Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Good news... Bad news... [Blog Active admits tipping off DCCC about Foley]
BlogActive.com ^ | 10/1/06 | Mike Rogers

Posted on 10/01/2006 11:35:53 PM PDT by conservative in nyc

Edited on 10/02/2006 3:34:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Well the good news is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is finally getting it. I called their Director of Communications, Bill Burton, to let him know that the Foley thing (and another case) were coming down the pike. While Burton promised to have someone email or return my call and didn't, I am glad he followed up on my call and was ready on Friday to come out of the gate running.

The bad new is they are still not paying enough attention... There are others within reach... If the Democrats would only fight half as hard as the Republicans.

I posted comments at the DCCC website on the Foley entry. Not only do their promises of returned calls and emails never come to fruition, but now they are deleting my comments from their blog, The Stakeholder.

Luckily the comments were cached before they axed them.

Here's the one I put up at 9:55pm:

Very exciting.

I am glad my work on this is finally coming to fruition. I spoke with Bill Burton at the DCCC about this and I'm so glad you guys were able to jump in on the heels of my work.

Obviously we didn't have a chance at winning this seat, so this is great.

Good Job!

Mike Rogers
Blogactive.com

Posted by: Mike Rogers / September 29, 2006 09:55 PM

Here's the one I put up at 10:02pm: Very exciting.

I am glad my work on this is finally coming to fruition. I spoke with Bill Burton at the DCCC about this and I'm so glad you guys were able to jump in on the heels of my work.

Obviously we didn't have a chance at winning this seat, so this is great.

Good Job!

Mike Rogers
Blogactive.com

Posted by: Mike Rogers / September 29, 2006 09:55 PM

Well, at least they are paying attention.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: billburton; blogactive; dccc; election2006; foley; foleygate; mikerogers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: catholicfreeper
The key now is to figure out if our Republican leadership is being set up for scandal and to defamation regarding charges they are innocent of

Of course it's a set-up, it's not just a coincidence this story broke so close to elections!

21 posted on 10/02/2006 12:32:14 AM PDT by blondee123 (Politicians are like diapers, need to be changed often & for the same reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: catholicfreeper

Crime or no crime, the Democrats are hoist by their own petard. If it is a crime, then they themselves are complicit due to the very fact that they hid the evidence for over a year...

But if it's not a crime, then Foley is merely guilty of being "gay", and they may be accused of intolerance for "outing" him for purely political reasons.

Either way, the Democrats cannot win on this issue. Whether Foley is a criminal or merely immoral, the Democrats will have a very hard time playing the "what did they know and when did they know it" game, considering that they themselves knew about Foley's proclivities first - and did nothing.


22 posted on 10/02/2006 12:34:18 AM PDT by dandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dandelion

That is true. One thing I have not thought about if this was not a crime and you are right is that by remaining silent they were involved in that abuse of power of situation. In fact they allowed it to contiunue.

I just hope we start getting focused on this and take the offensive


23 posted on 10/02/2006 12:39:17 AM PDT by catholicfreeper (Geaux Tigers SEC FOOTBALL ROCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dandelion
Either way, the Democrats cannot win on this issue. Whether Foley is a criminal or merely immoral, the Democrats will have a very hard time playing the "what did they know and when did they know it" game, considering that they themselves knew about Foley's proclivities first - and did nothing.

This info will never air on the MSM, no way. The Foley story will continue to be the main topic on MSM til the elections! Unless people read FR, they are listening to & believing the MSM.

24 posted on 10/02/2006 12:41:28 AM PDT by blondee123 (Politicians are like diapers, need to be changed often & for the same reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: catholicfreeper
I guess my question here is "is there a crime sending sexually suggestive IM's to 17 year old males"?

Under Florida law, it very well may be (Some of the alleged Foley IMs were sent from Florida):

847.0138 Transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device or equipment prohibited; penalties.--

(1) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Known by the defendant to be a minor" means that the defendant had actual knowledge or believed that the recipient of the communication was a minor.

(b) "Transmit" means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail.

(2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

847.001 -- Definitions: As used in this chapter, the term:

(6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it:

(a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;

(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

(c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

A mother's breastfeeding of her baby is not under any circumstance "harmful to minors."

(8) "Minor" means any person under the age of 18 years.
25 posted on 10/02/2006 12:43:01 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: catholicfreeper; dandelion

First, federal law defines a minor as under 18 however most state sexual predator statutes define a minor as young as 14 and as old as 18.

There are numerous felonies here if authorities would like to pursue not to mention the fact that Foley was the minor's employer and he saw the boy on several occasions after the IM's were sent.....meeting most federal and state statutes regarding solicitation and sexual pandering.

That technicality should be good to bury him in a prison for 5 years or better which for a little pansy butt boy like Foley will be a death sentence.....


26 posted on 10/02/2006 12:45:36 AM PDT by nevergore (“It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: catholicfreeper
I guess my question here is "is there a crime sending sexually suggestive IM's to 17 year old males"?

I was listening to Drudge radio today and he was saying that the minimum age of over the Internet is 18 years of age and this is a federal law. Is he correct? I don't know.

27 posted on 10/02/2006 12:46:21 AM PDT by Doofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nevergore
...not to mention the fact that Foley was the minor's employer and he saw the boy on several occasions after the IM's were sent

Please provide a link for this assertion. It's the first I've heard of it.
28 posted on 10/02/2006 12:51:01 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Doofer; nevergore
I was listening to Drudge radio today and he was saying that the minimum age of over the Internet is 18 years of age and this is a federal law. Is he correct? I don't know.

