[Republican Red]

The net widens and it's not just Republican's who somehow knew about the emails.

[wideawake]

Correct. In other words, people knew there was a predator out there, but they failed to report him immediately - preferring to wait until a time that created a political opportunity.

They did not care if another teen was victimized while they waited for their moment - they were motivated by politics, not public safety.

[Republican Red]

Here is a release from the editor of the St Pete paper:

An editor’s note from the St. Petersburg Times, the first news outlet to evidently receive the email exchange between Mr. Foley and a former page from Louisiana. It is followed by press statements from the Office of the Speaker.

A Note From the Editors

There still seems to be some confusion about the order of events related to our coverage of Rep. Mark Foley and his email exchanges with teenagers he met through the congressional page program. Let me try to clear this up.

In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange Foley had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later got them,too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat. Foley asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about the boy's upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked the teen to send him a “pic” of himself. Also among those emails was the page’s exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander, who had been the teen’s sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his exchange he’d had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley was out of bounds.

There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him. He told us Foley’s request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy’s family didn’t want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.

So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn’t go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we said in today’s paper, our policy is that we don’t make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn’t meet our standard for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.

Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position. The Louisiana boy’s emails broke into the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them online. Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley’s Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy’s emails and was calling for an investigation. That’s when we wrote our first story, for Friday’s papers. After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC and provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other page that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted friendliness. That’s what drove Foley to resign on Friday.

I hope this helps clarify a bit about what we knew and when we knew it.

Scott Montgomery

Government & Politics Editor

[JimSEA]

Three separate groups seem to have varying degrees of guilt here.

Foley and his staff for covering up this pederasty and criminal harassment.The Republican leadership for what can only be a cover up of embarrassing and criminal behavior by one of their own.The Democratic leadership for withholding this information until just prior to the election in hopes of benefiting by ousting the Representative and, they hope, the Speaker. By doing this they gave Foley at least an extra year to prey on young pages. Cover up up criminal behavior for partisan political advantage.

Pretty disgusting all around.

[OldFriend]

Seemingly, not everyone knew that Foley was a predator, but those that did chose to remain silent until such time as it could be most politically damaging.

This does not negate the ugliness of Foley's behaviour.

It does put the revelations into a new light.

[muawiyah]

The Republicans didn't know about the material C.R.E.W. sat on for three years while this old pervert abused young children.

One might also question why the FBI sat on this same information ~ does George Soros' chain of command reach into the Justice Department?

[roses of sharon]

Wow, I wish we could fight like the DNC and their MSM do, talk about brilliant!

Of course we would need, ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBCNPRBBCNYTWPHOLLYWOODLATAARPNAACPNOWNEAAFLCIONABLAGLADPBSNEWSWEEKTIMEUSNEWSNATIONROLLINGSTONEPEOPLEMTVGEVIACOMUNITEDNATIONSHUMANRIGHTSWATCREDCROSSABACAIRACLU............

[raccoonradio]

I hope other criminal offenders in Congress should do the honorable thing and, like Cong. Foley, resign.
Senator Kennedy, it's your move.

""Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law?
Or is there one system for the average citizen
and another for the high and mighty?"
- Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973 -

[butternut_squash_bisque]

"...I think they are going to have some explaining to do."

Good fricking luck getting that to happen.

Don't you know that elite lib-dem trash are above the law, and not subject to the morals and mores of the rest of us?

[Republican Red]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: 202-225-2800

September 30, 2006 Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller

INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTER

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.

[frankjr]

"I Find This Puzzling" (Foley set up?)

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/10/i_smell_a_rat.html

[jwalsh07]

Yes and yes. Foley is disgusting the Dems are unleashing October surprises at a frantic pace.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

You're very good at connecting the dots where other people don't even SEE dots. < :)

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

One has to get up mighty early in the morning to get ahead of Freepers.

[Howlin]

The St. Petersburg Times had these emails last year; why didn't THEY publish them back then?

[Txsleuth]

bttt

[KJC1]

BTTT

[windchime]

The knowledge of Foley's despicable behavior was withheld for maximum exploitation with no regard in the interim for potential victims.

Who benefits?

[PghBaldy]

The thing that struck me, reading the IMs, was why a boy would continue such IMing with an older man. I have also assumed that Dems knew what was up, if Reps did. I don't even know what either knew, and when. Even though there is a BIG difference between the emails and the IMs, I personally considered the seemingly harmless emails creepy, just because of the request for a photo (not knowing that supposedly Congressmen like them for files). Nonetheless, it doesn't matter if the exchanges were legal in the eyes of the Congress. A superior should not do what Foley supposedly did to a 16 year old page. I find it hard to believe Dems didn't know someone creepy was going on. The one thing they know how to do is play hardball.

[PghBaldy]

BTW, great thread. It all seems to perfect, and too sudden (the timing is impeccable). If Dems are concerned about protecting pages, why didn't they break the news on their own? I assume they knew something creepy was going on.

[bobsunshine]

Here is some more interesting info and it appears at least one of the emails has been altered:

UPDATE V: Now a former page is saying that he rang the bell five years ago. “A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page. Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk’s office.

Really? Well it’s amazing that Matthew never mentioned this warning on his message boards. Pretty small bell don’t you think?

UPDATE VI: Well, appears ole Matthew has taken his Message Board offline (this within the last hour). His message: “Because of the current situation. I am shutting down the board until I can provide a proper statement about my part in what has been going on. I appreciate your patience. If you are the board administrator, you can log in below and begin setting up your new board”

Prior to this you could search the archives, and you would have found NO reference to any warning about Representative Foley as I previously noted above.

Apparently that is most embarrassing to this “page” who is telling ABC News that he was “warned” about Foley five years ago, YET NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ON HIS MESSAGE BOARD. So we are to believe that Matthew kept this information “secret” and just happened to remember it now? Right!

FOLEYGATE HAS BEGUN

From FloppingAces: foleygat-has-begun

An important update here. Just Barking Mad has found that at least one of the emails in question have been altered by someone. Just Barking Mad found this email on that blog Stop Sex Predators.. and Wild Bill has posted a copy of each one of the disputed emails with the differences pointed out:



And now the one from SSP:

You know it almost looks like the author of SSP was read the email, maybe over the phone, and tried to produce something that looked like a faxed copy. Thing is he forgot all the little stuff.