HRC Fires Staffer Who Orchestrated Foley ScandalStatement Raises More Questions About HRC’s Involvement
**UPDATED THURSDAY MORNING**
(see below)
Welcome to readers from Instapundit, Corner, Wizbang, Polipundit and The Anchoress.
This is a stunning development in efforts to peel back the onion of the Mark Foley scandal and expose who knew what and when they knew it.
I have been flying back to Charlotte for most of the day, so I have been unable to “elevate” the comment by Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign to a full posting. I emailed Brad last evening asking the HRC to respond to Dan’s posting challenging Joe Solmonese to respond to the accusations that the entire Foley affairs orginated at the Human Rights Campaign.
“The email exchanges in question between former Congressman Mark Foley and a House page have been in the possession of bloggers and media outlets for some time now. Yesterday, it came to our attention that an HRC employee, hired just last month to work for us in Michigan, was responsible for initially posting these emails on his blog. We investigated the matter, determined that HRC resources had been inappropriately used, and let him go. No one at the Human Rights Campaign, other than this individual, had any knowledge of his activities,” said Brad Luna, Spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign.
Luna’s statement was also emailed to the blogger of “Stop October Surprises” who is the first to connect the dots linking the Human Rights Campaign to the bogus blog “Stop Sex Predators”. SSP, you will recall, was the blog set up to leak out the details of the Foley connected the dots. We now know that a former employee at HRC was behind the entire affair.
I have repeatedly highlighted the HRC’s involvement in the Foley affair from the start. Many of you dismissed it. But the HRC has finally admitted it.
So my questions now are the following:
- What is the name of the fired HRC employee?
- When did the HRC employee come into possession of the Mark Foley emails?
- Why did he hold them until October, instead of going to the proper authorities immediately if he truly wanted to expose a potential sex predator?
- What did the officials at HRC know about the Foley matter before today?
- What connections might the fired HRC employee have with the two-year old “outing” campaign targeting gay Congressional staff?
- Were other HRC employees involved in this conspiracy?
- Does this former HRC employee have any connections to Democrat Party officials?
Finally, it is worth noting that one of the central figures in the Foley affair is also a Board of Directors member of the Human Rights Campaign — Jeff Trandahl, the former Clerk of the House.
I think the HRC needs to come clean and fully explain to those of you who give them money exactly what the hell they are up to. This entire matter has put every gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay. The HRC has a responsibility to tell us what they know and when they knew it. They are now directly responsible for the anti-gay atmosphere that has emerged from the scandal that one of their own employees helped launch.
**UPDATE** – The New York Times has picked up the story.
A liberal gay rights group said Wednesday that one of its employees, acting anonymously, had created the Web site that first published copies of unusually solicitous e-mail messages to teenagers from former Representative Mark Foley, which led to his resignation.
A spokesman for the group, the Human Rights Campaign, said it first learned of its employee’s role this week and immediately fired him for misusing the group’s resources. The scandal surrounding Mr. Foley, a Florida Republican, has been a burdensome distraction for members of his party in the month before the midterm elections, and some Republicans have speculated that the e-mail messages were planted by a Democrat.
The rights campaign’s spokesman, David Smith, said the employee, whose name he declined to disclose, was a junior staff member hired last month to help mobilize the organization’s members in Michigan. “The minute we learned about it we took decisive action,” Mr. Smith said.
The Miami Herald and other news organizations have acknowledged obtaining copies of the same e-mail messages months ago but declining to publish them because of their potentially ambiguous contents.
Ummm.. I thought the Hypocrite Rights Campaign was “bi-partisan”? (LMAO). And, thank goodness for the bloggers who alerted the HRC this week about their rogue employee doing all of these things mysteriously with no knowledge of the HRC hierarchy, according to them. (Yours truly was one of the bloggers who put the HRC’s feet to the fire, thanks to Dan’s post.)
Finally, wthere is smoke there is fire…. keep watching the truth come out over at StopOctoberSurprises! That’s where this HRC bottom-feeding was uncovered.
This is the HRC’s version of Rathergate. Let’s see how the largest gay rights group in America handles their worst scandal. Many deep pockets will be watching.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
…accusations that the entire Foley affairs orginated at the Human Rights Campaign
Was the entire incident a fabrication of the HRC? That’s the literal meaning I get from that.
This entire matter has put every gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay.
Do you think that the Foley incident (assuming the answer to my first question is that it’s not a fabrication of the HRC) should have remained under wraps for these reasons?
Comment by kdogg36 — October 25, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - October 25, 2006
Are you implying that the HRC is responsible in any way for putting very “gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay”.
Comment by Jay — October 25, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - October 25, 2006
very = “every”. above
Comment by Jay — October 25, 2006 @ 6:32 pm - October 25, 2006
We now know that a former employee at HRC was behind the entire affair.
This is an asinine thing to say.
FOLEY and those who covered for him were behing the whole ‘Foley affair.’ It doesn’t matter who took action to bring it to light - hell, they were doing all of us a favor by revealing the truth.
The insistance on the Right of finding the messenger - in order to shoot him - is absolutely stunning.
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 25, 2006 @ 6:33 pm - October 25, 2006
Let’s face it: the dems don’t care about teenage boys’ safety. If they were, this would have been given to the authorities years ago. Instead, they used a phony scandal to corrupt an election. Instead of Human Right Campaign, the should be called Human Waste Creeps.
Comment by Karen — October 25, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - October 25, 2006
[...] I stopped him right there and said, “Well, I’m one of those so you probably don’t want to talk to me.” He looked at me strangely and just backed off my steps, no doubt thinking I would assault him or something. Well, today I learn that the hyped up Mark Foley affair was orchestrated by this guy’s allies in the Human Rights Campaign. Charlotte blogger The Gay Patriot says it all: So my questions now are the following: [...]
