The Leadership was informed that a family complained that Foley had sent inappropriate emails and the family would like it to stop. The family refused to hand over the actual emails citing privacy concerns (good parents apparently) but told Congressman Alexander (D) that there was not any sexual conotation to the emails. I believe there was a story from the American Spectator or another conservative publication which said the original emails were (1) Foley asking the boy for a photo to keep with their records so that Foley could remember the pages when references were requested; and (2) Asking the boy what he would like for his birthday.
Now, this might be overly friendly for an older man to email back and forth with a child, but easily explainable to the Leadership as an innocent attempt to stay in touch with pages or just being friends with the kid. The leadership told Foley to knock it off and stay away from the pages, per the family's request. The head of the Page program, John Shimkus was notified as well. As far as the Leadership was concerned --- BASED ON THE CONTENT AS REPORTED BY CONGRESSMAN ALEXANDER --- they dealt with the issue and met the request of the family to end the emails.
Based on the content they knew, there was no reason for them to see this as anything but a constituent not comfortable with the congressman emailing a kid to get a photo for his records, or giving a birthday gift. Nothing sexual according to the parents, per Alexander. That's it. They did their job. I don't think Hastert was ever even made aware of the facts - and why would he be?
Excellent summary
I've dealt with men who never came on to me but I suspected as being "light in the loafers" and I would not allow myself to become too close. Maybe this young man had the same feelings about Foley. Since he didn't want to be rude to his Congressman he told his parents. Otherwise there probably was no reason to be concerned about the emails.
Of course, that line of reasoning does make the IM thing look like a sting.
Shalom.