CBS News reporting That House Republicans Interfered With FBI Investigation of Foley

CBS News Early Show | October 3, 2006 | CBS News Early Show

[ground_fog]

BREAKING: MESSAGES WERE WITH 18 YEAR OLD -ON DRUDGE

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

I can't wait for someone to argue that (a) the age of consent is 16 in washington, and (b) there's nothing wrong with being gay, so (c) this is like the Lewinsky affair, except without the actual sex...

If this was between people who were of legal age of consent, then all this talk of "pedophilia" is meaningless.

[psjones]

Cafferty also said back in the summer that Tony Blair was not taking a vacation, while the president was, his point being that with what was going on during the summer, the president should have followed Blair's lead. As it turned out, something happened , (now I can't remember exactly what it was at this time), and Blair was reported to be on vacation at the time, contrary to what Cafferty had said. Ah, now I remember, it was August 9th when the news broke of the terrorist plot to blow up more planes.

[lastchance]

I saw that one person who exchanged IM's with Foley was 18 at the time. I don't know if there were others who were minors when they exchanged IM's with Foley. Do you know how many persons are involved?

[psjones]

Wow, if this turns out to be the case and the guy is 18, many will have egg on their face. The news has been that the page getting the IMs was 16.

[jwalsh07]

Congress can do it for any reason that satisfies them. It's just a matter of votes.

That's funny, that's not what the Constitituion says. You sure you're reading the US Constitution?

[jwalsh07]

Believe it or not there are places to which the Executive's authority does not run.

Yo dumdum, we're not talking about the extent of executive power. We were discussing why you were tilting at impeachment windmills.

Read this slowly:

Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to halt FBI investigations.

Regards,

Sancho

[muawiyah]

Right, sure, the FBI isn't named in the Constitution to start with. It's simply part of the Executive Branch ~ that's the part with the President.

He only attends Congress at their invitation ~ did you know that.

He can't just walk in there. The FBI's authority runs no further than the powers of the Executive.

BTW, you may not have been taught this but the FBI is not a god, nor is it universally respected, nor do I care.

Hey, you're not going to pass your citizenship test, did you know that?

[jwalsh07]

LOL. You're behavior is clownish.

[jveritas]

This guy is clinically insane, isn't he the one who was getting multiple orgasm for so many month on the prospect of Rove being from Marched from the White House because the Plame crap?

[kenavi]

Congressmen aren't immune from criminal prosecution, are they? And Congress's Ethics Committees can't impose criminal penalties. So if a Congressmen appears guilty of a crime, it's the law enforcement agencies that should go after him. e.g. The D.C. Police, not Congress, investigated Gary Condit's possible involvement in Ms. Levy's disappearance

[notigar]

so, you want foley back?

[muawiyah]

Read the Constitution.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

hmmm...

so we have ABC lieing to the public by saying the guy was "underage" teen...

we have CBS saying that the FBI did not investigate because Republicans said they would handle it...

which other MSM are we gonna catch lieing?

[LS]

Look bad to whom? Not to me. The only party I see looking like a-holes are the Dems.

[LS]

But that's just as well. Keep this in mind. As long as the top issue is national security, we win. ANYTHING that makes it look like we can't deliver on that may be a threat---it's 50/50, because every time you say "It's not a threat" or "Bush isn't protecting us," the natural John Q. Public response is, "Protecting us from what?" or "What isn't a threat?" and the whole terrorism thing is on the front burner all over again.

Now, on the one hand, the Foley/gay thing temporarily seems to get national security off the front pages, but on the other, NO ONE is going to vote in large numbers on either encouraging gay behavior or appearing anti-gay, so it acts as a turnout nullifier for Dems.

Net advantage? GOP.

[Darnright]

>the House leadership should have acted<

On what? Asking for a photograph??? Sure, and the Democrats and the gay-rights pushers would have been screaming "hate crime" so fast your head would swim.

[SoFloFreeper]

We all keep forgetting: the TRUTH is the last thing the MSM Media cares or thinks about. The MSM media routinely ignored the FACTS and the TRUTH in these areas:

The entire 8 years Clinton was President,
during the 9/11 investigation,
in the middle of every anti-Bush screed book tour in 2004,
in New Orleans and the aftermath of Katrina,
about Abu Ghraib,
the Plame controversy,
the increase in gas and oil prices,
so-called global warming caused by humankind,
the stunning recovery of the economy during the War on Terror.

THE PRESS COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT WHAT IS TRUE!

All they care about is manufacturing a disaster scenario for the party in power.

Certainly it doesn't help that the Republicans haven't been as true to their BASE as they ought to be--their actions add fuel to the fire.

But make no mistake: these reports have far less to do with what is TRUE and more to with what is DESIRED.

[SoFloFreeper]

Well, and in one report today or yesterday, the IMs that were explicit were APPARENTLY with someone who was 18+ years old.

I still think Foley should be OUT...but if the person was 18+, there was absolutely no crime.

[SolidSupplySide]

On what? Asking for a photograph??? Sure, and the Democrats and the gay-rights pushers would have been screaming "hate crime" so fast your head would swim.

Absolutely right. And furthermore, it appears you would give in to the extortion of the strident gay left. I don't care what they say. A real Republican leadership wouldn't be so PC as to let creepy communications between a Congressman and a page go uninvestigated because of the fear of what Dems would say.