Pingback by Right Angles » Blog Archive » The HRC at my door — October 25, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - October 25, 2006
So now, it’s a ‘phony’ scandal?
In what way?
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 25, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - October 25, 2006
It’s phony because it’s presented as a member of congress haveing sex with underage pages.
In truth, it’s a member of congress not having sex with people who are not underage and not pages.
Comment by Svolich — October 25, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - October 25, 2006
There’s an “anti-gay atmosphere” out there? Where? I thought everything was peaches and cream.
Comment by jimmy — October 25, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - October 25, 2006
#5. Willie Horton. Stay The Course.
Comment by jimmy — October 25, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - October 25, 2006
So the Republicans who knew at the very least about the emails for years bear no blame for allowing Foley to continue violating a federal law he helped write; the bloggers who knew about them for a few months are “responsible for the anti-gay atmosphere that has emerged from the scandal”?
The dodgy question about “when did the Democrats know” is the distraction the GOP came up with avoid the scandal that Foley helped create. The anti-gay atmosphere is a direct result of the anti-gay right wing (and I don’t mean all of the right wing; just the AFA-types) attempting to avoid responsibility for a Republican error by making it a gay issue. Nothing about the timing of the scandal’s breaking has any relevance to the anti-gay atmosphere of which you speak, which by the way existed long before Foley got caught.
Repat after me: Foley is the scandal. Foley’s actions are the scandal. Foley’s page chasing game is the scandal.
The worst that you can guess about the bloggers who broke the story is that they waited a few months to make sure it did the most damage possible. Assuming this hypothesis to be true, if that “trick” is played against the party that brought us the Swiftboat Veterans, how can they possibly complain?
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - October 25, 2006
Phony in that the Democrat party took an exact opposite line on Gerry Studds, who had actual sex with an under 18 page. The outrage by the Dems, and especially Pelosi, who tried to promote Studds is what makes it phony.
Comment by moptop — October 25, 2006 @ 6:57 pm - October 25, 2006
7; “presented as a member of congress haveing sex with underage pages.” Um, no, it was presented as a Congressman sending sexual IMs and creepy emails to pages, helping to violate a law he himself wrote. Of course it’s a “sexual” scandal: Are you contending that questions on penis length were asked by Foley merely as part of a scientific survey? That there wasn’t a sexual component to it?
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - October 25, 2006
11: Studds’ actions were legal. A violation of the power principle, absolutely, in that no one in a position of power should sexually pursue a subordinate (e.g., Clinton), but it wasn’t illegal, he wasn’t married, and the page said he completely supported Studds after the affair. Also, it was brought to light how many years after the fact?
Foley wrote a law outlawing exactly what he did and then did it anyway. And having sex with a 17 year old, of legal age in DC, is a hell of a lot different than chasing a 15 year old and asking how long their penis is.
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 7:03 pm - October 25, 2006
The scandal isn’t what people are calling phony; the so-called Dem outrage is what is complete crap.
Comment by Stikmata — October 25, 2006 @ 7:05 pm - October 25, 2006
Lay Down Your Sword…
Again, as I posited yesterday, this comes as no huge surprise — but I’m frankly astonished to see HRC confirm the fact.
Next question, though: what do we do with this info?…
Trackback by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - October 25, 2006
If Republican members of Congress had merely addressed this problem when it first arose, it could never have become an “October Surprise.” The blame lies with them, in more ways than one.
Comment by Jim Rice — October 25, 2006 @ 7:12 pm - October 25, 2006
It’s not crap to call someone on their hypocrisy. The GOP claims that it’s so family-friendly, that it is the party of family values, that Clinton was beyond the pale for having an affair: yet when a Congressman chases teenage boys and the GOP lets it run for years, it’s someone how the Dems fault for bringing it up. Sorry; stikmata: the GOP deserves to get called on its hypocrisy.
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - October 25, 2006
ND30: Do with what info? The info that some liberals shamelessly brought a page scandal to light? That they brazenly told the public about a Congressman chasing 15 year olds? That they, horror of horrors, did so in a way to help bolster the political chances of one political party by highlighting the hypocrisy of another?
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - October 25, 2006
The worst that you can guess about the bloggers who broke the story is that they waited a few months to make sure it did the most damage possible. Assuming this hypothesis to be true, if that “trick” is played against the party that brought us the Swiftboat Veterans, how can they possibly complain?
Because the primary argument the Dems are advancing is that failure to act on the emails immediately endangered children.
If that’s the case, wouldn’t the fact that they failed to act on the emails immediately make them look hypocritical?
What Foley did was unquestionably wrong.
What the Dems are doing, though, is trying to claim that Republicans endangered children by not acting immediately, even though this makes fairly obvious that THEY didn’t act immediately either.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - October 25, 2006
#15. Swords? Do the Borgs play with swords?
What to do with the info? Do what you usually do: attack the organizations working on behalf of gay people. Inflict as much damage as possible on the credibility and work of these organizations. Cut off noses to spite faces.
Comment by jimmy — October 25, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - October 25, 2006
7, 11, 14-
The problem for the Republicans of course isn’t Nancy Pelosi or ‘Democrat outrage.’ It is Republican voters who will be punishing the Republicans on this one.
You guys are so incredibly toasted on this issue… there is ample evidence that the problem was known about within the Republican party for years, that concerns were raised, and that exactly nothing was done.
Firing Fordham was the dumbest thing that the Republicans have done, to date. If they had held on to him, perhaps they could have colluded to keep their mouths shut. Now, Hastert and his office are in serious trouble.
