• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Foley E-Mails 1st Reported in Fall '05 (1 Viewer)

jujuman13 said:
Link

http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsst...20060930/451debc0_3ca6_1552620060930693063306So, was there a cover up?

And what will the authorities do about Foley?

How many others are implicated in this affair?

Does the GOP condone this behaviour?

The St. Petersburg Times also had the emails and here is what they said about them

"
In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange Foley had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later got them,too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat. Foley asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about the boy's upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked the teen to send him a "pic" of himself. Also among those emails was the page's exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander, who had been the teen's sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his exchange he'd had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley was out of bounds.
There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him. He told us Foley's request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy's family didn't want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.
So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn't go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we said in today's paper, our policy is that we don't make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn't meet our standard for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.
Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position. The Louisiana boy's emails broke into the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them online. Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley's Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy's emails and was calling for an investigation. That's when we wrote our first story, for Friday's papers.
After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC and provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other page that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted friendliness. That's what drove Foley to resign on Friday.
I hope this helps clarify a bit about what we knew and when we knew it.
Scott Montgomery
Government & Politics Editor
Posted by Times Editor at 11:37:22 AM on September 30, 2006 | "
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/

So


So, was there a cover up?

Doesn't seem so.

And what will the authorities do about Foley?

After instant messages are now known, very likely prosecute him as Speaker Hassert suggested in his letter to the AG.

How many others are implicated in this affair?

What is the premise for your suggesting there may be others?

Does the GOP condone this behaviour?

What is the premise for your asking such a question. The Dems do but there is no evidence the Republicans do in fact the evidence is to quite the contrary.
 
Good response, Stinger. Considering the timing of the revelations, I would like to know what the Democrats knew and when they knew it.

At least the Republicans had the grace to force Foley out. It's too bad that the Democrats weren't equall forceful in dealing with Gerry Studds and Barney Frank.
 
Stinger said:
The Dems do but there is no evidence the Republicans do in fact the evidence is to quite the contrary.

I would be very interested to see your "evidence" that even remotley alludes to your delusional OPINION.

I dont want to hear any Bill O'Reilly BS about NAMBLA and the ACLU.

YOU SHOW ME DOCUMENTATION WHERE IT IS SHOWN THAT ANY CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRAT ACTIVELY SUPPORTS MARK FOLLEYS ACTIONS.
 
zk655 said:
I would be very interested to see your "evidence" that even remotley alludes to your delusional OPINION.

I dont want to hear any Bill O'Reilly BS about NAMBLA and the ACLU.

YOU SHOW ME DOCUMENTATION WHERE IT IS SHOWN THAT ANY CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRAT ACTIVELY SUPPORTS MARK FOLLEYS ACTIONS.


A bit testy aren't you? Dems are noted for pulling tricks-example-a dem operative who had run on the dem ticket for governor holding onto an ancient Bush DUI record for 6 weeks so he could drop it on the press a few days before the 00 election

NO ONE supports a congressman hitting on pages or interns. Republicans force those people out-Dems give them standing ovations (Gerry Studds and Clinton)
 
Diogenes said:
Good response, Stinger. Considering the timing of the revelations, I would like to know what the Democrats knew and when they knew it.

At least the Republicans had the grace to force Foley out. It's too bad that the Democrats weren't equall forceful in dealing with Gerry Studds and Barney Frank.

Or Mel Reynolds, I be he's not even a registered sex offender anymore thanks the the Democrats. Foley will never ever live this down, will never ever be a part of the Repulbican party and will forever be disgraced. That's the difference.
 
Stinger said:
The St. Petersburg Times also had the emails and here is what they said about them

"
In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange Foley had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later got them,too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat. Foley asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about the boy's upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked the teen to send him a "pic" of himself. Also among those emails was the page's exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander, who had been the teen's sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his exchange he'd had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley was out of bounds.
There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him. He told us Foley's request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy's family didn't want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.
So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn't go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we said in today's paper, our policy is that we don't make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn't meet our standard for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.
Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position. The Louisiana boy's emails broke into the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them online. Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley's Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy's emails and was calling for an investigation. That's when we wrote our first story, for Friday's papers.
After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC and provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other page that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted friendliness. That's what drove Foley to resign on Friday.
I hope this helps clarify a bit about what we knew and when we knew it.
Scott Montgomery
Government & Politics Editor
Posted by Times Editor at 11:37:22 AM on September 30, 2006 | "
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/

So




Doesn't seem so.



After instant messages are now known, very likely prosecute him as Speaker Hassert suggested in his letter to the AG.



What is the premise for your suggesting there may be others?



What is the premise for your asking such a question. The Dems do but there is no evidence the Republicans do in fact the evidence is to quite the contrary.

Again, the lie is posted that there was nothing sexual in those emails, which is the same sicko story that Republican freepers have been hitting the internet hard with all day today.

