If Foley Were A Democrat....

Oct. 1, 2006 — A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor.

Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."

Staff members at the House clerk's office did not return phone calls seeking comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2514259&page=1
 
Dixie said:
Read what I posted. The parents of the page who received the emails, were indeed concerned, they requested that Foley stop emailing their son, and they were satisfied with that. They didn't dismiss anything, nor did I say they should have.

"Red flags" are one thing, actionable and tangible evidence of wrongdoing, is something completely different. You simply can't kick a man out of Congress because you think he might be doing something wrong, if that were the case, half the Democrats would be gone before they ever made it to Washington. I think you might want to reconsider establishing the standard of "suspicion" over "proof" that you seem to want to apply here.
Click to expand...

If you agree, that a 52-year old man sending private emails to a teenager, and asking them for pictures should send off red flags, the republican leadership should have been far more aggressive in monitoring Foley, and sharing that information with the entire congressional Page Board.
 
Dixie said:
It is clear Hastert knew Foley was into the boys and having inapproperate conversations with them on the email. Foley was told by them to guit communicating with any pages...

No, it's not clear that any of the emails known about were inappropriate, nor is it clear that Hastert knew Foley was "into the boys" as you say. The parents of one page, made a request that someone tell Foley to stop emailing their son, he was creeped out. The emails were not sexually explicit, and contained only minor questionable things that didn't warrant alarm... Foley asked how the boy had weathered the hurricane... what he planned to do on his birthday... could he send him a photo... nothing that was inappropriate or sexual in nature whatsoever. Still, the Republican leadership informed Foley to stop emailing pages, that the wrong idea could be taken by it, and that was the end of it, as far as they knew. The parents of the boy were satisfied with that, and didn't want to make it a public issue, the St. Pete Times couldn't even do a story on it, because the boy didn't want to have his identity revealed, and there wasn't anything inappropriate in the content of the emails, anyway!

What makes this incident custom made for pinhead exploitation, is the ignorance of the masses on the difference between emails and instant messages. You can fool enough ignorant people into believing they are one in the same, and that isn't the case here. You can pretend that the emails were just as bad as the instant messages, and that is simply a fabrication. And you can insist that the emails Hastert knew about, were sexually explicit like the instant messages which came out last Friday, and ignorant people aren't going to realize the difference.

Oh, it's a brilliantly crafted political strategy! It all but guarantees a democrat seat in a largely republican district! Which is why it's more than just coincidence that it all played out like it did. Yes, we will let the people decide who is corrupt and cheating their asses off to regain power.
Click to expand...

You don't think a 52 year old man, telling a 16 year old boy that another 16 year old boy has a really HOT body and seems mature for his age is inappropriate, or the part where Foley asks this kid when his birthday was and what he wants for his birthday three months down the road was not strange and a sign of what SEXUAL PREDATORS DO.... to be on the same childish level of talk or to get those minors to entrust him, or that asking for this boy to send him a picture is not inappropriate or not RED FLAG material?

Cut me a fricking Break, Dixie....

You are losing it, what morals you may have had, for the sake of your "party", shame on you!

care
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
If that is true, why was Foley told, in private away from Democrats, not to communicate with Pages any more?
Click to expand...

Because the parents of the page complained about it. I suppose it was done in private because it was a private matter, and the boy's parents didn't want it made public. The context of the emails were not unreasonably inappropriate, and could have been seen as totally harmless. Had someone tried to make a case against Foley on the emails alone, it would have been laughed at! There isn't a crime in being "nice" to someone.

If I sent Care emails, telling her how pretty she is, commenting on how good she looked in that dress she wore, or how beautiful her smile was, or asking her to send me a photo... that isn't "sexual harassment" in the least, it's someone being nice. However, if I follow those emails up with instant messages, asking her for sex, or telling her what I would like to do with her... that IS sexual harassment, and IS inappropriate. Surely you idiots can tell the difference, but maybe not.
 
Last edited:
We are not talking about two people nearly the same age as you and me Dixie...

You are talking about a 52 year old single gay man, a Congressman for the United States of America, that told this kid that another 16 year old boy has a great body and is really mature for his age, and a 52 year old man that he hardly knows asking him when his birthday is and what he would like for his birthday was not enough of a RED FLAG to question Mark Foley's other contacts with pages...then I just don't know what to say...other than I totally disagree with you? They should have investigated further, just one more step and it would have revealed the problem imo... and if there was not a "problem" then hastert and others on the republican side would have done their duty.

I heard yesterday that the watchdog group that got the emails on this, not the instant messages, i think????... turned them over to the FBI the second they got them LAST JULY and the FBI did nothing either or maybe they did but did not make it public...and now we have the fbi doing the investigation of this...what a joke...the whole thing is a joke...lack of responsibility of the republican party and the FBI is a joke...
 
Care4all said:
We are not talking about two people nearly the same age as you and me Dixie...