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 25, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - October 25, 2006
19 - with the glaringly huge difference that:
on one hand, you have a bunch of bloggers with some allegations.
And on the other, you have the House leadership, who had a hell of a lot more warning than just a few emails.
Which group do you think was in a better position to conduct an investigation into the incident, hmm?
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 25, 2006 @ 7:24 pm - October 25, 2006
Well, here we are. Let’s not forget that these Leftists outing gays are the very same people who support denying the Boy Scouts of America their long-standing charter because the Boy Scouts rule out gay scout masters (and, really, I weep for Mr. Foley, who has been strung up by the worst of the Left in this case, and may have had his life ruined. I weep, too, for his parents). I long ago grew weary of charges of hypocrisy–it’s the most sophomoric of charges, levelled against the most universal of sins. It’s intellectually lazy to charge anyone with hypocrisy–there is none innocent, no, not one–and it costs the charger nothing whatever. As a libertarian, I support most gay rights claims. I have been deeply saddened by some anti-gay actions because they’ve harmed some gay friends whom I dearly love. But still, I think it is intellectually dishonest to brand Republicans as having an anti-gay agenda, when the Left is really far more likely to use the gay BRAND against people than the Right is. The Republicans don’t “out” people for political reasons. How is it that people don’t see this?
Comment by betsybounds — October 25, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - October 25, 2006
Do what you usually do: attack the organizations working on behalf of gay people. Inflict as much damage as possible on the credibility and work of these organizations. Cut off noses to spite faces.
I do so laugh.
You see, jimmy, you made this clear yesterday:
This guys is not “gay”. Yes, he might be a homosexual, but he is certainly not a member of the tribe.
Of course, now that it becomes obvious that I can affect matters rather decisively, you start appealing to my sense of gay unity, claiming that nailing HRC to the wall on this, damaging their credibility, and pointing out their stupid partisanship is somehow cutting off my nose to spite my face.
My answer: you didn’t want my solidarity before, and you’re sure as hell not going to get it now.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - October 25, 2006
The SSP blog went up in July. Yet HRC says they hired the guy just last month.
What could that mean?
Comment by MayBee — October 25, 2006 @ 7:51 pm - October 25, 2006
torrentprime
“Foley wrote a law outlawing exactly what he did and then did it anyway. And having sex with a 17 year old, of legal age in DC, is a hell of a lot different than chasing a 15 year old and asking how long their penis is.”
False, on every count.
Foley did NOT write a law outlawing what he did and then do it anway. The IM’s date back several years, long before the law in question.
He did NOT chase any fifteen year old, nor ask one about the length of his penis.
Any other lies you want to throw out here while you are on a roll?
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 7:55 pm - October 25, 2006
Which group do you think was in a better position to conduct an investigation into the incident, hmm?
Better question: why didn’t the bloggers just go to the media immediately, like they did in October after waiting a few months?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - October 25, 2006
Cyclops
“on one hand, you have a bunch of bloggers with some allegations.”
Actually, the bloggers and HRC people had all the evidence, which Congress did not. And rather than present it to Congress years ago, they waited until a few weeks before an election.
“there is ample evidence that the problem was known about within the Republican party for years, that concerns were raised, and that exactly nothing was done.”
There is exactly zero evidence that “the problem”, whatever that means, was known to anyone in the House leadership.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - October 25, 2006
“THEY didn’t act immediately either.”
Great slogan. The Democrats: They’re just as bad as us!
“The Republicans don’t ‘out’ people for political reasons.”
No– they keep them in the closet for political reasons. So much better.
“Foley did NOT write a law outlawing what he did and then do it anway. The IM’s date back several years, long before the law in question.”
Yeah: he did some morally dubious things, but was upstanding enough to do them before he made them illegal. He’s got respect for the law, at least– if not, perhaps, for the psychological well-being of subordinates.
The mental gymnastics in this thread are exhausting.
Comment by Jim Rice — October 25, 2006 @ 8:02 pm - October 25, 2006
torrentprime
“It’s not crap to call someone on their hypocrisy. ”
Then you won’t object when I call you and the Democratic party on your hypocrisy in outing gays for political gain.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - October 25, 2006
Let’s see — Democrats and Gay Democrats go around ruining the lives of their fellow gays by outing them whether they want to make their private sex lives public or not, but somehow the Republicans are at fault. These dem operatives aren’t outing these gays because they are gay, they are outing them because they are Republican. Stinks! Anyone involved in these outings is a royal scumbag.
Comment by Sara (Squiggler) — October 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - October 25, 2006
betsybounds: I applaud your committment to gay rights. I also, however, must call you on your statements about the views of gays on the left versus the right. I ask you to do me one favor, take 5 minutes to do this for me. Please view the below links and scan a few of the posts and their comments. Just a few. Pay close attention to the “pillow-biters”, “faggot”, and “sodomites” labels. Note also the references to “perverts”, “deviants”, “sick”, “twisted” “brain-damaged” and other words of tolerance and support that the right wing has for gay people. Note also the fact that stories about child molesters are tagged as “gay” stories, as they believe that all gay people seek a day when we can molest children legally. If all this leaves you any doubt whatsoever about how millions of members of the right wing view gay people, then you and I will have to agree to disagree. And I will have to continue to fight for my rights, since other people seem to assume that the fight is over.
Free Republic Keyword: Homosexual Agenda
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - October 25, 2006
Well, I see the smear merchants from Mike Rogers’ Blog have found Gay Patriot! Welcome girls, and Karen of Kalifornia. For those that have never visited Mikes’ Smear Blog you are in for a little treat. These folks will try and twist the truth better than Hillary and Billy. It has been reported on many blogs that Mr. Mike Roger’s stated on his blog (now removed?) his connection to “Stop Sex Predators”(now we learn there is a HRC connection?). And we all know that C.R.E.W which is funded by Soros was in the middle of this staged and orchestrated campaign. It is just a matter of days before we will know whom in the Democratic Party and those members of House which are Democrats kept this information in waiting for the right time. Which happened to be October 2006.