The closest thing I've found to a federal anti-cybersex statute (which arguably doesn't even apply to cybersex) only appears to apply to children under the age of 16. Other federal child protection statutes (here , here, and here) generally require either crossing state lines for the purpose of having sex with someone under 18 or trading visual depictions (i.e. kiddie porn) of or with those under the age of 18. To date, as far as I know, Foley never met with the person who received the IMs. Nevergore claims otherwise, and I've asked for a link.

I could very well be missing something - like most people, I can't say that I've ever even thought about the federal child sex and child exploitation laws before Friday.
29 posted on 10/02/2006 1:00:14 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All

Note that I didn't do the best cut & paste job - I had to type out the messages Rogers left on the DCCC message board because he has them in image files on his website. Please ignore everything from "Here's the one I put up at 10:02pm:" until the sentence immediately following "Here's the one I put up at 9:55pm:". I asked the mods to fix.


30 posted on 10/02/2006 1:39:01 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

"Things that make you go hmmmm....

Blogactive is a radical gay site that takes great pleasure in outing supposedly gay men, especially Republicans. The blog promised an expose on Mark Foley back in March 2005. The entry then said in part:

MARK FOLEY IS GAY MARK FOLEY WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITE HE IS THROUGH A MAIL AND INTERNET CAMPAIGN THAT WILL REACH INTO EVERY HOME IN HIS DISTRICT.

As best I can tell, they never ACTUALLY followed through with their expose then. I wonder why.... And now, he says he had contact with the DCCC.

Hmmmm....."



Both Blog Active and Things that make you go hmmmm....

Blogactive is a radical gay site that takes great pleasure in outing supposedly gay men, especially Republicans. The blog promised an expose on Mark Foley back in March 2005. The entry then said in part:

MARK FOLEY IS GAY MARK FOLEY WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITE HE IS THROUGH A MAIL AND INTERNET CAMPAIGN THAT WILL REACH INTO EVERY HOME IN HIS DISTRICT.

As best I can tell, they never ACTUALLY followed through with their expose then. I wonder why.... And now, he says he had contact with the DCCC.

Hmmmm.....


Both Blog Active, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, probably agreed that information should come out closer to the election, but not so close that it might be suspicious to independent and conservative voters. Hmmmm.....


31 posted on 10/02/2006 1:53:11 AM PDT by Blazing Saddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc
Once I catch up on research on this I'll make my own assessment.

If he's guilty of more than being nice, I want him tarred, feathered and dipped in lime for safe keeping.

As I would want for any sex offender.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. We need to treat these people, and government office isn't a therapy I recommend.

32 posted on 10/02/2006 2:01:43 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

It isn't homosexuality he resigned over, it's sexually explicit instant messages to a teenage House Page. If it had been to a female House Page we would be hearing of the same result.

You must have only heard about the overly friendly sounding emails. That is all that Dennis Hastert apparently was told about. But then it came out that Foley had sent instant messages to some teenage male Page and they were very sexual and explicit.

Apparently a reporter from ABC had the text of these messages and called Foley and read them to him on the phone, basically saying, this is what I've got on you. Within an hour Foley had resigned his House seat.


33 posted on 10/02/2006 2:20:21 AM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Wow, thanks for the update. I've been travelling and I won't rely on the network news for info. I knew I'd get the goods here.
34 posted on 10/02/2006 2:21:55 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

You are wise not to rely on the MSM for the truth about anything, especially if it is something perceived to hurt Republicans.

As for your comment about homosexuality, I personally hold no brief for homosexual conduct.
However, I wanted to make clear that this involves teenage Pages of the House of Representative and would be a scandal even if the Page was female.

Also, that Foley has essentially admitted the instant messages were from him, and the gross and inappropriate nature of them, or else he would not have felt compelled to resign.


35 posted on 10/02/2006 2:29:39 AM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

bump.


36 posted on 10/02/2006 3:52:17 AM PDT by khnyny (God Bless the Republic for which it stands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Several (R) Congressional offices also knew quite a while ago - did they break the law?

Did the DCCC break the law by withholding this information from law enforcement?

37 posted on 10/02/2006 4:07:10 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy (Hey, look man, I didn't mean to shoot the son of a b!tch. The gun went off. I don't know why.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Good One!!!

(and horribly true)


38 posted on 10/02/2006 5:15:54 AM PDT by Leofl (I'm from Texas, we don't dial 9-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

"You must have only heard about the overly friendly sounding emails. That is all that Dennis Hastert apparently was told about. But then it came out that Foley had sent instant messages to some teenage male Page and they were very sexual and explicit."

This is the heart of the debate. Hastert's team was "told" about some over-friendly e-mails. They were not shown the text of the e-mails. Only this past week did they learn about the ultra-salacious instant messages.

The whole R leadership is to be tarred and feathered, when they were not aware of the IM's until now?

Who had those IM's in waiting? The FBI is on the case now, and it will be interesting to learn of their analysis of time/origin/reception of the IM's, ane who else had them.


39 posted on 10/02/2006 5:38:28 AM PDT by rightazrain (Past is prologue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Just posted -- dovetails with my comments!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1712019/posts


40 posted on 10/02/2006 5:42:04 AM PDT by rightazrain (Past is prologue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson