It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


E-Mails Force Rep. Mark Foley R-Fla. to Resign

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:01 PM
then again, the republicans in congress also sat on this, endangering the well being of minors, till the time was just, they can put up a big stink against this one man, go home and not have to hear of abernoff, or delay, Foley will be the talk of the town and they can tell how they're doing everything they can to clean up washington!!!

of course, I think if this was timed to come out at this time, I think that both the dems and repubs held onto the infomation....both endangered minors....and, well, it is very well possible that they all decided to let it out new, just so they can show their constituants back home that yes, they are taking the corruption and such seriously, at least untill the election is over....

maybe foley is just the sacrificial lamb???

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by TONE23
Did they know before hand?.... they say no. what do you say?

I say the entire lot of them are rotten to the core!

Let's be very clear about a few things:

Through a verbal slight of hand, Hastert conveniently rails on about the instant messages, claiming no one knew about them, but ADMITS that his office knew about the emails as far back as last year.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Monday defended his office's handling of questions raised about Rep. Mark Foley last year, saying the parents of a former male page were concerned about an e-mail Foley sent their son but didn't want the matter pursued.

Hastert said neither he nor other GOP leaders were aware until last Friday of far more lurid computer exchanges two years earlier between the Florida Republican and another page.

Hastert, R-Ill., acknowledged that Foley's 2005 e-mail to a Louisiana boy seeking a photograph raised a "red flag" with the Louisiana congressman who sponsored the page, but said his staff aides and Rep. John Shimkus, another Illinois Republican who chairs a board of House members who oversee the page program, did not know the contents.

Rep. Tom Reynolds, the House GOP campaign chairman, said he told Hastert in the spring of this year about the questionable e-mail. Hastert says he does not recall the conversation but does not dispute Reynolds' account.


What kind of excuse is it that the parents didn't want the matter pursued?

Apparently the parents wanted the matter pursued enough for them to initially COMPLAIN about it! Furthermore, does anyone believe that NO ONE saw the subject emails even after the parents' complaint? Even if you accept that as true, think about the absurdity of their subsequent inaction...

Parents complain about the impropriety (of a sexual nature) of a United States Congressman's conduct with a 16 year old boy...and the response is NOT to ask for evidence...NOT to look for evidence...NOT to do ANYTHING beyond approaching Foley and asking him to stop the contacts with the boy.

Even if you give Hastert's office the benefit of the doubt, at best, do you not have a situation of TOTAL INCOMPETENCY??????

I wont even go into the actual allegation that Hatsert knew personally about the matter as indicated by Reynolds. I think that alone speaks for itself.

The smell of all that bacon on the Hill is nauseating.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by loam]

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:49 PM
Majic and loam get an A...

For Majic:

original quote by: Majic
Whoever sat on this information and then publicly released it at the best political opportunity may themselves be guilty of a crime, and I imagine the FBI will look into that aspect of the case.

dead on...

And you can bet you bottom dollar that this is the angle they are going to go after for flood control. I dont know the law on this portion but if it is illegal the GOP are going to pounce on it. Rightfully so; but it shouldnt bury the matter and thats exactly what they want to do. One seat lost; they can handle, but this could cause a landslide and they know it.

original quote by: Majic
Could this be part of a larger pattern of dirty tricks planned for this election season?

I smell a conspiracy.

The good thing about being independent of either party is that; it allows one to see both parties for what they really are. Two sides of the same coin. This seems to be becoming more apparent to more and more people(and not just here on ATS). But why all the charades(expensive at that); are they that desperate to keep this illusion afloat?
And you nose is not alone in that scent of conspiracy...

For loam:

loam ...thank you for bringing that article back to the surface where it belonged(which was why I left my thread hanging with a question...
Its so important here that I feel it needs to be re said(for the cheap seats in the Beltway...

House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Monday defended his office's handling of questions raised about Rep. Mark Foley last year, saying the parents of a former male page were concerned about an e-mail Foley sent their son but didn't want the matter pursued.

They basically said the same thing 3 days ago.. so at least its a consistent line.

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who sponsored the page from his district, told reporters that he learned of the e-mails from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization.

Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because "his parents said they didn't want me to do anything."


But did the Parents really not want to complain? loam says no. I couldnt find anything that says they filed the complaint (though I did try)

but heres what I did find:

-- Aug. 31, 2005 (or thereabouts): Copies of GOP Rep Mark Foley emails to page fowarded to staffer in the office of the page's Congressman, GOP Rep. Rodney Alexander.

-- Sept. 30, 2005: House Speaker Dennis Hastert issues statement about impending departure of House clerk Jeff Trandahl.