A word to our Mike Roger’s Smear Merchants, unlike what Julian Miller (aka Mike) who will allow anything to be said about anyone, Gay Patriot will allow only civility. If this is something that is too strange for you to understand, I am sure Julian (Mike) will let you vent to your hearts content so go back home. Just remember Defamation of Character is NOT protected by the Constitution as Free Speech and you can be sued for Libel.
Comment by Jon — October 25, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - October 25, 2006
So, Jim Rice, what exactly do you think Foley did that was so wrong? And how do you distinguish it from what Studds did?
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - October 25, 2006
Robbin: Sorry to confuse your broad brushstroking, but I oppose outing, especially Rogers’ actions. I understand the emotions and feelings behind it, but I don’t support it, endorse it, or recommend it. I think it’s wrong to out anyone.
Glad I could dispose of your hypocrisy charge so easily.
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - October 25, 2006
#10 - #19 -
I am glad to see a leftie finally admit that the Swift Boat Vets’ charges were true.
(Foley’s e-mails and IMs and predatory, if sexless, behavior toward the pages are all true; what troubles us in the Foley matter is the timing, as NDT points out - the insistence on holding the information until the height of a political campaign, thus disregarding the pages’ safety. torrentprime in #10 has just equated all that to the Swift Boat Vet charges of the 2004 campaign, which, folks, were also true and backed by very good evidence, if potentially questionable in timing.)
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - October 25, 2006
Thats great, torrentprime.
Now go back to post 26 and explain the several lies you told.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:12 pm - October 25, 2006
another torrentprime lie.
“So the Republicans who knew at the very least about the emails for years bear no blame for allowing Foley to continue violating a federal law he helped write”
Are you capable of telling the truth, even if you want to?
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:15 pm - October 25, 2006
calarato: nice try at rephrasing, but I didn’t say that the Swifties were right; I said that their being sprung at election time was an analogue to the contention that the Foley story was held for political advantage.
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:17 pm - October 25, 2006
There was nothing questionable about the Swift Boaters since they only came forward once the coward Kerry “reported for duty.” If he had not insulted millions of veterans with that moment in time, the Swifties would never have spoken up. There is a major difference.
Comment by Sara (Squiggler) — October 25, 2006 @ 8:18 pm - October 25, 2006
Another torretprime lie;
“I didn’t say that the Swifties were right; I said that their being sprung at election time ..”
The Swifties were not “sprung at election time”. They were making their accusations against Kerry several months before the election.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - October 25, 2006
Of course, the Swift Boat charges came out starting in July.
October surprises, they weren’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - October 25, 2006
#39 - I know what you said, tp. The fact remains: you implicitly equated their charges with Foleygate. That, small as it may seem, is a step forward for any lefties stuck in denial about what an empty, terrible person Kerry was/is.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - October 25, 2006
Robbin; If I was wrong and he wrote a law outlawing his IMs after he did it instead of before, then I apologize. I thought he actions started before the law was passed and continued through it. Mea culpa: he did it before it was illegal. Just creepy and an abuse of power and wrong, but apparently not illegal.
But the absolute latest that the leadership learned of it was this spring, and that’s after you parse the stories, retracted stories, and corrected stories about who knew what when. This story places some of the GOP in the know as early as 2000. Is this not correct?
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - October 25, 2006
Calarato: I was never in denial as to what an empty, terrible person Kerry was. I voted for Bush in 2004, for god’s sake, and I wouldn’t have voted for Kerry no matter what. My only real choice was whether to vote for Bush or for no one.
I realize that you have pre-built assumptions on what all people in opposition to this post and its conclusions are like, but don’t let it run away with you.
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:28 pm - October 25, 2006
#42 - Actually the first Swift Boat press conference was in April, NDT. But I know what you mean.
The Swifties really were against Kerry the person; their main spokesman was a lifelong military Democrat. They couldn’t believe Kerry had won, and (in April) wanted to give the Democrats a chance to dump him. But the press / the Democrats just didn’t choose to listen.
Not until August, when Regnery published their book on Kerry.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - October 25, 2006
[...] Update: The GayPatriot blog adds a couple of details to the story. [...]
Pingback by Bachmann vs. Wetterling » Blog Archive » Was the Human Rights Campaign involved in creating the Foley scandal? — October 25, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - October 25, 2006
Robbin, according to calarato, the issue with the Foley story is that they came at “the height of the election campaign.” So the similarity between the swifties and the foley story, by those on the receiving end of the hit, is that the story was broken to influence an election. Get it now?
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - October 25, 2006
It looks like the voters in Foley’s district may not be as stupid as the Democrat’s hoped.
Comment by V the K — October 25, 2006 @ 8:33 pm - October 25, 2006
torrentprime
“But the absolute latest that the leadership learned of it was this spring”
Good old “it”. What a hand word “it” is. It allows you to say things without actually saying them
What “it” are you referring to here? Unless you can show that the House leadership knew of the IMs in the spring, then you have nothing.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - October 25, 2006
#47 - Oh and while we’re on the subject of timed partisan (or partisan-seeming) hits: let’s not forget those fake hits on Bush’s early service record, based on FORGED DOCUMENTS even, that were carefully co-ordinated between CBS, the Kerry campaign and the DNC even closer to the 2004 election: that September.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - October 25, 2006
Notice the phraseology in that story, torrentprime.
The Democrats’ nifty trick in this has been conflating the emails sent with the instant messages.
