Congressman resigns over sexually explicit emails/IM's to underaged paige.

[Amused]

I find it curious that Phokus, who claims to be a libertarian, is dancing on the political grave of an elected politician who is part of a libertarian movement within the Republican party (The Republican Liberty Caucus).

Most curious indeed.

 

[Phokus]

Looks like the GOP not only knew about the problem for years, they encouraged paiges to 'meet' with Foley.

GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend "a lot of time" with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem
by John in DC - 10/01/2006 08:41:00 PM

Shimkus is toast. There's even video of Shimkus letting Foley talk to the pages AFTER the GOP knew Foley had page-issues.

You'll recall that he is the Republican member of Congress who runs the Page Board, the group in charge of the pages. You'll also recall that tonight we learned on ABC News that GOP House staff warned the page class of 2001-2002 to stay away from ex-Rep. Mark Foley.

Then why is it that on June 6, 2002, well after the kids were warned to stay away from Foley, Shimkus notes approvingly that Foley has spent a lot of time with the Page Class of 2001-2002? This is Shimkus speaking at the page's goodbye ceremony,

MR. SHIMKUS: I thank my colleague. Now someone who spends a lot of time with you also, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), would like to say a thank you.

(Note: We've confirmed in the Congressional Record that this is the exact transcript of the proceedings that day.)

The GOP staff knew Foley was a problem the year before, they warned the pages in 2001. Yet Shimkus, the next year is acknowledging that Foley was still permitted to spend "a lot of time" with the pages. In the name of God, why?

Oh, but it gets worse.

Foley then gets up in front of Shimkus and tells a special little story of how he took one male page to a private dinner in downtown Washington, DC. Put the page in his BMW and "cruised" - Foley's word - to dinner.

And now for the kicker.

Foley told the kid he had to get permission from his mom and he had to notify the Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, the Republican staffer who works for Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-IL). You'll also recall that Trandahl is the Clerk who joined Shimkus in 2005 to talk to Foley about the creepy email exchange with the first child who got this scandal started.

Why did Shimkus let Foley spend so much time with the pages after GOP staff already knew Foley had a "page problem"? Did the Clerk of the House approve of this dinner? Did Shimkus? Clearly Foley had no fear in the kid going to Clerk and asking for permission - so Foley seemed to think the Clerk wouldn't mind. And clearly Foley had no fear in telling the story in front of Shimkus, so he obviously didn't think Shimkus would mind either.

Shimkus then introduces Foley. Read what Foley has to say to the pages of the 2001-2002 class in his speech wishing them goodbye.

FOLEY: John [one of the pages] was the highest bidder on lunch with Mark Foley. Maybe you all do not know this story, but John had paid considerable sums to dine with me. I had offered to take the winning bidder to lunch in the Members' dining room. Then I heard how much John Eunice paid. And I said, ``John, there is no way in the world after you committed so much money to have lunch with me that I would dare take you downstairs to eat in the Members' dining room.'' I said, ``Where do you want to go?'' He says, without reservation, ``Morton's.'' I said, ``Morton's? Like in Morton's Steakhouse?'' He said, ``Oh, would that be too much?'' I said, ``Oh, no, we'll go.'' I said, ``Call your mother, get permission, make sure she notifies the Clerk and we will go to Morton's.'' And so we proceeded to cruise down in my BMW to Morton's.

Putting aside the creepy notion of children bidding on dinner with an already-suspected child sex predator, what in God's name were Shimkus and the Clerk doing approving of Foley taking a kid in his BMW to a private dinner in downtown Washington? The GOP staff already knew that Foley was trouble. They had already warned the kids. Yet Shimkus let Foley spend lots of time with the kids, by Shimkus' own admission. And then they let Foley cruise the kid to dinner in his beamer.

Shimkus is toast.

Oh, and if anyone would like to see video of Shimkus praising a suspected child predator for spending lots of time with underage 16 year old pages, you can order the video from this specific date from C-Span for $270. As C-Span notes, the video includes appearances by Mr. Foley and Mr. Shimkus.

(Hat tip to MyDD for discovering the transcript.)

 

[RadiclDreamer]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09...e-gop-leadership-knew-about-foley.html

 

[archiloco]

it was with a 16 old guy.....wtf at least clinton did intern/chicks

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09...e-gop-leadership-knew-about-foley.html

Originally posted by: Phokus
Looks like the GOP not only knew about the problem for years, they encouraged paiges to 'meet' with Foley.

Wow....could we get some sources on this other than HYPER-partisan liberal blogs like MyDD and Americablog?