You are talking about a 52 year old single gay man, a Congressman for the United States of America, that told this kid that another 16 year old boy has a great body and is really mature for his age, and a 52 year old man that he hardly knows asking him when his birthday is and what he would like for his birthday was not enough of a RED FLAG to question Mark Foley's other contacts with pages...then I just don't know what to say...other than I totally disagree with you? They should have investigated further, just one more step and it would have revealed the problem imo... and if there was not a "problem" then hastert and others on the republican side would have done their duty.

I heard yesterday that the watchdog group that got the emails on this, not the instant messages, i think????... turned them over to the FBI the second they got them LAST JULY and the FBI did nothing either or maybe they did but did not make it public...and now we have the fbi doing the investigation of this...what a joke...the whole thing is a joke...lack of responsibility of the republican party and the FBI is a joke...
Click to expand...

You are correct, we are talking about a person in a position of authority and a subordinate, like Clinton/Lewinski. Nevertheless, there is a distinct difference, regardless of the circumstances, between actionable inappropriate behavior, and innocent comment, and you do understand this. What's a joke, is to continue pretending you don't know the difference, and think that we should automatically presume the worst in all situations, regardless of the facts.

I would like to point out once again, the emails have been known about for years, and there was nothing actionable within them, to my knowledge. The scurrilous instant messages were the real evidence against Foley, and those were not turned over to anyone, or made public until last Friday. If you want to continue to try and blur the lines between the emails and the instant messages, I suppose you can do that, some idiots might not realize the distinct difference here, and if it wins you a few votes, what the hell... right?
 
I wonder why GOP Congressional aid had to resign today....

I guess he is taking the fall for Hastert...

Msnbc.com
 
Jarod said:
I wonder why GOP Congressional aid had to resign today....

I guess he is taking the fall for Hastert...

Msnbc.com
Click to expand...

a congressional aid... is who sent the emails to the Watchdog Group back in July, who immediately turned them over to the FBI....

guess he got canned for leaking them...?
 
Dixie said:
You are correct, we are talking about a person in a position of authority and a subordinate, like Clinton/Lewinski. Nevertheless, there is a distinct difference, regardless of the circumstances, between actionable inappropriate behavior, and innocent comment, and you do understand this. What's a joke, is to continue pretending you don't know the difference, and think that we should automatically presume the worst in all situations, regardless of the facts.

I would like to point out once again, the emails have been known about for years, and there was nothing actionable within them, to my knowledge. The scurrilous instant messages were the real evidence against Foley, and those were not turned over to anyone, or made public until last Friday. If you want to continue to try and blur the lines between the emails and the instant messages, I suppose you can do that, some idiots might not realize the distinct difference here, and if it wins you a few votes, what the hell... right?
Click to expand...


i never said the emails were actionable enough to dismiss him dixie....?

i said they should have sent out a RED FLAG to those in charge to AT LEAST pursue investigating it further...if, in their serious investigation of it they found that his emails were truely innocent, then that would have been sufficient, but if they found out through talking with the previous or present male pages that something was amiss....then they could have prevented the corruption of minors, that took place....by censuring him...

the email reported by the louisianna kid was this past august, NOT THREE YEARS AGO.

care
 
Dixie said:
Because the parents of the page complained about it. I suppose it was done in private because it was a private matter, and the boy's parents didn't want it made public. The context of the emails were not unreasonably inappropriate, and could have been seen as totally harmless. Had someone tried to make a case against Foley on the emails alone, it would have been laughed at! There isn't a crime in being "nice" to someone.

If I sent Care emails, telling her how pretty she is, commenting on how good she looked in that dress she wore, or how beautiful her smile was, or asking her to send me a photo... that isn't "sexual harassment" in the least, it's someone being nice. However, if I follow those emails up with instant messages, asking her for sex, or telling her what I would like to do with her... that IS sexual harassment, and IS inappropriate. Surely you idiots can tell the difference, but maybe not.
Click to expand...

If Ccare were a 16 year old girl even the first set of emails would have triggered discust and an investigation were I in charge of such things!
 
Care4all said:
i never said the emails were actionable enough to dismiss him dixie....?

i said they should have sent out a RED FLAG to those in charge to AT LEAST pursue investigating it further...if, in their serious investigation of it they found that his emails were truely innocent, then that would have been sufficient, but if they found out through talking with the previous or present male pages that something was amiss....then they could have prevented the corruption of minors, that took place....by censuring him...

the email reported by the louisianna kid was this past august, NOT THREE YEARS AGO.

care
Click to expand...

How, exactly, would you investigate your suspicions? Should Hastert have ordered wiretaps on his phones, intercepted his emails and IM's? Was there enough evidence to warrant such incroachment on his privacy? Would he not need a FISA warrant for this?

I think it's cute that you can retrospectively make the call, that someone should have seen the red flags, but like I said... Democrats didn't see the 'red flags' with Studds, Reynolds, Frank, Clinton, etc. In fact, when the red flags became actual indictable offenses, the Democrats still found ways to excuse the behavior, rather than forfeit the Democratic seat.
 