--Fall 2005: Alexander contacts page's parents. They tell him they don't want to pursue matter but want Foley to stop (according to Alexander).

--Fall 2005: Alexander's office contacts staffers of House Speaker Dennis Hastert to ask for guidance ( according to the New York Times). Hastert's office puts Alexander in touch with House clerk Trandahl (according to Hastert).

--Fall 2005: House clerk Trandahl tells Rep. John Shimkus, the chairman of the House Page board, that Alexander had told him about email exchange between Foley and House page (according to Shimkus). Still unclear is whether Shimkus saw the actual emails. According to Hastert's statement from last night, Alexander declined to show the emails to the clerk or to Shimkus. But according to an interview Shimkus gave to his local paper, he did.


so yeah they knew big time something was up... but thats not all...:
I had to transcribe this since I couldnt copy it from its PDF format(for some reason...
) Anyway, the link is provided at the end of the quote:

Anyway, If you can, mention this to Rodney so he is aware. I wonder what he would do about it. And if he wants to e-mail me or call me, you can give him my info if he doesnt already have it.

Well It's ;aste and I have freaked out enough tonight, lol. I still haven't e-mailed him back, and I don't think I will for a while, if ever. What do you think about it all??

source: PDF

So the kid wanted something done about it... But why would the parents not want to? I emboldened the most important part: intent to have this matter pursued from the victim. So that leaves me with these questions about the parents

Did they get paid to keep quiet?
Did they want to spare the kid and themselves embarressment?
Were they not appalled by this? And, if not What the hell is wrong with them?

The embarressment certainly hasnt been avoided cause its all over the country now. So, that leaves the other two possibilities: either they werent appalled(which disgusts me) or, they were paid off?

What do you guys/gals think?

thank you for your time,

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:33 PM
The Washington Times has just won my respect!

Good. I'm not the only one.

Resign, Mr. Speaker: TODAY'S EDITORIAL Washington Times

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.

A special, one-day congressional session should elect a successor. We nominate Rep. Henry Hyde, also of Illinois, the chairman of the House International Relations Committee whose approaching retirement ensures that he has no dog in this fight. He has a long and principled career, and is respected on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Hyde would preside over the remaining three months of the 109th Congress in a manner best suited for a full and exhaustive investigation until a new speaker for the 110th Congress is elected in January, who can assume responsibility for the investigation.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by loam]

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:51 PM
The spin coming out of Hastert's office is such total BS.

These vermin will stop at nothing to stay in power.

Hastert is a LIAR!

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:18 AM
I wonder which position will prevail?

It's was a setup?


The Height of Hubris?

(When you click on the links, just watch the videos and skip the Crooks & Liars' commentary. Make your own judgement. Both of them are fascinating...)

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:16 AM
sorry, double post, see below

[edit on 10/3/2006 by djohnsto77]

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:17 AM

Originally posted by MRGERBIK

Originally posted by djohnsto77

I don't think we're as far away on this issue as you may think. I think what happened was disgusting since the young man was apparently not interested at all in having any type of sexual relationship with Foley and made that known to him, but I'm still not sure that's a criminal act.

I say sue Foley for all he's got!

You clearly don't understand. It's not just one man who has come forward. This is a concentrated effort and thats why the G.O.P. house leadership scrambled because they know of his personal history with "multiple" Pages is damaging. The House leadership know he's not the only one because the Logcabin syndrome in the G.O.P. is high in numbers.

I understand and think Hastert and any other member of the leadership that knew of this problem and didn't do anything sigificant about should have to go too.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:10 AM
We all know this will be a circus so here is some info that will come up.

I think this guy should be floged and if it is proven that anyone else knew about the bad text messages they should pay also and, I am mostley Republican in thought.
However I would be just as angry if I found out that this info was held till now for political reasons by say a democratic news agency.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:12 AM
if they knew, and didn't act, they endangered the welfare of all the pages that spent time at the capitol...

it would be a crime if I knew their was abuse of children going on within the house next door and didn't do anything about this is a crime also. that is of course, unless they follow different laws than the rest of us have to....

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:21 PM
Foley's attorney is on TV right now explaining Foley's defense....that at ALL times when such emails and instant messages were sent, Foley was under the influence of alcohol.

HERE's the

Apparently, a number of the IMs sent to the teenage boy indicate that Foley was sending them from the House floor.

Several reporters are now asking whether that also means Foley was admitting to being DRUNK on the House floor?

[edit on 3-10-2006 by loam]

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:26 PM
so, let's see, he was soo drunk, that he wasn't aware that what he was doing was wrong...but he was in session with the other congressmen?? and no one noticed that this guy was plastered?? this also contradicts what his lawyer has already said...that he had a problem with alchohol, but he drank alone so no one really noticed he had the problem....

talk about a long shot!!!