From what I've read, nobody knew about the sexually explicit IMs from 2003 until last Friday. The only thing the GOP leadership knew about was some emails from 2005 with another page that basically contained things like, "How are you surviving the hurricanes?", "How are you liking school?", "Do you miss DC?". Possibly the only questionable thing in the entire email exchange is Foley asking for a picture of the kid (not even a nekkid one). The House GOP leadership turned them over to Congressional Authorities and they said that the emails were "overly-friendly" but nothing wrong otherwise. The worse that can be said based on this information is that the GOP leadership dropped the ball but there was no malfeasance that I see at this point.

My question is, who had the sexually explicit IMs from 2003 and why have they been holding on to them for so long and then all of this convienently comes out right before the election? That Foley is scum and should have been kicked out there is no doubt. But I question the way in that this all came out last week....originating from a brand new blog with no posts of consequence until they post the innocous emails from Foley..the same emails that look like what the Dem/George Soros funded "watchdog" group CREW gave to ABC.

And why is this thread still in OT? This is clearly P&N material and there is just such a thread in P&N already. I put up a thread in ATOT last week making fun of Al Gore wanting to go after cigarettes because he said they were a major factor in Global Warming. That thread was deleted. Not just locked but deleted. Yet this clearly P&N thread stays up in ATOT for several days?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Another one to add to the LONG list of Republican pedophiles...

Add yourself to the partisan quack list.

Why don't you add him yourself, since you're the chairman?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Queasy
This can't be right Amused. Everyone knows that Republicans walk around everday with Bibles in hand qouting verses at every passerby and declaring that all that disagree with them are going to hell. :roll:

No, it's just the president who does that.

 

[waggy]

ok why is he going into rehab? what does that have to do with trying to get in the pants of a 16yr old kid?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: waggy
ok why is he going into rehab? what does that have to do with trying to get in the pants of a 16yr old kid?

Typical politician out. Get into trouble then blame it on drugs/alcohol and admit yourself to rehab and try to get some sympathy.

Kennedy did it after he rammed his car into some traffic barriers earlier this year.

That NJ Governor that resigned did it as well.

I think he just needs to get out of the public eye and live like a hermit in shame.

 

[daniel1113]

Wait... the age of consent is 16 in D.C.?

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Wait... the age of consent is 16 in D.C.?

Sixteen is the age of consent in most of the US.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Wait... the age of consent is 16 in D.C.?

Sixteen is the age of consent in most of the US.

Yes, but I wasn't aware that was the case in D.C., too.

 

[Eli]

:laugh:

Do I make you horny baby?

:laugh:

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Amused
http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Mark_Foley_Principles_+_Values.htm

Guys, to call him a hypocrite is absurd. He has voted in FAVOR of gay rights since he started in politics and is endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans (a PAC of gay Republicans).

Are you kidding me? His hypocrisy has NOTHING to do with gay rights, it has to do with his fixation on passing tougher internet predator laws. I just saw a bit on TV tonight from when he was on America's Most Wanted, where he said something to the effect of "if he was one of those sickos, he'd be afraid of AMW"... This schmuck was determined to pass stronger predator laws, when all along he was the freaking predator!

 

[maziwanka]

all this crap makes me freaking sick.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: Amused
http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Mark_Foley_Principles_+_Values.htm

Guys, to call him a hypocrite is absurd. He has voted in FAVOR of gay rights since he started in politics and is endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans (a PAC of gay Republicans).

Are you kidding me? His hypocrisy has NOTHING to do with gay rights, it has to do with his fixation on passing tougher internet predator laws. I just saw a bit on TV tonight from when he was on America's Most Wanted, where he said something to the effect of "if he was one of those sickos, he'd be afraid of AMW"... This schmuck was determined to pass stronger predator laws, when all along he was the freaking predator!

The calls of hypocrisy in this thread prior to my post were based on the ignorant assumption that he was a member of the religious right and was actively anti-gay.

I simply showed that to be incorrect.

And again, while what he did was ethically wrong and he was right to resign, I would point out that 16 is the age of consent in DC. "Predator" is a little strong here. Just as the term "pedophile" in this case is incorrect as well.

There is a lot of hysteria over this case. FAR more than the reaction to the recent rash of female teachers having sex with their students. The only logical drive behind this wildly different reaction can be homophobia mixed with partisanship. Nothing more, nothing less. So, you wanna debate hypocrisy some more?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: Amused
http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Mark_Foley_Principles_+_Values.htm

Guys, to call him a hypocrite is absurd. He has voted in FAVOR of gay rights since he started in politics and is endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans (a PAC of gay Republicans).

Are you kidding me? His hypocrisy has NOTHING to do with gay rights, it has to do with his fixation on passing tougher internet predator laws. I just saw a bit on TV tonight from when he was on America's Most Wanted, where he said something to the effect of "if he was one of those sickos, he'd be afraid of AMW"... This schmuck was determined to pass stronger predator laws, when all along he was the freaking predator!