This story is an out and out LIE. The truth comes from this passage:
The St. Petersburg Times last fall obtained the earlier e-mail, asking the 16-year-old for a picture, and interviewed the boy, who wrote a friend that he considered the message "sick." But the boy would not go on the record.


Executive Editor Neil Brown says the paper's policy against making accusations based on unnamed sources was a factor. "We just didn't feel like we had the story," he says. "We had a lot of stuff implied. . . . If I had it to do over again, I think we probably would have been more organized about pursuing it. But hindsight is 20/20."


The paper did interview Foley, who assured a reporter that the e-mail exchange was innocent, Brown says.

So, you see, the reason that the St. Petersburg Times could not go on the record with these emails is that the boy in question was afraid to go on the record at that time. That is the ONLY reason. They in no way vindicated Foley. And the only thing in the Times' article was a statement by Foley himself. Yes, the child molester says it was innocent, and the freepers say "OK, we believe you". Or could it be that the freepers dont really care, as long as they can keep the Congressional seat? Yea, thats the ticket. Lets assassinate the character of the boys now. Matt Drudge has started that already, calling the victims "Beasts".

From this WaPo article.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
NO ONE supports a congressman hitting on pages or interns. Republicans force those people out-Dems give them standing ovations (Gerry Studds and Clinton)

One of the most fastinating things I ever witness in my poltical life was how the Democrats prostituted themselves to Bill Clinton and gave up the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace and abuse of women. Notice how this once core issue for the Dems totally disappeared after they bowed down to Clinton. And for what?

And they did so on this issue by defending and supporting and applauding and re-electing people who as bad as Foley has done in fact worse. Could you imagine if Bush pardon Foley tomorrow. Well, Clinton pardoned Reynolds after he was caught on tape telling an under the age of consent girl how excieted he was about her bringing over her Catholic school girl friend. Dems defended it. So why not Foley? He didn't even have physical contact, how can they judge Reynolds less egregious, less the criminal?

So where on earth they think they have any moral standing to critize Republicans who by all the evidence so far acting properly.
 
danarhea said:
Again, the lie is posted that there was nothing sexual in those emails, which is the same sicko story that Republican freepers have been hitting the internet hard with all day today.

This story is an out and out LIE. The truth comes from this passage:

No it is not a lie the emails are available and they don't contain anything sexually explicit.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No it is not a lie the emails are available and they don't contain anything sexually explicit.

Once more, I post this quote from the editors of the St. Petersburg Times, the source Stinger keeps quoting:
The St. Petersburg Times last fall obtained the earlier e-mail, asking the 16-year-old for a picture, and interviewed the boy, who wrote a friend that he considered the message "sick." But the boy would not go on the record.


Executive Editor Neil Brown says the paper's policy against making accusations based on unnamed sources was a factor. "We just didn't feel like we had the story," he says. "We had a lot of stuff implied. . . . If I had it to do over again, I think we probably would have been more organized about pursuing it. But hindsight is 20/20."


The paper did interview Foley, who assured a reporter that the e-mail exchange was innocent, Brown says.
 
TurtleDude said:
A bit testy aren't you? Dems are noted for pulling tricks-example-a dem operative who had run on the dem ticket for governor holding onto an ancient Bush DUI record for 6 weeks so he could drop it on the press a few days before the 00 election

NO ONE supports a congressman hitting on pages or interns. Republicans force those people out-Dems give them standing ovations (Gerry Studds and Clinton)


Your damn right I am testy. Watching people try to spin this into some liberal vs conservative bull s#it is sickening to me.

I agree, bringing up a DUI that everybody already knew about to change the direction of an election is pretty lame. It's also pretty lame to try to turn the rascist vote in your favor the night before a primary, by calling people and asking them if they knew that John McCain had a "Black Baby".

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

The democrats didnt smear Foley. HE DID IT TO HIMSELF. Nobody forced him to be a pervert. I would think that the people who claim to have the corner on the personal responsibility market could understand this.

Maybe to be "fair and balanced" the kids should have held off until after the elections to report him. Just take one for the team in order to avoid bad press for the Republicans. Is that what they should have done? What a joke. The fact that you see an equivalence between consensual sexual activity between legal ADULTS and a deranged pervert stalking kids is pretty sad.

As a side note, I notice that you once again you didn't provide ANY PROOF of what you claim.

"The democrats are giving him a standing ovation"

PROOVE IT. You show me where this is the case.

You won't BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

"Blame the democrats, blame the victims, even if they are children. Blame anyone, just get the negative attention off of us".

Nice strategy.
 
When more details are out, evidence of those who had knowledge, and when exactly they gained that knowledge, will become known . Anyone who had knowledge of predatory behavior, and sat on it, should have their head on a platter.
 
taxedout said:
When more details are out, evidence of those who had knowledge, and when exactly they gained that knowledge, will become known . Anyone who had knowledge of predatory behavior, and sat on it, should have their head on a platter.

Does that include EVERYONE who had knowledge of the IM's? Including the ones who have been sitting on them?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom