Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rep.: Hastert Told of Foley Months Ago
The Ledger (AP) ^ | 9/30/2006 | DEVLIN BARRETT

Posted on 09/30/2006 3:06:00 PM PDT by wjersey

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort, said he told Speaker Dennis Hastert after learning a fellow GOP lawmaker sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy.

Reynolds, R-N.Y., was told months ago about e-mails sent by Rep. Mark Foley and is now defending himself from Democratic accusations that he did too little. Foley, R-Fla., resigned Friday after ABC News questioned him about the e-mails to a former congressional page and about sexually suggestive instant messages to other pages. The boy who received the e-mails was 16 in summer 2005 when he worked in Congress as a page. After the boy returned to his Louisiana home, the congressman e-mailed him, and the teenager thought the messages were inappropriate, particularly one in which Foley asked the teen to send a picture of himself.

The teen's family contacted their congressman, Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who then discussed it with Reynolds sometime this spring.

"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's," Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a written statement Saturday.

"Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me," Reynolds said.

Reynolds added that Alexander also discussed it with the clerk of the House, and the congressman who oversees the page program, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill.

Shimkus has said he learned about the e-mail exchange in late 2005 and took immediate action to investigate.

Shimkus said Foley told him it was an innocent exchange. Shimkus said he warned Foley not to have any more contact with the teenager and to respect other pages.

Democrats charged Reynolds did far too little and said more digging should be done.

"Congressman Reynolds' inaction in the face of such a serious situation is very troubling, and raises important questions about whether there was an attempt to cover up criminal activity involving a minor to keep it from coming to light before election day," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney.

New York Democrats hoping to unseat Reynolds blasted the congressman, saying they call into question the Republican's values.

"Mr. Reynolds knew about these allegedly inappropriate emails from a fellow congressman to a minor for months and didn't lift a finger," said Blake Zeff, a spokesman for the state Democrats.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: barneyfrank; congressmorons; electionscongress; foley; hastert; markfoley; thomasreynolds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-373 next last
To: MozarkDawg
The gender doesn't matter, it is irrelevent to the subject that Clinton had a girl in his sites and Foley chooses boys.

What is relevent is that the boy Foley went after is underage and... well... a boy.

61 posted on 09/30/2006 3:45:19 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

The article says that all Reynolds knew, and all he passed on to Hastert, was that a page was upset that Foley asked him to send him a photo. It does not appear that the IMs---the full extent of the problem---was known.

I, too, would be very surprised if Foley did nothing if he knew the full story. Denny Hastert strikes me as someone who would gladly throw the Foleys of the world under the bus without any hestitation whatsoever.


62 posted on 09/30/2006 3:45:38 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent (If you can: Contribute more (babies) to the next generation of God-fearing American Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
At least Republicans have firm ethics, and when one in the party does something this appalling, the Republican resigns, he doesn't stay in office or

The head of the Republican Nat'l Comm. is a homosexual and the second-in-command at that org. is steadfast advocate of abortion.
When will they be resigning?

63 posted on 09/30/2006 3:47:10 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
The State may say my 16 year old is an "adult" but I don't as a parent.

I'd be curious what else is on Foley's hard drive. He's a congressional Michael Jackson IMHO, and using some of the similar ploys of "self-defense".
64 posted on 09/30/2006 3:47:37 PM PDT by not2worry (What goes around comes around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bpjam
Its incredibly transparent that any delays in dumping this predator were political calculations about keeping the House majority.

That was my first thought, but then I wondered: does that really make sense?

This is a safe district. Given enough time, as opposed to now, it would have been relatively easy to come up with a winning Republican candidate.

Hastert doesn't seem stupid enough to believe that something like this would not be exposed close to Election Day, leaving him/his party holding the bag.

All I can see from this article is that the initial reports were only about the page upset about Foley asking him for a photo, Foley gave them the spiel about needing a photo on file (which, early on, even many here on FR were arguing was more than plausible), and the leadership thought that was the end of it.

65 posted on 09/30/2006 3:48:42 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent (If you can: Contribute more (babies) to the next generation of God-fearing American Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

It would all be different if he had just trolled the internet hookup sites. Why did he have to go after pages at all? Dumb and dumber.


66 posted on 09/30/2006 3:49:26 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent (If you can: Contribute more (babies) to the next generation of God-fearing American Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Gary Studds was messing with kids and the Dems re-elected him 6 more times.


67 posted on 09/30/2006 3:50:20 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Being gay is not a crime in the Republican Party, in spite of what the Democrats would have you believe. Being gay and claiming to be straight should be a crime anywhere, everytime.


