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
I don't know if they're fakes or not. I just found them on yahoo. :)
That they are; that they certainly are...as well as for the blinkered.
I sent you freepmail fool? reproduce it, you have my consent.
you WERE defending Hastert. That's what I was attacking. Please, let me know if you can't understand things so well, I have a soft spot for those in need.
Michelle is particularly disgusting in that she literally calls for us to ignore the fact that someone has been sitting on these IM's for 3 years.. where as the Republican leadership has the creepy letters and a request by the Parents to "drop it." You could argue that they "should have known" but they would have known and in plenty of time to do something about it if someone hadn't been criminally obstructing justice. And these people need to be taken to task, not Hastert.
This is just us having a CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD on que as sponsored by cynical DemocRAT operatives. And this BITES.
Yup... ;-)
Thanks for starting this thread, paltz.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Rush smells Ratblood on this one.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
I didn't know that until today either. How "interesting" that this IM info comes out 5 weeks from Election Day...
I'm starting to think the same... Foley had a safe Republican seat, it's 5 weeks from Election Day... the IMs are 3 years old...
What is so DANG frustrating is the more conservative media jumping all over Hastert and not even considering that this was a set up. I mean, we out here can see that, and we're not getting paid the big bucks those folks are!
and it broke on the weekend so most right wing hosts like rush would not be able to answer it quickly. Anytime media and the left wants something to really sink in the break it on Friday.
Font color, text, and size vary from the sexxed up parts from red and Blue to black and back again for no reason. That leads me to believe that the black sections may have been added.
Since they are a PDF they appear to be direct copies of the original computer chat logs, but they are no different then a Microsoft word or notepad version of these chat logs since even PDFs can be modified to suit the needs of the person creating it.
Perhaps the best clue that these are fakes is the lack of dates on when these sessions occured. Why that is important is that once these dates can be documented it would be possible to say that Representive Foley could not have been IMing this young man at this time because he was here for example sake let's say an IM session supposibly took place while Foley was speaking in congress, then we could prove it was faked, that's why there are no dates, with dates an alibi could be proven.
What did Hastert do, other than call for an investigatin of Foley?
How about this: why was foley asked to stop talking to the kid if they thought the email was innocuous? and what does "overly-friendly" mean? would you like some guy getting "overly-friendly" with your wife/daughter?
Hmmm... see post #77...
My gmail chats log automatically, I assume until I delete them.
I haven't looked at the AOL IM to see if there's a log, or the communicator to see, but I'm sure there is. i would think it would default to that and you would have to change it yourself.
I plan on logging EVERYTHING my kids do on the internet.
Everything.
Very good point... I didn't think of that, but should have. We're all pretty used to these Friday "breaking bad news about Republicans" stories by now.
Check out usmcobra's posts below (starting with #77). I don't know enough about IMs to comment...
He was asked to stop talking to the kid because the parents decided that the e-mails were relatively harmless, but wanted Foley not to send any more. The House leadership dropped it then. Overly-friendly is in the ear of the hearer, I guess. Foley asked for a picture of the kid, but really nothing more. I thought maybe congresspersons kept bulletin boards of the pages who had served...like stuff they do in college.
Ummmm...I'm a "she." Now if a woman got overly friendly with my husband, I'd just have to meet her someday. ;) if a woman tells LIES about my husband she's in deep doo-doo.
Could this kid have been paid by the Moveon.org crowd to do this?
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.