The reason is simple; the instant messages are the damning evidence of Foley’s behavior, but there is no indication that any Republicans had them in advance of their release by ABC.
The emails they did have well in advance, but they by themselves do not constitute sufficient evidence. They’re unusual, but hardly on the level that suggests the instant messages.
Now look at the story.
Starting with the title (”Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages in 2000″), it gets more and more obvious that they’re trying to confuse the issue. Take this paragraph:
A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship.
It would have been far simpler to say “showed the congressman e-mail messages…..”; however, they chose the clunky “Internet messages” and then had to throw in an unusual “e-mail” at the end.
Why? Because “Internet message” is easily read as “instant message” or abbreviated to “IM”. Conflation.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2006 @ 8:37 pm - October 25, 2006
#45 - Glad to hear it, tp. And kindly note that I didn’t say (or intend to say) you specifically were a leftie in denial about Kerry. I wondered, but I left it open in case you wanted to clear it up.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:39 pm - October 25, 2006
Robbin: riiiiight. So if you knew that, say, a teacher was emailing in that fashion to his students, and you were the principal, you would not investigate, nor take any action? You’d let it go? Are you saying you wouldn’t do anything without actually explicit communication? No action whatsoever? And since bloggers/evil Democrats apparently were able to find the IMs after an investigation, isn’t that exactly what the leadership should have done? Maybe, I dunno, investigate?
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - October 25, 2006
#52 - Reading back - In #36 I may have slightly over-assumed on your ideological identity, tp. Small apology proffered.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 8:42 pm - October 25, 2006
ND30; my last post applies to you as well. The issue is not whether the GOP leadership knew about the IMs: if they did, it would be instant guilt, game over. And I freely admit no one has proved or even, I don’t think, alleged, that the leadership knew about the IMs. The issue is whether they did anything with the knowledge that they did have: Those emails were at least enough to investigate on.
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:42 pm - October 25, 2006
Polls are showing most people by now have caught onto the difference by now. Mark Foley, Republican, sent lecherous IM’s and emails but never touched anyone… Gone and under criminal investigation!
Gerry Studds, Democrat, molested an underage intern, re-elected six times. Defended by every leftist on this board.
Mel Reynolds, Democrat, molested an underage staffer and tried to arrange a three-way with 16 year old and a 15 year old (”I just won the lottery.”) Convicted of 12 counts of lewd sexual acts and conspiring to cover it up. Pardoned by Bill Clinton. (Predators gotta look out for each other.)
Voters have seen that the Foley problem was a Foley problem and not a Republican problem. The GOP may well still lose the House, but not because of Mark Foley.
Comment by V the K — October 25, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - October 25, 2006
thanks calarato. Appreciated, both for accuracy and the tone of the debate.
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - October 25, 2006
Torrentprime
Do you read your own links?
“A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship.”
Assuming this story is credible (not much in the Wapo is), all it says is that Kolbe had heard that a former page had received “intenet messages” from Foley which made him “uncomfortable”.
Presumably, you are quite outraged at Kolbe over this. {roll eyes} But I don’t see how you tie it into the party as a whole. Kolbe, as you know, has resigned also.
So, unless I see you slamming Kolbe in your next post, that hypocrisy charge is still apt.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:44 pm - October 25, 2006
So, V the K, just to clarify, when you say “Gerry Studds, Democrat, molested an underage intern”, you mean, “Gerry Studds, Democrat, had a consenting sexual relationship with an of-age intern”, yes?
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - October 25, 2006
Robbin, let me ask you this: If your son or daughter had a teacher, and you found out that years earlier, some other children had gone for help to other teachers over “uncomfortable emails”, and those people didn’t do anything about it, what would you feel? And if the defense offered was, “Well, no one brought us salacious IMs or anything! What were we supposed to do–investigate?” Would you feel that the duty of protection and safety to your kid had been met?
Comment by torrentprime — October 25, 2006 @ 8:48 pm - October 25, 2006
I honestly don’t care who revealed that Mark Foley was preying on underage male pages. (Hint: it was ABC News- the source was a Republican. Oh, and if it matters to you at all, only Republicans DID IT.) I’m just glad it came out. Now if my son ever wants to go to Washington, I’ll know one of the things I’ll have to talk about with him.
How dare you tell me my concern for my son’s well-being, and for the well-being of other boys, is fabricated. Are you a parent? Get a clue.
It continues to amaze me how brazen you Republicans are, considering how profoundly wrong you’ve been about so many things, resulting in the death of so many innocent people, over the last six years. I’d think most reasonable people, if they saw how disastrous the policies they supported turned out to be, might take stock, be a little less cocksure, a little more circumspect. Not you.
If past performance is any guide, if you’re (still) a Republican, chances are you’re 100% wrong about whatever it is you’re thinking right now. Stop inflicting your violence and mistakes and hypocrisy on the rest of us- we can’t take any more.
Comment by therightisalwayswrong — October 25, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - October 25, 2006
“Gerry Studds, Democrat, molested an underage intern, re-elected six times. Defended by every leftist on this board.”
Acccording to Wikipedia (can’t vouch for accuracy):
“The relationship [between Studds and the intern] was consensual (which made it legal [b/c the intern was 17, of legal age], in accordance with state law), although very unprofessional of a politician, presenting ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.”
I don’t care to defend Studds or this relationship, but to call it molestation seems a wild stretch of that term.
Robbin: do you honestly not see anything wrong with Foley’s behavior?
Comment by Jim Rice — October 25, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - October 25, 2006
And to further clarify #59 Gerry Studds persued said relationship in 1973. When it came to light a decade later Congress immediately and overwhelmingly censured Studds rather than obfuscated the details pointing fingers along party lines. The page also acknowledged that it was a consensual relationship rather than one of an unwelcome predatory nature.