68 posted on 09/30/2006 3:50:42 PM PDT by mission9 (Be a citizen worth living for, in a Nation worth dying for...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham

Why would they gamble on this when the possibility of losing was very, very great?

This is a safe district and they could have come up with a winner given enough time. Foley could have resigned for something classic such as "to spend more time with his family," and even though this would have come out eventually, only REALLY STUPID people or people who DID NOT KNOW the entire story would manage this crisis this way.


69 posted on 09/30/2006 3:51:32 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent (If you can: Contribute more (babies) to the next generation of God-fearing American Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan
OK, we've had three known gays in Congress over the last 10 years. Foley, Frank and Studds. Two of them messed with kids.

Is that too small a sample to say "homosexuals generally mess with kids".

70 posted on 09/30/2006 3:51:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Why the GOP didn't force Foley out when they learned of it is a mystery.

for starters, Hastert is a moron...hes in the leadership role.....thus why the party is in the shape its in today

71 posted on 09/30/2006 3:53:38 PM PDT by stuck_in_new_orleans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan
I don't think Barney Frank has been caught cavorting with under-aged boys (although it wouldn't surprise me).

You don't recall that the underaged boys part of the story was Barney's then boyfriend was getting male children from a local school and pimping their services to grown men out of the basement of Barney's D.C. house?

There were two MOC's messing with pages during that earlier scandal, Gerry Studds (D-MA) with a male page and Dan Crane (R-IL) with a female page. Mr. Newt demanded their EXPULSION, but in the end, the House settled for censure. Crane lost his bid for re-election; the reason Studds survived the entire thing was that the boy claimed they were both consenting adults at the time, (he had been 17), Studds had the indignant, "My private life is no one's business" thing and survived re-election by his constituents until he retired.

72 posted on 09/30/2006 3:53:46 PM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: mkjessup; dogbyte12; wjersey
The articles on the matter clearly state that all either Reynolds or Hastert knew about were some questionable e-mails.

The articles also say Reynolds informed Hastert of the e-mails. At the same time neither knew of the Instant Messages, and that's where the sexual trolling comes in.

Other kinds of trolling occur when people have read the articles and then make statements about "Hastert knew" and "Reynolds knew".

74 posted on 09/30/2006 3:54:16 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: marajade

Foley himself was a big-name sponsor of a bill that criminalized adults using the internet to make contact with children and convey sexualized messages.

Could start there.

I hope they hang him high.


75 posted on 09/30/2006 3:54:43 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent (If you can: Contribute more (babies) to the next generation of God-fearing American Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

And our own Kolbe in AZ who is retiring.


76 posted on 09/30/2006 3:54:52 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
"It would be safe to say that there are so many allegations that fly around the House of improper conduct each and every day that it cannot be expected for the Speaker to have detailed knowledge of each and every one. That is why he designates and delegates other members to look into things like this."

That's why we should have "moral" individuals voted into office in our Federal, State, City, & Local Governments. Of course finding them to run would be the biggest task since morality in this nation is almost taboo, it's already censored - i.e. NBC censoring parts of a kids program because it "might offend some". The program censored of some it's comments? "Veggie Tales". I guess this says it all, doesn't it! BUT, they find nothing wrong when: NBC doesn't hesitate to offend Christians by showing Madonna mocking the crucifixion of Christ. Neither do not mind offending Christians in their new program Studio 60 with a segment called Crazy Christians.

77 posted on 09/30/2006 3:55:16 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wjersey
It's important to distinguish Foley's "might possibly be a pedophile" emails and his "clearly written by a pedophile" IMs.

The emails have been semipublic knowledge for more than a year. Apparantly the IMs and knowledge of Foley's AIM handle just came to light in the past 48 hours.

What to do with emails like Foley's when they are written by someone you are responsible for is unclear.

It sounds like Hastert a) delegated responsibility, b) didn't ask too many questions, and c) was glad that the whole thing went away.

Most of us would have been no different.

The key thing is that Foley lied, repeatedly - this makes Hastert look worse than the facts actually justify.

78 posted on 09/30/2006 3:57:00 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Who you gonna call?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: not2worry
The State may say my 16 year old is an "adult" but I don't as a parent.

I agree. But there is the legal and there is the moral or ethical. They are not always the same. In this case, the age factor goes along way in determining any legal charges. Foley may legally be within the law. That still doesn't make it right. Further, his being Chairman of the committee about exploited children makes the ethical implications even worse.

Now, apparently, at least 3 other ranking (not junior) House members knew, and 2 of those were the House leadership. That makes them no less culpable than Foley.
79 posted on 09/30/2006 3:57:00 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-373 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson