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

Skip to comments.

Hastert: Who(Which Dems) Had Foley's IMs for Three Years?
Rush Limbaugh ^ | 10/02/06 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 10/02/2006 5:41:31 PM PDT by paltz

Since these communications appear to have existed for three years, there should be an investigation into the extent that there are persons who knew or had possession of these messages but did not report them to the appropriate authorities. This is in Hastert's letter to the justice department. It is important to know who may have had the communications and why they were not given to prosecutors before now. Hastert just went out there and said we -- the Republicans -- we did not have these instant messages. We did not know about these instant messages, but somebody did. Who are they? And how did those instant messages end up getting to ABC? Who had these instant messages? Now, again, I had a weekend at a friend's house, a bunch of people around all day and night Saturday discussing this, and I said, "There's so much of this that smells to me."

Aside from what Foley did -- nobody is defending Foley -- the thing that struck me, the similar thing that struck me was, members of Congress have had the National Intelligence Estimate since April. They've known what was in it. All of a sudden one sentence from it gets leaked last Sunday to the New York Times. Voila! We think we've got a brand-new discovery, something that's been covered up. But some diligent whistleblower has finally released it to the New York Times, and nothing was further from the truth. It was known, and it was held in abeyance, and it was used in a dishonest, misleading way in the election cycle, by the media, the New York Times, and whoever it is that fed it to them. Now, this Foley business.

Obviously there are people who have known this. The page knew it. How did the page, who did he talk to? Who did the page talk to and then who did that person then talk to, and who started rubbing their hands together and salivating, and how long ago? You know, Foley is from a safe seat. Foley's reelection was guaranteed. But now, it is assumed the Democrats are going to take the seat, because Foley has resigned and it's said that he needs to get some serious help for alcoholism. Now, you know what Foley could have done. Foley could have said -- as was recently done in Washington, by the way. Foley could have said that what he was doing was mixing some pills while he was consuming his adult beverage, and when he was sending these instant messages to the page he actually thought that he was on his way to vote. But he didn't do that.

Now, it was only last week, maybe two weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story on the glory and the salvation and the wonderfulness of four, what is it, months of sobriety by Patrick Kennedy and how Washington has come together to discover its common humanity to help a fallen comrade regain his sense of balance and put his life back together. Really? Is that what this episode shows? Don't think this episode shows that at all. Now, Hastert -- and he was pretty firm, he was pretty (for him) animated. He made it plain: We didn't have these IMs. We didn't know about these IMs. These instant messages, which are far more explicit than the e-mails that ABC originally released. But he says somebody did. Somebody had 'em, and somebody knew this was going on, and what about all this for-the-children stuff?

Where was the concern for the kid, the pages here, who actually got caught up in all this? It doesn't seem to be that there was any concern. This was seen purely as a political opportunity by the Democrats to take down a sitting member of the House of Representatives as the time became right. Now, the question arises, will this backfire? Republicans seem to be playing this in the correct way on both ends. They've condemned Foley. They say he has no place here. We don't tolerate this, and they're not saying -- unlike Democrats. Democrats do. I am telling you again, Democrats do not find what Foley did with the page repugnant at all.

Democrats celebrate human weakness. Democrats celebrate it; they coddle it. They believe in the imperfection of all of us. They believe that the human is imperfect, and they think they own the compassion issue by embracing all of this imperfection out there, and then they turn their guns on the Republicans who they say are intolerant, when they condemn lawlessness, when they condemn people who engage in things that are wrong, as opposed to right. The very fact that Republicans even discuss the concepts of right and wrong makes them judgmental and rigid and intolerant, racist, sexist, bigot homophobes is the cliché, and so they're taking this and saying, "See? We're the compassionate ones."

It's all smoke and mirrors, but nobody is going to convince me -- and I'm not even talking about how horrible it was that Foley did it. They're trying to say, "Look at how rotten Republicans are." But they're not condemning it. They've defended it. A caller just said, Gerry Studds did more than engage in an exchange of words with the page. He actually went out there and had a little whoopee and the House censured him, and he got reelected from his district. Twice, I think. Barney Frank and so on. You can't convince me the Democrats find any of this behavior repugnant.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We have the audio sound bite from Denny Hastert about a half hour ago. He said this about the instant message exchanges from Mark Foley to a page.

HASTERT: Anyone who had knowledge of these instant messages should have turned them over to authorities immediately so that kids could be protected. I repeat again, the Republican leaders of the House did not have them. We have all said so and on the record. But someone did have them.

RUSH: That's right.

HASTERT: And the ethics committee, the justice department, the news media, and anyone who can should help us find out.

RUSH: News media. Ha-ha.

HASTERT: Yesterday I sent a letter to the attorney general requesting that he investigate to what extent any federal laws were violated by Congressman Foley and also to find out who might have known about the sexually explicit instant messages. I was pleased to read in the newspaper this morning that the FBI has begun to investigate.