The calls of hypocrisy in this thread prior to my post were based on the ignorant assumption that he was a member of the religious right and was actively anti-gay.

I simply showed that to be incorrect.

And again, while what he did was ethically wrong and he was right to resign, I would point out that 16 is the age of consent in DC. "Predator" is a little strong here. Just as the term "pedophile" in this case is incorrect as well.

There is a lot of hysteria over this case. FAR more than the reaction to the recent rash of female teachers having sex with their students. The only logical drive behind this wildly different reaction can be homophobia mixed with partisanship. Nothing more, nothing less. So, you wanna debate hypocrisy some more?

Problem is, the law he so vigorously pushed to passed makes it a crime to target those under 18. Doesn't really matter what the age of consent is.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: Amused
http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Mark_Foley_Principles_+_Values.htm

Guys, to call him a hypocrite is absurd. He has voted in FAVOR of gay rights since he started in politics and is endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans (a PAC of gay Republicans).

Are you kidding me? His hypocrisy has NOTHING to do with gay rights, it has to do with his fixation on passing tougher internet predator laws. I just saw a bit on TV tonight from when he was on America's Most Wanted, where he said something to the effect of "if he was one of those sickos, he'd be afraid of AMW"... This schmuck was determined to pass stronger predator laws, when all along he was the freaking predator!

The calls of hypocrisy in this thread prior to my post were based on the ignorant assumption that he was a member of the religious right and was actively anti-gay.

I simply showed that to be incorrect.

And again, while what he did was ethically wrong and he was right to resign, I would point out that 16 is the age of consent in DC. "Predator" is a little strong here. Just as the term "pedophile" in this case is incorrect as well.

There is a lot of hysteria over this case. FAR more than the reaction to the recent rash of female teachers having sex with their students. The only logical drive behind this wildly different reaction can be homophobia mixed with partisanship. Nothing more, nothing less. So, you wanna debate hypocrisy some more?

Problem is, the law he so vigorously pushed to passed makes it a crime to target those under 18. Doesn't really matter what the age of consent is.

I'm not defending his actions. They are immoral and unethical. I never claimed any differently.

What perplexes me is the double standard here that can only be attributed to homophobia and partisanship... not to mention sexism. All traits the left claims to be free of.

Had I seen this same reaction against the female teachers who were fscking their students, I wouldn't be saying much at all. But that's not the case, is it?

Again, talk about hypocrisy.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: Amused
http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Mark_Foley_Principles_+_Values.htm

Guys, to call him a hypocrite is absurd. He has voted in FAVOR of gay rights since he started in politics and is endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans (a PAC of gay Republicans).

Are you kidding me? His hypocrisy has NOTHING to do with gay rights, it has to do with his fixation on passing tougher internet predator laws. I just saw a bit on TV tonight from when he was on America's Most Wanted, where he said something to the effect of "if he was one of those sickos, he'd be afraid of AMW"... This schmuck was determined to pass stronger predator laws, when all along he was the freaking predator!

The calls of hypocrisy in this thread prior to my post were based on the ignorant assumption that he was a member of the religious right and was actively anti-gay.

I simply showed that to be incorrect.

And again, while what he did was ethically wrong and he was right to resign, I would point out that 16 is the age of consent in DC. "Predator" is a little strong here. Just as the term "pedophile" in this case is incorrect as well.

There is a lot of hysteria over this case. FAR more than the reaction to the recent rash of female teachers having sex with their students. The only logical drive behind this wildly different reaction can be homophobia mixed with partisanship. Nothing more, nothing less. So, you wanna debate hypocrisy some more?

Problem is, the law he so vigorously pushed to passed makes it a crime to target those under 18. Doesn't really matter what the age of consent is.

I'm not defending his actions. They are immoral and unethical. I never claimed any differently.

What perplexes me is the double standard here that can only be attributed to homophobia and partisanship... not to mention sexism. All traits the left claims to be free of.

Had I seen this same reaction against the female teachers who were fscking their students, I wouldn't be saying much at all. But that's not the case, is it?

Again, talk about hypocrisy.

Much of the communication took place in the State of Florida. Someone over the age of 24 that commits a sexual act with someone who is 16 commits a felony.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mill

Much of the communication took place in the State of Florida. Someone over the age of 24 that commits a sexual act with someone who is 16 commits a felony.

And every single sexual contract between a female teacher and student was a felony.

I still fail to see ANY comparison between how people reacted to those stories, and this one.

Again, I am not defending his actions. Only pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mill

Much of the communication took place in the State of Florida. Someone over the age of 24 that commits a sexual act with someone who is 16 commits a felony.

And every single sexual contract between a female teacher and student was a felony.

I still fail to see ANY comparison between how people reacted to those stories, and this one.

Again, I am not defending his actions. Only pointing out the hypocrisy.

