Posted on 09/29/2006 12:01:58 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
Just breaking on CNN
The page in Alexander's office saw the request for a photo as perverted as soon as he read the email and told his friends that he did. If the House GOP was serious about this, they would have interviewed the page as soon as they found out about these emails. Then, the page would have told them that he recognized that the request was solicitation of a minor (if they weren't so stupid that the couldn't figure it out themselves independently, which I believe to be the case). At that point, a serious plan of action should have been put in place to monitor Foley and possibly ask him to retire quietly-- even before the IMs were made public. The problem with all these defenders here at FR is that Foley wasn't the guy least likely to do something like this-- he had a profile that would allow for the evidence that they had in hand to be a tipping point and not a starting point.
Nobody is defending Foley. I'm not willing to rush to judgment on what the House leadership should or shouldn't have done with incomplete facts and false assumptions about what they knew.
Here is what concerns me.
If I got information that someone I knew well may be involved in something hinky, I can respond in several ways. I can dismiss it as completely absurd because the person I know just wouldn't do that (he's the chair for missing and exploited children, for God's sake!) or I can believe it and do everything I can to make sure there are big time consequences.
Our leaders did neither of these things. Instead they took a middle path.
Possibility number one: Something about Foley's behavior or personality may have led our guys to think it was possible that he was dirty, so they took the info to higher ups.
Possibility number two: They really didn't think Foley was bad, but procedures are procedures, so they notified the higher ups.
If they didn't notify the dem of the Page committee, they weren't just following procedures.
It looks to me as though our guys sure thought it was possible Foley was was screwing with kids.
Gosh I answered you in a similar vein but I was just joshing.
A blog somewhere had a post up that Survey USA's TV station client there in west New York state is sponsoring another Reynolds poll this week, because they were surprised by that result. And now with the third party candidate gone there was even more reason to poll it again. So if that rumor is true we should get more results soon.
The original source for that assertion was Roll Call, right? I mean it is possible that Dale Kildee was notified but was smart enough to deny it. It's not like we have confirmation from the GOP members of the committee that they didn't tell the Democrat. Unless I've missed something, that is.
I just think with all this swirling around the Capitol we're going to see a lot of misinformation, which we've already seen with Boehner changing his story, right?
BTW, I just noticed on that website linked in my post #1407 that Jack Davis as of Sept 28 has given his campaign $1,639,280.
It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged online exchanges between Foley and the boy."
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/09/why_did_foley_k.html
What's weird about a very common Louisiana last name?
By profile are you meaning the fact that he's gay? In my personal life, gay men do come under extra suspicion. I don't know that I would use that as a basis to take action in a professional capacity.
From my understanding, the e-mails and such were to a boy who was no longer a page. As the boy was not in easy physical proximity, they may have seen it as a problem with Foley and one particular kid, and given that the kid wasn't around anymore, how much damage can be done?
I'm not trying to excuse these guys. I also have family members who were abused and it was covered up by family not wanting to upset anyone. It left all of us kids at risk.
I have enough knowledge of child abuse to know that people tend to deny the possibility when it is someone they know. I'm trying to determine if these guys were willfully blind or just acting in a way many people do when confronted with the possibility that someone they know might be abusing kids.
I don't want to punish people for not acting the way I would act, because it is likely that my personal history makes me far more knowledable and suspicious than most people.
I could only find $739,000. How did you find that number?
I think Foley's a chickenhawk and should be shunned.
What do you think?
You are right that we have no confirmation that Kildee was not notified. That does make a big difference in my mind. If procedures were followed strictly and Kildee was informed, I see it as more a routine thing that no one was all that concerned about.
If they kept if from Kildee, I think it would be because they feared the info may very well be true.
Did you read some of the other emails? Sorry, if a man was e-mailing my son and asking him "Do I make you horny?" and talking about giving massages after lacrosse practice and talking about what my sons legs looked like during conditioning. And asking him what he was wearing at the moment and saying he should strip is repulsive. I also have to question what in the heck was going through these boys minds to engage in the conversations.
Wow! This queer was so adamant against bookmarks. He would rather just bend over a page.
I wish I knew precisely what they meant by "inappropriate contact". Does that mean Boehner read the e-mails, or heard something about the e-mails, or saw one e-mail? That's just frustrating.
So did Boehner realize that by opening his mouth he implicated Hastert and then needed to take it back? I would think that off the cuff you might not remember something that you would remember later. But you wouldn't know something right away (I talked to Hastert) and then NOT know it after thinking about it (No, I didn't talk to Hastert).
Did he talk to someone, who may have been Hastert? Or did he talk to no one at all?
"3 . 9/28/2006
DAVIS FOR CONGRESS
Candidate: John R. Davis, Jr
Office: H State: NY District: 26
Date: 9/28/2006 Amount: $400,000
Aggregate: $1,639,280"
Under "Millionaires Amendment Filings". Is that what you mean?
Here is an Electronic Filing Search on Davis at the FEC with the 24 Hour Notice forms on personal funds expenditure that includes the total amount.
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.