RUSH: All right. All right. So now we know that Hastert didn't know about the instant messages, but somebody did -- and since their strategic release, remember, the release of these instant messages was not to protect this kid, not to protect the page or any other page. The release of all this was not to clean up Washington. The release of all this was not to make sure that some predator pedophile was running around loose; got caught and sent out of town. That was not the purpose of this. This was a strategic release to help the Democrats during the election. So I, El Rushbo, America's real anchorman, want to know when the Democrats knew about the instant messages. They may have known about this before Hastert and the Republicans. It would appear so. So the question is, when did Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats know about the instant messages? That needs to be the question that needs to be asked. All these jerks out there suggesting that Hastert and everybody else resign are missing the point. The real question here is who had these instant messages, for how long, and who coordinated their release in a strategic way with Brian Ross at ABC?

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: foley; foleygate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-144 next last

1 posted on 10/02/2006 5:41:32 PM PDT by paltz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: paltz

how did the kid (and I presume, his parents) contact the DNC and the media, did he log these sessions "innocently"? was he a plant to lure Foley all along?


2 posted on 10/02/2006 5:44:31 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Wanna-be DFL congresscritter Patty Wetterling has been all over the Minnesota media demanding answers and resignations.

Careful, Patty, you might not like the answers to your questions!!


3 posted on 10/02/2006 5:44:54 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Offended By Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz
"Hastert just went out there and said we -- the Republicans -- we did not have these instant messages. We did not know about these instant messages, but somebody did. Who are they?"

A very, VERY good question! Someone was holding this and waiting to spring it. If it's revealed a DIM was holding onto this information this thing could backfire on them.

4 posted on 10/02/2006 5:47:34 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"did he log these sessions "innocently"? "

It isn't unusual for messaging software to log conversations. I believe all of them do by default, and that's something that has to be disabled.

5 posted on 10/02/2006 5:48:40 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paltz

who holds on to im's for 3 years unless they plan to use them against the person who wrote them later?


6 posted on 10/02/2006 5:48:45 PM PDT by paltz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz
EXACTLY!! John Gibson,Michelle Malkin, Captainquarters Ed, Wall Street Journal and Bill O'Reilly have all jumped the shark on this. Republican leadership was ONLY AWARE OF THE EMAILS, which were described as "overly-friendly not sexual" and the page was of consent age and his parents wanted no action taken! What can't people understand about this!! Everyone should step back and look at the facts.

The IMS were in possessions of donks and their lberal msm shills for three years! They knew the contents but suppressed them for political advantage, even with the potential harm of a predator damamging children. Anyone with a brain larger than a pea should see the donks behavior is as dangerous as Foley.
7 posted on 10/02/2006 5:48:51 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

PROSECUTE THE 'RATS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. JAIL THEM.


8 posted on 10/02/2006 5:49:12 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
Malkin never misses a chance to attack Republicans.
9 posted on 10/02/2006 5:51:07 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

Don't forget Michael Reagan.


10 posted on 10/02/2006 5:52:37 PM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: paltz
were the emails and the IMs sent to the same page? I thought I read somewhere that they were two separate people. does anyone know for sure?
11 posted on 10/02/2006 5:52:39 PM PDT by tazannie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Does Foley have a scorned ex-lover, ex-partner, ex-butt buddy, who may have wanted to get back at him?


12 posted on 10/02/2006 5:53:37 PM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexKat
Does Foley have a scorned ex-lover, ex-partner, ex-butt buddy, who may have wanted to get back at him?


13 posted on 10/02/2006 5:54:32 PM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

OReilly was out of control on this.

Don't get me wrong, Foley's behavior is bad, but during the Foley segment, for OReilly to be tossing around the "jessica's law" mantra - this case, from what we know so far, has nothing to do with that kind of a crime against a child.


14 posted on 10/02/2006 5:54:37 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: paltz

You know like they say a wooooooMan's scorn!


15 posted on 10/02/2006 5:54:52 PM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

I agree. What pisses me off though is when peole pop off without all the facts this close to an election, that could be the deciding factor for middle of the road voters to vote donk or some republicans not to vote, thus giving us a Pelosi house and a Reid senate. I will fight to the bitter end to deny those terrorist supporting libs more power.


16 posted on 10/02/2006 5:54:58 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

but who made that connection? the kid has these logs on his PC, how does he get from there - to the DNC and ABC?


17 posted on 10/02/2006 5:55:36 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Boy you are fast frogjerk :)


18 posted on 10/02/2006 5:56:00 PM PDT by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

I just read about him. He is on my list now too! Bunch of the hell with the facts dumbasses.


19 posted on 10/02/2006 5:56:07 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Interesting....Only today did the MSM (Fox News, actually) start to differentiate between the emails (which were supposedly odd, but not sexual) and the IMs (which were sexually explicit). Do I see a conspiracy here? I think so.

Methinks the Dems sat on this until about a month before the election and then released them. The effect was (obviously) to make it look like a Republican coverup was going on. Well, if the current facts pan out, its looking like that will backfire. If it comes out that the Dems sat on this for years, for calculated political advantage, that will be news. But I bet if that's what happened, the story will suddenly disappear from the front pages.


20 posted on 10/02/2006 5:56:09 PM PDT by rbg81 (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-144 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