Here is one Freeper on your side. The Republican party is unraveling before our very eyes. May God help us all.
Posted on 10/03/2006 6:43:59 AM PDT by no dems
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said yesterday that Republican leaders had not previously seen the more lurid Internet "instant messages" sent by disgraced ex-Rep. Mark Foley as influential conservatives began calling for party leadership resignations over the handling of the matter.
Mr. Hastert said "No one in the Republican leadership ... saw those messages until last Friday when ABC News released them."
Still, several well-known conservatives called for Republican resignations because Hastert and other leaders did not act aggressively enough when they first learned of a separate set of "overly friendly" e-mails that Mr. Foley had sent to another teenage former page.
"Speaker Hastert had knowledge of Congressman Foley's inappropriate behavior and chose to protect a potential pedophile" David Bossie, president of the conservative group Citizens United, said yesterday. "If Speaker Hastert was willing to sacrifice a child to protect Representative Foley's seat and his own leadership position, then he surely does not share our American and conservative values."
"When you have a 50-year-old man -- who is a known homosexual -- who wants a picture of a 16-year-old boy, that should send out some alarm bells," he said. "This is almost like a Clinton-type response."
"That e-mail they call an 'overly friendly' e-mail -- that had predator stamped all over it. There's just no one in this country that can suggest otherwise," said Bay Buchanan, the president of American Cause.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
There is NOTHING you do online that is private. The Feds can get to every bit of it. AOL is very agreeable to handing over chat logs to the authorities if asked.
If you save them and hand them over then they are not private.
Instant Messages have to be affirmativly saved.
Nope. The message asked for a photograph and mentioned a different teen who was in "great shape."
(Oh yeah, that's right. Fifty year old men comment on the physical prowess of teenage boys on a regular basis. This certainly wasn't cause for concern.)
I've had some training about sexual abuse and minors, and that initial email exchange rang plenty of alarm bells when I read about it, *before* the IMs were made public. Look at it - a 52 year old man talking to a 16 year old as if he was 16 also, asking what he wants for his birthday and for a picture. Fine if he was a close friend, absolutely off bounds from a near stranger.
And that excuse about wanting to see if he was OK after Katrina is absurd - a simple "I'm OK" in the email would accomplish that. What did the leadership think - that the kid had no parents ensuring he was OK so that Foley had to see a picture to know he still had both hands and feet?
With something like this, the kids involved typically first feel flattered and "special," then as it becomes more obvious what's happening, feel ashamed and also may feel it's their fault for somehow inviting it. I don't find it surprising that many wouldn't speak out until realizing that they weren't the only one.
Instant Messages have to be affirmativly saved.
Nope, depends on the program. Some programs automatically save, and some have to be set to save.
Here is what I wrote to the editor of our local paper: -----Original Message----- From: E. Pluribus Unum Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:33 AM To: Mailbox - Editor Subject: The Foley October Surprise As intended, the mainstream media has succeeded in confusing people about the contents of the Mark Foley (R-FL) emails that the Republican House leadership saw, and the text messages that they never saw until the ABC News campaign on behalf of the DNC was initiated. The lurid material is in the text messages, and House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) knew about these text messages for THREE YEARS!!! Ms. Pelosi endangered underage pages by not immediately notifying the proper authorities of the potential for molestation, chosing instead to make them public at a politically opportune moment. This is bigger than Watergate. We need a special prosecutor to determine what the Democrats knew and when they knew it. -----Original Message----- Here is the editor's response: (E. Pluribus Unum), we've had no reports that Pelosi was aware of the messages. I'll need to see some documentation. ---------------------------------------------------------- I stuck my neck out based on your info and don't have any documentation to back it up with. Thanks.
You still haven't answered my question: If a 52 year-old man - essentially a complete stranger - started an e-mail exchange and asked your teenage son for his picture, would that alarm you?
Your question is incorrect, the congressman was not a complete stranger to the page. Second as the House leadership has pointed out, there was a breach of trust, the parents and boy could trust the congressman because he was a congressman.
Coming across ok, but with a bit too much transparency that he's in full on damage control mode.
That might be true in general, but in a page program the kids are special simply for being selected in the first place. Then heading from home in the care of a congressman would enhance that feeling. Your "alarm bells" would certainly go off for many page-congressman communications and relationships, that's why trust is so important in that system. Knowing what you do about Foley now, it is easy to be selective about and rationalize the alarm bells.
Foley is out, and criminal investigation is under way. That is done.
NOW we need to know if HOLDING THE INSTANT MESSAGES FOR THREE YEARS WHILE CHILDREN ARE BEING SEXUALLY SOCLICITED IS A CRIMINAL ACT.
I know if any of those who had knowledge were lawyers, they had an AFFIRMATIVE DUTY to report the child endagerment as a matter of bar ethics. (especially if the y follow the ABA model code.)
Nothing you do online is private.
Treat online communications the way we used to treat written letters . . . if you would be embarrassed to see it published on the front page of your local paper, it's better not to write it down.
Save the BS.
The instant messages are three years old.
this was covered yesterday on Rush Limbaugh and is also being covered right now on Rush. Http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
This is also being backed up by the ABC reporter who now admits he had the messages in August.
====BEGIN RUSH PAGE EXCERPT======
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
You're still not answering the question.
Okay. Let's say that Rep. Foley is on your bowling team, eats dinner at your house regularly, and drives your mother to church every Sunday. If this man, without your knowledge, carried on an e-mail relationship with your son and asked him for a picture while commenting on the physical specimen of one of his friends, would you be concerned?
I like Hastert.
But, with this, the Dems can dance around and knock us down a lot.
Perhaps enough to win the election and at least one house in November.
I am disgusted. Yes, they did not know about the IMs. But, the PR on this debacle has been so atrocious, so bad that we may lose the election on this alone.
I am worried.
He should step down.
I question if she had access to the Ims. I think just the emails, which were not as bad.
A little, but I would deal with it. Would you ask the captain of the bowling team or the pastor of the church to resign if he knew but didn't tell you about the emails?
However your reaction is the text book response the democrats have coordinated.
You are being played for a sucker like at violin.
Fact: the emails did not contain sexual content
Fact: Foley has publicly denied his homosexual conduct
Fact: Members of the MSM apparently KNEW he was a homosexual
Fact: Instant Messages are NOT emails
Fact: The instant messages are three years old
Fact: The instant messages went public the day after the deadline for removing foley's name from the ballot
Fact: The instant messages were NEVER submitted to the house leadership for investigation
Fact: Emails are recorded on the house email system
Fact: Instant messages are NOT part of nor recorded in the house email system
Fact: The C.R.E.W. team which targeted delay was tasked with coordinating the attack on foley after Delay resigned and removed himself as an issue.
Fact: Rep Harman was briefed and tasked with attacking this story on the sunday morning talk shows.
Fact: The media continues to obscure the difference between emails and instant messages (aka IM)
Fact: The FBI has opened an investigation to find out who had the instant messages during the last three years. Investigate Foley's conduct.
Fact: Florida Department of law enforcement has a seperate investigation of Foley's instant messaging.
We can not allow democrats to get away with the bait and switch.
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.