How does it in any way relate to Foley’s predatory behavior?
Comment by Just A Question — October 25, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - October 25, 2006
torrentprime
“And since bloggers/evil Democrats apparently were able to find the IMs after an investigation”
I know you are not this stupid. The “bloggers/evil Democrats” knew about the IM’s from the beginning, no “investigation” neccessary.
“So if you knew that, say, a teacher was emailing in that fashion to his students”
Emailing in WHAT fashion? This is the kind of sleazy and dishonest behavior that pisses people off with you Democrats. The reason you never actually quote anything from the emails is that there is a great big pile of nothing there. If there were any “that fashion” statements you’d be quoting them repeatedly. Instead you simply insinuate all sorts of bad things to them.
All sorts of newspapers had these emails for a year, and did not consider them newsworthy. The FBI looked at them after CREW sent them, and found nothing there. The emails had nothing in them, but dishonest people like yourself constantly insinuate otherwise.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - October 25, 2006
Jim Rice
Studds had a consensual sexual relationship with a 17 year old page.
Foley had consensual IM exchanges with a few pages.
Explain to me how you see nothing wrong with the first, and a great big problem with the second.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - October 25, 2006
Just A Question
“How does it in any way relate to Foley’s predatory behavior?”
There was no “predatory behavior”, you pathetic moron. If there was Foley would be in jail. He engaged in no predatory behavior at all, and no number of idiotic lefties repeating “predator” make sit any more true.
He talked dirty with some consenting pages via IM. That’s it, that all he did.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 9:03 pm - October 25, 2006
Seventeen is still considered a minor in almost all states. It is never appropriate for a middle-aged man to be chasing after, let alone having sex with, an underage minor. Even if he can get away with it under the law. Gerry Studds was a slimebag until the day he died.
But it is fascinating how many gay men will stick up for Gerry Studds, but would denounce James Dobson if he said something like, “Gay men think it’s perfectly all right to seduce teenage boys.”
Comment by Nobody — October 25, 2006 @ 9:07 pm - October 25, 2006
By the way, a Congressional censure doesn’t mean squat. It carries no penalty whatsoever. Foley, on the other hand, resigned in disgrace, as well he should have. Too bad Gerry Studds lacked the moral character to do the honorable thing.
Comment by Nobody — October 25, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - October 25, 2006
#66 - Have to disagree with you a bit there, Robbin.
Apparently, Foley played Mr. Friendly with 16-year-olds, in hopes of seriously propositioning them once they turned 18. That’s a little beyond creepy. The next word to come to mind is “predatory”.
The fact that Foley’s behavior was legal is no excuse.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 9:11 pm - October 25, 2006
Calarato
“Apparently, Foley played Mr. Friendly with 16-year-olds, in hopes of seriously propositioning them once they turned 18. That’s a little beyond creepy. The next word to come to mind is “predatory”.”
Being friendly with somebody, even if its because you hope to score with them later, is not “predatory”.
A “predator”, by convention if not by legal definition, is somebody who “preys” on the innocent, and is a criminal. Foley does not fit the bill, which is why the FBI passed on this.
“The fact that Foley’s behavior was legal is no excuse.”
I can imagine people saying the same thing abour all sorts of behavior. Homosexual intercourse, for example. Do you really want to go there?
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - October 25, 2006
[...] Now we know, and a major charity is taking action against the culprit:  Yesterday, it came to our attention that an HRC employee, hired just last month to work for us in Michigan, was responsible for initially posting these emails on his blog. We investigated the matter, determined that HRC resources had been inappropriately used, and let him go. No one at the Human Rights Campaign, other than this individual, had any knowledge of his activities,” said Brad Luna, Spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. [...]
Pingback by Ngopedia.net » Blog Archive » Breaking news — October 25, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - October 25, 2006
Foley was the scandal. Then he resigned, taking responsibility, so that aspect of the scandal is resolved. Hastert isn’t a school principal and Foley doesn’t answer to Hastert - only to the people of his district. The emails were not evidence of a crime - whether or not the IM’s were, the young man’s parents did not want it pursued, and so what exactly was Hastert supposed to do?
Guilty knowledge of those explicit IM’s, however, was a different matter, and maintaining that knowledge for months, in order to maximize the electoral effect, with Foley free during that time to turn more pages; that does sound culpable.
How many pages must be misused for the Dems to regain their majority? How many of Clinton’s bimbos needed to be sacrificed for a similar purpose?
Comment by Jeremy Abrams — October 25, 2006 @ 9:32 pm - October 25, 2006
#70 - Robbin, why is this hard to graspt? FAKE friendliness is not real friendliness, and shouldn’t be given the status or moral privilege of real friendliness.
FAKE friendliness, i.e. with someone impressionable and underaged and WAY out of your peer group, granted just (or primarily) because you have an ephebophilic lust and hope you can satiate it on them later, is creepy. And PREDATORY.
And the fact that Foley’s behavior was legal, is no excuse. Indeed, I want to go there.
Kindly permit me to explain a couple things about moral judgment and freedom.
My judgement of Foley is what it is. He (and you) can take it or leave it. I don’t get to put anybody in jail over it. (Remember, our premise here is behavior that is technically legal.) But neither does Foley (nor you) get to change it. Only I get to change my opinions / moral judgements.
You say, “I can imagine people saying the same thing about… homosexual intercourse.” So what? Big… Deal. Starting with the fact that we’re talking about behavior between adult peers, there, I **know** there is nothing wrong with adult homosexual intercourse in the isolated abstract.
Some idiot can disagree with me if he likes. I don’t care. His judgment matters only to the extent that it’s right objectively. Which, (drumroll), it isn’t in that example.
