I understand that. What I said was can this Matthew Loraditch be trusted to be telling the truth? It appears that he himself (Matthew) may possibly be the owner of a gay porn site unless there is someone else who uses loraditchm as a screen name.
ABC News reported that three more pages, one each from 1998, 2000 and 2002, have come forward detailing sexual approaches from Foley over the Internet.
The FBI has contacted a former congressional page from Kentucky as part of the burgeoning investigation, said Daniel London, chief of staff to Rep. Ron Lewis, R-Ky., who sponsored the teen.
Attorneys for the Justice Department and the House negotiated on how to give investigators access to Foley's files without inciting a legal battle like the one after the FBI raided the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., earlier this year.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061006/ap_on_go_co/congress_pages;_ylt=Al_B7dfhI4HoOcSK7rW64qas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-
Not all gay republicans are out to get us.
Apparently there were a good number of gay pages, which might explain why Foley was corresponding with them about sex.
Still perverted, but if he wasn't forcing them into stuff they didn't already do, it's not quite as predatory, and would explain why nobody REPORTED any of this.
And would explain why, with just "rumors", there was little the house could do about it -- without any reports of wrongdoing, it just looks like you are going after the gay guy.
Plus, imagine Foley was one of your friends. You might not be quick to believe bad stories about him, because you don't see him in that way. It's easier for us who don't know the guy to assume the worst when we read an e-mail, but imagine you saw that e-mail but it was from a person you "knew", but didn't know was a predator, rather it was a man you thought was a good guy who cared about children.
You might be too quick to dismiss it as well, especially if the "accuser" isn't actually ACCUSING him of anything, but simply saying the letter was uncomfortable for them and they'd like the e-mails to stop.
Foley SHOULD HAVE TOLD THEM last november when they came to him that there was more. I blame Foley for that, as well. And in the spring when Reynolds was talking to him about running again, Foley should have said NO.
Reynolds talked him into running because Reynolds didn't know the truth, but Foley did. Maybe Reynolds should have read between the lines if Foley was asking to step down, but Reynolds WAS concerned with not having to put any effort into safe house seats.
Foley really screwed us, not just with his actions, but by not being honest when he was questioned. He took advantage of the trust of people who knew him.
HEY: That's an argument maybe we can make. Remember how all of Clinton's friends came out and called Monica a liar and a stalker? HILLARY even said Monica was lying. We argued they had to know, but now maybe we should point out that if Hillary Clinton, who was MARRIED to Bill, was deceived by his lies about monica and shouldn't be held responsbible, how can her party now attack republicans for trusting a man they thought was trustworthy?