1. The page (and others) have said the congressman's comments were not solicited or wanted. Contrast that with the teacher cases.
2. The Congressman was instrumental in passing tough child predator laws and strong on sexual crimes and abuse.
3. The Congressman was in his 50's.
4. The Congressman was in a position of power even more than teachers.
5. Congressmen are held to a high ethical standard.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mill

Much of the communication took place in the State of Florida. Someone over the age of 24 that commits a sexual act with someone who is 16 commits a felony.

And every single sexual contract between a female teacher and student was a felony.

I still fail to see ANY comparison between how people reacted to those stories, and this one.

Again, I am not defending his actions. Only pointing out the hypocrisy.

1. The page (and others) have said the congressman's comments were not solicited or wanted. Contrast that with the teacher cases.
2. The Congressman was instrumental in passing tough child predator laws and strong on sexual crimes and abuse.
3. The Congressman was in his 50's.
4. The Congressman was in a position of power even more than teachers.
5. Congressmen are held to a high ethical standard.

If you think a congressman's position of power over a page is greator than that of a teacher over a student, you're deluded. If you think a congressman is somehow more responsible for the well being of a page than a teacher is of their students, you're deluded.

If you think his age has anything to do with it, you're deluded.

In all, I'd say you're making excuses for your hypocrisy. The fact of the matter is this: The reactions are different because of homophobia mixed with partisanship. Not to mention sexism. Face it, Mill, had the teacher scandals been male teachers with male students, the reactions would be very similar... but STILL not as bad. Why? Add in the fact that this is political and you have a LOT of partisanship gloating and lynchmobbing going on.

Face the hypocrisy, Mill. I promise it won't hurt a bit.

 

[sao123]

holy sh1t, I just read the abcnews.com chat transcript...

this dude is EFFED UP big time!!!!!!!

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Amused
If you think a congressman's position of power over a page is greator than that of a teacher over a student, you're deluded. If you think a congressman is somehow more responsible for the well being of a page than a teacher is of their students, you're deluded.

I've gotta agree with Mill on that one... A congressman has the ability to call in quite a few favors or pull a LOT more strings than any teacher could ever hope to pull for a student. "Hey, if you xxx, I've got a friend who runs company xxx... "

 

[Mill]

If you think a congressman's position of power over a page is greator than that of a teacher over a student, you're deluded.

I think it is quite obvious that this congressman had more of a chance to be alone with the page than a teacher does with a student. I was probably alone with a teacher inside school maybe once or twice a year. Outside of school -- never. Kids know that teachers answer to the principle or their parents. Who does a congressman answer to? The head of the page program? I think not.

If you think a congressman is somehow more responsible for the well being of a page than a teacher is of their students, you're deluded.

I'm saying a congressman arouses less suspicion, has more opportunity to be alone, and quite obviously wields quite a bit of power and influence.

If you think his age has anything to do with it, you're deluded.

Sure it does. Perhaps if this boy might have found him attractive had he been younger. The main problem in this case is that the advances were rebuffed or ignored. The page never solicited the congressman or started the explicit talk with him. That's why the idea of the age of consent is nonsense in this case. The boy was obviously not consenting -- he was just too fearful or unable to make it stop. Furthermore, age is directly relevant because of the Florida State law that I quoted. The congressman was in Florida -- specifically Pensacola -- during many of these conversations and solicitations.

In all, I'd say you're making excuses for your hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy. I'm simply gagging over the idea that you are defending this guy. You can deny you are, but you aren't confronting hypocrisy here. I haven't been a hypocrite.

The fact of the matter is this: The reactions are different because of homophobia mixed with partisanship.

Bullsh!t. I'm neither homophobic or partisan. The congressman's advances and chats were not consensual or well-received by the page. Finally, the congressman abused his position of authority -- a position that directly affected child predators and underage sex.

Not to mention sexism. Face it, Mill, had the teacher scandals been male teachers with male students, the reactions would be very similar... but STILL not as bad.

I could not care less about the gender of anyone involved. I care whether it was consensual, the ages of the involved, and any abuse of power that took place.

Why? Add in the fact that this is political and you have a LOT of partisanship gloating and lynchmobbing going on.

Is that what you are bitching about? That democrats are bashing republicans before an election? No fvcking sh!t, dude. Had it been a Democrat -- i.e. Bill Clinton -- then you know damn well they (republicans) would have turned it into a partisan lynch-mob as well. Both parties do dirty tricks and take advantage of stuff all the time. It is why I hate both parties.

Face the hypocrisy, Mill. I promise it won't hurt a bit.

I have no hypocrisy to face. I've not been bit a hypocritical on the issue. On the contrary, I'm being much more fair than you are. You know that you tend to lean toward the Republican side when a partisan fight is going on.