My judgment of Foley is what it is. Either Foley knows in his heart that I’m right, or he knows I’m wrong and he’s right. If it’s the latter, my judgement shouldn’t matter to Foley - but I have every right to keep on with my judgement, and I will. That’s freedom.
In this case, Foley does know in his heart that I’m right - because he has been offering multiple excuses for his creepy, predatory behavior, plus his instant resignation from Congress. He ought to feel terrible about himself. I hope he does.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - October 25, 2006
Of course, outing people is only harmful to them because of the vicious, hateful atmosphere created by Republicans and their allies on the “Christian” right. So if you don’t want people to be harmed by being outed, you’re only going to solve the problem by telling James Dobson et al to go to hell. When that happens, I’ll take you seriously about how bad it is to out people. (Personally, I’m opposed to it for most people, but if you’re going to work for a party that relies on homophobia for its success, it seems fair to point out your hypocrisy and dishonesty, since those are politically relevant characteristics for individuals: you’re not bad for being gay, you’re bad for being hypocritical and dishonest).
Comment by Ted — October 25, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - October 25, 2006
Calarato
” I **know** there is nothing wrong with adult homosexual intercourse in the isolated abstract.”
You appear to be setting yourself up as the moral judge of everyone and everything. How do you **know** that there is nothing wrong with adult homosexual intercourse? And how do you **know** that being friendly to a young person is morally wrong? How do you know that Foleys friendship was “FAKE”?
“In this case, Foley does know in his heart that I’m right - because he has been offering multiple excuses for his creepy, predatory behavior, plus his instant resignation from Congress.”
Everyone with an IQ higher than that of a potted plant knows that, in these exact same circumstances, a congressman with a “D” after his name would (a) not have been outed (b) would not have resigned if he had been outed by the GOP (c) would have been widely seen as an unfortunate victim of those privacy-invading theocons. Everybody knows that because we have actually seen it happen, in cases where the Congresspersons behavior was rather more out of line than was Foleys.
It’s one thing to lie to other people, Calarato, but now you are lying to yourself.
Comment by Robbin — October 25, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - October 25, 2006
#8: In truth, it’s a member of congress not having sex with people who are not underage and not pages.
I don’t think that’s accurate, given the evidence at hand. Foley didn’t have sex with anyone, but he hit on guys who were pages and underage. But, if you’re right, then he shouldn’t have resigned and he should have defended his good name.
All of this pales in comparison to the other issues swirling all around us.
Comment by kdogg36 — October 25, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - October 25, 2006
How do you **know** that there is nothing wrong with adult homosexual intercourse?
I want to answer this.
I am interpreting this as “adult homosexual intercourse” as distinguished from “adult heterosexual intercourse.” In other words, if circumstances existed that would make straight sex wrong, they’d also make gay sex wrong.
But, absent that, of course there’s nothing wrong with adult gay intercourse. Speaking for myself, it causes me pleasure and enhances my life, and does not in any way harm anyone else. Thus, it is a positive value.
Comment by kdogg36 — October 25, 2006 @ 10:41 pm - October 25, 2006
The IMs were damning until the former page turned 18, then they were just icky. And in D.C. the age of consent was 16 at the time of both the emails and IMs. The emails that some have characterized as unusual but not illegal are a snapshot of only one side of a conversation. What did the former page say that precipitated Foley’s questions? Were they innocuous remarks that generated the questions? We don’t know. Why don’t we know? Probably because in context most people would decide the emails aren’t at all unusual. Always question what isn’t that should be, rather than what is, that shouldn’t be.
Comment by Sara (Squiggler) — October 25, 2006 @ 10:46 pm - October 25, 2006
“FAKE friendliness, i.e. with someone impressionable and underaged and WAY out of your peer group, granted just (or primarily) because you have an ephebophilic lust and hope you can satiate it on them later, is creepy. And PREDATORY.”
Kind of like Bill Clinton, eh? Someone way out of your peer group? Of course Juanita Broddrick had a different view of Bill Clinton … but it was only about sex even though he lied before a federal judge and a grand jury to the eventual tune of a 90K fine and loss of law license. Personally, I wouldn’t have cared if Billy Bob had lied about stealing a tricycle, HE LIED IN COURT!
And I’m getting tired of the left glossing over the distinctions between the salacious Instant Messages (Internet Messages … that’s pathetic that the lamestream media would resort to such obfuscations) and the more benign emails, some of which Speaker Hastert had seen. But can you imagine the glee with which the DemDonks would have crucified Republicans and Hastert if they had moved against gay Congressman Mark Foley on the basis of the flimsy evidence of those ambiguous emails? And just how do you quantify “feeling uncomfortable around Mr. Foley?” And we still don’t know if those three pages were yanking Foley’s chain. All I know is the man kept is pants zipped up whereas Clinton, Reynolds and Studds didn’t.
I’m amazed at how the left has become such legalists and moral prudes in their denunciations of Mr. Foley. And didn’t the liberals at the ACLU recently defend the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association (NAMBLA)? Oh, I forgot, that’s all “consensual” sex. I thought the argument was that older employers and older adults exercised such authority over younger underlings that there really can’t be “consensual” sex. So much for defending Gerry Studds activities as “consensual”. Libs love to change definitions and goalposts as the dialogue progresses. I don’t remember a single person arguing for homosexual marriage even twenty years ago but now there is a vast host of liberals and an entire political party that now claim it would be immoral to deny them that “right” … and look where we are today, trying to redefine a six thousand year old beneficient institution which had been the basis of all civil society.
Comment by Hank — October 25, 2006 @ 10:50 pm - October 25, 2006
#77 - Robbin, “how do you KNOW” is the question at the heart of epistemology, a huge subject… far beyond the scope of this thread.
