefer 'luridity': it sounds all hot and sweaty) of this is highlighted by Ann Coulter's involvement in the media swirl surrounding the Jones Affair.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There were four charges originally, as you point out. Two of them were passed by the House, on which he was tried in the Senate. He was acquitted of both charges, or he would have been kicked out of office. BTW, he didn't boink her.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1