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:56 PM
Let's not forget he now claims he was molested by a priest and this is why he wants to molest little boys now.

Fry him and anyone that knew about what he was doing or even knew there was a problem.

I love how the wingnuts like Hannity are screaming "clintons penis" trying to compare that to this case. We must remind hannity and the other hypocrites that Bill Clinton had a consensual affair with an adult woman (she was 23 at the time). This guy was trying to have sex (real or cyber) with underage children.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 06:15 PM
I remember all the attention clinton's little affair got and all the nice things the wingnuts had to say about it.....
just to be fair, we should have those messages aired every 15 minutes every night for the next year...we want to hear all the lovely details, we should have investigations, and put all involved in the same kind of wringer that they put clinton be fair!!!

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by nativeokie
Let's not forget he now claims he was molested by a priest and this is why he wants to molest little boys now.

Yeah right!

But first, his counsel has not yet allowed him to release what denomination this occurred in, but I'm sure anyone can trace this since he named the time frame.

But, I am sorry! I have no patience left for this defense of problematic tendencies. Sure the statistics show that abuse breeds abuse, but there are plenty of men and women who sufferred abuse and it made them less likely to abuse. You are a grown up, get over yourself and take responsibility for your actions. Enough!

I don't think you could randomly pick a group of a dozen women (and I'm being liberal with that number) from anywhere and not find at least one that was raped or abused at some point. They survive, they don't pass it on. How dare any man attempt to say, it's because I was abused.

Get over it, accept responsibility for yourself and move on.

We live in a society now that always has an avenue to place the blame elsewhere, instead of a society that demands people just flat out take responsibility for their actions. Unless the guy is chemically imbalanced (which granteed, does happen) there just flat out is no excuse - NONE.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 06:46 PM
This issue is becoming very complicated now and that is exactly the way the people involve want it.

It seems that blaming alcohol for your woes is standard item in congress, we have already from democratic and Republican alike hidden behind Alcohol as a scapegoat.

The problem in the white house with this is not new, in the Reagan administration was also warning and flags about doings at night involving male strippers and children on night tours.

This people will hide each other dirty secrets . . . just notice how long they are allowed to stay in their seats in congress.

That tells you they are from an elite that thinks themselves untouchable.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 07:10 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
That tells you they are from an elite that thinks themselves untouchable.

Actually, I wouldn't call it an elite, I would call it a pathetic group of delusionals that will someday become their own downfall, and thankfully this day is looking closer all the time.

Just don't kid yourselves that this is limited to a "party", cause it's not.

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 07:26 PM
The "I was molested" and "I'm a drunk" angles are just cheap ways of escaping responsibility for his actions by portraying them as the result of a pathology.

Lets face it, if this were a 16 year old female page, the man would be getting lambasted for being the lecherous, irresponsible pig he is - but we wouldn't be hearing all the talk about "pedophilia" and the like.


posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 07:36 PM
If this has been posted before today then I apologise.. but now Raunchy Foley is saying that he was molested as a teenager by a clergyman...

Yahoo News

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was sexually abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages.

Ahh is this what is known as an "Excuse" or "BS".. Raunchy also admitted for the first time that he is gay..

He also acknowledged for the first time that the former congressman is gay, saying the disclosure was part of his client's "recovery."

"Mark Foley wants you to know he is a gay man," Roth told reporters in Florida as Republicans struggled to avoid election-year fallout from the congressman's behavior and sudden resignation.

Well that's a shock.. Yeah.. Next thing you know he'll be blaming being molested on his being gay.. Come on.. What a joke... this guy is trying to avoid being thrown in prison, nothing else.. he's making up all these excuses.. He's an alcoholic.. he was abused.. he's gay.. SHUT UP AND FACE THE MUSIC.. You're done, you know you're done and you know you're going to prison for a long long time..

"There was absolutely no inappropriate sexual contact with any minor ... and any suggestion that Mark Foley is a pedophile is false," he said, adding that Foley never even attempted to have sexual relations with the teens.

There was "raunchy" emails sent.. I'd say that's pretty innapropriate.
And defines a "pedophile" as

an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

Well.. That sort of fits the bill dont you think? He was sexually attracted to these young boys.. That would mean he's a PEDOPHILE!..

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:18 PM
If you think 16 year olds qualify as "young children" I guess

Considering 17 year olds are eligible to join the US military, does that mean we're recruiting young children as soldiers?

Again I'm not trying to justify what the man did, he's a dirtbag, but the pedophilia stuff is a crock, and a distraction from the real issue.

[edit on 10/3/06 by xmotex]

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in