Posted on 10/04/2006 7:11:56 PM PDT by SolidSupplySide
You appear to have a radar for things that not all of us do. I have children and I would not have jumped to the conclusion that it was a matter for the police. In fact, if my child was uncomfortable getting emails from the congressman (former now, thank goodness), I would have responded to the next email myself and I can assure you, that would have been the end of any further attempt at correspondence.
Being under oath does not stop a Democrat from lying.And they[the Democrats] know that they have the same chance of being prosecuted for perjury as the sun has to rise in the west so long as the Republicans are in power.
SolidSupplySide is a troll. Pay no attention to him.
In totality. Asking my kid what he wants for his birthday. What he likes to do. Talking about the physique of another male. All of those things sound like what we've been told predators do. And on top of that, if my son told me he knew the the guy and he was "sick sick sick" as the page did, there's no question that I'd go to the cops.
What would you do? Go to the cops like me, or do nothing like Speaker Hastert?
“Is the American public to believe that neither of you nor your staffs nor anyone associated with your staffs had prior knowledge or involvement with the release of Foley’s e-mails and/or explicit instant messages? Is the American public to believe that ABC News stumbled haphazardly on this story without Democratic assistance?” wrote McHenry, a freshman Republican who has emerged as an attack dog for the GOP. He asked that Pelosi and Emanuel offer a “yes or no” answer as to whether they would go under oath “to assure the American people that neither you nor your staffs had prior knowledge or involvement — at the strategic or tactical levels — with the release of Foley’s e-mails and/or instant messages.”
WTG McHenry! I want to see more Republicans nailing these people for what they did tomorrow morning. Got that GOP staffers? I know you are reading the board. Follow McHenry's example.
They were turned over to the FBI, who then said there wasn't a case.
Seems like you are repeating the Dem's spin.
Here is what we now know:
The FBI & the newspapers who saw the emails thought they were 'over friendly' but not 'criminal'.
The parents didn't want the story to be made public. The Republican leadership followed their request.
Hastert learned pf the salacious IMs only last week and Foley was immediately asked to resign.
And just tonight, due to a computer glich, we have learned the name of the source of the IMs and that he was over 18 during the exchanges.
Pelosi can say whatever she wants... put her under oath!!
The guy was a slime. He resigned. The leadership not only didn't defend him, they were repulsed. Can you name a Democrat in similar circumstances that did anything but prevaricate, stall, and presume outrage?
And for this you want Democrat reign?
Check out your tagline cause you'll not see supply side again if your outrage gets the Dems in.
I agree - this is a non-partisan issue and should stay as such. Foley ws clearly disturbed and is very ill. He is not a Republican or a Democrat, but a sick predator.
That may or may not be true. CBS is reporting that the FBI backed off when the leadership said they'd take care of it.
Anyway, that's not important. Hastert would not have conducted a criminal investigation. His standard of proof would not have been "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". Furthermore, Hastert wouldn't even have to find a crime -- only that Foley violated House rules.
And what the FBI did or didn't do has no bearing on whether or not Hastert did the right thing.
And how about checking out the newest info on the steamy instant messages....that they were between Foley and a consenting 18 year old ADULT.
There was no lack of action, they took it as far as they could without be accused of attacking a gay Congressman without sufficient evidence. That's why it is so important to know who knew about the more explicit IMs before this past week. It looks like Nancy Pelosi is suspect.
Unfortunately in this case, the kid's parents asked the Republicans NOT to release them or pursue it publicly. They asked that the emails stop and as far as we all know...they did stop.
Not all of them. As the news broke on Friday, those ones were not between Foley and an 18 year old consenting, but a page who ws 'weirded out' by them. On that day, Foley said it was all a smear tactic by his opponent in the House race.
Of course, they weren't as steamy as the later ones...but still creepy.
No, no, they found out about the IMs when the story broke, they knew about the creepy emails.
If the Dems knew about it and never said anythng, they should be faulted. If anyone knew about it and never did anything, they should be faulted.
The poster doesn't care.
He believes that all Republicans should be as pure as the driven snow.
The clown was spewing the same horse excrement on the DeLay threads.
They demand a sworn account from Democrats on this issue, but did not demand sworn account from Jamie Gorelick?
Give me a break.
In totality, huh? Yeah, well good except I asked, "Which ones?" That meant the actual emails. What were the specific verbatim emails that elicited the reaction from you that Hastert had failed to respond. You've given me brief descriptions no different than those used by the MSM.
And, as I said before, the FBI saw these emails. They're law enforcement and they saw nothing untoward. So the emails were taken to the "cops" and the "cops" say nothing wrong with them.
Now either you've read them or you haven't. I think you haven't so go do the search for them, produce the ones that are responsible for your anger and then, when we both know what we're talking about, we can have an honest debate as to whether Hastert did or didn't react appropriately cuz, frankly pal, right now you look like a fool.
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.