Internal Review of Contacts with the Office of the Speaker Regarding the Cong. Mark Foley Matter

Office of Speaker Hastert | Saturday, September 30, 2006

[tobyhill]

I'm not even assuming he had "cyber sex", all I'm confident of is he had some disgusting language which is protected as free speech but I would be surprised if more personal interaction reports start surfacing.

[nj26]

When you see a cockroach on the kitchen counter, there's usually a few hundred behind the wall.

That's the sort of common sense that our Congressional leaders seem to have forgotten.

[plain talk]

I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Hastert shouldn't resign and did exactly the right thing.

[RonnG]

"Could the IM's have been to a different boy?"

So I gather that Foley did not, in fact make any other electronic contact with the page in question subsequent to the weird, but nonsexual e-mails, after he was forewarned.

He did, however send sexually explicit IMs to former pages in the past,that were not reported to either the press, the boys'parents or to Congressional authorities until now. Is that it?

[Dane]

So I gather that Foley did not, in fact make any other electronic contact with the page in question subsequent to the weird, but nonsexual e-mails, after he was forewarned.

He did, however send sexually explicit IMs to former pages in the past,that were not reported to either the press, the boys'parents or to Congressional authorities until now. Is that it?

Yes, when the sexually explicit IM's were found out by Hastert and the leadership, probably Friday morning, foley was immediately and rightfully booted.

Unlike the typical democrat reaction to the same situation.

[OldFriend]

You can't fathom the details so you'll make some up?

[JRochelle]

You seem to ignore the real FACTS.

Hastert handled it as best he could.
The boy who received the explicit IM's is a different boy.

[Txsleuth]

I saw that exchange between Ann and the dem...he seemed so proud of the fact that when THEIR congressman was found to actually have a physical affair with a page, he stood up on the House floor and ADMITTED it.

Like that is all that matters...just admit it...and you can be re-elected as often as you want.

OTOH...the Reps eat their own, quite well, and the dems don't.

[montag813]

"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."

Are you listening Kos-heads? There is no scandal here, other than the contemptuous conduct of Mark Foley.

[montag813]

As I cannnot fathom either scenario, I suspect that the parents must have approached a third party, perhaps the press, who advised them to remain silent, keep track of them and bide their time.

I have been saying this repeatedly for 24 hours now. ABC News knew about this for as long as Alexander did...but unlike Hastert, ABC News HAD the explicit transcripts. ABC NEWS PURPOSELY SAT ON THIS UNTIL IT WAS LATE ENOUGH TO WREAK HAVOC IN FOLEY'S DISTRICT. That is the real "coverup" here.

[RonnG]

"Yes, when the sexually explicit IM's were found out by Hastert and the leadership, probably Friday morning, foley was immediately and rightfully booted"

So the $64,000 question, which is not answered in the news, is WHEN were the obscene IMs made and when were they reported to the Congressional authorities ,if at all , and why didn't the boys' parents raise a ruckus, assmung that the boy even told them?

[tobyhill]

On one of the text messages I thought there was a comment from Foley or the kid stating they would have to wait till February when he turns 18 but then the reports says the kid was 16 in the summer of 05?

[RonnG]

"I have been saying this repeatedly for 24 hours now. ABC News knew about this for as long as Alexander did...but unlike Hastert, ABC News HAD the explicit transcripts. ABC NEWS PURPOSELY SAT ON THIS UNTIL IT WAS LATE ENOUGH TO WREAK HAVOC IN FOLEY'S DISTRICT. That is the real "coverup" here"

I am confused. The parents reportedly assured Congress that the contents of the e-mails we not sexual in nature.

Are you saying that that some of the e-mails to Alexander's page were sexual in nature and deliberately withheld from Congress and the parents, but given to ABC? Or are you saying that ABC had both the transcrips of e-mails to Alexander's page, non sexual in content, as well as other IM's, not reported to the Congress, to former pages that were obsecene? Either way that is shady.

I guess I'm getting confused.

[frannie]

There was no contact, from what I understand. Also Folley didn't use his name just his initials. He most likely knew who the boy was.

[tobyhill]

In Washington DC the age of consent is 16 and in Louisiana the age of consent is 17 with neither having age variation laws nor distinguishing gender preferences. This should be a warning to parents who send their kids to Washington DC, they are legally sexually emancipated if they are 16 and over.

[montag813]

Are you saying that that some of the e-mails to Alexander's page were sexual in nature and deliberately withheld from Congress and the parents, but given to ABC? Or are you saying that ABC had both the transcrips of e-mails to Alexander's page, non sexual in content, as well as other IM's, not reported to the Congress, to former pages that were obsecene? Either way that is shady.

Correct. I suspect one of those two scenarios, but time will tell which it was. ABC News along with the entire MSM is always working with the DNC to subvert the GOP right before election-time. They did it to Bush 41 4 days before the 1992 election with an Iran-Contra-Weinberger "surprise" (which turned out to be meaningless but then cost Bush 4%). They did it to then-Gov. Bush with the sudden DUI release one week before the 2000 elections (which cost Bush 5%). They are doing it again here, and I think there will be one more "surprise" before October is done.

[Mo1]

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.

Many of the articles I've read .. they are blurring the emails and the IM's together

[Mo1]

What puzzles me is that 10-11 months went by after Foley was warned to have no contact with the page. If the boy was still receiving e-mails, especially the obscene ones reported in the news, why did he not report them either to the authorities or his parents?

There are no reports of the emails continuing

The recent reports and the reason Foley resigned was due to IM's from 2003 to a different person

Those were not known about until this week

[conservative in nyc]

On one of the text messages I thought there was a comment from Foley or the kid stating they would have to wait till February when he turns 18 but then the reports says the kid was 16 in the summer of 05?

It was a different child. The IMs were from 2003. The e-mails were from 2005.

[Shocked2]

I think all the cards should be put on the table. When did ABC News receive the emails? Who was their source. It's possible that Foley was set-up? He should be thrown out of congress for his actions, but let's find out who new what and when did they know it including the MSM.