Republican Congressman resigns today after sending sexual messages to 16 y/o boy - Page 11

Scrum · 10-02-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

This already shows one email has been forged.

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/41683-post182.html

There are some desperate people out there.

What did you mean to link?

There is no proof of a forgery there.

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Uhm, no.. considering that the Republican leadership in the House hid this from Democrats, including the 1 Democrat who would have been able to do something about it.

It's not like the Democrats have known about this for years and hid it to release now... That's the Republican, except they didn't release it. They would have kept it hidden like they have all these years if given the choice.

They didn't keep it hidden. They gave it to the person in charge of Pages (forgot his title). Foley was talked to and told not to have contact with the boy. As per his parents wishes, no other charges were filed.

JaJae · 10-02-2006, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Looks more like that says "questioned" than anything difinitive.

We've already known that the screen name of the boy was edited in those screenshots, so..

Yea the second e-mail is questionable at this point. I do think it's fairly accurate though or he wouldn't have left his position and admitted himself into rehab.

So in all honesty, I have trouble believing it's not true. It is interesting watching it all unwind though. Apparently whatever the truth is, it was enough to admit him into rehab and get him to stand down. It'll be interesting to see if any of this is made up and if so, which parts.

motivez · 10-02-2006, 03:23 PM

They did keep it hidden, as the Democrat who should have known something about it, wasn't informed like he should have been.

Also, we're talking about multiple cases here.. doesn't matter whether or not his parents didn't want charges filed, there should have been an investigation by the ethics committee

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

What did you mean to link?

There is no proof of a forgery there.

There isn't? Did you see pictures of two emails that are close but not the same (or did the links not work?)

Scrum · 10-02-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

There isn't? Did you see pictures of two emails that are close but not the same (or did the links not work?)

If there are pics in that post, they aren't loading for me.

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea the second e-mail is questionable at this point. I do think it's fairly accurate though or he wouldn't have left his position and admitted himself into rehab.

So in all honesty, I have trouble believing it's not true. It is interesting watching it all unwind though. Apparently whatever the truth is, it was enough to admit him into rehab and get him to stand down. It'll be interesting to see if any of this is made up and if so, which parts.

Oh, I think enough is true to make him step down. We are now starting to see some strange things happen which is making it more interesting.

JaJae · 10-02-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

There isn't? Did you see pictures of two emails that are close but not the same (or did the links not work?)

Links didn't work. Rehost them at http://uploads.libertylounge.net

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

If there are pics in that post, they aren't loading for me.

Sorry, I'll repost.

Scrum · 10-02-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

They did keep it hidden, as the Democrat who should have known something about it, wasn't informed like he should have been.

Also, we're talking about multiple cases here.. doesn't matter whether or not his parents didn't want charges filed, there should have been an investigation by the ethics committee

Look at the $100 million they spent nailing Clinton for having sex with an Intern. There were no laws broken there, yet they sill investigated.

JaJae · 10-02-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Look at the $100 million they spent nailing Clinton for having sex with an Intern. There were no laws broken there, yet they sill investigated.

Purgery? And you had an attention whore who was willing to feed the media.

In this case, there has been no "victim" to present the world. And one person was the president, the other was a nameless senator who didn't do much in office. If this were Bush, things would be quite different.

Thorgrim · 10-02-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

They didn't keep it hidden. They gave it to the person in charge of Pages (forgot his title). Foley was talked to and told not to have contact with the boy. As per his parents wishes, no other charges were filed.

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), who serves on the page board, was never told of the interview with Foley.

Foley Interviewed About Page Last Year; Democrats Not Told

Thorgrim · 10-02-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Purgery?

There is a legal debate on whether he was guilty of perjury, but thats tremendously offtopic

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Links didn't work. Rehost them at http://uploads.libertylounge.net

REhosted

motivez · 10-02-2006, 03:30 PM

More information:

The Democrat who was kept out of the loop, Dale Kildee:

"In my 21 years as a Member of the House Page Board, every decision has been made on not just a bi-partisan basis but on a non-partisan basis, with our main concern always being the safety and wellbeing of the young teenagers who serve the U.S. House as pages.

"I was outraged to learn that the House Republican leadership kept to itself the knowledge of Mr. Foley's despicable behavior toward the House Pages.

"I am now equally outraged to learn that Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced today that there will be changes in the policies of the House Page program. Once again, I was not informed of the meeting today, nor was I consulted in any way about any proposed changes.

"And once again, the House Republican leadership is following the same pattern of unilateral decision-making that caused this problem in the first place in the Mark Foley issue. Speaker Hastert's announcement this afternoon is yet another example of the House Republican leadership being more concerned with finding political cover for themselves than with the safety and wellbeing of the House pages."

And, Folee tried to lessen the blow by bargaining with ABC to not release the most explicit information:

On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross.

The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

"I said we're not making any deals," Ross recalls.

Thorgrim · 10-02-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

They first went public with the "friendly" e-mails. When that wasn't enough they went public with the second e-mail. There now seems to be two different versions of that second e-mail floating around and there is also apparently the possibility that it never was an e-mail communication, just re-typed up to appear to be an e-mail.

And Hastert (who did bring this up with those above him) was only privy to the "friendly" e-mail, not the second one (which we now know may be forged or edited). The people above him decided it was just too friendly and told him to stop communication with the boy after speaking with his parents and the parents saying they didn't want to do anything about it.

Hastert MIGHT have only been privy to the friendly email

And it is the house leadership, not a boys parents, who should be in charge of the page system

Why would they want their kid on every newspaper saying "GAY CONGRESSMAN HITS ON LOCAL BOY" cmon that'd be a nightmare for the kid getting teased...besides he wasn't assaulted in this instance, so theres no right of retribution

Thorgrim · 10-02-2006, 03:33 PM

Besides the obvious, maybe the emails were transcribed like the IMs were, in that case punction mistakes are routine...but also I didn't know ABC news posted one email and like NBC posted another email, that would be a little weird

Scrum · 10-02-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Purgery?

Pergury was the reason they were poking around in his private life in the first place?

Please. He broke no laws with that woman when they investigated him. He lied during, not before it began. They still pushed an investigation on him and monica before any laws were broken.