If Ccare were a 16 year old girl even the first set of emails would have triggered discust and an investigation were I in charge of such things!

Too bad you weren't in charge of the intern pool during the Clinton years, eh?
 
Dixie said:
How, exactly, would you investigate your suspicions? Should Hastert have ordered wiretaps on his phones, intercepted his emails and IM's? Was there enough evidence to warrant such incroachment on his privacy? Would he not need a FISA warrant for this?

I think it's cute that you can retrospectively make the call, that someone should have seen the red flags, but like I said... Democrats didn't see the 'red flags' with Studds, Reynolds, Frank, Clinton, etc. In fact, when the red flags became actual indictable offenses, the Democrats still found ways to excuse the behavior, rather than forfeit the Democratic seat.
Click to expand...

i already said HOW....by having discussions with previous and present pages....

where the heck do you think the instant messages came from? the pages he preyed on.... you think they weren't dying to tell someone about his advances? those instant messages were saved by these different boys....more than likely they were affected by him...negatively, otherwise, why save them?
 
Dixie said:
If Ccare were a 16 year old girl even the first set of emails would have triggered discust and an investigation were I in charge of such things!

Too bad you weren't in charge of the intern pool during the Clinton years, eh?
Click to expand...


Why?
 
Care4all said:
i already said HOW....by having discussions with previous and present pages....

where the heck do you think the instant messages came from? the pages he preyed on.... you think they weren't dying to tell someone about his advances? those instant messages were saved by these different boys....more than likely they were affected by him...negatively, otherwise, why save them?
Click to expand...


Based on WHAT? That Foley sent an email to a boy, asking him how his Summer went? I think it's probably customary for Congressmen to write letters to people who have served as pages, just like they write to people and groups who visit Washington D.C. Cordial contact with people who you have worked with, is not inappropriate behavior, and never has been, in my opinion. It is somewhat courteous and distinguished to recognize someone with a personal letter, in a friendly manner. I have several personal letters from Democrats and Republicans in Washington, that are very sentimental to me, and I suppose I am not alone in that. Trent Lott sent me a letter and a signed glossy of Ronald Reagan, and I have it framed in my den, so I know that Congressmen send letters to people on a personal basis.

The emails that Hastert knew of, or any Republican I know of, were friendly emails, and did not contain anything "sexual" in nature. They came into question as a result of a parental complaint, about the letters being a little too friendly, Hastert told Foley not to email pages, people might take it the wrong way, and that was that. The parents didn't want to make it an issue, and didn't want to go public, they were satisfied for the correspondence to stop.

Now, it is at this point, that you seem to think, Hastert should have launched an all-out investigation and assault on Foley, who now admits he is gay, and according to the rumors, it was widely known. Can you imagine the outrage from Pinheads over this? What? Hastert is crucifying one of his own because he's gay? All he did was send a nice email to a page? And I suppose, whatever Ethics Board this should be brought before, is going to accept that these fairly innocuous emails from Foley, constitute some serious violation of some kind? Without some tangible proof that Foley was engaging in inappropriate behavior with these boys, there is not a whole lot the Speaker could do about it, to be honest. I hate to be that way about it Care, but you just don't think you can take down a six-term popular conservative representative, based on a friendly email and rumored homosexuality, it doesn't work that way.

The key to this whole thing, is the Instant Messages. I will make a bipartisan appeal to you, whoever sat on these messages and didn't report them to the media, or Hastert, deserves to lose their jobs.... politicians, media people, journalists, whoever! If you can prove that Hastert knew the extent of the IM's, then I support his removal as well, but so far, I haven't seen that proof. There does seem to be some question as to the timeline, regarding this CREW group and the breaking news, and I am interested to know a little more about what went down, and who made the decision to hold the information until this late date. There is a serious election ethics issue here, and in light of 2000 and 2004, we simply can't overlook possible collusion to subvert the will of Foley's district.
 
dixie, you are being intellectually naive or dishonest, i don't know which one.

there are 4 different republicans saying hastert was told over the last 3 YEARS.... there were a few other complaints from other pages regarding foley, so much so they warned some paiges to stay away from him.

hastert says he didn't even read the email at all....?

it is not just ONE EMAIL dixie, that was inapproproate....you may keep in touch with a page cordially but you don't tell him that some other 16 year old boy page is in ''great shape'' or has a great body and you don't ask a 16 year old when his birthday is and you don't ask them what they want for their birthday implying you would like to know so perhaps you can send them something...when you are a 52 year old man....

this is what sexual predators of minors do dixie, befriend minors with the chit chat of minors, and make them feel cool or special, before they lure them in...

YOU KNOW THIS BUT STILL DEFEND THE ORIGINAL EMAILS?

this is dispicable...and certainly dispicable of ALL of the REPUBLICANS involved in the coverup.....YES COVERUP, for years now... :(

this is the beginning of ''the revealing''...wonder what else will be revealed to us about your party?
 
oh, and they NEVER brought it before the ethics committee who is suppose to be notified of complaints of this manner....secretly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top