Suffice to say that I have an epistemology which permits me to know certain things. And, if you don’t: That is nothing short of tragic.
“And how do you **know** that being friendly to a young person is morally wrong?”
LOL! Don’t stuff words in my mouth! How dare you!
“How do you know that Foleys friendship was “FAKE”?”
Ummmmmm…… because Foley would later proposition them, or have extremely sexual IM chats with them. Showing what Foley’s real intent was all along.
You know, like - the basic facts of the case? Remember those?
“Everyone knows [that Democrats get away with it].”
Of course. We’ve been saying so all along. That doesn’t make it right.
“It’s one thing to lie to other people, Calarato, but now you are lying to yourself.”
??????? Total non sequitur. WOOOH, incoming from left field…
Robbin, you are clearly upset about us morally judging Foley. Are you an ephebophile, perchance? Do you identify with Foley? Questions for you to consider on your own.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - October 25, 2006
#79 - kdogg - I don’t often praise you, but that’s a good answer.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 10:54 pm - October 25, 2006
Oh, I should answer this nonsense from Robbin as well:
“You appear to be setting yourself up as the moral judge of everyone and everything.”
Indeed I am. Deal with it. And note that (1) you ought to as well; and (2) you are free to disagree with my judgements - that is called ‘disagreement’, another form of ‘freedom’, with the difference hopefully to be tested and explored (if not resolved) through, you know, ‘logical argument’.
Judge, and be prepared to be judged. When you don’t do it - someone else gladly does it for you. That’s called ‘loss of freedom’.
Comment by Calarato — October 25, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - October 25, 2006
This is not news to us dumb old concervative christian rednecks that some thought would cut and run from the republican party. Thanks for the confirmation and I appreciate your views, refreshing after seeing Mike’s.
Comment by Concerned — October 25, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - October 25, 2006
[...] Meanwhile GayPatriot says it’s the HRC doing all this. Whenever I see HRC, I think Hillary. Better to spell it out, I guess! Don’t even think about kissing MY baby! « Obi’s Sister pinged back with Don’t even think about kissing MY baby! « Obi’s SisterCounterpunch: “I Am Spartacus” « Nuke’s news and views pinged back with Counterpunch: “I Am Spartacus” « Nuke’s news and viewsDoug Ross @ Journal tracked back with ‘Dudes, let’s do some polling!’ Posted on: 5 Comments ? [...]
Pingback by The Anchoress » A GOP ad I’d like to see — October 25, 2006 @ 11:41 pm - October 25, 2006
torrentprime: Since you brought up the Swift Boat Vets you may be interested to know they have now filed a lawsuit against Hanoi John (and yes the democrats of the Swift Boats are still involved). They can now put the liar under oath along with all of those that lied to congress in the 70’s (most were not vet’s and the couple that were had never been to Nam). Once Hanoi John tells his lies the others will tell the truth before they will accept a prison sentence for perjury. Maybe it will turn out to be worth the wait to get that slime ball Kerry behind bars. A couple of them learned well from the members of the Slick Willie administration and skipped the country as soon as they found out about the lawsuit and that they would have to repeat their lies under oath. No problem, maybe we can get Dog to bring them back in the trunk of a car or someone else to dump them in the river in whatever country they skipped to. From: A Vietnam Veteran who served his entire 365 days in country, not like the cowardly liar that spent less than 4 months of a 12 month tour before abandoning his troops for the high life of D.C. and his showcase as a traitor. Maybe his prison sentence will be ’seared’ , seared in his mind.
Comment by Scrapiron — October 25, 2006 @ 11:47 pm - October 25, 2006
Don’t worry, the KOS seminar posters don’t really care about any of this (where were the Gerry Studds denunciations), they just thought they had a good issue to get publicly outraged about. As Schumer cynically asserted, Foley supposedly takes moral issues off the table. They hope by suppressing conservative turnout, they can get in Congress to enact their Godless, immoral agenda. You can bet that NAMBLA and the pornographers vote Democrat, not Republican. There are a few Democrats who stand for morality, like Joe Lieberman, but you can see how popular he is among Democrats. He now owes his seat to the GOP.
Comment by amused — October 26, 2006 @ 12:54 am - October 26, 2006
#87. Ummm…..NAMBLA seems to have most recently actually held a GOP Congressional seat for Florida. LOL. And I think that that guy might be going on to write some really cheesy inter-generational porn next.
What is this “Godless, immoral agenda”? Please enlighten.
Comment by sean — October 26, 2006 @ 2:01 am - October 26, 2006
#67. “Sick, sick, sick” was how one of Foley’s pages put it. Consensual??!?!
Comment by sean — October 26, 2006 @ 2:05 am - October 26, 2006
“Of course, now that it becomes obvious that I can affect matters rather decisively, you start appealing to my sense of gay unity, claiming that nailing HRC to the wall on this, damaging their credibility, and pointing out their stupid partisanship is somehow cutting off my nose to spite my face.
My answer: you didn’t want my solidarity before, and you’re sure as hell not going to get it now. ”
Ummm….the post was sarcastic. You have no sense of gay unity to which one can appeal–not all homosexuals are, after all, gay. Please keep your solidarity, if you even have a bone in your body that knows what it is or how it is done. And get on with attacking gay people, culture, institutions and organizations–it is what you do best.
Comment by jimmy — October 26, 2006 @ 2:12 am - October 26, 2006
(spits out Samuel Adams Octoberfest onto screen) I’m sorry….What?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 26, 2006 @ 4:22 am - October 26, 2006
I see no outrage here against the HRC from the lib commenters. They had an employee that held potential evidence against a child predator and instead of going to the